A measured look at a difficult situation

The winner is ultimately justified but Cromwell was justified before he was the winner, and I do believe that was quite clear in what I said.

They had declared their independence and they were ready to defend it. Unlike the Irish Rebellion they hadn't murdered thousands of people who disagreed with them. The British could have graciously conceded their claims but they chose to fight. The US won fair and square. The Irish lost, fair and square.

Their authority was legitimate because they WERE in power.

Next week the United States of Islam successfully invades the USA, do you then accept Sharia law as legitimate?

I'm going to ignore this ridiculous moral justification (the actions of people in authority are justified because they are in authority) and wait for your answer to Tangle's question.Instead:They were only in power in certain sections of Ireland, it was actually the Cromwellian conquests that brought them into real power.I would even have doubts as to whether Cromwell can really be considered to have had legitimate legal authority in England (see Antonia Fraser's excellent biography of Oliver Cromwell for more on his status in England), but his legal authority in a country where only a small fraction of the population were English citizens is very questionably.After the flight of the Earls, the Gaelic nobility pledged allegiance to the English monarch, not the country of England. There was no legal status of the parliamentary government to Ireland. There wasn't even any legal government of them over the "Old English" known as the Seanghaill (old foreigners)", the hereditary Norman feudal lords who had pledged their alligence to Henry the Second and his legitimate heirs under Salic law. Who, although many were Protestant, later allied with the Gaelic confederacy.The parliamentary government simply declared itself to have authority over all previously formed allegiances to the crown. I don't see how this can be considered as being legitimate when they had no real power (until the arrival of Cromwell's armies) outside of old Norman towns like Trim.This war had at least four "axes" of culture differences, the four axes that dominated Irish history in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries:Catholic vs Protestant religion
Gaelic vs Saxon culture
Royalist vs Parliamentary government
Home (Dublin/Trim/Kilkenny) vs Westminster (London) ruleOver the three hundred years there are examples of groups filling each of the sixteen different positions.Protestants who allied with Catholics to fight for home rule. Gaelic speaking Protestants and Catholics who rejected having to deal with authorities in English instead of Gaelic. Catholic Gaelic and Protestant Saxon Royalists allied against Parliamentary rule.Everything in Ireland was not Catholic vs Protestants, especially in that era. The extreme focus on that divide largely came in the later 19th century following the famine.In fact, "English" rule in Ireland was largely the rule of an Anglican elite living mostly in Dublin and the big towns descended from 18th century settlers. Several other Protestant groups starved to death in the famine, I don't think there was as much solidarity as you think.Ireland, like the rest of Europe at the time, consisted of real people with complicated problems who were largely unaware of Faith's grand "Catholic vs Protestant" narrative.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

You really shouldn't discuss issues you are utterly ignorant on.
When did the American colonies declare independence? 1776 in case you were home schooled. When was battle of Lexington and Concord? April 19, 1775. So no they had not declared their independence. They were in open rebellion against their legitimate government. Again explain why the American colonies were ok to rebel, but the Irish were not.Also evidence for the Irish murdering thousands that disagreed with them, thus deserving the atrocities visited upon them.P.S.
You might want to do research before you spout crap about history. I think there are a few of us that know a bit more than you.

I thought I agreed that they were not "OK to rebel" since they were colonies of England and under English rule. Where did I say it was "OK?" I do happen to think it was a just cause but at the time it was as you said, illegal etc. What made it "OK" was that they won. The authority over them was no longer England but themselves.I also said that if the Irish had won against Cromwell the authority would then have been theirs and not England's. Cromwell had the authority to invade, however because the English were in charge. I believe I said all that. And since he won they remained in charge. But I DON'T think the Irish Rebellion was just, it was the cruel murder of thousands of Protestants, no armed conflict. I believe I posted links on the subject which shouldn't be too hard to find. However, if they had defeated Cromwell they would then have had the authority over Ireland.It's really not all that hard to understand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I might have to. But it depends on if it violates the Law of God. If it does then I wouldn't obey and would have to take the consequences.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So basically this and this Is not only untrue but just bullsht your were spouting that you know you can not defend.I should start counting how many arguments you don't defend. Well I guess it would probably be all your arguments.

They were ARMED for the British invasion, but they had NOT taken any military action and they had NOT murdered thousands of Protestants as the Irsh Rebellion had. What I said was perfectly reasonable, you are ougt of line.

Have you studied any history? Standing armed in front of the British troops is military action. Still waiting for the explanation and evidence on this.

I referred you back to the post with the link to the Guardian article. You are being so obnoxious about nothing I'

I referred you back to the post with the link to the Guardian article. You are being so obnoxious about nothing I'll leave it to you to find the link. Igt is followed by a post by Tempe who also stated that 4000 were killed in the Irish Rebellion.And thanks for telling me that simply being armed for the invasion is military action. WHAT I MEANT was that they had not shot anyone or killed 4000 people. If you'd bothered to read ion context you wouldn't be splitting hairs over no5thing.

The article on the Irish Rebellion in the Guardian is linked in Message 14 and Tempe responds with the number 4000 of those killed in the Rebellion in Message 24.

The question was whether you would consider it legitimate, not whether you'd be forced to comply with it. But the question was rhetorical, of course you wouldn't think it legitimate.