Terrorism

[Maxwell511]

The worlds leading historians can't even agree who the Celts or celtic people were. Simon James, formerly of the British Museum, in his book The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? makes the point that the Romans never used the term "Celtic" (or, rather, a cognate in Latin) in reference to the peoples of Britain and Ireland, and points out that the modern term "Celt" was coined as a useful umbrella term in the early 18t century to distinguish the non-English/Germanic inhabitants.

It doesn't really matter about the term it is merely a name to describe a group of people with strong linguistic and cultural connections. In the same way that Germanic is used. Would you say that there is no linguistic connection between Welsh and Irish?

*Could a mod split the thread and posts relating to history and place them in a thread in the history forum?*

 

[Tyndale]

Would you say that there is no linguistic connection between Welsh and Irish?

No, and I would also add that modern Irish isn't totally derived from ancient Gaelic like it's publicised. It has some connections with the Germanic based Old English. After all it was English men and women who developed modern Irish.

 

[Maxwell511]

After all it was English men and women who developed modern Irish.

Care to explain? You know that the Irish language never died out.

 

[Tyndale]

Care to explain? You know that the Irish language never died out.

English nobles and gentry settled in Ireland when it was united with Britain, they became more Irish than the Irish themselves. They worked with schooled Protestant Presbyterians and most became known as Irish Protestants. They renewed the ancient Gaelic tongue and called it Irish. In my opinion, they wrongly linked ancient Gaelic to their new-found love of Irish identity.

The Irish spoken today may have similarities to ancient Gaelic, but it's not totally derived from it. That's a fact that has been either misunderstood or deliberately promoted for the benefit of one identity over another.

God Bless

 

[Maxwell511]

English nobles and gentry settled in Ireland when it was united with Britain, they became more Irish than the Irish themselves. They worked with schooled Protestant Presbyterians and most became known as Irish Protestants. They renewed the ancient Gaelic tongue and called it Irish. In my opinion, they wrongly linked ancient Gaelic to their new-found love of Irish identity.

This occured after the Norman invasion which was centuries before the reformation, they couldn't have worked with Protestants because the concept of Protestanism wasn't even invented. The Gaelicisation (sic) of the "Old English" was due to the intermarraige etc of the native Irish. They never renewed the language. The language never died out and never needed renewing.

 

[sparklecat]

All military action has the possibility to kill or endanger non-combatants

There's a bit of a difference between collateral damage and deliberate targeting.

 

[Tyndale]

This occured after the Norman invasion which was centuries before the reformation, they couldn't have worked with Protestants because the concept of Protestanism wasn't even invented. The Gaelicisation (sic) of the "Old English" was due to the intermarraige etc of the native Irish. They never renewed the language. The language never died out and never needed renewing.

It wasn't centuries before the reformation Maxwell, because the first book in Irish was printed in 1564 in Edinburgh, a translation of John Knox's 'Liturgy' by John Carswell, Bishop of the Hebridies. In 1568 the first book in Irish to be printed in Ireland was a Protestant 'catechism', containing a guide to spelling and sounds in Irish. It was written by John Kearney, treasurer of St. Patrick's Cathedral. This is half a century after Luther nailed the 95 theses on the door.

 

[Maxwell511]

It wasn't centuries before the reformation Maxwell, because the first book in Irish was printed in 1564 in Edinburgh, a translation of John Knox's 'Liturgy' by John Carswell, Bishop of the Hebridies. In 1568 the first book in Irish to be printed in Ireland was a Protestant 'catechism', containing a guide to spelling and sounds in Irish. It was written by John Kearney, treasurer of St. Patrick's Cathedral. This is half a century after Luther nailed the 95 theses on the door.

The phrase you used, "became more Irish than the Irish themselves", confused me. As you should know this relates to a very specific instance in the history of Ireland and is not the one you seem to be discussing.

In relation to your point; writing a book in a language is not renewing it. It is simply writing a book in it. Or am I also to believe that Monks in Clonmacnoise renewed Old and Middle Irish?

 

[Tyndale]

In relation to your point; writing a book in a language is not renewing it. It is simply writing a book in it. Or am I also to believe that Monks in Clonmacnoise renewed Old and Middle Irish?

If what you say is true. Show me proof that the Irish language, the language spoken today was the same spoken language used priar to when those English Protestant noblemen decided to write it down?

 

[Rorshack]

Yes, your quote is noted, but may one ask how one is living in a Socialist Constitutional Monarchy ?

The UK seems like a nice Socialist place to me. It is a Constitutional Monarchy is it not. Though the concept of the English constitution is very different from the alleged American concept. I have heard some Canadians claim it is thin air. Not being a subject of the crown I may have the wrong perception. I know from political conversations with English Subjects that the Royals and Nobels are alleged to be in favor of Socialism because it gaurantees that the party in power remains in power.
This might be a subject for a different thread. The Black and Tans were bad guys, but they did support their government against rebellion.

 

[Rorshack]

I do not support the IRA but I support the view that Ireland should govern its island, the scots should govern scotland, the weslh should governt wales, the cornish should govern cornwall and the english should govern england. I do not support the idea that people cannot live in other nations, such as the idea Steezie put forward.

I do not think that the ends justify the means, such as when steezie mentioned removing the british no matter what the cost.

A nation or society built through violence will govern by violence.

Londonderry is in the North. The majority of the Town Council is Catholic. So what? The issue of the actions of the Apprentice Boys will never be forgotten. They KNEW that the Catholics would kill everyone in the city if they did not close the gates.
The people of the North are not Irish. The Ulster Scotts have been there for like 500 years. That is twice as long as the USA has been in existance. So using the BRITISH OUT logic the European Americans should leave the country. Collins partitian looked bad to many, after all they had that war between the treaty and the anti-treaty forces. But if probably reflected the real situation of the people in the North and their allegence to the British Union. The North and the Republic are both part of the EU now and there is NO EXCUSE for IRA or UDF terrorism now.

 

[Rorshack]

Erm...forgive my slowness, but I don't get your point here. I know that they're British citizens...

So you know they are also mainly Christians. So you know they have virtually no control over the actions of the Crown. So you know it is REALLY BAD for madment to murder innocent working people to annoy the ULTRA RICH elites who really run the show. RIGHT.
Tyndale has been trying to get you to understand that common people, common christians are being killed and maimed over strange things that are not their fault.
And NOW since both sides are part of the EU there is no excuse for violence. There is reason to worry about being under the thumb of Brussells though.

 

[uberd00b]

The idea of "terrorism" seems to be dependant on how you look at things.

To be twee, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". I find a lot of hypocrisy in people when they use terrorist as a perjorative term. In my opinion were these people in the terrorists shoes they would at least agree with the terrorists mission, if not actually sign up to fight for their freedom.

I can certainly say myself that were I Irish, I would be more supportive of the IRA's goal, at a minimum.

Were I Palestinian I would be more supportive of their fighters goals. Not sure whether I'd have the guts/desperation to blow myself up however.

The Basque seperatists in Spain are a slightly different case (imo), as the Basque region is not particularily ill treated (as far as I am aware) I would find it harder to condone their activities even if I was a Basque "national".

If you take people away from their comfortable homes from which these "terrorist" comments are made, and place them in a position where they are they are suffering daily abuses I think their opinion would be slightly changed.

What person would not fight for their country if it was invaded and occupied by a foreign nation for example?

 

[Pogue]

So you know they are also mainly Christians. So you know they have virtually no control over the actions of the Crown. So you know it is REALLY BAD for madment to murder innocent working people to annoy the ULTRA RICH elites who really run the show. RIGHT.

This has only made me more confused
OK. British citizen doesn't always equal Christian. Most British citizens are not Christian. Being a Christian does not mean you have no control over the 'actions of the Crown'- you've got as much control as anyone else. And I already knew that murder, whatever the intention, is a bad thing.

Tyndale has been trying to get you to understand that common people, common christians are being killed and maimed over strange things that are not their fault.
And NOW since both sides are part of the EU there is no excuse for violence. There is reason to worry about being under the thumb of Brussells though.

I already knew that innocent people were being killed, as well. I don't know what you mean about both sides being part of the EU- what do you mean by both sides? The nationalists and unionists? They always were part of the EU, because they're not separate from eachother. And there's never an excuse for violence, EU or not. I diagree that EU membership is a bad thing, but I don't see how that's relevant

 

[Maxwell511]

If what you say is true. Show me proof that the Irish language, the language spoken today was the same spoken language used priar to when those English Protestant noblemen decided to write it down?

This is a rather disingenuous question. Do you really want me to give you proof that the modern Irish language was not an academic exercise? May I asked the same of the English language? Do you really deny that there is a continuity of Irish in rural areas as the first language that still exists today? Or do you not live in reality?

 

[Rorshack]

This has only made me more confused
OK. British citizen doesn't always equal Christian. Most British citizens are not Christian. Being a Christian does not mean you have no control over the 'actions of the Crown'- you've got as much control as anyone else. And I already knew that murder, whatever the intention, is a bad thing.


I already knew that innocent people were being killed, as well. I don't know what you mean about both sides being part of the EU- what do you mean by both sides? The nationalists and unionists? They always were part of the EU, because they're not separate from eachother. And there's never an excuse for violence, EU or not. I diagree that EU membership is a bad thing, but I don't see how that's relevant

So it makes sense to you that common working people should be blown to smithereenes because their rulers have not been able to solve problems created by other rulers 5oo years before hand? You cant be that sick.

If both England and the Republic of Ireland are part of a greater political body called the European Union then they are part of the same goverment. The killers then are killing members of their own government. Not that killers really need a justification for murder. But justifications look good in the press.

Jesus loves bombers who blow children and grandmothers to smithereens right Pogue?

 

[Pogue]

So it makes sense to you that common working people should be blown to smithereenes because their rulers have not been able to solve problems created by other rulers 5oo years before hand? You cant be that sick.

If both England and the Republic of Ireland are part of a greater political body called the European Union then they are part of the same goverment. The killers then are killing members of their own government. Not that killers really need a justification for murder. But justifications look good in the press.

Jesus loves bombers who blow children and grandmothers to smithereens right Pogue?

What are you on about? Have you read my post? You know, the bit where I said that murder is a bad thing? Or my earlier posts where I made it very clear (or so I thought) that I was a pacifist? Not only does it offend me that you've got the impression that I enjoy seeing people killed, it hurts me quite a bit too. I don't know how I can make it any more clear than I have done already, but I do not support terrorism. I am a pacifist. I do support a united Ireland, but through peaceful means. Being a Republican does not mean you support terrorism. I can't continue to debate with these personal attacks. So please, stop.
Your statement about the EU is also wrong. The EU is not a separate government. Membership of the EU doesn't mean that you're in the same government as the other countries. The UK and the ROI's membership of the EU is pretty irrelevant here, I think. Killing is wrong whoever you're killing, no matter if their country is in the EU. I don't really understand why you've raised the whole EU issue.

 

[Tyndale]

I am a pacifist. I do support a united Ireland, but through peaceful means. Being a Republican does not mean you support terrorism.

Irish republicanism is totally different to republicanism in general, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

I'm interested in knowing what this united Ireland through peaceful means entails. I admit, the words alone sound so beautiful and democratic that it could deceive the most scholarly man, but the real reality isn't so clear. The Ulster-Scot people of Ulster for almost 2 millennium have said no to a united Ireland. They were always the last to resist any type of Union with the rest of the island. Why do you still want to force this issue upon them? Why can't you just accept that they don't want to unite with the Republic? Why do you keep on thinking no means yes?

If you still keep on insisting that we have to unite with yous, what guarantee can you give that our identity, culture and heritage will not be eroded or swamped with that of the Oirish? For instance, will we have to call ourselves Irish Ulster-Scots, instead of our real identity Brythonic Ulster-Scots?

Let's hear a more in depth response to your phrase 'I do support a united Ireland, but through peaceful means.'...it's easy to say what you want, how are you going to achieve it?

 

[Pogue]

Irish republicanism is totally different to republicanism in general, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

What's republicanism in general? Obviously American republicanism is entirely different, and it can be meant in an abolish the monarchy sense, but why does 'republicanism in general' become so different when it's Irish? Are they naturally inclined to violence or something?

I'm interested in knowing what this united Ireland through peaceful means entails. I admit, the words alone sound so beautiful and democratic that it could deceive the most scholarly man, but the real reality isn't so clear. The Ulster-Scot people of Ulster for almost 2 millennium have said no to a united Ireland. They were always the last to resist any type of Union with the rest of the island. Why do you still want to force this issue upon them? Why can't you just accept that they don't want to unite with the Republic? Why do you keep on thinking no means yes?

The same could be asked about unionism. Either you want to keep unionism in place by peaceful means, or by violent means. Clearly, if you're opposed to violence, only peaceful means remain. But by your way of thinking, this could never work, because there are people who oppose unionism.
The British had no business being in Ireland in the first place. The north should have been given back in 1921.

If you still keep on insisting that we have to unite with yous, what guarantee can you give that our identity, culture and heritage will not be eroded or swamped with that of the Oirish? For instance, will we have to call ourselves Irish Ulster-Scots, instead of our real identity Brythonic Ulster-Scots?

Your use of the word 'Orish' seems slightly tainted with rascism to me. A few points:
1. Cultures can and do peacefully co-exist, without one swamping the other. I'd like to see all cultures in the north represented.
2. The Irish have experienced quite a bit of the old culture-swamping themselves. For many hundreds of years. At the end of it all, though, they've retained a very distinctive culture.
3. Culture is something which changes with time anyway. Every single culture has influenced and been influenced by other cultures.
4. Nobody's proposing that a united Ireland would be some sort of police state. Everyone would be allowed to express their culture.

Let's hear a more in depth response to your phrase 'I do support a united Ireland, but through peaceful means.'...it's easy to say what you want, how are you going to achieve it?

You're making it sound like that to be in favour of a united Ireland, you're either in favour of violence as well, and therefore a terrorist, or you're a bit dim, because there's no way of acheiving it through peaceful means. Negotiation and debate is the way to go- a huge amount can be changed without using violence. India got indepence through civil disobedience, but in a non-violent way.

 

[Tyndale]

So, I'm a bit dim am I ?

Not so dim to notice your post never explained how you would achieve a united Ireland. You just said more stuff like the British had no business being in Ireland and a lot of general waffle without answering the questions. I'm talking about the Ulster-Scots, how will you achieve a united Ireland with us peacefully, when we don't want to untie with you?