A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[Keyser soze]

As I said earlier ...a quisling.

[Syferus]

As I said earlier ...a quisling.

Deep insight.

[naka]

Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

[smelmoth]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Roll the clock forward - demographic change-> nationalist majority -> majority position abused -> then accepted into a united ireland -> young protestant sees himself as a discriminated against minority -> he joins a paramilitary group-> they plant a bomb in Newry as it's a catholic town -> 10 die including 2 toddlers and a pregnant woman -> not deterred he and his confreres shoot a catholic taxi driver and put a bomb under a gardai car.


I'm not saying any individual step in that chain is going to happen. My point is that should that scenario ever arise I will condemn the criminal and will not consider myself a quisling

[smelmoth]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

[naka]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

[smelmoth]

As I said earlier ...a quisling.

It's insight like that, that will resolve the current impasse and win the day in a border poll debate

[smelmoth]

Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence

[smelmoth]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now

[Therealdonald]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now

SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

[smelmoth]

Does not surprise me that someone who would denigrate one of the hunger strikers would base their principles on economics. Quisling.

Well lots of people will use economics as part of their reasoning. You might as well start to prepare yourself for that now, because it isn't going to change. Maybe calling them names will make you feel better and so very grown up. Not sure it win any votes though

If I was to drag some young fella into a side street and give him a beating around the knees and ankles would you that behaviour to display the characteristics of say bullying or thuggery?

So just a criminal then?

Well he certainly was a criminal.

I called him a bully, a thug and a renegade. He certainly was all those things.

If you want to drag me into a debate on the hunger strike then plough on. My views won't surprise you. An horrific way to die. An horrific way to let someone die. Little credit to be attributed to any side.

would you consider every IRA/INLA member a criminal?

The easy way out of that one is to say that membership of a proscribed organisation is a criminal activity

To engage in what I think you are getting at then yes I absolutely consider that shootings, bombings, punishment beatings, racketeering etc are criminal activities and their perpetrators, by definition, criminals.

But criminal wasn't my word.

Just to be clear, Im not looking an argument, its just interesting to see different points of view.

Forget about technicalities etc, do you consider them to be criminals? For me I generally don't, although that is not to say that there weren't atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Republicanism

Criminal. Very clear on that

fair enough. You're entitled to your view. I disagree in the main. No doubt there were criminals who used Irish Republicanism to go about their ways. I remember reading on one of the many books written about the time a quote by a lady in Tyrone talking about her sons which stuck with me. She said, yes they were in the IRA, but they weren't bad boys. If they were bad boys I wouldn't have let them back in the house. Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times is how Ive heard it described and I tend to agree

Criminal... very clear about that. The type of answer that automatically makes the majority of nationalists in the North shudder and think ewww another Brit masquerading as an Irishman.

How did the majority of nationalists vote whilst the violence was ongoing?

They didn't vote!
As most didn't engage in a gerrymandered state

But the percentage of nationalists who voted in say 1979, 1983 or 1987 is the same as it is today. The only difference is which nationalist party they voted for. The difference is the violence. When SF back violence they don't win a majority of the nationalist vote. The majority of nationalists don't back the campaign of violence. Not then. Not now

SF don't back violence NOW, but they haven't turned their back on what went on before, so is it not safe to assume that those who vote for them now are content with SF's role in the past?

Well look at how they voted at the time

[naka]

Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence

Mandela,
By definition

A member of a terrorist organisation at the time( as seen by western governments)
Engaged in the attempt to over throw the state and government of the time
A member of an organisation that bombed and engaged in shootings to achieve their aim
As I said very similar to pira/ inla

[smelmoth]

Criminals to some
Freedom fighters to others
By your definition Mandela was a criminal, as were the founding fathers in the USA
Without even mentioning 1916.


Genuinely this board used to be insightful and I have been here a long time.
It's becoming disappointing how it has been hijacked by WUM.

What makes you think that I consider Mandela a terrorist? Post your evidence

Mandela,
By definition

A member of a terrorist organisation at the time( as seen by western governments)
Engaged in the attempt to over throw the state and government of the time
A member of an organisation that bombed and engaged in shootings to achieve their aim
As I said very similar to pira/ inla

I can't claim to have a full knowledge of all that the ANC did in the 50s and very early 60s. No doubt some of the actions crossed the line. Point them out and I will respond. In a more general sense apartheid SA did not enfranchise Mandela's people who represented a massive majority. This is not true of NI in the 60s, 70s and beyond. There was no free press in SA and severe restrictions on foreign journalists entry into the country. This was not the case in NI. The options in SA were manifestly more narrow in SA

As range of options expanded, Mandela lead the move away from violence. He lead truth and reconciliation. He encouraged the guilty on all sides to fess up. He built peace

[Eamonnca1]

I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

What is it with the obsession with straw men on this thread?

[Eamonnca1]

Has Syfīn allowed Tony F to use his account?
He used to be a half baked wildly optimistic Ros fan (+ Mayowestros,  Galway hurlers, St Brigids. .....) but now he's gone into a WUM of the highest order.
His new hobby horse is blaming the GAA for promoting "White Irish Catholic culture" whatever that is.
As 98% of Irish people are white, 70% would class themselves Catholic, 90% are Irish born .....
I suppose the GAA could get all their clubs to play soccer, get their catholic members to convert to some other religions and try and get citizenship of some other Countries.

You and a couple others have got hot under the collar over something as mundane as pointing out the culture the GAA promotes is only reflective of white, Catholic Ireland. There are plenty of other aspects to contemporary Irish culture in case you've somehow missed them all.

Ignoring that fact until we get to a point like in France where minorities feel totally disenfranchised hardly seems like a solution worth considering. Sport is the best vehicle to my mind for promoting inclusion and community irrespective of colour or creed, and an unwillingness for the biggest sporting organisation in the country to let go of old symbols so they can move towards a point in time when all people feel comfortable being part of a GAA club or the wider Gaelic community is also backwards.

Minorities on this island, be they unionists, protestants, Africans, Arabs, Indians, travellers, LGBTQ, all should be part of the GAA and feel equally accepted and a part of the decision-making process. Just because one lad in Ballagh or a few COI lads in Ulster have the balls to stick their heads above the parapet it doesn't mean we have this issue solved. It's a long, hard road but one that should be taken.

Hear hear.