gaaboard.com

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0830/breaking8.html  (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0830/breaking8.html)

Shame!

/Jim.

Anyone who even thinks this is surprising is living in a bubble

Disgusting, but s winsamsoon says, hardly surprising.

I think it was disgusting that a lady in her late fifties, should attack a parade the way she did.  :)

Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

AZOffaly,

They are from the PADLH Order.




(That's Protestants Against Dishevelled Ladies Hair.)

They are a shower of knuckle draggers. Monica Digney is one of the biggest shit stirrers about though. Turned a fair few people I know off voting Sinn Fein when she was a North Antrim councillor.

Quote from: ziggysego on August 30, 2010, 10:10:22 PM

Quote from: Trout on August 30, 2010, 09:59:01 PM
They are a shower of knuckle draggers. Monica Digney is one of the biggest shit stirrers about though. Turned a fair few people I know off voting Sinn Fein when she was a North Antrim councillor.

Ah well then, she deserved it.  ::)

What are you talking about?

Ah never mind me. Tired tonight and not thinking straight. Heading to bed in a mo.

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Paisley's branch is the Independant Orange Order.

Quote from: Orior on August 30, 2010, 10:45:17 PM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Paisley's branch is the Independant Orange Order.

In fairness, Paisley's isn't recognised by the Orange Order. He was too much of a nut job, even for the OO.

Quote from: ziggysego on August 30, 2010, 10:47:51 PM

Quote from: Orior on August 30, 2010, 10:45:17 PM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Paisley's branch is the Independant Orange Order.

In fairness, Paisley's isn't recognised by the Orange Order. He was too much of a nut job, even for the OO.

I'd say vice versa, the OO are too much of a nut job even for Paisley.The OO have a pathological loathing of parliamentary legislative process and constitutional law.

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 12:59:51 AM

Quote from: ziggysego on August 30, 2010, 10:47:51 PM

Quote from: Orior on August 30, 2010, 10:45:17 PM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Paisley's branch is the Independant Orange Order.

In fairness, Paisley's isn't recognised by the Orange Order. He was too much of a nut job, even for the OO.

I'd say vice versa, the OO are too much of a nut job even for Paisley.The OO have a pathological loathing of parliamentary legislative process and constitutional law.

The Royal Black Institution would consider themselves a better heeled version of the OO but I'm sure there's a fairly good overlap in membership.

Quote from: ziggysego on August 30, 2010, 10:47:51 PM

Quote from: Orior on August 30, 2010, 10:45:17 PM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

Paisley's branch is the Independant Orange Order.

In fairness, Paisley's isn't recognised by the Orange Order. He was too much of a nut job, even for the OO.

Lord Bannside you mean?

In order to be a member of the RBP, one must first be a member of the OO. So its same club different name and another excuse for a day out in summer.

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Ian Paisley is not a member of the Orange Order, and is in the Independent version, as mentioned.

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2010, 09:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Ian Paisley is not a member of the Orange Order, and is in the Independent version, as mentioned.

You are correct AZ, mebbe he does not take you seriously because you are from the south and therefore not entitled to comment on northern issues. :P

The tramps that attacked are every bit as bad as the bigots marching.

I think you need to read the story Stew. The Thread heading is a pisstake. Apparently an aul' one was crossing the road in front of the parade and they took offence, and hit her a box.

I don't think they had to defend themselves much...

With all due respect to the woman who got pushed and hit, this has all the hallmarks of another storm in a teaspoon.
Is this the worst that happens these days in the black North re sheer naked OO violence?

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 06:05:34 PM
With all due respect to the woman who got pushed and hit, this has all the hallmarks of another storm in a teaspoon.
Is this the worst that happens these days in the black North re sheer naked OO violence?

where are you living, timbuktu?

I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Who's to say it's a one-off incident? Why are the Loyalist marchers refusing to comment or condemn the actions?

Perhaps Main street if it would have been your mother walking across the street and firstly a man had shouted abuse at her before another man punched her on the face you would have a different attitude on the event.

Take the politics out of it and it then becomes a bigger story is this what you are saying? whether political motives brought this attack about or not it was wrong and should get media coverage .

Stew i think you are failing to grasp the thread and so i won't asked you how a woman crossing the road is the same as a man punching someone in the face.

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:18:43 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

What gets celebrated on the 4th July in America? Is it the invaders celebrating the liberation of their land from the...um...other invaders? Likewise the national day celebrations in Canada and Australia. Is that just a bunch of invaders celebrating, if not victory over the natives, at least on the natives' land? See, there comes a point in time when people have been in a place for so long that they are also natives too. Northern unionists have been in Ireland longer than the white man has been in Australia, North America, etc etc. They are natives here, every bit as much any nationalist. So if they want to parade up and down the streets of their own land, so what? Just wondering, like.

(BTW, this isn't to condone what appears to have been an episode of complete thuggery and which should not go unpunished.)

Stew, the tramps that attacked WERE the bigots who were marching. As you know they tell us they have the right to walk the Queens highway, but we cant cross the road when they are walking on it! and people wonder why we object to provocative marches.
Main St. be careful they could be walking over you  ;D

Quote from: Trout on August 30, 2010, 09:59:01 PM
They are a shower of knuckle draggers. Monica Digney is one of the biggest shit stirrers about though. Turned a fair few people I know off voting Sinn Fein when she was a North Antrim councillor.

Digney said the Ambulance treating the lady was delayed from taking her to the hospital. A claim refuted by the ambulance service.

Quote from: Trout on September 01, 2010, 08:19:14 AM

Quote from: Trout on August 30, 2010, 09:59:01 PM
They are a shower of knuckle draggers. Monica Digney is one of the biggest shit stirrers about though. Turned a fair few people I know off voting Sinn Fein when she was a North Antrim councillor.

Digney said the Ambulance treating the lady was delayed from taking her to the hospital. A claim refuted by the ambulance service.

whether this is true or not, why the one man crusade to deflect attention from what happened.
as for myles whataboutery  ::)

Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Quote from: Trout on September 01, 2010, 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

...for having the cheek to speak up about this disgraceful incident ?
she could be a complete clown, but you're not doing your opinion any favours by attempts at cheap point scoring. your view that she put off people (you know) voting for sf is interesting alright ...
youd look better commenting on and condemning the actions of these lout thug marchers.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 01, 2010, 09:56:19 AM

Quote from: Trout on September 01, 2010, 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

...for having the cheek to speak up about this disgraceful incident ?
she could be a complete clown, but you're not doing your opinion any favours by attempts at cheap point scoring. your view that she put off people (you know) voting for sf is interesting alright ...
youd look better commenting on and condemning the actions of these lout thug marchers.

I think the point is she looks like the one attempting cheap point scoring. How much of her concern is real? Nobody in their right mind tries to cut across a parade but that doesn't excuse the actions of these Neanderthals whom I presume didn't know she was a Catholic.

QuoteQuote from: lynchbhoy on Today at 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: Trout on Today at 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

...for having the cheek to speak up about this disgraceful incident ?
she could be a complete clown, but you're not doing your opinion any favours by attempts at cheap point scoring. your view that she put off people (you know) voting for sf is interesting alright ...
youd look better commenting on and condemning the actions of these lout thug marchers.

I think the point is she looks like the one attempting cheap point scoring. How much of her concern is real? Nobody in their right mind tries to cut across a parade but that doesn't excuse the actions of these Neanderthals whom I presume didn't know she was a Catholic.

That's the problem there, why can someone who has no interest in their parade and needs to get across the street not be allowed to dart across, why should people with no connection not be allowed to go about their daily business.

I think everyone is missing the point, some old woman wanted to cross a street to get to the hairdressers and then got attacked by 4 brave men, it's a fu*king disgrace

Quote from: winsamsoon on August 31, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Perhaps Main street if it would have been your mother walking across the street and firstly a man had shouted abuse at her before another man punched her on the face you would have a different attitude on the event.

Take the politics out of it and it then becomes a bigger story is this what you are saying? whether political motives brought this attack about or not it was wrong and should get media coverage .

The assault is a local issue, hardly worth coast to coast coverage.
If this is a big story these days, then God help your sensitivities.

Quote from: ziggysego on August 31, 2010, 11:37:36 PM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Who's to say it's a one-off incident?

Who can say anything?
Without possessing the powers of foresight  anyone can presume that people will make appointments with the hairdressers and all sorts of stuff can happen along the way and more so with a tardy person in distress about getting there on time.

QuoteWhy are the Loyalist marchers refusing to comment or condemn the actions?

I have no idea on comment or condemnation from the marchers.
I will await the follow up investigation by the intrepid statelet tv reporters, possibly even a Spotlight special.
A woman's right to peacefully get to her hairdresser's appointment by all means possible, must be protected.
Funeral corteges can be expected to give right of way.

At times the northern news section of this board reads more like a segment from Hall's Pictorial Weekly. I'm sure the bold Frank would have had a field day with this story.

Thats it in a nut shell Banana Man, a 58 year old woman had an appointment across the road and needed to cross the road. She done that and some guy (big hard man) decided to show her who was boss. Thats right i guess it was the woman's fault for not waiting 20 mins on the footway until the parade had passed off.

How can anyone justify this or make a case against it. A woman was assaulted trying to cross the road by some coward and if it was my mother I'd like to interview the guys responsible. you can bet you ass that no one will be charged with it, infact some of the people don't see much wrong with what happened. Like how dare she walk in between a parade afterall she's a Fenian.

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 10:14:32 AM

QuoteQuote from: lynchbhoy on Today at 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: Trout on Today at 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

...for having the cheek to speak up about this disgraceful incident ?
she could be a complete clown, but you're not doing your opinion any favours by attempts at cheap point scoring. your view that she put off people (you know) voting for sf is interesting alright ...
youd look better commenting on and condemning the actions of these lout thug marchers.

I think the point is she looks like the one attempting cheap point scoring. How much of her concern is real? Nobody in their right mind tries to cut across a parade but that doesn't excuse the actions of these Neanderthals whom I presume didn't know she was a Catholic.

That's the problem there, why can someone who has no interest in their parade and needs to get across the street not be allowed to dart across, why should people with no connection not be allowed to go about their daily business.

I think everyone is missing the point, some old woman wanted to cross a street to get to the hairdressers and then got attacked by 4 brave men, it's a f**king disgrace

100% correct
I'll imitate trout now and say that 'I heard that the police initially tried to say that she fainted when crossing the street ' or so this was said locally that the coppers stated this!
Dont know if there is any truth in it.

Regeardless of whether there was a parade or not, what kind of a w**ker punches a 58 year old woman, hard man alright, f**king tosser.

Quote from: Trout on September 01, 2010, 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

she should sit on the barstool and talk shit like you ;) then she would never get elected.I'll send you a few papers up to read.

A shower of low lifes punch a woman and Trout's only reaction is to abuse a SF member

::)

Get your head out of your ass before your bitterness eats you up

Quote from: glens abu on September 01, 2010, 11:15:59 AM

Quote from: Trout on September 01, 2010, 09:34:49 AM
Not deflecting anything, just reinforcing a point I made in my earlier post. As I said, shit stirrer.

she should sit on the barstool and talk shit like you ;) then she would never get elected.I'll send you a few papers up to read.

She did plenty of that during her time in North Antrim.

Or just keep making a tool of yourself. All good.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 12:05:26 PM
Or just keep making a tool of yourself. All good.

I am sorry to have upset you.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:37:33 AM

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:18:43 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

What gets celebrated on the 4th July in America? Is it the invaders celebrating the liberation of their land from the...um...other invaders? Likewise the national day celebrations in Canada and Australia. Is that just a bunch of invaders celebrating, if not victory over the natives, at least on the natives' land? See, there comes a point in time when people have been in a place for so long that they are also natives too. Northern unionists have been in Ireland longer than the white man has been in Australia, North America, etc etc. They are natives here, every bit as much any nationalist. So if they want to parade up and down the streets of their own land, so what? Just wondering, like.

(BTW, this isn't to condone what appears to have been an episode of complete thuggery and which should not go unpunished.)

So what you are saying is that anywhere the british are involved is a complete shambles.

The issue at hand is a select few assumed ownership of a public highway and decided they held the right to assault anyone who encroached.

This is like something out of the middle ages and illustrates the mentality of these gangsters. Why should anyone give a monkeys about their rules? why should it affect us?

I live about 15 minutes from there and look forward to the outcome of the police investigation. That part of the town is fully covered by CCTV cameras. If an assault took place as alledged the perpetrators should be hauled before the real law of the land so that this Dodge City 'tradition' is held up for ridicule.

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:27:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:37:33 AM

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:18:43 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

What gets celebrated on the 4th July in America? Is it the invaders celebrating the liberation of their land from the...um...other invaders? Likewise the national day celebrations in Canada and Australia. Is that just a bunch of invaders celebrating, if not victory over the natives, at least on the natives' land? See, there comes a point in time when people have been in a place for so long that they are also natives too. Northern unionists have been in Ireland longer than the white man has been in Australia, North America, etc etc. They are natives here, every bit as much any nationalist. So if they want to parade up and down the streets of their own land, so what? Just wondering, like.

(BTW, this isn't to condone what appears to have been an episode of complete thuggery and which should not go unpunished.)

So what you are saying is that anywhere the british are involved is a complete shambles.

Seems to be the general theme of it  :)

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:27:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:37:33 AM

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:18:43 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

What gets celebrated on the 4th July in America? Is it the invaders celebrating the liberation of their land from the...um...other invaders? Likewise the national day celebrations in Canada and Australia. Is that just a bunch of invaders celebrating, if not victory over the natives, at least on the natives' land? See, there comes a point in time when people have been in a place for so long that they are also natives too. Northern unionists have been in Ireland longer than the white man has been in Australia, North America, etc etc. They are natives here, every bit as much any nationalist. So if they want to parade up and down the streets of their own land, so what? Just wondering, like.

(BTW, this isn't to condone what appears to have been an episode of complete thuggery and which should not go unpunished.)

So what you are saying is that anywhere the british are involved is a complete shambles.

Americans, Canadians and the Aussies might object to your description of their respective countries.

Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2010, 01:18:43 AM

Quote from: Main Street on August 31, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
I live on Main St.

Do you think this one assault calls for so much coverage, never mind the local politicians hopping on board.
To me, it's much ado about not much.

Fair enough. BTW, is there anywhere else in the world where invaders celebrate defeating the natives? Do the invaders celebrate from April to September? Do they continue to do it on the natives land? Just wondering, like.

I think a better question would be is there anywhere else in the world that a group of people decide to back some random character from a historic battle and use his victory as an excuse to show off their bigotry for their neighbours?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Aye, right, you have an Irish passport  ::)

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Belief in an independent, 32 county Irish republic is entirely legitimate. That's what I and many other people in this country believe in. Thinking that it's okay to kill people in pursuit of this ideology is not legitimate and that's what republicans who back (or who used to back) the so called armed struggle believe.

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 06:47:04 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Aye, right, you have an Irish passport  ::)

I do, and you know what? It's just as good as yours, so up yer hole with a big jam roll.  ;)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

:D

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Don't get that one. Sorry.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:06:26 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Don't get that one. Sorry.

That's the Paisley's new title and name in the House of Lords over the water in Engerland.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:03:48 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Belief in an independent, 32 county Irish republic is entirely legitimate. That's what I and many other people in this country believe in. Thinking that it's okay to kill people in pursuit of this ideology is not legitimate and that's what republicans who back (or who used to back) the so called armed struggle believe.

Was it OK for the French resistance to kill people in pursuit of the abolition of Vichy and the reinstatement of France under French, not Nazi, control?

Quote from: ziggysego on September 01, 2010, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:06:26 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Don't get that one. Sorry.

That's the Paisley's new title and name in the House of Lords over the water in Engerland.

Oh right. Thanks. I can see a theme developing here. Do you fellas think I've no feelings at all?  :'(

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 08:23:30 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:03:48 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Belief in an independent, 32 county Irish republic is entirely legitimate. That's what I and many other people in this country believe in. Thinking that it's okay to kill people in pursuit of this ideology is not legitimate and that's what republicans who back (or who used to back) the so called armed struggle believe.

Was it OK for the French resistance to kill people in pursuit of the abolition of Vichy and the reinstatement of France under French, not Nazi, control?

It's not even close to being a valid comparison.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 09:17:26 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 08:23:30 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:03:48 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Belief in an independent, 32 county Irish republic is entirely legitimate. That's what I and many other people in this country believe in. Thinking that it's okay to kill people in pursuit of this ideology is not legitimate and that's what republicans who back (or who used to back) the so called armed struggle believe.

Was it OK for the French resistance to kill people in pursuit of the abolition of Vichy and the reinstatement of France under French, not Nazi, control?

It's not even close to being a valid comparison.

Why?

QuoteQuote from: Banana Man on Today at 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs 

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

Fu*k sake pints i was taking the piss, i think we all know he resides in castle greyskull!

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 09:28:16 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 09:17:26 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 08:23:30 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:03:48 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 01, 2010, 06:42:03 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

I don't get many compliments round here, so I'll take that first bit in the spirit you probably didn't intend and say thanks very much.  :)
Not beating up on nationalists this time (actually, I generally don't - usually it's just republicans I take a swipe at, and only because they deserve it). Just stating that northern unionists are as 'native' as those of us with Irish passports. They're a different sort of Irish, not a lesser sort.

Republicanism is a totally legitimate political ideology Myles. So much for outreach.

Belief in an independent, 32 county Irish republic is entirely legitimate. That's what I and many other people in this country believe in. Thinking that it's okay to kill people in pursuit of this ideology is not legitimate and that's what republicans who back (or who used to back) the so called armed struggle believe.

Was it OK for the French resistance to kill people in pursuit of the abolition of Vichy and the reinstatement of France under French, not Nazi, control?

It's not even close to being a valid comparison.

Why?

Let me count the ways...
I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though.

All rght for French "irregulars" to kill Germans or people supporting German rule in France but not all right for Irish "irregulars" to kill Brits or people supporting British government in Ireland.

I must have stayed at home from school the day they were explaining that one. ::) ::)

Quote from: Rossfan on September 01, 2010, 09:46:19 PM
All rght for French "irregulars" to kill Germans or people supporting German rule in France but not all right for Irish "irregulars" to kill Brits or people supporting British government in Ireland.

I must have stayed at home from school the day they were explaining that one. ::) ::)

Were you in school the day they explained that the only Irishmen (other than Willaim Joyce) to have collaborated with the Germans were your heroes in the IRA? That while the boyos were being ferried around in U boats, tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British to fight the Nazis? Sort of makes comparisons with the French Resistance a bit silly for that reason alone, don't you think?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 01, 2010, 09:46:19 PM
All rght for French "irregulars" to kill Germans or people supporting German rule in France but not all right for Irish "irregulars" to kill Brits or people supporting British government in Ireland.

I must have stayed at home from school the day they were explaining that one. ::) ::)

Were you in school the day they explained that the only Irishmen (other than Willaim Joyce) to have collaborated with the Germans were your heroes in the IRA? That while the boyos were being ferried around in U boats, tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British to fight the Nazis? Sort of makes comparisons with the French Resistance a bit silly for that reason alone, don't you think?

Ask some of the older generation who most people in Ireland supported during WW2. I'd say you'd find it was Germany and why would it not be?

Quote from: tyssam5 on September 01, 2010, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 01, 2010, 09:46:19 PM
All rght for French "irregulars" to kill Germans or people supporting German rule in France but not all right for Irish "irregulars" to kill Brits or people supporting British government in Ireland.

I must have stayed at home from school the day they were explaining that one. ::) ::)

Were you in school the day they explained that the only Irishmen (other than Willaim Joyce) to have collaborated with the Germans were your heroes in the IRA? That while the boyos were being ferried around in U boats, tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British to fight the Nazis? Sort of makes comparisons with the French Resistance a bit silly for that reason alone, don't you think?

Ask some of the older generation who most people in Ireland supported during WW2. I'd say you'd find it was Germany and why would it not be?

Still behind Germany when they saw the extent of the holocaust?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 09:15:56 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on September 01, 2010, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:06:26 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Don't get that one. Sorry.

That's the Paisley's new title and name in the House of Lords over the water in Engerland.

Oh right. Thanks. I can see a theme developing here. Do you fellas think I've no feelings at all?  :'(

What'd I say? That is Paisley's new name.

Quote from: ziggysego on September 01, 2010, 10:35:16 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 09:15:56 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on September 01, 2010, 08:12:26 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 08:06:26 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2010, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: Banana Man on September 01, 2010, 09:50:51 AM
myles you have to be the fairest and open minded nationalist i have ever seen, your that honest you constantly beat up on your own people - take a day off ffs  ::)

Will you get a grip, big Ian is more of a nationalist.

I won't say it again. Please refer to him as Lord Bannside. Carry on.

Don't get that one. Sorry.

That's the Paisley's new title and name in the House of Lords over the water in Engerland.

Oh right. Thanks. I can see a theme developing here. Do you fellas think I've no feelings at all?  :'(

What'd I say? That is Paisley's new name.

No sarcasm intended, I meant thanks for enlightening me. It was PoG and TB who made the references to Paisley.

'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 01, 2010, 10:31:56 PM

Quote from: tyssam5 on September 01, 2010, 10:27:10 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 01, 2010, 09:46:19 PM
All rght for French "irregulars" to kill Germans or people supporting German rule in France but not all right for Irish "irregulars" to kill Brits or people supporting British government in Ireland.

I must have stayed at home from school the day they were explaining that one. ::) ::)

Were you in school the day they explained that the only Irishmen (other than Willaim Joyce) to have collaborated with the Germans were your heroes in the IRA? That while the boyos were being ferried around in U boats, tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British to fight the Nazis? Sort of makes comparisons with the French Resistance a bit silly for that reason alone, don't you think?

Ask some of the older generation who most people in Ireland supported during WW2. I'd say you'd find it was Germany and why would it not be?

Still behind Germany when they saw the extent of the holocaust?

You would think not if it was reported as it is now. But not much point being behind them then as the war was over. But I'm sure for people who experienced the Black and Tans etc. it would have been natural for them to find amusement in Germany battering the British out of Dunkirk etc. I'd say some people switched allegiance after the Americans got involved, they were respected in Ireland at that time. 

Only myles could turn a thread about one of his mates punching a 50 year old woman in to the IRA and Nazis  ::)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2010, 08:46:25 PM
Only myles could turn a thread about one of his mates punching a 50 year old woman in to the IRA and Nazis  ::)

It's better than every thread being turned into a Armagh/Tyrone debate
  :-*

Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2010, 08:46:25 PM
Only myles could turn a thread about one of his mates punching a 50 year old woman in to the IRA and Nazis  ::)

First reference to 2nd world war combatants on this thread came in post 58, from Red Hander.

Your apology is accepted.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Has there been any more word of this woman or anyone charged with assault?

Quote from: Minder on September 02, 2010, 09:31:06 PM
Has there been any more word of this woman or anyone charged with assault?

Stop trying to drag this thread back on topic, ya troll!
:)

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I thank the Lord that noone I know would come out with bilge like that.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:39:19 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I thank the Lord that noone I know would come out with bilge  the truth like that.

Fixed that for you you blind pejudiced eejit. ;)

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I would say your ancestors more than 170 years ago were much the same as now. Pulling spuds out of the ground with their teeth and riding sheep.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:39:19 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I thank the Lord that noone I know would come out with bilge like that.

You should try and get out more... but it must be a bit of a chore to climb out of your own arsehole

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM
Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

Obv you are entitled to your OPINION' on these matters,, but if you were accurate in what you were saying then people might pay some attention. fabricating reasns and passing your own ideas as facts wont cut this !
the IRA etc did some terribly wrong things imo, but they came about to defend people from the oppression, persecution and ongoing physical attacks (both covert and open) by the security forces, cops and all those supposed to be upholding law an order. The nationalist/Irish/catholic/working class people had no choice.
you can have your opinions, but they dont hold true for other parts of he six counties.
so whinge away, but you are consistently wrong and incorrect in your vitriol against republican retaliation.
think more of what caused it and why these people HAD to fight back !
How the establishment's sectarian apartheid type campaigh were halted by their british gov masters and once a more equality based socety was seen tobe delivered - then all the retaliation and fighting stopped - no coincidence !
I dont think anyone believes you are a nationalist/sdlp'er etc and it actually doesnt matter if you are a unionist /loyalistr - you are entitled to your opinions but you wont be let peddle your lies on here !

Hopefully that lady has recovered fromher beating, I actually doubt that even with the cctv footage her assailents will be brought to justice. I hope to be proven incorrect there though !

^{Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.} 


Your a hypocrite then Myles. You often give out to people on here who only bring up British wrong doings and chastise them for doing this when clearly your no different in that you get "more angry" at republican atrocities.

And you prioritise atrocities on who carried them out not on what actually happened???

The mask has slipped badly there Myles.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 02, 2010, 10:13:14 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I would say your ancestors more than 170 years ago were much the same as now. Pulling spuds out of the ground with their teeth and riding sheep.

By the sound of you your ancesters were obviously ridin the spuds  ;D

Quote from: Rossfan on September 03, 2010, 05:44:23 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 02, 2010, 10:13:14 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I would say your ancestors more than 170 years ago were much the same as now. Pulling spuds out of the ground with their teeth and riding sheep.

By the sound of you your ancesters were obviously ridin the spuds  ;D

:D :D

Quote from: Rossfan on September 03, 2010, 05:44:23 PM
By the sound of you your ancesters were obviously ridin the spuds  ;D

hehe, You've a lovely turn of phrase Rossfan.  :D

Quote from: Rossfan on September 03, 2010, 05:44:23 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 02, 2010, 10:13:14 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 02, 2010, 09:02:36 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
tens of thousands of Irishmen joined the British

To this country's eternal shame as they robbed, murdered, terrorised millions of poor people in their own countries across the world.

I thank the Lord that no ancestor of mine in the last 170 years anyway ( we have no records before that but am confident none betrayed their Country to fight for it's oppressors army) betrayed their Country by joining the murderous scumbags who killed,looted and terrorised this Country for hundreds of years.

I would say your ancestors more than 170 years ago were much the same as now. Pulling spuds out of the ground with their teeth and riding sheep.

By the sound of you your ancesters were obviously ridin the spuds  ;D

(http://i55.tinypic.com/30x9b2w.jpg)

Tony Baloney.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2010, 08:55:34 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM
Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

Obv you are entitled to your OPINION' on these matters,, but if you were accurate in what you were saying then people might pay some attention. fabricating reasns and passing your own ideas as facts wont cut this !
the IRA etc did some terribly wrong things imo, but they came about to defend people from the oppression, persecution and ongoing physical attacks (both covert and open) by the security forces, cops and all those supposed to be upholding law an order. The nationalist/Irish/catholic/working class people had no choice.
you can have your opinions, but they dont hold true for other parts of he six counties.
so whinge away, but you are consistently wrong and incorrect in your vitriol against republican retaliation.
think more of what caused it and why these people HAD to fight back !
How the establishment's sectarian apartheid type campaigh were halted by their british gov masters and once a more equality based socety was seen tobe delivered - then all the retaliation and fighting stopped - no coincidence !
I dont think anyone believes you are a nationalist/sdlp'er etc and it actually doesnt matter if you are a unionist /loyalistr - you are entitled to your opinions but you wont be let peddle your lies on here !

Hopefully that lady has recovered fromher beating, I actually doubt that even with the cctv footage her assailents will be brought to justice. I hope to be proven incorrect there though !

Usual pile of keek. The IRA did not 'come about' as a result of anything which went on in the 6 counties - the IRA existed long before partition and carried on its campaign of violence through every decade from the formation of the two states on this island.

It was nearly gone out of existence till  the Unionist Govt and their RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs showed their Nationalist neighbours what they thought of their demands for civil rights/fair play.
So Myles me boy it was things that happned in the 6 Cos that gave rise to the "new" Provo IRA.
Methinks there's a bit of spud in your family tree too  :D

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 05:12:23 PM
It was nearly gone out of existence till  the Unionist Govt and their RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs showed their Nationalist neighbours what they thought of their demands for civil rights/fair play.
So Myles me boy it was things that happned in the 6 Cos that gave rise to the "new" Provo IRA.
Methinks there's a bit of spud in your family tree too  :D

Indeed. Republicans used the civil strife that occurred at that time as the platform from which to relaunch their campaign against the British, but this wasn't anything new. It had exactly the same rationale as the border campaigns of the 40's and 50's. The violence in the north provided republicans with the opportunity, not the motive.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 05:12:23 PM
It was nearly gone out of existence till  the Unionist Govt and their RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs showed their Nationalist neighbours what they thought of their demands for civil rights/fair play.
So Myles me boy it was things that happned in the 6 Cos that gave rise to the "new" Provo IRA.
Methinks there's a bit of spud in your family tree too  :D

Indeed. Republicans used the civil strife that occurred at that time as the platform from which to relaunch their campaign against the British, but this wasn't anything new. It had exactly the same rationale as the border campaigns of the 40's and 50's. The violence in the north provided republicans with the opportunity, not the motive.

"Civil strife" is a nice neutral word for the reactionary violence of the Orange mobs/B Specials and RUC who tried to make the Croppies lie down.
When Nationalist people saw that the peaceful protest method wasnt working and was met with disgraceful violence it ddnt take much to convince them that the only thing the establishment could understand was what the Provos had to offer .

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 07:15:06 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 05:12:23 PM
It was nearly gone out of existence till  the Unionist Govt and their RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs showed their Nationalist neighbours what they thought of their demands for civil rights/fair play.
So Myles me boy it was things that happned in the 6 Cos that gave rise to the "new" Provo IRA.
Methinks there's a bit of spud in your family tree too  :D

Indeed. Republicans used the civil strife that occurred at that time as the platform from which to relaunch their campaign against the British, but this wasn't anything new. It had exactly the same rationale as the border campaigns of the 40's and 50's. The violence in the north provided republicans with the opportunity, not the motive.

"Civil strife" is a nice neutral word for the reactionary violence of the Orange mobs/B Specials and RUC who tried to make the Croppies lie down.When Nationalist people saw that the peaceful protest method wasnt working and was met with disgraceful violence it ddnt take much to convince them that the only thing the establishment could understand was what the Provos had to offer .

What's it like living in the 19th century?

Myles , entitled you your opinion you are, but you are 100% factually incorrect here yet again!
Republicanism in the north of Ireland was Bourne out of requiring defence for people under physically violent and life threatening attacks. None of your usual incorrect bullish can alter that fact...or do you deny the civil rights marches happened or deny what happened on bloody Sunday to defenceless peoples? That's just two out of myriads!!!
Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable and stop peddling your lies!!

If you have anything of truth and fact to post, please contribute.... It would make a nice change!!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 07:31:27 PM
Myles , entitled you your opinion you are, but you are 100% factually incorrect here yet again!
Republicanism in the north of Ireland was Bourne out of requiring defence for people under physically violent and life threatening attacks. None of your usual incorrect bullish can alter that fact...or do you deny the civil rights marches happened or deny what happened on bloody Sunday to defenceless peoples? That's just two out of myriads!!!
Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable and stop peddling your lies!!

If you have anything of truth and fact to post, please contribute.... It would make a nice change!!

Do you use predictive text?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 07:25:35 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 07:15:06 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2010, 05:12:23 PM
It was nearly gone out of existence till  the Unionist Govt and their RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs showed their Nationalist neighbours what they thought of their demands for civil rights/fair play.
So Myles me boy it was things that happned in the 6 Cos that gave rise to the "new" Provo IRA.
Methinks there's a bit of spud in your family tree too  :D

Indeed. Republicans used the civil strife that occurred at that time as the platform from which to relaunch their campaign against the British, but this wasn't anything new. It had exactly the same rationale as the border campaigns of the 40's and 50's. The violence in the north provided republicans with the opportunity, not the motive.

"Civil strife" is a nice neutral word for the reactionary violence of the Orange mobs/B Specials and RUC who tried to make the Croppies lie down.When Nationalist people saw that the peaceful protest method wasnt working and was met with disgraceful violence it ddnt take much to convince them that the only thing the establishment could understand was what the Provos had to offer .

What's it like living in the 19th century?

There was me thinking 1968/69/70 were in the 20th Century.
::) ::)
Anyway Myles your fellow travellers( Unionists) are mainly living in the 17th Century .

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 07:31:27 PM
Myles , entitled you your opinion you are, but you are 100% factually incorrect here yet again!
Republicanism in the north of Ireland was Bourne out of requiring defence for people under physically violent and life threatening attacks. None of your usual incorrect bullish can alter that fact...or do you deny the civil rights marches happened or deny what happened on bloody Sunday to defenceless peoples? That's just two out of myriads!!!
Stop trying to excuse the inexcusable and stop peddling your lies!!

If you have anything of truth and fact to post, please contribute.... It would make a nice change!!

What was 'defensive' about placing bombs in pubs and shops? How were the IRA defending Catholic / nationalist people when they were killing them in greater numbers than the British army or the RUC ever did? The truth is that the IRA was never about defending anybody. It was about removing the British presence in Ireland, the same objective it had pursued for decades.

100% incorrect yet again!
You loyalist/unionists just won't or cannot accept the reality of what happened!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 10:01:38 PM
100% incorrect yet again!
You loyalist/unionists just won't or cannot accept the reality of what happened!

Are you saying that the IRA didn't place bombs in shops and pubs? That they didn't kill more Catholics / nationalists than the British army and RUC? You're even more detached from reality than I thought.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 10:01:38 PM
100% incorrect yet again!
You loyalist/unionists just won't or cannot accept the reality of what happened!

Another case closed, eh Lynchbhoy?! There is a vast difference between the start of the troubles and the following years. Yes it can feasibly be argued that the IRA came out in the late 60s to defend the nationalist population. This same argument doesn't hold muster when applied to men, women and children of all religions shot and blown to bits who had no connection to (legitimate targets of) the military establishment.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 11:18:16 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 10:01:38 PM
100% incorrect yet again!
You loyalist/unionists just won't or cannot accept the reality of what happened!

Are you saying that the IRA didn't place bombs in shops and pubs? That they didn't kill more Catholics / nationalists than the British army and RUC? You're even more detached from reality than I thought.

Lol
Someone else busted that myth of yours a long time ago on here!
No surprise yer still trying to peddle it... More lies from ya!!!

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

You taxes went in part to the British armed forces which were up to their ears in wide scale murderous collusion so therefor it could be accepted that in Britain's eyes, it' activities (read atrocities) WERE carried out on your behalf. Your double standards know no bounds.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 05, 2010, 09:10:59 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

You taxes went in part to the British armed forces which were up to their ears in wide scale murderous collusion so therefor it could be accepted that in Britain's eyes, it' activities (read atrocities) WERE carried out on your behalf. Your double standards know no bounds.

I accept that some of my taxes went to fund the British army, but there's not much I can do about that short of giving up my job and going on the dole. When you talk about collusion, are you referring to the loyalist colluders or the ones high up within the republican movement?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 05, 2010, 09:03:37 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2010, 11:18:16 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2010, 10:01:38 PM
100% incorrect yet again!
You loyalist/unionists just won't or cannot accept the reality of what happened!

Are you saying that the IRA didn't place bombs in shops and pubs? That they didn't kill more Catholics / nationalists than the British army and RUC? You're even more detached from reality than I thought.

Lol
Someone else busted that myth of yours a long time ago on here!
No surprise yer still trying to peddle it... More lies from ya!!!

That's two posts you've made and not a sensible point in either. Keep 'er lit.  ;)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 05, 2010, 09:55:23 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 05, 2010, 09:10:59 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

You taxes went in part to the British armed forces which were up to their ears in wide scale murderous collusion so therefor it could be accepted that in Britain's eyes, it' activities (read atrocities) WERE carried out on your behalf. Your double standards know no bounds.

I accept that some of my taxes went to fund the British army, but there's not much I can do about that short of giving up my job and going on the dole. When you talk about collusion, are you referring to the loyalist colluders or the ones high up within the republican movement?

I'm talking about the most widespread collusion. The one orchestrated by the British "security" forces. The one orchestrated by the people we paid the salaries for. Maybe you could actually explain the double standards you profess rather than highlighting them for me? You say the reason you have more contempt for republicans is because republicans acted "supposedly-on my behalf" so I'll ask again...considering then that the British Security forces acted on your behalf - why not equal contempt for them as for republicans?? Does it not make you more angry to know that YOUR hard earned taxes went towards funding widespread state murder??

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 06, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
I'm talking about the most widespread collusion. The one orchestrated by the British "security" forces. The one orchestrated by the people we paid the salaries for. Maybe you could actually explain the double standards you profess rather than highlighting them for me? You say the reason you have more contempt for republicans is because republicans acted "supposedly-on my behalf" so I'll ask again...considering then that the British Security forces acted on your behalf - why not equal contempt for them as for republicans?? Does it not make you more angry to know that YOUR hard earned taxes went towards funding widespread state murder??

wasting your time Nally.
all of myleseys arguments have been blown out of the water a long time ago  - including your own last resply that destroys the idiotic notion he is clinging to.
You cannot debate against someone that will stick their head in the sand and refuses to debate- an age old loyalist/unionist tactic !
Like the rest of us do, take your win and move on !

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 06, 2010, 12:53:30 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 05, 2010, 09:55:23 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 05, 2010, 09:10:59 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

You taxes went in part to the British armed forces which were up to their ears in wide scale murderous collusion so therefor it could be accepted that in Britain's eyes, it' activities (read atrocities) WERE carried out on your behalf. Your double standards know no bounds.

I accept that some of my taxes went to fund the British army, but there's not much I can do about that short of giving up my job and going on the dole. When you talk about collusion, are you referring to the loyalist colluders or the ones high up within the republican movement?

I'm talking about the most widespread collusion. The one orchestrated by the British "security" forces. The one orchestrated by the people we paid the salaries for. Maybe you could actually explain the double standards you profess rather than highlighting them for me? You say the reason you have more contempt for republicans is because republicans acted "supposedly-on my behalf" so I'll ask again...considering then that the British Security forces acted on your behalf - why not equal contempt for them as for republicans?? Does it not make you more angry to know that YOUR hard earned taxes went towards funding widespread state murder??

You're missing the point. The IRA was a volunteer militia which professed to act on behalf of people from the nationalist community, people who believed in and wanted to see a united Ireland. People like me, in other words. And on behalf of people like me, it killed and murdered its fellow citizens. That makes me feel ashamed and very angry. The British army is the professional army of the UK and it acts on behalf of the UK government. My taxes may help fund it, but I feel no allegiance towards it and therefore no sense of shame over its activities. As for the widespread collusion, you must be talking about republicans, given that every other member of the republican movement seemed to be working as a British agent. How many lives do you think that cost?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 06, 2010, 02:23:52 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 06, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
I'm talking about the most widespread collusion. The one orchestrated by the British "security" forces. The one orchestrated by the people we paid the salaries for. Maybe you could actually explain the double standards you profess rather than highlighting them for me? You say the reason you have more contempt for republicans is because republicans acted "supposedly-on my behalf" so I'll ask again...considering then that the British Security forces acted on your behalf - why not equal contempt for them as for republicans?? Does it not make you more angry to know that YOUR hard earned taxes went towards funding widespread state murder??

wasting your time Nally.
all of myleseys arguments have been blown out of the water a long time ago  - including your own last resply that destroys the idiotic notion he is clinging to.
You cannot debate against someone that will stick their head in the sand and refuses to debate- an age old loyalist/unionist tactic !
Like the rest of us do, take your win and move on !

Three posts and counting.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 06:59:50 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 06, 2010, 12:53:30 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 05, 2010, 09:55:23 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 05, 2010, 09:10:59 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 02, 2010, 09:28:14 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 02, 2010, 07:22:39 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 01, 2010, 11:33:19 PM
'I'm not going to get drawn into a debate on this, as that would imply that there's a debate to be had. Nice try, though'

You remind me of a little kid who puts his hands over his ears, closes his eyes and shouts "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala" at the top of his voice when he doesn't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into his viewpoint ... and btw, we had this before, William Joyce was NOT Irish

No, it's more that I refuse to allow republicans to set the terms of a debate in order to suit their own agenda. Why is it, for example, that republicans always seek to compare the IRA and their so called armed struggle with that of the French Resistance, or Nelson Mandela? Simple. It's because the very act of comparison casts the IRA in a better light. There are, and have been, any number of insurgencies, paramilitary groupings and irregular forces, in conflicts past and present around the world. Africa, South America and even Europe in the shape of the Balkans, have all thrown up irregular militias. Why no comparison with these? Why no comparison with the FARC guerillas, for example, with whom the IRA have been linked? Again, easy question. Republicans would worry that someone might mention FARC's links with the drug trade and such a link would do republicans no favours. It would be reasonable to hold any one of these various paramilitary groups up for comparison with the provos, but republicans shy away from that. Much better to cite the French Resistance as brothers in arms and hope that noone points out that the IRA were Nazi collaborators.  ::)

As you're such an expert on Colombia maybe you'd like to explain why the FARC guerrillas exist in the first place, with particular reference perhaps to the extreme right wing pro-American government in the country responsible for murdering its own citizens ... and while we're on the subject of drugs, maybe you could give us a precis on the Colombian government's links to the country's drug dealers, the self-same drug dealers you're linking with FARC ... you are totally blind to anything that does not suit your anti-republican agenda and you are totally blind to the atrocities perpetrated by your beloved British

Quite happy to discuss British atrocities at any time. They don't make me as angry as republican atrocities, however, which were carried out - supposedly - on my behalf and in pursuit of something which I regard as important, namely the reunification of my country.

You taxes went in part to the British armed forces which were up to their ears in wide scale murderous collusion so therefor it could be accepted that in Britain's eyes, it' activities (read atrocities) WERE carried out on your behalf. Your double standards know no bounds.

I accept that some of my taxes went to fund the British army, but there's not much I can do about that short of giving up my job and going on the dole. When you talk about collusion, are you referring to the loyalist colluders or the ones high up within the republican movement?

I'm talking about the most widespread collusion. The one orchestrated by the British "security" forces. The one orchestrated by the people we paid the salaries for. Maybe you could actually explain the double standards you profess rather than highlighting them for me? You say the reason you have more contempt for republicans is because republicans acted "supposedly-on my behalf" so I'll ask again...considering then that the British Security forces acted on your behalf - why not equal contempt for them as for republicans?? Does it not make you more angry to know that YOUR hard earned taxes went towards funding widespread state murder??

You're missing the point. The IRA was a volunteer militia which professed to act on behalf of people from the nationalist community, people who believed in and wanted to see a united Ireland. People like me, in other words. And on behalf of people like me, it killed and murdered its fellow citizens. That makes me feel ashamed and very angry. The British army is the professional army of the UK and it acts on behalf of the UK government. My taxes may help fund it, but I feel no allegiance towards it and therefore no sense of shame over its activities. As for the widespread collusion, you must be talking about republicans, given that every other member of the republican movement seemed to be working as a British agent. How many lives do you think that cost?

I don't believe I am missing the point Myles but thank you.
Whether you feel allegiance to the British Army or not is not the issue here. It is the army of the UK government, which acts on YOUR behalf. Surely it is wrong therefor that you feel no shame for the British security forces campaign of state murder??

And bearing in mind that this state murder would have often been a motivation to young men and women joining the ranks of the IRA, is that not another reason why you should be ashamed at the British Government even more? Considering how much you dislike the IRA after all? Or are you one of these unionists who blindly/laughably refuse to accept that the IRA could possibly have been reactionary in its recruitment levels and it's activities?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 06:59:50 PM
As for the widespread collusion, you must be talking about republicans, given that every other member of the republican movement seemed to be working as a British agent. How many lives do you think that cost?

No...as previously explained, I was talking about the collusion which was most widespread. That of the British State with loyalist murder gangs.

Two quick questions:
1. Have you any sort of way to back up your sensationalist claim that "every other republican seemed to be working for the British Government"??

2. If "every other republican" was working for the British Government...why would a leaked British Army document describe the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force" which it could not defeat??

Answers on a postcard.

I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 06, 2010, 09:50:07 PM
2. If "every other republican" was working for the British Government...why would a leaked British Army document describe the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force" which it could not defeat??

Are you referring to the analysis of Operation Banner prepared by the Chief of general staff, that was available on a site about Pat Finucane? I thought the document was inadvertently made available to the public by the MOD and then pulled.
The Provos, despite some of you Nordies leaking info like a sieve for a few ££, were a respected formidable opponent by the British military machine.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

Your hard earned taxes don't fund the Israeli or US army and they have not been carrying out widescale murder of your fellow Irishmen so hardly an apt parallel to draw. I am not in the slightest over stating the extent of Britain's murder of "it's own" people. An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre between them represent around 1,000 families who have reason to believe their loved ones are victims of the British collusion policy. Who are you to tell them they are wrong??

And as for my quick questions, since you gave a tongue in cheek reply to Question 1, can I take your lack of a source as an admission that you were being sensationalist?

And my sources for my second question:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm
"An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI
Former Commander in Chief of British land forces General 'Sir' James Glover admits the Irish Republican Army will never be defeated.

Seems a funny thing for two British Army sources to say if they, as you suggest, were practically controlling the puppet strings of republicanism. (Or, as I say, were you just being sensationalist?)

'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.

I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Quote from: supersarsfields on September 08, 2010, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Dear God, please strike dead on the spot the next person to use that particular cliche. If you do, I'll start going to Mass again. Thank you. Myles

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 09:27:55 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on September 08, 2010, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Dear God, please strike dead on the spot the next person to use that particular cliche. If you do, I'll start going to Mass again. Thank you. Myles

Yet again, the mask slips.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 09:27:55 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on September 08, 2010, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Dear God, please strike dead on the spot the next person to use that particular cliche. If you do, I'll start going to Mass again. Thank you. Myles

Must of touched a nerve then so.

Easy to do ... he has some f**king nerve, after all

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

Serious question Nally,not trying to get a rise, how widespread do you believe the infiltration was by the Brits, re informers?

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt who quite obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about - grasping at straws and making shildish little quips instead of reasoned answers should show you what you are dealing with here in mylse.
this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.
move on as you are wasting your time and good insights on this topic!.

You are probably right on some points.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2010, 09:54:07 AM
good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt

And definately right on other points.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2010, 09:54:07 AM
this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.

Quote from: Minder on September 09, 2010, 07:54:20 AM
Serious question Nally, not trying to get a rise, how widespread do you believe the infiltration was by the Brits, re informers?

Fair enough question. I'm all for rational discussion. What rises me is people trying to attack republicanism with nothing better than 'tongue-in-cheek' remarks/sensationalism/lies/using single examples as generalisations. These seem to be the typical debating styles of people like Myles and ardmhacaabu. Though in fairness to Myles, he doesn't tell me he'll ignore me when faced with questions.

My honest opinion was that the extent of British infiltration of the IRA was not as great as people would lead us to believe. Unlike certain people on this board I am prepared to accept that I could be totally wrong but, as I say, such people tend use specific examples of spies/touts as generalisations in order to state that the IRA were absolutely riddled, and refuse blindly to look at the big picture.
The reasons I bleieve that spies were not so common is that the IRA were the ONLY 'paramilitary' group that the British Army claimed privately & publically, that it could not defeat. This was never stated of loyalist paramilitaries because, as we now know, the dividing lines between British security forces and loyalists were somewhat blurred through collusion. Similarly, dissident organisations have been active for around 15 years and have managed to inflict is it three(?) (what they would term successful) attacks on members of the security forces. I suspect that this is due to high infiltration of such groups by spies/touts. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the leadership of the RIRA, for example, found themselves locked up in a very short time. This was never the case for the PIRA. They were capable of mounting a HIGHLY SUSTAINED military campaign for three decades. To suggest they could have done such a thing while being anywhere NEAR riddled with touts and spies is, in my opinion, highly unrealistic.

'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2010, 09:54:07 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 12:00:41 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 07:40:35 PM
As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt who quite obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about - grasping at straws and making shildish little quips instead of reasoned answers should show you what you are dealing with here in mylse.
this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.
move on as you are wasting your time and good insights on this topic!.

Nally Stand's cheer leader at it again!  :D

Quote from: ziggysego on September 08, 2010, 09:39:42 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2010, 09:27:55 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on September 08, 2010, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 06, 2010, 10:36:24 PM
I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  ;) As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Dear God, please strike dead on the spot the next person to use that particular cliche. If you do, I'll start going to Mass again. Thank you. Myles

Yet again, the mask slips.

Hope you posted that from beyond the grave.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

in a word 'rubbish' - thats simply subjective blinkered uneducated piffle from you (yet again !!)

you cannot answer the facts Nally gave you - that if thre were that many 'insiders' then surely it would have been the british army fighting against themselves !!
:D

you are way overstating the amount of informants, and these seemed to increase when it was all over anyhow !


the republican movement/nationalists/catholics/Irish would have got nothing by going with the 'offers' in the early/mid 70's because there was still systematic persecution and inequality. When this changed and there was an opportunity for a genuine equal society and the secondary objective of re-unification, at that stage it was the correct time to embrace it. The earlier 'offer' would have seen it slide back into what things were as unionists/loyalists were not ready to power share then (they still are not in the main, but as they as rearing the loss of their majority its starting to be taken out of their hands).

gerry adams driver /bodyguard was an informant - LOL, he must have passed on lots of secrets about pipe smoking and writing books !!
:D

on the subject of loyalists/unionists and mindsets not changing, has anyone been arrested or charged for the attack on that woman?
Has she recovered?
did she eventually manage to get her hair done?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

It's not the first time you have quoted Gerry Bradley. Why not get a few quotes from Ruth Dudley Edwards or Fintan O'Toole or someone else who has a particular axe to grind with republicans in a public fashion?
Might I also add to the other voices on this board saying that your mask is truly slipping. Your analysis above is suspiciously similar to Gregory Campbell's (DUP) press release on the ETA ceasefire where he remarks "The IRA was riddled with informants and they were delighted when offered a way out of terror at a very cheap price."

Considering that at the time of Sunningdale, the British state was at war with the nationalist/republican population through state collusion, widespread harassment at police/British Army checkpoints (which was a major cause of IRA recruitment) as well as institutionalised religious discrimination throughout the state, then talking as if Sunningdale was ever going to last is totally fanciful and absurd. Even with years of relative peace since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it took until 2007 before a stable(ish) executive was established. That was almost TEN YEARS after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Arguing that Sunningdale was the answer is to ignore the political and social climate of the day. Something many unionists seem to be adept at.

It was due to pressure from the IRA that the British eventually agreed to sit down at the table. The Docklands bombing only took place due to the British Government not taking peace talks seriously:

'The cessation presented a historic challenge for everyone and Óglaigh na hÉireann commends the leadership of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad. They rose to the challenge. The British Prime Minister did not. Instead of embracing the peace process, the British government acted in bad faith, with Mr Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.'
IRA Statement after the Docklands bombing
(Hardly the statement you would expect to hear from a group which would have been "delighted to find a way out of terror at a very cheap price" does it Gregory/Myles?

If the IRA were honestly riddled with informers, HOW would the British Government not have known about the Docklands? Surely at a time of ceasefire the IRA would have been at it's most vulnerable to informers?

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 07:07:20 PM

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

I might be getting this wrong here - but the quote from Bandit Country to my recollection came from one SAS commander. Hardly the opinion of an entire military wing of the Brits.

I think the danger with such statements is that if enough pinches of salt are taken, and the soundbyte gets the right spin in the right places - it gets taken as gospel... NOT that I am disagreeing with you.

Regarding your post on the level of infiltration of the IRA by touts - there is the republican stance, there is the british stance and somewhere in the middle I think we'd find the truth.

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 07:18:35 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 07:07:20 PM

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

I might be getting this wrong here - but the quote from Bandit Country to my recollection came from one SAS commander. Hardly the opinion of an entire military wing of the Brits.

I think the danger with such statements is that if enough pinches of salt are taken, and the soundbyte gets the right spin in the right places - it gets taken as gospel... NOT that I am disagreeing with you.

Regarding your post on the level of infiltration of the IRA by touts - there is the republican stance, there is the british stance and somewhere in the middle I think we'd find the truth.

It may have also been said by an SAS commander in Bandit Country, however I take it from the internal British Military document which assesses it's involvement in Ireland. A post of mine a page or two back gives a link to the BBC news report on it.

As I've said earlier too, I could absolutely be wrong on the issue of the level of infiltration. Nobody knows for definite, as even Myles might accept. I just put forward my own opinion to counter a sensationalist argument which has since been claimed to having been "tongue in cheek" and I put forward my argument based not on individual instances but on analysis of the effectiveness of the over-all IRA campaign in relation to how effective a group riddled with informers possibly COULD be.

Lynchboy - His driver was also in the IRA so I would say he knew more than just about writing books and pipe smoking.

Quote from: Minder on September 09, 2010, 07:54:51 PM
Lynchboy - His driver was also in the IRA so I would say he knew more than just about writing books and pipe smoking.

At least one of them was then!!

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 07:07:20 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

It's not the first time you have quoted Gerry Bradley. Why not get a few quotes from Ruth Dudley Edwards or Fintan O'Toole or someone else who has a particular axe to grind with republicans in a public fashion? Might I also add to the other voices on this board saying that your mask is truly slipping. Your analysis above is suspiciously similar to Gregory Campbell's (DUP) press release on the ETA ceasefire where he remarks "The IRA was riddled with informants and they were delighted when offered a way out of terror at a very cheap price."

Considering that at the time of Sunningdale, the British state was at war with the nationalist/republican population through state collusion, widespread harassment at police/British Army checkpoints (which was a major cause of IRA recruitment) as well as institutionalised religious discrimination throughout the state, then talking as if Sunningdale was ever going to last is totally fanciful and absurd. Even with years of relative peace since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it took until 2007 before a stable(ish) executive was established. That was almost TEN YEARS after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Arguing that Sunningdale was the answer is to ignore the political and social climate of the day. Something many unionists seem to be adept at.

It was due to pressure from the IRA that the British eventually agreed to sit down at the table. The Docklands bombing only took place due to the British Government not taking peace talks seriously:

'The cessation presented a historic challenge for everyone and Óglaigh na hÉireann commends the leadership of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad. They rose to the challenge. The British Prime Minister did not. Instead of embracing the peace process, the British government acted in bad faith, with Mr Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.'
IRA Statement after the Docklands bombing
(Hardly the statement you would expect to hear from a group which would have been "delighted to find a way out of terror at a very cheap price" does it Gregory/Myles?

If the IRA were honestly riddled with informers, HOW would the British Government not have known about the Docklands? Surely at a time of ceasefire the IRA would have been at it's most vulnerable to informers?

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

Whatever else one may think about Gerry Bradley - and as you may have gathered, I don't particularly care for the IRA - he devoted many years of his life and several years of freedom to that organisation's cause. I think he's more entitled to express an opinion than most of the armchair generals found on the GAA Board.

If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

Quote from: red hander on September 09, 2010, 09:47:52 PM
If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 09:44:48 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 07:07:20 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 05:29:00 PM
'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

It's not the first time you have quoted Gerry Bradley. Why not get a few quotes from Ruth Dudley Edwards or Fintan O'Toole or someone else who has a particular axe to grind with republicans in a public fashion? Might I also add to the other voices on this board saying that your mask is truly slipping. Your analysis above is suspiciously similar to Gregory Campbell's (DUP) press release on the ETA ceasefire where he remarks "The IRA was riddled with informants and they were delighted when offered a way out of terror at a very cheap price."

Considering that at the time of Sunningdale, the British state was at war with the nationalist/republican population through state collusion, widespread harassment at police/British Army checkpoints (which was a major cause of IRA recruitment) as well as institutionalised religious discrimination throughout the state, then talking as if Sunningdale was ever going to last is totally fanciful and absurd. Even with years of relative peace since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it took until 2007 before a stable(ish) executive was established. That was almost TEN YEARS after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Arguing that Sunningdale was the answer is to ignore the political and social climate of the day. Something many unionists seem to be adept at.

It was due to pressure from the IRA that the British eventually agreed to sit down at the table. The Docklands bombing only took place due to the British Government not taking peace talks seriously:

'The cessation presented a historic challenge for everyone and Óglaigh na hÉireann commends the leadership of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad. They rose to the challenge. The British Prime Minister did not. Instead of embracing the peace process, the British government acted in bad faith, with Mr Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.'
IRA Statement after the Docklands bombing
(Hardly the statement you would expect to hear from a group which would have been "delighted to find a way out of terror at a very cheap price" does it Gregory/Myles?

If the IRA were honestly riddled with informers, HOW would the British Government not have known about the Docklands? Surely at a time of ceasefire the IRA would have been at it's most vulnerable to informers?

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

Whatever else one may think about Gerry Bradley - and as you may have gathered, I don't particularly care for the IRA - he devoted many years of his life and several years of freedom to that organisation's cause. I think he's more entitled to express an opinion than most of the armchair generals found on the GAA Board.

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

P.S. That is honestly your reply? Have you absolutely nothing to come back with on my other points/questions? :o That's laughable, even for you

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 10:20:36 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 09, 2010, 09:47:52 PM
If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

Dunno, but reading your cac I know what emus post when you let them near a keyboard after they've taken their heads out of the sand

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" :-\ ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Excellent point. However, Gerry Bradley would probably argue that he has not fallen away from mainstream republicanism, but rather that mainstream republicanism has fallen away from him and those like him. Shinners don't like hearing this. More importantly, they don't like other people hearing this, therefore they dismiss any opinion which doesn't conform to the gospel of Gerry and Marty as 'biased'. On the other hand, they're quite happy to quote groups like the Finucane Centre in support of their arguments, which makes me think they've had an irony by pass operation at some point.

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" :-\ ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 10, 2010, 06:19:44 AM
If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

so you cant answer them then - well you never can , so its no surprise !

as for gerry bradley, thats a laughable comment to say that he hasnt gone away off on his own tangent - he is obv bitter over something and its fairly obvious in all he says 1

as for sf - they are not mainstream republicanism, they are the only show in town for voters which is what keeps some of their candidates elected (a lot of them are decent or even good though). A lot of people would disagree with sf and a lot of their outlook - and I dont mean those dissident eejits either.

still no word on what happened about the criminals that assaulted the woman crossing the street is there?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 10, 2010, 06:19:44 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" :-\ ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

YOU WONT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE MY POST WAS TOO LONG??????!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


HAHA Myles seriously, stop making a tool of yourself! If you cannot answer my questions then at least try to come up with a better excuse than that :D :D :D

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 09, 2010, 10:20:36 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 09, 2010, 09:47:52 PM
If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

Keep me away from the Rossies

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2010, 09:22:36 AM

Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?   ???  Your "understanding" knows no bounds.

What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Ian Paisley is not a member of the Orange Order, and is in the Independent version, as mentioned.

Sorry just noticed this now.  Paisley is not now nor has he ever been an Orangeman, independent or otherwise.  And the Independent OO was founded before Paisley was born (in 1905 I think...).

He is, however, a member of the "Apprentice Boys of the UK City of Culture"

QuoteQuote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2010, 09:22:36 AM
Quote from: Tonto on August 30, 2010, 10:24:08 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 30, 2010, 09:44:47 PM
Who are these bucks anyway? I understand the Orange Order, and Paisley's branch of the Orange, and I just about get the Apprentice Boys (when are they ever going to have their time served?).

But who, or what are these? What's their story?

Paisley's branch of the Orange?     Your "understanding" knows no bounds.


What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Ian Paisley is not a member of the Orange Order, and is in the Independent version, as mentioned.

Sorry just noticed this now.  Paisley is not now nor has he ever been an Orangeman, independent or otherwise.  And the Independent OO was founded before Paisley was born (in 1905 I think...).

He is, however, a member of the "Apprentice Boys of the UK City of Culture"

Tell me this tonto, when paisley is standing on the platform every year and addressing the independent OO with a purple sash on, what does that sash relate to???

That would be the Apprentice Boys.

What's the average age of these "boys" ?

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 10, 2010, 09:38:05 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 10, 2010, 06:19:44 AM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on September 09, 2010, 10:50:15 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 09, 2010, 10:29:21 PM

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" :-\ ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

YOU WONT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE MY POST WAS TOO LONG??????!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


HAHA Myles seriously, stop making a tool of yourself! If you cannot answer my questions then at least try to come up with a better excuse than that :D :D :D

Much better.  ;)

Why, because there were no tough questions for you to face?

Cowardly, Myles!

Quote from: Nally Stand on September 12, 2010, 02:11:52 PM
Why, because there were no tough questions for you to face?

Cowardly, Myles!

No, rather because it wouldn't have required me to write an essay to respond. I'm happy to address the points you make - and you make some good ones - but I'm not going to sit and tackle something which will take me half an hour or longer to get through. I sit down at the PC for 10 or 15 minute spells, so if I don't think I can answer in that time, I don't bother.

Quote from: red hander on September 09, 2010, 10:44:57 PM
Dunno, but reading your cac I know what emus post when you let them near a keyboard after they've taken their heads out of the sand

You mean ostriches - emus don't stick their heads in the sand.  They either stand dead still behind a bush or run very fast over the ground.  And they do enormous damage to propellors.

Quote from: Aerlik on September 12, 2010, 03:49:25 PM

Quote from: red hander on September 09, 2010, 10:44:57 PM
Dunno, but reading your cac I know what emus post when you let them near a keyboard after they've taken their heads out of the sand

You mean ostriches - emus don't stick their heads in the sand.  They either stand dead still behind a bush or run very fast over the ground.  And they do enormous damage to propellors.

Neither do ostriches, in point of fact.