|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#181
August 7th 03, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message ... | "vince" wrote: | | "Brett" wrote in message | ... | | "vince" wrote: | | | "Brett" wrote in message | ... | | | "vince" wrote: | | | | Fred J. McCall wrote in message n | | | | : | | | | :However Ireland has been occupied and held since 1172 or | there | abouts the | | | | :south release in the 1920's | | | | | | | | I think that's wrong. I didn't think they actually took | over | Ireland | | | | until Liz I. | | | | | | | | | | | | The Military occupation of Ireland began under Strongbow and | Henry | II | | | | The Treaty of Windsor in 1175 recognized the military | conquest. | | | | | | | | | | | | http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0711.html | | | | | | From your link: "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the | English | had | | | little influence over Ireland. Henry feared that foreign or | domestic | | | enemies would use Ireland as a base for attacking him." | | | | | | Apples and oranges. | | | | No, your comment implied total control since the 12th Century, your | | reference says otherwise. | | | | My coomment was "The Military occupation of Ireland began under | | Strongbow and Henry II" Tehat is undoubtedly correct. | | What part of "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had | LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland" do you find difficult to understand. A | military occupation in the 12th Century does not imply that the control | was absolute or that the occupation was continuous for three centuries. | If you had bothered reading the rest of the history you presented as | evidence you would have found that a good number of the Irish appeared | to enjoy being part of the struggle for power in the British Isles and a | occupation British Army didn't spend three centuries putting down the | natives. | | you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History. | In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence. | That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only | nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was | occupation by "English" but only nominally by England. | | As teh BBC puts it And you totally fail to understand the comment was "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland", waffling away with comments from a TV show will not change that fact. 
|
|
#182
August 7th 03, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:45:42 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote: Much like the United States then. When do you intend to end the military occupation of Nebraska? I mean, really: it's not as if you have a use for the place. The plans for the colonization of America were directly taken from the contemporaneous plans for colonizing Ireland. So, much like the United States, then? Or any of the other European colonising experiences, including the period after colonial polities severed ties with their European colonial governments. As it was, the relevant immediately pre-Revolutionary US experience was of a British government limiting further colonisation and expansion westwards, much to the chagrin of local land speculators and their surveyors with youthful histories of cherry-tree surgery. Colonisation continued in US history long after 1783. The colonists were, by then, English, not Anglo-Norman. Not just English, I'm afraid. Nobody in their right mind could possibly conceive of the European colonisation of America originating with the Anglo-Normans (bar Templar fantasists): my original reference was to the situation in 1170, and the fact that the Anglo-Norman "colonisation" of Ireland was not uniuque, and like most similar Norman expansion, cannot be shoe-horned into modern prejudicial concepts of "colonialism". There were probably some Welsh and Scots colonists, too, of course, There were, alongside all manner of other nationalities. Paul Revere was not descended from what might not be popularly regarded as common English stock. but the real flood of Scots followed Culloden and the Enclosure Acts. A lot of those Scots ended up in North Carolina, by the way. Like Flora MacDonald, perhaps. Remind me of which way they and the immigrant Irish jumped when the local slave-owning fatcat bigwigs started to object to central government taxation actually being actively collected for once. Gavin Bailey -- "...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance." - 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11' The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
|
|
#183
August 7th 03, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:46:25 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Seems my last name was shared by a fairly large number of folks in the county, from the Sheriff on down, and that they had something of a reputation for standing together against pretty much everyone else. Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology. Strange how nobody celebrates the mass of Scottish immigration to North America, which consisted of economic migrants with little or no Robin Hoodised retrospective anti-authoritarian posturing. But then it's not quite as entertaining to discover the single Scots ancestor (amongst the millions of less romantic ancestors, such as English, German, Lithuanian or second-generation American) was a teenage indentured servant and not Rob Roy. Gavin Bailey -- "...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance." - 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11' The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
|
|
#184
August 7th 03, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#185
August 7th 03, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: (that the IRA were not an international terrorist organisation) Just that they take holidays in Spain, Colombia, the USA, Palestine, Libya and it seems Sri Lanka and IRAQ +++ Real IRA boss jailed for 20 years By Kevin Smith and Stephen Cunningham (Additional reporting by Alex Richardson) DUBLIN, Aug 7 (Reuters) - The leader of a renegade guerrilla group behind the bloodiest bomb attack in Northern Ireland's violent history was jailed for 20 years on Thursday. Real IRA boss Michael McKevitt, 53, was earlier convicted of directing terrorism, a charge created after the 1998 Omagh bomb blast that killed 29 people and injured hundreds. "We have had a small victory...but we are still sitting in the position where not one person has been charged with murder at Omagh," said Michael Gallagher, who lost his 21-year-old son Aidan in the blast. McKevitt, a former quartermaster in the Irish Republican Army who arranged a shipment of arms from Libya in the 1980s, was the first person in the Irish Republic to be convicted of directing terrorism. However, the recent discovery of a suspected guerrilla training camp in a remote mountainous region has led to renewed fears of the threat posed by republican dissidents, who are opposed to Northern Ireland's peace process. Dublin's non-jury Special Criminal Court stressed that McKevitt was being punished for offences committed after the Omagh bombing, whose fifth anniversary falls next week. "This court must not allow itself to be seen to seek revenge for that atrocity, and does not seek to do so," said judge Richard Johnson. MCKEVITT SLAMS "POLITICAL SHOW TRIAL" McKevitt refused to attend the latter stages of his trial after sacking his legal team in protest at what he called a "political show trial". But he did put in an appearance after his sentence was read out to seek permission to appeal his conviction. His plea was refused but he was allowed to apply for legal aid. McKevitt, who comes from the Irish border town of Dundalk, was also given six years for membership in an illegal organisation, the Real IRA, to run concurrently. He is married to the sister of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands who died in 1981. The prosecution's case rested heavily on testimony by former FBI spy David Rupert, who infiltrated the Real IRA while posing as the group's chief fundraiser in the United States. British and American security agencies paid Rupert, who is now living under the FBI witness protection programme, more than $1 million to spy on Irish republican dissidents. McKevitt's defence had tried to portray Rupert as a serial fantasist, drawing attention to his shady business past as well as connections to the Mafia and smugglers. But the court ruled that Rupert, who struggled to fit his 6ft 5in frame into the cramped witness box while giving evidence, was a "truthful witness". Rupert told the court how he sat in on Real IRA "council meetings" while McKevitt and his followers planned a new wave of violence in Britain and Northern Ireland that would "be spectacular and overshadow Omagh". The group sought to forge links with the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers rebel group and were even looking into securing help from Iraq, the court heard during the five-week trial. ends; -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
|
|
#186
August 7th 03, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:17:09 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: :Pretty much standard North American Scotch-mist jockaramic mythology. What the hell is that supposed to mean in English? The customary "Scotch-Irish" psuedo-clan folk myths. What are you smoking to get THAT out of the paragraph you quote? I merely note the fact as it existed. The McCalls in that particular part of North Carolina were numerous and known to be a touchy and feuding lot if crossed. Unlike n-thousand others in the same time and place? Or millions of others elsewhere? You somehow permute this into, well, I'm not sure WHAT you permuted it into. I believe you're selectively projecting your own preconceptions onto the past. Looks to me like you have a lot of your own silly prejudices you need to learn to get around. Undoubtedly, but they're not actually on display in this thread. Gavin Bailey -- "...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance." - 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11' The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
|
|
#187
August 7th 03, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:48:02 +0200, Jim Watt
wrote: What the hell is that supposed to mean in English? perhaps you chould take classes in English as a foreign language. Perhaps better to learn local adjectives for North American tourists claiming Scottish ethnicity while on holiday in Scotland. Gavin Bailey -- "...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance." - 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11' The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003
|
|
#188
August 8th 03, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#189
August 8th 03, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#190
August 8th 03, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"vince" wrote: | "Brett" wrote in message | | | | you clearl do not understand either the statement or Irish History. | | In the 12th- 15c century "England" had relatively little influence. | | That is becasue the military occupation was by anglo normans, but only | | nominally in favor of England as opposed to themselves. it was | | occupation by "English" but only nominally by England. | | | | As the BBC puts it | | And you totally fail to understand the comment was "Before Henry VIII | came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE INFLUENCE over Ireland", | waffling away with comments from a TV show will not change that fact. | | Do you remotely understand the difference between the "English" and | "England"? I do and I also have a good idea what is meant by the use of "ENGLISH" in the section from your reference (I will give you a clue in includes what you want to call Anglo Normans). | The influence of "American" corporations for example has little to do | with the "United States of America" as a government. | | In modern times Governments monopolized armies, and government is | structural. In the 12th to the 15 centuries, military occupation was | a business, in this cas, an Anglo norman business. "Nulle terre sans | seigneur" expressed the maxim in law. The feudal lord (the king) | granted land in return for support. The king had very little | influence over the private activities of these feudal lords. Check your reference on how effective their "occupation" was for the three centuries in question. | The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era. With teh | coming of the Tudors governemtn chnged its structure. This also | affected Ireland. | | the military occupaiton of Ireland by Anglo nroman Free booters dates | back to Henry II Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in the 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what occurred from that time until the Tudors. If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in FRENCH, the Norman legal language. It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence. It is nonsense to say the "English" did not. Vince
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
| YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |
amongst the millions of less romantic ancestors, such as English,
thers elsewhere?
Linear Mode
