The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
Pass the popcorn...
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
People generally don't care as much about things they can't remember happening. The guys you're arguing with on the other thread (one presumes) are old enough to remember the worst of the troubles. They don't like being reminded of it by the likes of Cullinane. They are not old enough to remember the war of independence. In fact, even their grandparents might not have been born yet. Sinn Fein have no bother getting votes, right across the country, from those under 30. They don't remember the troubles.
It really could be as simple as that.
Quote from: shark on May 12, 2021, 07:23:25 AM
People generally don't care as much about things they can't remember happening. The guys you're arguing with on the other thread (one presumes) are old enough to remember the worst of the troubles. They don't like being reminded of it by the likes of Cullinane. They are not old enough to remember the war of independence. In fact, even their grandparents might not have been born yet. Sinn Fein have no bother getting votes, right across the country, from those under 30. They don't remember the troubles.
It really could be as simple as that.
So ignorance is bliss for a free staters? They also have an arrogance to pass judgement on a conflict that did not have a bearing on their day to day lives.
Yesterday on a day when a public finding found the Ballymurphy 10 were innocent, the leader of the Free State was at a graveyard giving a glowing commemoration to IRA killer Sean Lemass. Odd that none of them are outraged about that but do find David Cullinane's comments so outrageous.
I would say ignorance is bliss for most people on the planet. Most people only read what they want to read - they only have one life after all. Cullinane got (some) people's back up because he acted like a teenager after a few cans. The vast majority of SF TDs elected that day acted like adults, and the politicians that they are.
If you ask most people what do they know about Sean Lemass they'll either say "nothing" or "free education". As I said above, most people care about today and tomorrow. Yesterday is not so important. Not everyone is interested in history.
Quote from: shark on May 12, 2021, 07:36:09 AM
I would say ignorance is bliss for most people on the planet. Most people only read what they want to read - they only have one life after all. Cullinane got (some) people's back up because he acted like a teenager after a few cans. The vast majority of SF TDs elected that day acted like adults, and the politicians that they are.
If you ask most people what do they know about Sean Lemass they'll either say "nothing" or "free education". As I said above, most people care about today and tomorrow. Yesterday is not so important. Not everyone is interesting in history.
Micheal Martin would know about Lemass. If he has such a contention to achieving political aims by violent means then why was he eulogising an IRA killer yesterday.
I'd imagine most people on here would have heard of Sean Lemass and be aware of the fact he was an IRA gunman.
I would say that for some on here ignorance is a convenience. There is agenda at play, they want to get righteousness and sanctimonious about The Troubles but don't seem to have any contention about their own bloody past. Ignorance can't be cited here, they are aware of it but want to ignore it.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
Surely someone is due another holiday.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Putting aside your stupid use of the term Free Staters, is it not fair to say - on this board at least, that you are referring to 3/4 people when this thread reads like everyone south of the border is avoiding our bloody past.
Cognitive Dissonance. Makes all our lives more liveable.
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Putting aside your stupid use of the term Free Staters, is it not fair to say - on this board at least, that you are referring to 3/4 people when this thread reads like everyone south of the border is avoiding our bloody past.
I'd say apart from yourself and Main Street, the southern posters on here all feed into the same narrative.
I can add in Louther, dublin7, Tubberman, clonad, Lar and countless others who share that mindset.
Plenty to say and pontificate on a conflict they had no experience or no understanding of but yet unwilling to address the bloody and violent past of their own state.
I call it the free state, there are two states on this island which is partitioned and it's used to refer to those of a partitionist mindset.
Angelo, as a person from the south who sympathises greatly with Northern nationalists and is annoyed with the lack of response from successive governments towards the barbaric crimes of the Brits in the North whilst recognising the violent effort taken by the old IRA in the struggle to get the aforementioned Brits out of the 26, do I qualify as a freestater?
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
100+ pages here.
Expect it to go well.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2021, 09:06:58 AM
Angelo, as a person from the south who sympathises greatly with Northern nationalists and is annoyed with the lack of response from successive governments towards the barbaric crimes of the Brits in the North whilst recognising the violent effort taken by the old IRA in the struggle to get the aforementioned Brits out of the 26, do I qualify as a freestater?
I haven't noticed anything too toxic or extreme in your views so for now I would say no.
You're good Far.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
In fairness, having played football for 10 years at this stage, the only time I've ever got any abuse on the pitch was by "Southern" teams.
One team in particular in Cavan of all places were right and good at letting us know we were rotten dirty northerners who liked to kill each other.
Another Donegal team in the Ulster League a few years ago was fond of a bit casual baiting too but not to the level of the above.
Water off a ducks back I suppose but there is a bit of it about.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 12, 2021, 10:34:47 AM
In fairness, having played football for 10 years at this stage, the only time I've ever got any abuse on the pitch was by "Southern" teams.
One team in particular in Cavan of all places were right and good at letting us know we were rotten dirty northerners who liked to kill each other.
Another Donegal team in the Ulster League a few years ago was fond of a bit casual baiting too but not to the level of the above.
Water off a ducks back I suppose but there is a bit of it about.
Funny you say that about Cavan, I vividly remember playing a D'alton Cup game in Clontibret against St Pats Cavan and being abused the whole way through the game for being a dirty northern British bastard and for me to f**k off back to the black north and before that we played in the Community games for Cross in Cootehill and were roundly abused by the Cavan team in similar terms. Also the time Ciaran McKeever was allegedly abused by Laois players for being British, funny we got the same from Portlaoise as well. Wooly would have been proud.
There has been an historical feeling of isolation from the 26 and that has been engendered by certain elements with the political arena and also within the MSM. I know for a fact this is presently being challenged within the MSM but whether that will change is questionable. I know what I went through growing up and if someone across the border in Blayney or Dundalk went through it i would like to think that I could understand it. I don't know if the same comes the other way
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
"You don't know anything" and "hysterical diatribes" are Ideology 1.01
Get some new memes.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
"You don't know anything" and "hysterical diatribes" are Ideology 1.01
Get some new memes.
FFS Seafoid, when your shown up, stop digging. Posting cryptic nonsense to deflect doesn't help.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
"You don't know anything" and "hysterical diatribes" are Ideology 1.01
Get some new memes.
That's it.
Let your mask skip.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2021, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 12, 2021, 10:34:47 AM
In fairness, having played football for 10 years at this stage, the only time I've ever got any abuse on the pitch was by "Southern" teams.
One team in particular in Cavan of all places were right and good at letting us know we were rotten dirty northerners who liked to kill each other.
Another Donegal team in the Ulster League a few years ago was fond of a bit casual baiting too but not to the level of the above.
Water off a ducks back I suppose but there is a bit of it about.
Funny you say that about Cavan, I vividly remember playing a D'alton Cup game in Clontibret against St Pats Cavan and being abused the whole way through the game for being a dirty northern British bastard and for me to f**k off back to the black north and before that we played in the Community games for Cross in Cootehill and were roundly abused by the Cavan team in similar terms. Also the time Ciaran McKeever was allegedly abused by Laois players for being British, funny we got the same from Portlaoise as well. Wooly would have been proud.
There has been an historical feeling of isolation from the 26 and that has been engendered by certain elements with the political arena and also within the MSM. I know for a fact this is presently being challenged within the MSM but whether that will change is questionable. I know what I went through growing up and if someone across the border in Blayney or Dundalk went through it i would like to think that I could understand it. I don't know if the same comes the other way
As much as its a disgusting thing in football, the idea is to get you to stop focussing on your game. So I think the abuse you get is not neccessarily heart felt from the person giving it. I could tell y ou similar stories about getting abuse in the north for being a dirty f**king Mexican to be told to f**k off back to England by a fella in Mayo (being from Cavan you are neither a northerner or a southerner it seems).
As for Cootehill, I remember coaching an U12 team in Cavan and Cootehill had started sledging at that age before the term had even been invented in Armagh and Tyrone ;)
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2021, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 12, 2021, 10:34:47 AM
In fairness, having played football for 10 years at this stage, the only time I've ever got any abuse on the pitch was by "Southern" teams.
One team in particular in Cavan of all places were right and good at letting us know we were rotten dirty northerners who liked to kill each other.
Another Donegal team in the Ulster League a few years ago was fond of a bit casual baiting too but not to the level of the above.
Water off a ducks back I suppose but there is a bit of it about.
Funny you say that about Cavan, I vividly remember playing a D'alton Cup game in Clontibret against St Pats Cavan and being abused the whole way through the game for being a dirty northern British bastard and for me to f**k off back to the black north and before that we played in the Community games for Cross in Cootehill and were roundly abused by the Cavan team in similar terms. Also the time Ciaran McKeever was allegedly abused by Laois players for being British, funny we got the same from Portlaoise as well. Wooly would have been proud.
There has been an historical feeling of isolation from the 26 and that has been engendered by certain elements with the political arena and also within the MSM. I know for a fact this is presently being challenged within the MSM but whether that will change is questionable. I know what I went through growing up and if someone across the border in Blayney or Dundalk went through it i would like to think that I could understand it. I don't know if the same comes the other way
As much as its a disgusting thing in football, the idea is to get you to stop focussing on your game. So I think the abuse you get is not neccessarily heart felt from the person giving it. I could tell y ou similar stories about getting abuse in the north for being a dirty f**king Mexican to be told to f**k off back to England by a fella in Mayo (being from Cavan you are neither a northerner or a southerner it seems).
As for Cootehill, I remember coaching an U12 team in Cavan and Cootehill had started sledging at that age before the term had even been invented in Armagh and Tyrone ;)
Sledging is pet and parcel of it 'tell her ma I'll drop her knickers back later' etc etc. And you are right it goes both ways. My question is, nearly 35 years ago now, what would a 12-13 year old know about Black north or British bastards or orange c***ts unless they heard it somewhere and were repeating it? They were repeating it as it was coming from the sidelines, not from the players. From adults, and from teachers in some instances. Let that sink in.....
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:08:02 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
"You don't know anything" and "hysterical diatribes" are Ideology 1.01
Get some new memes.
That's it.
Let your mask skip.
How old are you, angelo?
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 11:46:14 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:08:02 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 11:00:29 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 09:56:32 AM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 09:14:25 AM
Angelo is a TERF
Tyrone Eejit Republican Faction
And you're an unashamed, unintelligent hypocrite.
You're a hoot, Angelo
Try selling thug enforcers and kneecappings in Mayo. Ring the Tommy Marren show and see how you get on.
https://www.midwestradio.ie/
Thug enforcers and kneecappings.
That's the type of hysterical diatribes you engage in. It merely does nothing more than serve the type of ignorance you have on the northern situation and what people had to go through.
It also shows the brazen arrogance that you feel you are qualified to comment when you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.
"You don't know anything" and "hysterical diatribes" are Ideology 1.01
Get some new memes.
That's it.
Let your mask skip.
How old are you, angelo?
Ironic that's where you're going when you're behaving like an infant.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Wee man you need to get your story straight. You cannot say that this thread is about the hypocrisy of treating Old IRA in Ireland and more recent IRA in the NI troubles differently and then say it's not about the IRA activities during the troubles in NI.
People's view of the activities of the IRA and others during the troubles is fundamental to your thread, Champion.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Wee man you need to get your story straight. You cannot say that this thread is about the hypocrisy of treating Old IRA in Ireland and more recent IRA in the NI troubles differently and then say it's not about the IRA activities during the troubles in NI.
People's view of the activities of the IRA and others during the troubles is fundamental to your thread, Champion.
"Wee man", you may be intent on throwing this thread away from the free state hypocrisy on their bloody past but that's what this thread is about and you trying to shoe horn your agenda in here is not what it's about.
If you have nothing to say on this topic then stop spamming the board up with your rubbish.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Wee man you need to get your story straight. You cannot say that this thread is about the hypocrisy of treating Old IRA in Ireland and more recent IRA in the NI troubles differently and then say it's not about the IRA activities during the troubles in NI.
People's view of the activities of the IRA and others during the troubles is fundamental to your thread, Champion.
"Wee man", you may be intent on throwing this thread away from the free state hypocrisy on their bloody past but that's what this thread is about and you trying to shoe horn your agenda in here is not what it's about.
If you have nothing to say on this topic then stop spamming the board up with your rubbish.
Listen wee man if you think this thread is about the hypocrisy between the people of RoI's view of the armed campaign of the old IRA and their view of a different armed campaign you only have to point out what that other armed campaign is. Your move Champion
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2021, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 12, 2021, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 12, 2021, 10:34:47 AM
In fairness, having played football for 10 years at this stage, the only time I've ever got any abuse on the pitch was by "Southern" teams.
One team in particular in Cavan of all places were right and good at letting us know we were rotten dirty northerners who liked to kill each other.
Another Donegal team in the Ulster League a few years ago was fond of a bit casual baiting too but not to the level of the above.
Water off a ducks back I suppose but there is a bit of it about.
Funny you say that about Cavan, I vividly remember playing a D'alton Cup game in Clontibret against St Pats Cavan and being abused the whole way through the game for being a dirty northern British bastard and for me to f**k off back to the black north and before that we played in the Community games for Cross in Cootehill and were roundly abused by the Cavan team in similar terms. Also the time Ciaran McKeever was allegedly abused by Laois players for being British, funny we got the same from Portlaoise as well. Wooly would have been proud.
There has been an historical feeling of isolation from the 26 and that has been engendered by certain elements with the political arena and also within the MSM. I know for a fact this is presently being challenged within the MSM but whether that will change is questionable. I know what I went through growing up and if someone across the border in Blayney or Dundalk went through it i would like to think that I could understand it. I don't know if the same comes the other way
As much as its a disgusting thing in football, the idea is to get you to stop focussing on your game. So I think the abuse you get is not neccessarily heart felt from the person giving it. I could tell y ou similar stories about getting abuse in the north for being a dirty f**king Mexican to be told to f**k off back to England by a fella in Mayo (being from Cavan you are neither a northerner or a southerner it seems).
As for Cootehill, I remember coaching an U12 team in Cavan and Cootehill had started sledging at that age before the term had even been invented in Armagh and Tyrone ;)
Sledging is pet and parcel of it 'tell her ma I'll drop her knickers back later' etc etc. And you are right it goes both ways. My question is, nearly 35 years ago now, what would a 12-13 year old know about Black north or British bastards or orange c***ts unless they heard it somewhere and were repeating it? They were repeating it as it was coming from the sidelines, not from the players. From adults, and from teachers in some instances. Let that sink in.....
I understand, not something I would ever say to anyone myself and not something I have ever heard said at any match. But I dont doubt you that it happened. Some people havent the brains they were born with and are just scumbags.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Wee man you need to get your story straight. You cannot say that this thread is about the hypocrisy of treating Old IRA in Ireland and more recent IRA in the NI troubles differently and then say it's not about the IRA activities during the troubles in NI.
People's view of the activities of the IRA and others during the troubles is fundamental to your thread, Champion.
"Wee man", you may be intent on throwing this thread away from the free state hypocrisy on their bloody past but that's what this thread is about and you trying to shoe horn your agenda in here is not what it's about.
If you have nothing to say on this topic then stop spamming the board up with your rubbish.
Listen wee man if you think this thread is about the hypocrisy between the people of RoI's view of the armed campaign of the old IRA and their view of a different armed campaign you only have to point out what that other armed campaign is. Your move Champion
"Wee man"
The thread is as the thread title says. Stop spamming.
I've commented before on my personal difficulty reconciling Irish celebration of 1916, the war of independence and the various 19th century risings and common revulsion at the conduct of the various parties in the Troubles, including the IRA. My grandfather, a young man at the time of the war of independence and civil war, fought for the IRA, and was among those who were monitored for years afterwards, once he returned from a few years in the states. I never really knew him personally, but I've heard no one ever refer to him or his colleagues as a terrorist. I have heard how, among that generation, someone being off fighting for the IRA was seen as a noble pursuit in my family.
Maybe any revulsion in the south towards the PIRA and simultaneous celebration of the heroes of old comes down to personal involvement and responsibility. Its easy to celebrate an airbrushed violent struggle from back in the day. You've no control over something far in the past and no responsibility or accountability for what happened. Its rather harder to endorse or lend acceptance to, even reluctantly, the bloody images and actions you see on the TV in real time or to get personally involved if you're not stuck in the middle of it and you or your close ones are not victims of the injustice that gave rise to it. Especially if you don't bother to look into the extreme (and often close personal) violence and horror of what actually took place from 1919-22.
Quote from: J70 on May 12, 2021, 01:41:59 PM
I've commented before on my personal difficulty reconciling Irish celebration of 1916, the war of independence and the various 19th century risings and common revulsion at the conduct of the various parties in the Troubles, including the IRA. My grandfather, a young man at the time of the war of independence and civil war, fought for the IRA, and was among those who were monitored for years afterwards, once he returned from a few years in the states. I never really knew him personally, but I've heard no one ever refer to him or his colleagues as a terrorist. I have heard how, among that generation, someone being off fighting for the IRA was seen as a noble pursuit in my family.
Maybe any revulsion in the south towards the PIRA and simultaneous celebration of the heroes of old comes down to personal involvement and responsibility. Its easy to celebrate an airbrushed violent struggle from back in the day. You've no control over something far in the past and no responsibility or accountability for what happened. Its rather harder to endorse or lend acceptance to, even reluctantly, the bloody images and actions you see on the TV in real time or to get personally involved if you're not stuck in the middle of it and you or your close ones are not victims of the injustice that gave rise to it. Especially if you don't bother to look into the extreme (and often close personal) violence and horror of what actually took place from 1918-22.
I think that's a fair post. And I completely agree that's prob the case. It's easier for some people not to face up to the reality of that the old IRA did. And I think that's the bit that rubs some Northern posters the wrong way when discussing the more recent troubles.
Quote from: J70 on May 12, 2021, 01:41:59 PM
I've commented before on my personal difficulty reconciling Irish celebration of 1916, the war of independence and the various 19th century risings and common revulsion at the conduct of the various parties in the Troubles, including the IRA. My grandfather, a young man at the time of the war of independence and civil war, fought for the IRA, and was among those who were monitored for years afterwards, once he returned from a few years in the states. I never really knew him personally, but I've heard no one ever refer to him or his colleagues as a terrorist. I have heard how, among that generation, someone being off fighting for the IRA was seen as a noble pursuit in my family.
Maybe any revulsion in the south towards the PIRA and simultaneous celebration of the heroes of old comes down to personal involvement and responsibility. Its easy to celebrate an airbrushed violent struggle from back in the day. You've no control over something far in the past and no responsibility or accountability for what happened. Its rather harder to endorse or lend acceptance to, even reluctantly, the bloody images and actions you see on the TV in real time or to get personally involved if you're not stuck in the middle of it and you or your close ones are not victims of the injustice that gave rise to it. Especially if you don't bother to look into the extreme (and often close personal) violence and horror of what actually took place from 1918-22.
Indeed, J70. It's clear that it's easy to look back with rose tinted glasses at a campaign that took place in the early 1920s. The bit that gets me is how so many people (including certain posters here) like to use the metric of civilian casualties as their explanation as to why they consider the PIRA as "psychopaths" and "terrorists", but the Old IRA not; and who, when it's pointed out to them that the Old IRA's proportion of civilian casualties was at the very least equal (and likely higher) to that of the PIRA, still inexplicably cling tight to their initial delusions and steadfastly refuse to challenge/reassess themselves. At that stage, they are not looking at the past through rose tinted glasses. They are just being totally willfully blind to the facts, because it must be just easier to do that than to face up to the possibility of being an absolute sanctimonious hypocrite. It's seemingly much more comfortable to spout the guff that "my granddad didn't do what you bunch of nordie provo psychopaths did" than to face up to the reality that Grandad, in his motivations and actions, was no different to the average PIRA Volunteer. Worth noting, in regards the recency argument too, that the PIRA came along just 50 years later and not 100 years later, as some prefer have us believe.
I think a lot of it is simply down to recency bias, some of it is down to a lack of knowledge, understanding or pure ignorance and then in some cases it is just a few posters so determined to create an argument that they will stick anything up in order to get a reaction. The one that springs to mind regarding the latter is the poster who stated that the old 1916 IRA vintage were a brave group of winners who banished the British whilst the PIRA were a group of cowardly losers or something to that effect.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 12, 2021, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 12, 2021, 01:41:59 PM
I've commented before on my personal difficulty reconciling Irish celebration of 1916, the war of independence and the various 19th century risings and common revulsion at the conduct of the various parties in the Troubles, including the IRA. My grandfather, a young man at the time of the war of independence and civil war, fought for the IRA, and was among those who were monitored for years afterwards, once he returned from a few years in the states. I never really knew him personally, but I've heard no one ever refer to him or his colleagues as a terrorist. I have heard how, among that generation, someone being off fighting for the IRA was seen as a noble pursuit in my family.
Maybe any revulsion in the south towards the PIRA and simultaneous celebration of the heroes of old comes down to personal involvement and responsibility. Its easy to celebrate an airbrushed violent struggle from back in the day. You've no control over something far in the past and no responsibility or accountability for what happened. Its rather harder to endorse or lend acceptance to, even reluctantly, the bloody images and actions you see on the TV in real time or to get personally involved if you're not stuck in the middle of it and you or your close ones are not victims of the injustice that gave rise to it. Especially if you don't bother to look into the extreme (and often close personal) violence and horror of what actually took place from 1918-22.
I think that's a fair post. And I completely agree that's prob the case. It's easier for some people not to face up to the reality of that the old IRA did. And I think that's the bit that rubs some Northern posters the wrong way when discussing the more recent troubles.
In a nutshell.
But it goes further than that at times as being openly hostile to modern republicans for things that happened in the modern conflict yet Dan Breen and Mick Collins are great fellas (which they are in my mind).
As we see with Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday at lot that got caught up in armed struggle had this visited upon them rather than they go looking for it, just the same as Collins and Breen.
Yes they had a choice and it was the same choice Collins and Breen had, no different.
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
Was the Real IRA, Continuity IRA provided the cars.
Nothing to do with the Provisionals.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Well done. You've won the prize of being biggest gobshite on this board. Congrats. Sure you're very proud.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
So when the numbers games fell apart for you, you now jump to how long the war lasted.
As I said, all over the shop. You'd be best do a Rossfan and say nothin when you get your a$$ handed to you rather than keep digging.
Quote from: red hander on May 12, 2021, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Well done. You've won the prize of being biggest gobshite on this board. Congrats. Sure you're very proud.
Given the competition that's some achievement....
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:54:43 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:23:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:47:50 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:50:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 11, 2021, 11:22:52 PM
It's no surprise that many in the south don't support the armed struggle of the past. Remember most catholics in the north didn't support it at the time.
Did you read the thread title? This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
Not the first time something obvious went over your head.
Look who has got their own wee thread and getting all protective of it.
My point is valid. It's no surprise that people in the south don't buy into the so called justifications of armed struggle in the north. As for the various armed struggles in the south not too many remember them or give them much thought. Ask anyone who was their favourite paedophile Roger Casement or Padraig Pearse and they will probably confess to knowing very little about either character. 100+ years can do that
So we have ignorant free staters passing judgement on a conflict that never impacted them but can't be bothered to do their own history on the founding fathers of their state and the political parties they vote into power?
You keep wanting to discuss the north. This thread is about the bloody violence free staters engaged in to win their own freedom and I haven't heard the same condemnation or seen the mass hand wringing about the numbers they disappeared, the sectarian murders they committed, the elected politicians they assassinated.
Odd that in a thread about that you want to detract away from it.
Like it or not but your own thread is about the north. You say that "freestaters" exhibit "hypocrisy" when dealing with their own violent. For it to be hypocrisy it has to be at odds with their attittude to another violent conflict. Its seemed fairly obvious that the other conflict you were in inferring was the troubles in NI. Indeed one poster stated
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 11:37:49 PM
This is a thread about hoe FSers ignore their own violent and bloody past when moralising on The Troubles?
.
So absolutely the troubles in NI are at the heart of this thread (your thread!).
So no detraction. Keep up the qood work champion
No you are trying to make this about the North.
This is about Free Staters being unwilling to address their own bloody and violent past. It's in the thread title, so you must be illiterate if you can't make that out.
Not illiterate wee man.
I read your reference to hypocrisy. I read your clarification that it's hypocrisy relative to their views on the troubles in NI. You are definitely putting NI at the centre of this. Good thread. Keep up the good work Champion.
You are illiterate "wee man".
The thread title makes no reference to the north. This is about free staters who don't want to address their only bloody past while moralising on using violence to gain a political means.
I am putting the hypocrisy of free staters and how they defend their own violence at the front of it and you are attempting to detract the title away from free staters and their hypocrisy on the actions of the Old IRA.
Here's a brazen example of it yesterday. The leader of the Free State brazenly championing an Old IRA gunman and killer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-criticises-shameful-lack-of-memorial-to-se%C3%A1n-lemass-in-dublin-1.4560841
Wee man you need to get your story straight. You cannot say that this thread is about the hypocrisy of treating Old IRA in Ireland and more recent IRA in the NI troubles differently and then say it's not about the IRA activities during the troubles in NI.
People's view of the activities of the IRA and others during the troubles is fundamental to your thread, Champion.
"Wee man", you may be intent on throwing this thread away from the free state hypocrisy on their bloody past but that's what this thread is about and you trying to shoe horn your agenda in here is not what it's about.
If you have nothing to say on this topic then stop spamming the board up with your rubbish.
Listen wee man if you think this thread is about the hypocrisy between the people of RoI's view of the armed campaign of the old IRA and their view of a different armed campaign you only have to point out what that other armed campaign is. Your move Champion
"Wee man"
The thread is as the thread title says. Stop spamming.
I'm sticking to the letter and the spirit of the title. You are the wee fella that throws the toys out of the pram when someone takes the debate in a direction you don't like.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
I know this is a wind up, but to be fair you are dead right about the Provos and informing. Couldn't wait to tell the Brits what they were doing. If it wasn't for informers it is doubtful if the PIRA would've had any members.
"I'm very confused, Ted. Does 'Angelo' actually want to unite with us Free State bastards? Or does he hate us as much as he hates his Brit bastard neighbours in the North?"
(https://img.sharetv.com/shows/characters/large/father_ted_uk.father_dougal_mcguire.jpg)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2021, 04:26:40 PM
"I'm very confused, Ted. Does 'Angelo' actually want to unite with us Free State bastards? Or does he hate us as much as he hates his Brit bastard neighbours in the North?"
(https://img.sharetv.com/shows/characters/large/father_ted_uk.father_dougal_mcguire.jpg)
He is shooting for a Republic of Tyrone I think.
On the overall subject I don't think it's any surprise that people don't have a consistent view on either the Old IRA or the less Old IRA or the the other terrorist gangs in the troubled or indeed the police or the army.
I would guess that many who might support some of the IRA activity in the troubles would be abhorred by other activities undertaken under the same banner. And the same would apply to any other organisation. The RUC saved a close family member's life. They also briefly operated a shoot to kill policy and were complicit in a smear campaign against inquiries against them on that issue. Do I have a single view of the RUC? No. It would be mad to do so.
Angelo, dear help him is using this thread to try to convince people that somehow people in the south should kinda gloss over the troubles and that hopefully that will clear the path for Brand Sinn Fein. His powers of persuasion are fairly poor. He is about as convincing as Martina Anderson in the European Parliament.
Don't fall for Angelo's stunt. Not only is he trying to simplify matters he wants to simplify them on his terms.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 12, 2021, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
So when the numbers games fell apart for you, you now jump to how long the war lasted.
As I said, all over the shop. You'd be best do a Rossfan and say nothin when you get your a$$ handed to you rather than keep digging.
You don't have to have supported violence 100 years ago to have the passport.
It wasn't obligatory to support violence during the Troubles either
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 04:35:31 PM
On the overall subject I don't think it's any surprise that people don't have a consistent view on either the Old IRA or the less Old IRA or the the other terrorist gangs in the troubled or indeed the police or the army.
I would guess that many who might support some of the IRA activity in the troubles would be abhorred by other activities undertaken under the same banner. And the same would apply to any other organisation. The RUC saved a close family member's life. They also briefly operated a shoot to kill policy and were complicit in a smear campaign against inquiries against them on that issue. Do I have a single view of the RUC? No. It would be mad to do so.
Angelo, dear help him is using this thread to try to convince people that somehow people in the south should kinda gloss over the troubles and that hopefully that will clear the path for Brand Sinn Fein. His powers of persuasion are fairly poor. He is about as convincing as Martina Anderson in the European Parliament.
Don't fall for Angelo's stunt. Not only is he trying to simplify matters he wants to simplify them on his terms.
I think the poor chap is in urgent need of psychiatric evaluation. Kind of like Fearon on steroids.
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2021, 04:26:40 PM
"I'm very confused, Ted. Does 'Angelo' actually want to unite with us Free State bastards? Or does he hate us as much as he hates his Brit bastard neighbours in the North?"
(https://img.sharetv.com/shows/characters/large/father_ted_uk.father_dougal_mcguire.jpg)
He is shooting for a Republic of Tyrone I think.
Then he's on safe enough ground there.
I mean, no invader would ever want to colonise that place, would they?
(http://www.conspirazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/black-flags-isis.jpg)
"Listen, Ahmed, when I said we were going to establish a World Islamic Caliphate, I didn't mean that shithole - it's too full of mad bastards!"
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 04:36:07 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 12, 2021, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
So when the numbers games fell apart for you, you now jump to how long the war lasted.
As I said, all over the shop. You'd be best do a Rossfan and say nothin when you get your a$$ handed to you rather than keep digging.
You don't have to have supported violence 100 years ago to have the passport.
It wasn't obligatory to support violence during the Troubles either
True. Completely irrelevant to what we were posting, but true all the same.
Quote from: trailer on May 12, 2021, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
I know this is a wind up, but to be fair you are dead right about the Provos and informing. Couldn't wait to tell the Brits what they were doing. If it wasn't for informers it is doubtful if the PIRA would've had any members.
Not strictly true, but most of the ones that lived through it.....would be under suspicion.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 04:43:16 PM
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
I'm sure most of us get what's really going on here.
You want to shame "Free Staters" who deny/defend what their long dead ancestors did 100 years ago, in order to deflect from any attempt to make you own up to what your contemporaries did in the (relatively) recent past.
What I don't get is this. In pointing out that the "heroes" of the Rising and the Revolutionary War etc were often, in fact, psychopathic, sectarian murderers etc, how do you hope at the same time to persuade Free Staters that they should now vote for those people who claim their legitimacy derives in a direct line from those self-same psycho's?
Or have I got it wrong, and that the term "Provisional", as in IRA and Sinn Fein, comes from the inalienable right of every native-born Irishman to acquire a Driving Licence, rather than from the Proclamation of 1916?
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 04:43:16 PM
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
Having a bad day Champion?
Don't know what you are talking about. You would have to admit that I have engaged meaningfully in the subject. Any thoughts on my view that everyone has a range of views on these things? Presumably you also have a range of views? Do you for example have a single rationale that explains/justifies/rationalises say all of the modern IRA's activities?
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Is this satire or are you a total arsehole?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2021, 04:42:17 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2021, 04:26:40 PM
"I'm very confused, Ted. Does 'Angelo' actually want to unite with us Free State bastards? Or does he hate us as much as he hates his Brit bastard neighbours in the North?"
(https://img.sharetv.com/shows/characters/large/father_ted_uk.father_dougal_mcguire.jpg)
He is shooting for a Republic of Tyrone I think.
Then he's on safe enough ground there.
I mean, no invader would ever want to colonise that place, would they?
(http://www.conspirazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/black-flags-isis.jpg)
"Listen, Ahmed, when I said we were going to establish a World Islamic Caliphate, I didn't mean that shithole - it's too full of mad bastards!"
I would only agree to a free Tyrone if they were forced to stop country and western music and line dancing which is a even worse crime than anything the Old IRA did anywhere.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:55:54 AM
Seafoid, you seem to have gone to ground in the Indo thread. Maybe I'll repeat the question here.
If the PIRA were terrorist psychopaths, then surely the Old IRA must have been too, since they killed at least the same proportion of civilians, and likely a higher proportion. If not, can you explain why not? I ask this because you have repeatedly used the PIRA's proportion of civilian casualties as your reason for terming them as terrorist psychopaths.
The war of Independence lasted 3 years.
How long were the PIRA killing people? I said that the longer the war was the higher the likelihood of psychopaths pulling the strings.
Or was Omagh a legimate target ?
So all along you were claiming it was the proportion of civilian deaths that made the PIRA terrorists. Now that you've learned the Old IRA killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians, you are changing the goalposts to say it all comes down to the duration of the conflicts in question? Took you a while to come up with that absolute excuse for an answer.
The Old IRA campaign was indeed shorter. In just one tenth of the time it took the Provos to disappear 14 people, the Old IRA disappeared between 150 and 200 people (mostly civilian). By your logic was that then ok because they did so in a short timeframe? Maybe you'd argue that a group that killed and disappeared up to 200 people in just three years was psychopathic for the entirity of their campaign?
Is civilians making up circa 35% of an organisation's victims ok with you provided they do it with a timely efficiency?
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Listen here bucko, our friends from the 6 counties have won more all irelands than your crappy little county. So seems to me you're speaking for no one in the 26 counties only yourself you sad little gobshite.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 04:43:16 PM
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
Having a bad day Champion?
Don't know what you are talking about. You would have to admit that I have engaged meaningfully in the subject. Any thoughts on my view that everyone has a range of views on these things? Presumably you also have a range of views? Do you for example have a single rationale that explains/justifies/rationalises say all of the modern IRA's activities?
You're trying hard to change the narrative of this thread.
It's about free state hypocrisy on their own bloody past. Seems you are intent on changing the discussion to anything but.
Strange
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 04:43:16 PM
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
Having a bad day Champion?
Don't know what you are talking about. You would have to admit that I have engaged meaningfully in the subject. Any thoughts on my view that everyone has a range of views on these things? Presumably you also have a range of views? Do you for example have a single rationale that explains/justifies/rationalises say all of the modern IRA's activities?
You're trying hard to change the narrative of this thread.
It's about free state hypocrisy on their own bloody past. Seems you are intent on changing the discussion to anything but.
While you're trying equally hard to frame the narrative so as to force it down your own preferred route.
Unfortunately however, other people don't have to play your little game.
Worse still, when they decline to do so, you can no longer drag them into an alleyway, re-arrange their kneecaps and redirect them back onto your "approved road". (That was a metaphor, btw)
Which is just the lesson SF had had to learn since they emerged, blinking and bloodied, from the ruins of a failed "armed struggle" and into the daylight of constitutional politics.
Free speech, eh?
It can be a right bitch sometimes... ::)
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Is that 40% of the Catholic Population of Nothern Ireland?
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Ah yes.
Support justifies murder.
You really incapable of constructing a coherent argument for double standards.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Wrong, massively wrong.
A recap of some of today's contributions.
Seafoid thinks the Old IRA murdering people was fine because the people backed their murderous campaign
Rossfan thinks sectarian murders down in Cork was justifiable because it was the Old IIRA who commited them.
Smelmoth has spent the day trying to spam up a thread with anything but the central subject.
Clonadmad's mother allowed him skip school today.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:29:20 PM
A recap of some of today's contributions.
Seafoid thinks the Old IRA murdering people was fine because the people backed their murderous campaign
Rossfan thinks sectarian murders down in Cork was justifiable because it was the Old IIRA who commited them.
Smelmoth has spent the day trying to spam up a thread with anything but the central subject.
Clonadmad's mother allowed him skip school today.
You don't need to kill as many people, Angelo.
It's a lot harder to win a war starting from a base of 20%
That was the PIRAs problem. That and the power of the British Army.
That's why it took so long to get to stalemate.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 08:29:20 PM
A recap of some of today's contributions.
Seafoid thinks the Old IRA murdering people was fine because the people backed their murderous campaign
Rossfan thinks sectarian murders down in Cork was justifiable because it was the Old IIRA who commited them.
Smelmoth has spent the day trying to spam up a thread with anything but the central subject.
Clonadmad's mother allowed him skip school today.
You don't need to kill as many people, Angelo.
It's a lot harder to win a war starting from a base of 20%
That was the PIRAs problem. That and the power of the British Army.
That's why it took so long to get to stalemate.
I just found it an odd justification that killing people is ok if you have support to do so.
Your logic would justify what the Israelis are doing at present.
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 04:43:16 PM
Seems a raw nerve has been struck with a few posters.
A lot of them are willing to run their mouths off but can't address the subject matter of the topic.
Now I wonder why that would be.
Having a bad day Champion?
Don't know what you are talking about. You would have to admit that I have engaged meaningfully in the subject. Any thoughts on my view that everyone has a range of views on these things? Presumably you also have a range of views? Do you for example have a single rationale that explains/justifies/rationalises say all of the modern IRA's activities?
You're trying hard to change the narrative of this thread.
It's about free state hypocrisy on their own bloody past. Seems you are intent on changing the discussion to anything but.
Strange
I'm sticking strictly to the thread. You claim there is hypocrisy. What is the hypocrisy? People are free to criticise or not criticise their bloody past. You are trying to expose a double standard between one bloody past and another bloody past without actually discussing the second of those 2 histories. Truly strange.
I have given you a context in which people will have inconsistent views on the activities of 1 group in 1 conflict. How can you surprise that people might have than one view over multiple conflicts??
Unless you are going to tell me that you have a single view on all the PIRA activities in the troubles? That would be interesting. But my case is you won't answer the question.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Interesting numbers. Both them. Source?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Interesting numbers. Both them. Source?
SF had a landslide in the 1918 election. Catholics in S. Ireland were at least 80% and strongly nationalist
In NI in the late 60s the catholic population was max 40% and taking half as supporting the armed struggle would be generous.
There's a parallel with the SNP in Scotland now. They don't have enough of a majority to definitely win an independence vote. They would need to be at 70% or more for that,
In NI the population now is split 50/50.
Clearly people in the south/free staters don't understand what the IRA and their 25 odd year bombings campaign/freedom struggle was all about. They were busy bringing terror, pain and suffering to the people of the UK detonating home made explosive devices and people like us are showing them no respect. Just think about that. All those innocent people hurt, maimed or killed over two decades.....
So what it their campaign was a failure, has not brought a united Ireland any closer and only succeeded in inflicting pain and suffering on to so many families. When IRA volunteers were planting bombs in non military civilian areas like Canary Wharf and Warrington they were doing it for Irish freedom and we should all remember these brave freedom fighters.
I wonder in 100 years time will people in the south/free staters look back on our noble IRA freedom fighters from the 70s to the 90s and show them the respect we apparently don't show them......
Seafoid changing the goalposts for a second time today
out of a sheer desperation to convince himself he isn't a complete hypocrite and pulling stats out of thin air to help him out.
The Easter Rising was deeply unpopular when it happened. Were Clarke, Connolly et al a bunch of terrorist psychopaths?
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 08:53:57 PM
Clearly people in the south/free staters don't understand what the IRA and their 25 odd year bombings campaign/freedom struggle was all about. They were busy bringing terror, pain and suffering to the people of the UK detonating home made explosive devices and people like us are showing them no respect. Just think about that. All those innocent people hurt, maimed or killed over two decades.....
So what it their campaign was a failure, has not brought a united Ireland any closer and only succeeded in inflicting pain and suffering on to so many families. When IRA volunteers were planting bombs in non military civilian areas like Canary Wharf and Warrington they were doing it for Irish freedom and we should all remember these brave freedom fighters.
I wonder in 100 years time will people in the south/free staters look back on our noble IRA freedom fighters from the 70s to the 90s and show them the respect we apparently don't show them......
Well given that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and probably a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did, one can only hope you regard them as terrorist murderers too?
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 08:53:57 PM
Clearly people in the south/free staters don't understand what the IRA and their 25 odd year bombings campaign/freedom struggle was all about. They were busy bringing terror, pain and suffering to the people of the UK detonating home made explosive devices and people like us are showing them no respect. Just think about that. All those innocent people hurt, maimed or killed over two decades.....
So what it their campaign was a failure, has not brought a united Ireland any closer and only succeeded in inflicting pain and suffering on to so many families. When IRA volunteers were planting bombs in non military civilian areas like Canary Wharf and Warrington they were doing it for Irish freedom and we should all remember these brave freedom fighters.
I wonder in 100 years time will people in the south/free staters look back on our noble IRA freedom fighters from the 70s to the 90s and show them the respect we apparently don't show them......
You know nothing John Snow
Seafood writes lovely long prose, the main purpose of which is to make himself look clever. But if you strip it back its clear he hasn't a f**king notion about the conflict in the 6 counties and I'd hazard a guess he wasn't even slightly touched by that conflict. For me there is little or no difference between old ira and provos, both had a legitimate case to bear arms. Within each campaign were unjustifiable actions which cannot be supported or celebrated.
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Why do you only want to talk about PIRA's innocent victims?
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2021, 06:01:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Is this satire or are you a total arsehole?
Armagh is still part of the Uk
You will get up to tomorrow and spend money with the queens face on it
A daily reminder that the Provos at any point couldn't even free the square in crossmaglen
What did the Provos actually achieve?
The north is still part of the UK and their political wing sit in a Mickey Mouse parliament that is answerable to London
So much for the dream of a 32 county socialist republic
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 10:12:17 PM
Why do you only want to talk about PIRA's innocent victims?
Because some people here think the PIRA could do no wrong.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 10:26:18 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 12, 2021, 06:01:19 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 12, 2021, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 11, 2021, 09:47:53 PM
The Indo thread has gone off on a tangent.
The usual anti-SF trolls have tried to turn it into a Provo bashing thread but without addressing their hypocrisy on how they continue to ignore the barbaric, heinous and sectarian attacks the Old IRA committed in their fight for freedom and subsequent betrayal of the past.
Now we've seen the same guys in action - Seafoid, Mouview, Hound, Rossfan all jumping in with revisionism, all attacking the PIRA and The Troubles. All attempting to turn a thread on the bias and toxic nature of the Independent newspaper into a SF/PIRA bashing exercise. In the interest of balance it's important we flesh out their position on violent means to an end in terms with politics.
I don't expect any of these guys to participate in this thread as their sanctimony is hollow. They don't want to address the fact that the soapbox they use to show us how much morally superior than us "nordies" is hollow.
I think some of the comments today have been utterly disgraceful. I know I might piss an awful lot of some of you on here but surely you can recognise and appreciate the fact I am 100% right to call out these sad little people and their bigotry.
Congratulations and well done to all the contributors on here from the Republic of Ireland who are continuing to rile up this British subject with historical accuracy.
We live in a modern secular proud European country thanks to the achievements of the likes of Tom Barry and Dan Breen in driving the British Out
The Fact that our loser northern brethren couldn't drive the British out of an acre of ground in the 6 north eastern counties is a reflection on them as opposed to the south abandoning them which we often hear them crying about.
They made a slightly greater attempt at brits out during the troubles
Maybe it might have succeeded if a large portion of them were so morally weak that they had to inform on each other to the British
And they also lost that "war"
With them reduced to enforcing British rule on a part of this island for the past 25 years
Is this satire or are you a total arsehole?
Armagh is still part of the Uk
You will get up to tomorrow and spend money with the queens face on it
A daily reminder that the Provos at any point couldn't even free the square in crossmaglen
What did the Provos actually achieve?
The north is still part of the UK and their political wing sit in a Mickey Mouse parliament that is answerable to London
So much for the dream of a 32 county socialist republic
Arlene has too much time on her hands now shes stepped down.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Interesting numbers. Both them. Source?
SF had a landslide in the 1918 election. Catholics in S. Ireland were at least 80% and strongly nationalist
In NI in the late 60s the catholic population was max 40% and taking half as supporting the armed struggle would be generous.
There's a parallel with the SNP in Scotland now. They don't have enough of a majority to definitely win an independence vote. They would need to be at 70% or more for that,
In NI the population now is split 50/50.
They sure did win by a landslide but I doubt if the methods they used to achieve this could be used today. The returns saw SF winning 73 seats, the unionists won26 and the old parliamentary party only won 6.
So the shinners won comfortably or so it seemed.
They were returned unopposed in 26 constituencies because they had kindly offered to shoot any nationalist who stood against them and the old redmondites were unable to find candidates to stand for them in the places where the Shinners had a clear run.
According toi the historian JC Beckettt: " The victory was less sweeping than it seemed; it received less than half the votes in the remainder, and it is very probable that a a good many of those votes reflected anger against the government and contempt for the home rule party than convinced support for a full republican programme. But this did not alter the fact that Sinn Fein could now claim, with justice, to represent majority opinion in Ireland."
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I'd be keen to see what posters thinks there was no wrong doing by the PIRA?
Pointing out a poster's hypocrisy can add context to the debate and highlights inconsistencies in their argument. This "whataboutary" has certainly tied a few people in knots.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 12, 2021, 10:49:22 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Interesting numbers. Both them. Source?
SF had a landslide in the 1918 election. Catholics in S. Ireland were at least 80% and strongly nationalist
In NI in the late 60s the catholic population was max 40% and taking half as supporting the armed struggle would be generous.
There's a parallel with the SNP in Scotland now. They don't have enough of a majority to definitely win an independence vote. They would need to be at 70% or more for that,
In NI the population now is split 50/50.
They sure did win by a landslide but I doubt if the methods they used to achieve this could be used today. The returns saw SF winning 73 seats, the unionists won26 and the old parliamentary party only won 6.
So the shinners won comfortably or so it seemed.
They were returned unopposed in 26 constituencies because they had kindly offered to shoot any nationalist who stood against them and the old redmondites were unable to find candidates to stand for them in the places where the Shinners had a clear run.
According toi the historian JC Beckettt: " The victory was less sweeping than it seemed; it received less than half the votes in the remainder, and it is very probable that a a good many of those votes reflected anger against the government and contempt for the home rule party than convinced support for a full republican programme. But this did not alter the fact that Sinn Fein could now claim, with justice, to represent majority opinion in Ireland."
It wasn't a clean transition but once it was done thre was no turning back. There was a tipping point after the 1916 executions that did for Home Rule. The way of the gun won. The trauma afterwards wasn't costed.
Staying in the Union would have been more profitable but it was rejected.Compare to Scotland.
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Pretty sad that the cold blooded murder of felloe Irish men and women, often shot in the back etc, can be described as wholly legitimate.
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Pretty sad that the cold blooded murder of felloe Irish men and women, often shot in the back etc, can be described as wholly legitimate.
Yip. And the reasons why it got to that point were pretty sad too. Or maybe the croppies should have lay down.
*EDIT*
Were you only talking about RUC members shot in the back in cold blood beimg "sad"? It was also sad how many were shot in the back in cold blood by the RUC either directly, or through the RUCs collusion with loyalist paramilitary gangs.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 12, 2021, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I'd be keen to see what posters thinks there was no wrong doing by the PIRA?
Pointing out a poster's hypocrisy can add context to the debate and highlights inconsistencies in their argument. This "whataboutary" has certainly tied a few people in knots.
Yeah I'd also like to know who on earth ever said the IRA (old or new) never did any wrong? I've yet to see anyone on here try to defend the likes of Omagh?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Murdered absolute scores of RIC men too.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
Your comments are probably the most inflammatory on this board. That is saying something.
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 12, 2021, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2021, 08:15:04 PM
One of the big differences between the Old IRA and the PIRA was the level of popular support. the Old IRA had over 80% of the population onside
The PIRA didn't even have 40%.
That is a massive difference in a revolutionary war.
Interesting numbers. Both them. Source?
SF had a landslide in the 1918 election. Catholics in S. Ireland were at least 80% and strongly nationalist
In NI in the late 60s the catholic population was max 40% and taking half as supporting the armed struggle would be generous.
There's a parallel with the SNP in Scotland now. They don't have enough of a majority to definitely win an independence vote. They would need to be at 70% or more for that,
In NI the population now is split 50/50.
No harm to you but your numbers are plucked assumptions. What is the evidence that these people supported the related armed struggle?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 09:08:16 PM
Seafoid changing the goalposts for a second time today
out of a sheer desperation to convince himself he isn't a complete hypocrite and pulling stats out of thin air to help him out.
The Easter Rising was deeply unpopular when it happened. Were Clarke, Connolly et al a bunch of terrorist psychopaths?
Good you to admit how unpopular the Easter Rising actually was.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 13, 2021, 09:23:29 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
Your comments are probably the most inflammatory on this board. That is saying something.
It's not inflammatory. It's just attention seeking. Very easily dealt with
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
Who hates the old IRA on here? They were heroes. Surprised yous boys dont hate them though.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
While I wouldn't word it quite like that, that is a key difference when PIRA defenders on here start whataboutering about what happened 100 years ago.
There were some horrible things done back then by the lies of Michael Collins, but their actions led to the Irish Free state and what is now the ROI.
The French resistance carried out some horrible acts in WWII as part of the campaign to force the Nazi army out of France.
The PIRA have nothing to show for their 25 year campaign, which at one stage deliberately targeted non-military (what they call economic) targets in England as their campaign was getting nowhere in NI.
The DUP with their self harm and Brexit have done more to bring a united Ireland closer in the last few months than anything the PIRA did. That must leave the PIRA defenders on here very conflicted.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
While I wouldn't word it quite like that, that is a key difference when PIRA defenders on here start whataboutering about what happened 100 years ago.
There were some horrible things done back then by the lies of Michael Collins, but their actions led to the Irish Free state and what is now the ROI.
The French resistance carried out some horrible acts in WWII as part of the campaign to force the Nazi army out of France.
The PIRA have nothing to show for their 25 year campaign, which at one stage deliberately targeted non-military (what they call economic) targets in England as their campaign was getting nowhere in NI.
The DUP with their self harm and Brexit have done more to bring a united Ireland closer in the last few months than anything the PIRA did. That must leave the PIRA defenders on here very conflicted.
Their actions led to the partition of the island and threw natioanlists into decades of institutional discrimination and violence.
So if anything that makes it even worse for the Old IRA.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Pretty sad that the cold blooded murder of felloe Irish men and women, often shot in the back etc, can be described as wholly legitimate.
The RUC was a disgraced organisation (I am sure you recall it was done away with) and so were the B Specials. Colluded with loyalists and british army to murder civilians. Its was a dirty business but in the conflict in the North they were as legitimate a target as anyone was - I assume you feel that it was legitimate for British Army to shoot IRA men? If anything the shooting of RIC men would have been much more controversial back in the day given the make up of that force had a much higher proportion of nationalists.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
While I wouldn't word it quite like that, that is a key difference when PIRA defenders on here start whataboutering about what happened 100 years ago.
There were some horrible things done back then by the lies of Michael Collins, but their actions led to the Irish Free state and what is now the ROI.
The French resistance carried out some horrible acts in WWII as part of the campaign to force the Nazi army out of France.
The PIRA have nothing to show for their 25 year campaign, which at one stage deliberately targeted non-military (what they call economic) targets in England as their campaign was getting nowhere in NI.
The DUP with their self harm and Brexit have done more to bring a united Ireland closer in the last few months than anything the PIRA did. That must leave the PIRA defenders on here very conflicted.
So what you are saying is, if the PIRA campaign had been successful in reunifiying Ireland, the fact that 35% of their victims were civilians would then have been OK then? Given that at least 35% of Old IRA victims were civilians (and some estimates put it higher), I assume you would today regard them as just a bunch of ruthless terrorists had they not got the brits out of 26 of the counties?
You only decide if an armed campaign was "terrorist" when it's over and you can see whether it suceeded or not?
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:53:19 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Pretty sad that the cold blooded murder of felloe Irish men and women, often shot in the back etc, can be described as wholly legitimate.
The RUC was a disgraced organisation (I am sure you recall it was done away with) and so were the B Specials. Colluded with loyalists and british army to murder civilians. Its was a dirty business but in the conflict in the North they were as legitimate a target as anyone was - I assume you feel that it was legitimate for British Army to shoot IRA men? If anything the shooting of RIC men would have been much more controversial back in the day given the make up of that force had a much higher proportion of nationalists.
So it's more acceptable to shoot protestants / unionists?
https://www.facebook.com/247386520194/posts/10165565489095195/
Who wrote it?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
The armed campaign was a campaign of killing. You cannot say you approve of the campaign but not the killing. There is no logical basis to what you say.
If Francis Hughes didn't want someone to be killed he would have been well advised (if he hadn't the wit to work it out himself) not to shoot them.
Sorry to be logical about the whole thing
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 10:01:35 AM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:53:19 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
Pretty sad that the cold blooded murder of felloe Irish men and women, often shot in the back etc, can be described as wholly legitimate.
The RUC was a disgraced organisation (I am sure you recall it was done away with) and so were the B Specials. Colluded with loyalists and british army to murder civilians. Its was a dirty business but in the conflict in the North they were as legitimate a target as anyone was - I assume you feel that it was legitimate for British Army to shoot IRA men? If anything the shooting of RIC men would have been much more controversial back in the day given the make up of that force had a much higher proportion of nationalists.
So it's more acceptable to shoot protestants / unionists?
I never mentioned protestants. It is a rare thing if I do, I dont see conflict in this country as based on religion and I have nothing but complete contempt for Catholic and Protestant churches and all the rest too.
Back to the jist of you're comment. I never said it was ok to shoot a unionist as in any unionist. The truth is blowing up Canary Wharf was a much more useful act for the IRA than shooting people in the 6 counties as when big business in the UK complains the politicians listen.
Who was searched regularly as a teenager, spreadeagled against a wall purely because of your name and birthplace?
Who had their school buses stopped by soldiers on a regular basis, school bags searched, called stupid paddy bastards?
Who had helicopters land in their back yard, throwing stones up smashing windows?
Who had their 'fort' that they built with their mates in their back yard turned into an army surveillance point?
Who had to play football as a kid whilst guns were pointing directly at you from a look out post that wouldn't look amiss in an Eastern Bloc country under Communist rule at the time?
Who walked down the street and watched as a soldier traced their steps with his assault rifle aimed directly at them?
Who had people they grew up with shot dead or seriously injured?
Who had their car searched 18 times in the one day, 1 single day, because they lived in a ring of steel and couldn't travel 2 miles without being stopped at a permanent check point?
We may question the reason for starting the war but there is absolutely no doubt that the actions of the governing bodies and the army exacerbated the situation. I have given small examples of what my life growing up was like and I was pretty lucky as there was no sectarianism where I was. My family and I had a few sliding doors moments whereby it could have gone either way. I was born at the height of the Glennane Gangs killings and my father very nearly got caught up in one of the incidents. My uncle was there, my great uncle was there, people who I later in life became very friendly with lost their family members in it, yet members of the Irish establishment, MSM, government etc want us basically to do what I posted in the Waterford Whispers article, 'get over yourselves'. I was born the same day, in the same hospital, in the same ward as someone whose father was shot dead 2 days later by a loyalist gang, colluding with the security forces, whilst out wetting their head. She never saw her father. How does she get over herself?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2021, 10:38:36 AM
Who was searched regularly as a teenager, spreadeagled against a wall purely because of your name and birthplace?
Who had their school buses stopped by soldiers on a regular basis, school bags searched, called stupid paddy bastards?
Who had helicopters land in their back yard, throwing stones up smashing windows?
Who had their 'fort' that they built with their mates in their back yard turned into an army surveillance point?
Who had to play football as a kid whilst guns were pointing directly at you from a look out post that wouldn't look amiss in an Eastern Bloc country under Communist rule at the time?
Who walked down the street and watched as a soldier traced their steps with his assault rifle aimed directly at them?
Who had people they grew up with shot dead or seriously injured?
Who had their car searched 18 times in the one day, 1 single day, because they lived in a ring of steel and couldn't travel 2 miles without being stopped at a permanent check point?
We may question the reason for starting the war but there is absolutely no doubt that the actions of the governing bodies and the army exacerbated the situation. I have given small examples of what my life growing up was like and I was pretty lucky as there was no sectarianism where I was. My family and I had a few sliding doors moments whereby it could have gone either way. I was born at the height of the Glennane Gangs killings and my father very nearly got caught up in one of the incidents. My uncle was there, my great uncle was there, people who I later in life became very friendly with lost their family members in it, yet members of the Irish establishment, MSM, government etc want us basically to do what I posted in the Waterford Whispers article, 'get over yourselves'. I was born the same day, in the same hospital, in the same ward as someone whose father was shot dead 2 days later by a loyalist gang, colluding with the security forces, whilst out wetting their head. She never saw her father. How does she get over herself?
Great post BCB.
What a lot of the out of touch free staters don't understand is how patronising it is to diminish and dismiss someone The Troubles in the callous manner they do.
It's the lowest of the low for me the way we have a cohort of arond 10 posters on here (Seafoid, Rossfan, Hound etc) who want to comment authoritatively on The Troubles, on the rights and wrongs when they have no pratical experience of living in a sectarian state. I was born in the 80s. I don't remember too much of the really dark days but I can remember checkpoints and I can remember the worry and anxiety they would have caused my parents when they came across them. I can remember the stories from my parents, my relatives, my friends parents of all the intimidation and discrimination they faced in their daily lives.
A spell under the Brits would have done them no harm maybe, their outlook might have changed.
The thing that really bothers me though is these people and the establishment parties down south who only refer to The Troubles to score political points, never out of care or to gain justice, only in a bid to slur a political rival, a political rival who was at the heart of a community who was brutalised by a sectarian state.
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2021, 10:38:36 AM
Who was searched regularly as a teenager, spreadeagled against a wall purely because of your name and birthplace?
Who had their school buses stopped by soldiers on a regular basis, school bags searched, called stupid paddy bastards?
Who had helicopters land in their back yard, throwing stones up smashing windows?
Who had their 'fort' that they built with their mates in their back yard turned into an army surveillance point?
Who had to play football as a kid whilst guns were pointing directly at you from a look out post that wouldn't look amiss in an Eastern Bloc country under Communist rule at the time?
Who walked down the street and watched as a soldier traced their steps with his assault rifle aimed directly at them?
Who had people they grew up with shot dead or seriously injured?
Who had their car searched 18 times in the one day, 1 single day, because they lived in a ring of steel and couldn't travel 2 miles without being stopped at a permanent check point?
We may question the reason for starting the war but there is absolutely no doubt that the actions of the governing bodies and the army exacerbated the situation. I have given small examples of what my life growing up was like and I was pretty lucky as there was no sectarianism where I was. My family and I had a few sliding doors moments whereby it could have gone either way. I was born at the height of the Glennane Gangs killings and my father very nearly got caught up in one of the incidents. My uncle was there, my great uncle was there, people who I later in life became very friendly with lost their family members in it, yet members of the Irish establishment, MSM, government etc want us basically to do what I posted in the Waterford Whispers article, 'get over yourselves'. I was born the same day, in the same hospital, in the same ward as someone whose father was shot dead 2 days later by a loyalist gang, colluding with the security forces, whilst out wetting their head. She never saw her father. How does she get over herself?
Excellent post. Although I was born 20 minutes drive South of the border and have family all along the border, its amazing how mild our experiences were in comparison. People further South just had very little to no interaction. But I do remember going through the border checkpoints, kids with guns pointing them into the cars. I remember being caught up in a couple of bomb scares. I find it pretty disgusting when I see and hear the apathy coming from some in the South but you know most of it comes from a place of ignorance not malice. Southern governments tried to keep us apathetic to the North I feel for fear we would drag an ill prepared republic into conflict.
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2021, 10:38:36 AM
Who was searched regularly as a teenager, spreadeagled against a wall purely because of your name and birthplace?
Who had their school buses stopped by soldiers on a regular basis, school bags searched, called stupid paddy bastards?
Who had helicopters land in their back yard, throwing stones up smashing windows?
Who had their 'fort' that they built with their mates in their back yard turned into an army surveillance point?
Who had to play football as a kid whilst guns were pointing directly at you from a look out post that wouldn't look amiss in an Eastern Bloc country under Communist rule at the time?
Who walked down the street and watched as a soldier traced their steps with his assault rifle aimed directly at them?
Who had people they grew up with shot dead or seriously injured?
Who had their car searched 18 times in the one day, 1 single day, because they lived in a ring of steel and couldn't travel 2 miles without being stopped at a permanent check point?
We may question the reason for starting the war but there is absolutely no doubt that the actions of the governing bodies and the army exacerbated the situation. I have given small examples of what my life growing up was like and I was pretty lucky as there was no sectarianism where I was. My family and I had a few sliding doors moments whereby it could have gone either way. I was born at the height of the Glennane Gangs killings and my father very nearly got caught up in one of the incidents. My uncle was there, my great uncle was there, people who I later in life became very friendly with lost their family members in it, yet members of the Irish establishment, MSM, government etc want us basically to do what I posted in the Waterford Whispers article, 'get over yourselves'. I was born the same day, in the same hospital, in the same ward as someone whose father was shot dead 2 days later by a loyalist gang, colluding with the security forces, whilst out wetting their head. She never saw her father. How does she get over herself?
Excellent post. Although I was born 20 minutes drive South of the border and have family all along the border, its amazing how mild our experiences were in comparison. People further South just had very little to no interaction. But I do remember going through the border checkpoints, kids with guns pointing them into the cars. I remember being caught up in a couple of bomb scares. I find it pretty disgusting when I see and hear the apathy coming from some in the South but you know most of it comes from a place of ignorance not malice. Southern governments tried to keep us apathetic to the North I feel for fear we would drag an ill prepared republic into conflict.
I was born 20 minutes the other side of it - so little distance, such a massive difference. Some in the South will never truly understand it. It's not their fault, they just don't know.
I think it's true that people who grew up in the south do not know what it was like to have grown up in the north in that area. It can't be surprising.
It's also true that people growing up as a nationalist in crossmaglen would have had a different experience than someone growing up as a nationalist in Craigavon at the same time. Many similarities. Many differences. In some ways better. In others worse. A nationalist on the Malone Road would have had a different experience again.
I would have share some of BCB's experiences but not all. And probably had worse experiences from a purely sectarian perspective.
But we have be very careful that we don't equate accurate descriptions of the problems of NI with a justification for the violent response of some to those problems. Noting of course that the violent response very often made things worse.
There should be no denial of the abuses that took place here. And if you try to justify violence you can expect to be challenged and asked to explain
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
The last post sums it up really. In any walk of life, a border can be difference in night and day. We lived not on border but close enough, lot moved into our area to either flee the North or flee authorities. That was our main interaction in the troubles unless you ventured north.
The 60s, 70s and 80s you where led the six news and print media. There was little other news sources bar word of mouth. But people's motives in south very different to those in North. Everyone had their own battles - employment, housing, emigration and all that came with those. Religion was so dominate, politics even in the 26 was so hostile and attritional. People in Wexford, Longford, Clare where far removed from what was happening up North as an example. Is it their own fault? Or the way things where at the time? Can you drill it down to an individual narrative where own needs dominated their thoughts and actions or a collective will driven at national media and those in political power.
In that age the war of independence was still very raw and families still labelled each other for which side their relatives had taken.
I don't think it was a decision taken to ignore what was happening up North but that on a day to day basis, people had their own battles to fight. We can still see the fall out from those times with the church scandals.
Politically, yes, greater efforts could be done. A country that was still finding its feet and stumbling from one economic crisis to another and viewed very much as a political back water on international stage may have had limited influence but should have sought it out.
The 90s saw a much more confident 26 with growing international standing and I don't think it can be denied that this influence helped bring about peace and the GFA. Also, into the 2000s people can find their own news sources and much more open in delivering and receiving unbiased and factual news without agendas or influence. People more able to make their own minds up. In more recent times this has gone other way, where people are driven to extremes with fake news, a term I don't like but is their another name for it.
Over the years, I don't think their is a conscious decision to ignore or judge what has happened up North. What happened done here 100 years ago took along time to heal and has been painted as a glorious episode in history when it was far from it and took generations to heal rifts in communities and between families.
There is a lot of wind up posts here and on other threads. But you can't ignore the reality of what was endured daily by many up north and those that paid ultimate cost. BC1 post is very real.
Waterford Whispers can be very funny but rarely do they miss and it's satire at its best. Their headline is very reflective of the modern age "get on with it". Every thing is instant and entitlement. People care more about themselves than at any other time in history, because they have so much. A 30 year old would have no concept of what the troubles was like. Is it their fault?
Sinn Fein have greatly benefited from this as the baggage that FF and FG like to throw at them (which isn't naive at best and politically a poor strategy) means nothing to a lot of the 20-40 year old voters. They see very little of relevance to them if the past.
Raffling a bit but basically this isn't a straightforward topic with many sides and outcomes.
As they say History looks favourably on the winner. That's why maybe the 1916 to 1920s is remembered romantically by many in the 26 and with no victor, if that is right phrase, in 6 history has not decided what way it'll be written yet.
Quote from: Itchy on May 12, 2021, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 12, 2021, 04:26:40 PM
"I'm very confused, Ted. Does 'Angelo' actually want to unite with us Free State bastards? Or does he hate us as much as he hates his Brit bastard neighbours in the North?"
(https://img.sharetv.com/shows/characters/large/father_ted_uk.father_dougal_mcguire.jpg)
He is shooting for a Republic of Tyrone I think.
He's going down the Martina Anderson rabbit hole of being a hindrance to the very goal they want to achieve.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 10:15:47 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
The armed campaign was a campaign of killing. You cannot say you approve of the campaign but not the killing. There is no logical basis to what you say.
If Francis Hughes didn't want someone to be killed he would have been well advised (if he hadn't the wit to work it out himself) not to shoot them.
Sorry to be logical about the whole thing
"The armed campaign was a campaign of killing" - You don't say. Can you tell me an armed campaign anywhere in history that wasn't? Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people? Or is it perhaps possible that they felt there was no realistic alternative to resist, for instance, a sectarian regime specifically designed to keep them as a second class citizen?
Unless of course Michael Collins was just a bloodthirsty, stone cold murderer who just loved killing people? Is that what you're telling me?
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
Show me war where there are no innocent victims? Show me a conflict where there are no mistakes? Every war has to also be seen in the context of what is happening around the world and the various different Governments that are ruling. I firmly believe if Labour had been more competent in the early 80's and prevented Thatcher from getting back to back victories there would have been an earlier end to the Troubles. Thatcher ramped it up and this re-radicalised an awful lot of young men to go harder again. The hunger strikes then coupled with army policy in the ground, and the underlying sectarian nature of the rule of law in the North ensured that there was a catholic/nationalist/republican community who actively or passively kept the fight going. Thatcher was dividing England at the time also between the working class and the upper class so NI was an afterthought. Thatcherism was a big contributor to the bombing campaign of the 80's and 90's as it was the only way to get them to the table. Hit them in their heart lands, like Canary Wharf, then they will have to talk.
Was it right? In my opinion, it was inevitable and if there were innocent victims that was wrong but the Government would not come to the table unless their own people were really being targeted. Such is the way of war. Horrible, dirty, nasty, vicious, wicked, but no different to any war that was ever fought.
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Why did nationalist communities not return SF as their representatives
during the Troubles?
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Why did nationalist communities not return SF as their representatives during the Troubles?
Because they were focused on the military campaign, did not take their seats and only began to shift toward consitutional politics post the Hunger strikes. No Stormont election was held 1982-96
I note that when I put a question to you, you were only able to ask a question in return.
I've answered your question, despite the fact you dodged mine.
Why are you afraid to address the question I asked? What will it show that worries or scares you>?
One or two were being returned during the troubles , Sands most notably and Adams in West Belfast, the Armalite and ballot box became the slogan and the first real attempts at politics started, it was rough and eventually it started to gain traction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite_and_ballot_box_strategy
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2021, 01:04:48 PM
Show me war where there are no innocent victims? Show me a conflict where there are no mistakes? Every war has to also be seen in the context of what is happening around the world and the various different Governments that are ruling. I firmly believe if Labour had been more competent in the early 80's and prevented Thatcher from getting back to back victories there would have been an earlier end to the Troubles. Thatcher ramped it up and this re-radicalised an awful lot of young men to go harder again. The hunger strikes then coupled with army policy in the ground, and the underlying sectarian nature of the rule of law in the North ensured that there was a catholic/nationalist/republican community who actively or passively kept the fight going. Thatcher was dividing England at the time also between the working class and the upper class so NI was an afterthought. Thatcherism was a big contributor to the bombing campaign of the 80's and 90's as it was the only way to get them to the table. Hit them in their heart lands, like Canary Wharf, then they will have to talk.
Was it right? In my opinion, it was inevitable and if there were innocent victims that was wrong but the Government would not come to the table unless their own people were really being targeted. Such is the way of war. Horrible, dirty, nasty, vicious, wicked, but no different to any war that was ever fought.
On the comments on Labour, on other side of Atlantic when the peace talks did come about the US and Clinton played a masssive part.
If JFK had of stayed in power in the era when the sectarian violence was going to different level and then the army was sent across, do you think that internationally there may have been more influence onto UK in those days. Was always the chance that Robert may have followed him into the White House and with their influence and Irish connections may more have been done?
America also faced into Vietnam at this time so focus may not have been there too.
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.
Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
SF as a political party only realised their voting support base with Bobby Sands and the hunger strikes and the publicity that gave them IMO. They also set up their local advice centre structures which would build their base from there and prove very successful at it.
The SDLP probably relied on all nationalist votes as a given during this period and to an extent lived up to their middle class ethos which alienated them further in working class nationalist area's with Hume probably being the only exception.
Joe Hendron famously has his West Belfast victory celebrated in South Belfast rather than in the constituency.
All helped in creating the Shinners as the main party for the nationalists in the wee six.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Most certainly not. But my point is, if we take the GFA as a milestone and a game-changer, what in practical terms did SF do to bring about it's achievement? Wasn't it due massively to the patience, perseverance and political skill of John Hume that it was realised?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 13, 2021, 01:38:14 PM
One or two were being returned during the troubles , Sands most notably and Adams in West Belfast, the Armalite and ballot box became the slogan and the first real attempts at politics started, it was rough and eventually it started to gain traction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite_and_ballot_box_strategy
NI politics seem to run in long cycles . Each community has 2 parties, one moderate and one hardline. The SDLP were dominant until a few years after the GFA.
On the Prod side the UUP were dominant. The GFA was worked out primarily between the SDLP and the UUP. The DUP replaced the UUP shortly after.
At some point presumably the moderates will take over. Parties run out of ideas. Maybe the DUP is at that stage now.
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.
Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.
You appear to have no difficulty on lecturing those from the south on their history or politics.
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 02:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
So you're too much of a chickenshit to answer the question I posed to you.
Good to see that you are coming on and telling people from the north that you know better than them about times and situations they lived through.
You appear to have no difficulty on lecturing those from the south on their history or politics.
On their failings to northern natioanlists?
Certainly.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
"The armed campaign was a campaign of killing" - You don't say. Can you tell me an armed campaign anywhere in history that wasn't?
For ease of reading i have deleted the posts leading up to your last response but they are all there for anyone who wants to read them
As for this beauty above it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Or is it perhaps possible that they felt there was no realistic alternative to resist, for instance, a sectarian regime specifically designed to keep them as a second class citizen?
If you will forgive the expression that argument is riddled with holes.
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms. A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms. Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitmate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 02:21:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Most certainly not. But my point is, if we take the GFA as a milestone and a game-changer, what in practical terms did SF do to bring about it's achievement? Wasn't it due massively to the patience, perseverance and political skill of John Hume that it was realised?
So you wouldn't have stood for a party if it meant putting your life in danger, yet you still think the performance of a party that did exists un der that threat, should be used as an appropriate yardstick to measure it's popularity? Are you for real?
And you want to know what republicans did to bring about the GFA? Why do you think John Hume eventually sat down and took peace talks seriously? I assure you, it wasn't down to pressure from the SDLP, nor do I think many objective and open minded people believe so. If you don't believe me, take a look at the British Government demands for coming to the talks table before the Canary Wharf attack, and after. That change didn't come about because of the SDLP. I mean, were you seriously that naive to think that the British Government came to the table to republicans without being forced to do so?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 13, 2021, 01:04:48 PM
Show me war where there are no innocent victims? ........
Was it right? In my opinion, it was inevitable and if there were innocent victims that was wrong but the Government would not come to the table unless their own people were really being targeted. Such is the way of war. Horrible, dirty, nasty, vicious, wicked, but no different to any war that was ever fought.
You have natigated the first hurdle by simply ignoring it.
If you go to war KNOWING that that there will be innocent victims you have really got to be sure of your grounds for war and that the outcome is assured. Otherwise you are playing with innocent peoples lives.
I can just imagine what the reaction would be if Tony Blair's retort to a challenge in the loss of innocent lives in the second Irag war was to say "well of course there were innocent casualties, we were at war!"
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
They wanted to kill as many people as possible in Canary Wharf? Well ringing in a warning to evacuate the place 90 minutes before the explosion was an odd thing to do when they were actively trying to kill as many civilians as they could, wouldn't you agree?
The bottom line is, the Old IRA still targeted and killed as many civilians (and likely more) than the PIRA. Targeted. Not accidentally killed. Targeted. If that was a terrorist thing to do in 1969, then why wasn't it in 1921? Why don't you just answer that instead of running away form the debate?
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Why did nationalist communities not return SF as their representatives during the Troubles?
Because they were focused on the military campaign, did not take their seats and only began to shift toward consitutional politics post the Hunger strikes. No Stormont election was held 1982-96
I note that when I put a question to you, you were only able to ask a question in return.
I've answered your question, despite the fact you dodged mine.
Why are you afraid to address the question I asked? What will it show that worries or scares you>?
This is a cracker. Angelo is now contending that the nationslist people of NI did not vote for the SF candidates that did run in elections because the republican movement was busy with an armed campaign with focus on the "business" rather than the "armed campaign".
Maybehis argument is that the candiates where poor qaulity and SF's best people where busy elsewhere?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Another belter.
SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.
And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?
The PIRA took primacy over SF until that gradually began to shift in the late 80s/90s.
The aim of the republican movement up until the late 80s was to do it by military means.
Just because people voted for the SDLP back then was not to say they did not support or have some sympathy for the PIRA. Whenever it was Stormont collapsed in the late 80s and returned in the 90s, SF had more than trebled their seats. As soon as the political wing of the republican movement took primacy, nationalists had no truck with supporting SF despite their violent past. Why would that be the case?
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
And bang goes your credibility.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.
And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.
Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Jesus Wept.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Another belter.
SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.
And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?
So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.
And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 13, 2021, 03:14:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Jesus Wept.
The guy is a troll of the highest order.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Is that why they phoned in warnings for those bombs?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.
And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.
Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.
Smelmoth is from Armagh.
North men, South men, comrades all!
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Oh dear ;D
You're a clown. Is that clear enough?
Proof in black and white that the free staters would know more about a big loaf than what went on, or are just twisting the truth to suit their own agenda. Most likely both.
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Why did they phone in a warning then? Surely they should have just let it go off unexpectedly if killing innocent people was their goal.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't
True, they only managed to free 26 of our counties.
The dublin guy's hot take (redner) is typical of the attitudes this thread has so clearly exposed.
A waffler who will drop names like Jean McConville and Paul Quinn like confetti but in reality, hasn't an actual f**king scooby doo.
Politics in the 26 is littered with plenty like him.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 13, 2021, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Is that why they phoned in warnings for those bombs?
You really immune to bombing/killing in the north. A bomb has only one purpose, to detonate and kill/destroy anything in it's area. I'm not aware of any military targets in Canary Wharf. Lots of normal office workers based around there.
Gerry Adams did say the bombing was the fault of the British government so maybe I'm wrong blaming the IRA
Oh dear ;D
He has now gone on to dig further and double down on his "the bomb was intended to kill" statement.
Freestaters haven't a notion.
The Canary Wharf was a clear attack on the financial centre for London and was purely a commercial target. There were a number of warnings given, the first nearly 2 hours prior to the explosion. This gave the people in the area plenty of time to evacuate. It was clearly done to cause as much disruption to the economic centre of London. There were casualties, including 2 deaths, but the clear focus was financial and economic. It certainly made its point
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:52:34 PM
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:52:34 PM
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
He clearly and went and googled the victims
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:52:34 PM
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
My uncle new him when he worked on Canary Wharf and he told me about him. He got me a job in his company interning and he and his fellow workers told me about him when I worked there. There has been a plaque put up to comemerate him and his work colleague who also died (Inan Bashir), but I haven't seen it.
The sad thing is John Jeffries had Irish roots and he would talk to my uncle about Ireland (if he wasn't too busy) when he'd be buying his morning paper before work
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 09:41:20 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:52:34 PM
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
My uncle new him when he worked on Canary Wharf and he told me about him. He got me a job in his company interning and he and his fellow workers told me about him when I worked there. There has been a plaque put up to comemerate him and his work colleague who also died (Inan Bashir), but I haven't seen it.
The sad thing is John Jeffries had Irish roots and he would talk to my uncle about Ireland (if he wasn't too busy) when he'd be buying his morning paper before work
I'll translate that gibberish for you, Itchy.
Did dublin7 know John Jeffries?
No.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 09:41:20 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:52:34 PM
It certainly did. John Jeffries was one of the people killed by that bomb. He was known by all the workers who used to buy newspapers off him in the morning on the way into work. He'd always say hello in the morning and was always in a good mood. He was killed instantly in his shop when the bomb went off and is one if the many forgotten victims of republican/Unionists terrorists.
Compare and contrast this with the IRA member Ed O'Brien who was killed when the bomb he was carrying on a bus to blew up prematurely. He has his own song "The Ballad of Ed O'Brien" and had a SF councillor recently promoting an event (subsequently cancelled) commemorating him.
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
My uncle new him when he worked on Canary Wharf and he told me about him. He got me a job in his company interning and he and his fellow workers told me about him when I worked there. There has been a plaque put up to comemerate him and his work colleague who also died (Inan Bashir), but I haven't seen it.
The sad thing is John Jeffries had Irish roots and he would talk to my uncle about Ireland (if he wasn't too busy) when he'd be buying his morning paper before work
Yeah, this is a lie.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 13, 2021, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Is that why they phoned in warnings for those bombs?
You really immune to bombing/killing in the north. A bomb has only one purpose, to detonate and kill/destroy anything in it's area. I'm not aware of any military targets in Canary Wharf. Lots of normal office workers based around there.
Gerry Adams did say the bombing was the fault of the British government so maybe I'm wrong blaming the IRA
If the aim had been to kill, the bomb would have been put in place and then detonated without warning (e.g. Narrow water). The fact the warning call was made means that the target was clearly property not people. Are you seriously so thick as to not get that?
It is historical fact that the Canary Wharf bombing effectvely put an end to attempts to scuttle the peace process and and end to ulster Unionist / minority Brit Gov demands that the IRA be de-militarised before peace talks began. The Canary Wharf bomb was in fact a peace bomb.
Dublin 7 is an anti peace processor.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 13, 2021, 11:21:25 PM
If the aim had been to kill, the bomb would have been put in place and then detonated without warning (e.g. Narrow water). The fact the warning call was made means that the target was clearly property not people. Are you seriously so thick as to not get that?
Sure that's exactly what the Israelis say
If you're using their moral justifications maybe you need to get new ones, or better still abandon all pretences at any
Acknowledging the victims of the Provos were real people must not be allowed
They must be airbrushed from history
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 09:39:07 PM
He clearly and went and googled the victims
Quote from: Franko on May 13, 2021, 11:00:58 PM
Yeah, this is a lie.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 07:28:38 AM
Acknowledging the victims of the Provos were real people must not be allowed
They must be airbrushed from history
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 09:39:07 PM
He clearly and went and googled the victims
Quote from: Franko on May 13, 2021, 11:00:58 PM
Yeah, this is a lie.
There was great peace around the place for a long time when you were gone. I'll just say that if you are going to post it would be helpful for the post to roughly be related to the things you are so carefully quoting. Back on ignore for you I think.
Quote from: Itchy on May 14, 2021, 08:17:06 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 07:28:38 AM
Acknowledging the victims of the Provos were real people must not be allowed
They must be airbrushed from history
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 09:39:07 PM
He clearly and went and googled the victims
Quote from: Franko on May 13, 2021, 11:00:58 PM
Yeah, this is a lie.
There was great peace around the place for a long time when you were gone. I'll just say that if you are going to post it would be helpful for the post to roughly be related to the things you are so carefully quoting. Back on ignore for you I think.
Back on ignore, along with the victims of the PIRA
I can live with being on your ignore list
Sadly the victims of the PIRA can't, they can't live at all
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?
No. I have never said that. You keep bringing it up as i had said. But I haven't. Illuminating. No end up doing "an Angelo"
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?
Show me the quote where I have only applied this to the troubles? I am accusing you of making things up and having faux arguments. Demonstrate your credibility by producing the quote or quotes that your argument is based upon.
A belief that the end justifies the means does't justify it. If someone burgles your house to fund their drug habit I am sure that they would feel that the end (getting their fix) justified the means (pilfering your stuff). So that is ok then?
A loyalist who feels that his community is under attack kidnaps and murders a catholic feels he is justified. Is that ok then? Should we have a commemoration for that individual then?
A belief that the end justifies the means is not a justification its a self-justification. Don't fall for it.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.
And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.
Ok. You win. Add the number of people who provided safe houses to the number of direct combatants and STILL an overwhelming majority of people suffering oppression didn't engage in an armed struggle.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.
Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?
Election results during the armed struggle when and where SF ran candidates.
[/quote]
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?
Again another faux argument.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?
Your first argument is frankly bollocks. A contention (that I don't dispute) that innocent casualties are inevitable does not excuse them away. If I drive at 80 mph, in the wrong direction and across both lanes of a motorway there will be inevitably be casualties. Hardly an excuse or a rationale though is it?
Your second argument is more interesting. The test that I would apply would be did the acts of the old IRA have popular support (I would say democratic support if there had of been elections), where they assured of achieving their outcome and was there any workable alternative. Happy to consider any act that you think meets all 3.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?
The PIRA took primacy over SF until that gradually began to shift in the late 80s/90s.
The aim of the republican movement up until the late 80s was to do it by military means.
Just because people voted for the SDLP back then was not to say they did not support or have some sympathy for the PIRA. Whenever it was Stormont collapsed in the late 80s and returned in the 90s, SF had more than trebled their seats. As soon as the political wing of the republican movement took primacy, nationalists had no truck with supporting SF despite their violent past. Why would that be the case?
You seem to be trying to use the fact that people voted for SF after the armed campaign but but not during the campaign as evidence of their support for the armed campaign. Carry on Champion
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Another belter.
SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.
And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?
So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.
And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.
You do get it that I lived through the troubles in the north.
Stop making these things up.
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?
The PIRA took primacy over SF until that gradually began to shift in the late 80s/90s.
The aim of the republican movement up until the late 80s was to do it by military means.
Just because people voted for the SDLP back then was not to say they did not support or have some sympathy for the PIRA. Whenever it was Stormont collapsed in the late 80s and returned in the 90s, SF had more than trebled their seats. As soon as the political wing of the republican movement took primacy, nationalists had no truck with supporting SF despite their violent past. Why would that be the case?
You seem to be trying to use the fact that people voted for SF after the armed campaign but but not during the campaign as evidence of their support for the armed campaign. Carry on Champion
If people had a truck with SF's historical links to the Provos, their legitimising of the armed campaign - something they have never tried to deny then they would not vote for them.
Instead they are the largest party under the nationalist community. I don't know why pointing those facts out bothers you so much.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't
True, they only managed to free 26 of our counties.
I guess you didn't participate much the 2016 celebrations/commemorations? The Wolfe Tone songbook must make you puke?
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 10:57:05 AM
Have the Free Staters on here who are obsessed with the PIRA ever asked themselves why SF are the largest political party in the nationalist community in the north. Have they ever asked themselves why the generations who lived through that conflict and their children don't seem to have any truck with the Provisional campaign and why they return SF to office? No, they think we are all animals clearly, while they sit on their holes in Roscommon and Galway moralising about something they have not the faintest notion about.
So why then for many years, including a post-GFA spell, were the SDLP the largest nationalist party in NI?
Many years? The SDLP were the largest nationalist party in the Assembly elections held a couple of months after the GFA, from every election since then SF have been the largest nationalist party.
So what you are saying is just completely and utterly incorrect and is not consistent with the facts. 6 Assembly elections since the GFA was signed, SF have been the biggest nationalist party in the 5 of those 6 elections. They now have over double the no of MLAs the SDLP have. Why do you think that is? Why do you think nationalist communities who lived through The Troubles and whose families and friends did return SF as their representatives?
Even you will accept that SF did not enjoy mass nationalist support when there was an onging armed campaign?
The PIRA took primacy over SF until that gradually began to shift in the late 80s/90s.
The aim of the republican movement up until the late 80s was to do it by military means.
Just because people voted for the SDLP back then was not to say they did not support or have some sympathy for the PIRA. Whenever it was Stormont collapsed in the late 80s and returned in the 90s, SF had more than trebled their seats. As soon as the political wing of the republican movement took primacy, nationalists had no truck with supporting SF despite their violent past. Why would that be the case?
You seem to be trying to use the fact that people voted for SF after the armed campaign but but not during the campaign as evidence of their support for the armed campaign. Carry on Champion
If people had a truck with SF's historical links to the Provos, their legitimising of the armed campaign - something they have never tried to deny then they would not vote for them.
Instead they are the largest party under the nationalist community. I don't know why pointing those facts out bothers you so much.
But I am not making those points. I am making the point about the incorrect assertion that the vast majority of nationalists living in the north, suffering the impression, supported the IRA.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
This contributor didn't note Shelmoth being "shown up to be......".
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:29:40 AM
This contributor didn't note Shelmoth being "shown up to be......".
Deary me.
Dumbo strikes again.
You have not contributed before that post so you were not a contributor to the post you refer to.
Your stupidity never fails to surprise me.
Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.
That doesn't flow one way.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.
That doesn't flow one way.
Two wrongs?
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
Whilst I'd agree that not only political parties in the South are hypocritical regarding the violence that founded their state, so too are Unionists. The reality is that both Irish jurisdictions were founded on violent rebellion against the government of the time. However your insistence on labelling people from the South of this Island deflects from the point you are trying to make. No need to be so provocative.
That doesn't flow one way.
Two wrongs?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.
As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.
As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?
"Wee man"
Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.
People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?
No. I have never said that. You keep bringing it up as i had said. But I haven't. Illuminating. No end up doing "an Angelo"
You stated that it isn't possible to separate the notions of taking part in an armed conflict and being happy about killing. Patent nonsense.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?
Show me the quote where I have only applied this to the troubles? I am accusing you of making things up and having faux arguments. Demonstrate your credibility by producing the quote or quotes that your argument is based upon.
See the bit I put in bold. You limited your question to those taking part in The Troubles, in a thread not specifically about the Troubles, but about the founding of the free state.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
A belief that the end justifies the means does't justify it. If someone burgles your house to fund their drug habit I am sure that they would feel that the end (getting their fix) justified the means (pilfering your stuff). So that is ok then?
A loyalist who feels that his community is under attack kidnaps and murders a catholic feels he is justified. Is that ok then? Should we have a commemoration for that individual then?
A belief that the end justifies the means is not a justification its a self-justification. Don't fall for it.
That's why I sad Collins did what he did "because
he believed the ends justified the means. What was that you were saying about faux arguments? Do you believe the Old IRA campaign was justified?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.
And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.
Ok. You win. Add the number of people who provided safe houses to the number of direct combatants and STILL an overwhelming majority of people suffering oppression didn't engage in an armed struggle.
Of course the overwhelming majority didn't engage in it. Where did I claim otherwise? Faux arguments? What I did do was address the ridiculousness of your argument. So what the majority didn't join the PIRA. A majority didn't join the Old IRA either.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.
Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?
Election results during the armed struggle when and where SF ran candidates.
That old absolute chestnut. I already addressed this just a few posts ago. For the majority of the conflict, SF barely functioned and people who dared put their heads above the parapet to join SF, be seen working for the party, or to run as a candidate, set themselves up as targets for state assassination. Does that sound like a party competing in a fair and level playing field? I don't think even you would be as ignorant enough to say yes. Combine that with the fact that many nationalists did not engage for years with electoral politics in the north and you get the picture. So to suggest that SF' electoral performance was an accurate gauge of support for the armed struggle is utterly daft. My own family was fairly typical of many nationalist areas for many years of the conflict - we supported the right to armed struggle but did not engage with electoral politics for many years.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?
Again another faux argument.
How so? I asked you to furnish me with a guide to how we could have gotten to where we are now without armed conflict. Bearing in mind that the peaceful route was tried and the state reacted to that at Burntollet and in Derry with ruthless brutality.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?
Your first argument is frankly bollocks. A contention (that I don't dispute) that innocent casualties are inevitable does not excuse them away. If I drive at 80 mph, in the wrong direction and across both lanes of a motorway there will be inevitably be casualties. Hardly an excuse or a rationale though is it?
Your second argument is more interesting. The test that I would apply would be did the acts of the old IRA have popular support (I would say democratic support if there had of been elections), where they assured of achieving their outcome and was there any workable alternative. Happy to consider any act that you think meets all 3.
How is it bollocks ffs. My point, clearly, was that the inevitability of civilian victims does not automatically mean a conflict is unjustified. You were the one who implies otherwise by asking how I could "account for" atrocities where civilians lost their lives.
And as for the questions regarding the Old IRA, I have stated my view on that conflict a thousand times here. Perhaps you could tell me if YOU think it was justified?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
Seriously. For a man that likes to accuse me of engaging in faux arguments, you've just produced quite a list of them yourself. This one takes the biscuit. I've lost count of the number of times that I've state on this board that the PIRA, just like the Old IRA, carried out acts that were unjustified. Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times clowns like you still attempt to accuse me of trying to justify every action. It's not inconsistent to support an armed campaign and to believe that certain actions that took place in it were unjustifiable. Most people would support the allied fight in WW2. Does that mean they "presumably jutify" the carpet bombing of Dresden? Cop yourself on.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:12:34 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Another belter.
SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.
And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?
So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.
And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.
You do get it that I lived through the troubles in the north.
Stop making these things up.
I find it hard to believe, given some of the pure nonsense you've been posting here. My guess is you're with from the south, or from the north and grew up in peace times. Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't
True, they only managed to free 26 of our counties.
I guess you didn't participate much the 2016 celebrations/commemorations? The Wolfe Tone songbook must make you puke?
No, why would I "puke" at commemorating the Old IRA? I'm not foolish enough to argue that their campaign was unjustified purely because they didn't achieve everything they set out to achieve.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 13, 2021, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 13, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 08:09:59 AM
Quote from: michaelg on May 13, 2021, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 12, 2021, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2021, 09:57:54 PM
What was the legitimate case for the Provos bearing arms in the 26?
And then using them to murder Gardai, Pte.Kelly, Prison Officer Stack, a Protestant Senator, Tom Oliver, bank robbing, kidnapping etc etc.
What ever happened to Army Order 8?
Didn't the Old IRA also rob banks and Post Offices, and do so on a routine basis?
Was it OK back then?
Your refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing by the IRA is remarkable and admirable in a strange way. Despite everything you're sticking to whataboutery from a century ago as if that somehow makes everything ok
I've never once denied wrongdoing by the IRA. If you can find a quote where I did, please post it up.
I have repeatedly said both the Old IRA and PIRA carried out unjustifiable actions. I have merely pointed out that the Old IRA killed at least the same, and in all liklihood a higher, proportion of civilians than the PIRA did. How is it "whataboutery" to examine the actions of the Old IRA in a thread specifically about them?
Which PIRA actions were you happy enough about? The 300+ RUC personnel murdered okay?
I'm not "happy" about any deaths but I regard the PIRA campaign as having been legitimate and the utterly discredited and sectarian RUC were willing protagonists in that conflict and as such were wholly legitimate targets.
You cannot separate the campaign which you describe as "legitimate" and the consequential deaths with which you are not "happy" with.
Should the PIRA have planted the bomb and hoped it didn't go off? Fire the bullet and hope it be blown off course? Kidnap the guy and hope he was Houdini?
So because you think an armed campaign was legitimate, that means you have to be happy about it and enjoy it? By that logic, people can only join armed groups because they like war and death, and not because they believe they are left with no alternative but to take up arms?
Francis Hughes, who died in Hunger Strike 40 years ago yesterday, talking about his involvement in attacks on British forces said "They're just kids. For God's sake, I don't want to be shooting them. I want them to bloody go home in the morning." He was perhaps the most active IRA Volunteer there was and he certaintly wasn't happy with there being a conflict.
I think it's sad that anyone had to lose a life as a result of violence here either in 1921 or 1969. The reality remains though that in each case, Irish republicans becoming involved in conflict was both inevitable and legitimate.
I don't like to hear of anyone being killed, but I'm not naive enough to believe bad things don't happen and innocent people don't get hurt/killed during conflicts such as during the Michael Collins era. It's some leap from that though to the PIRA carrying out a bombing campaign in England in civilian areas to deliberately target ordinary working people. That was a pretty sick and twisted "military strategy" to adopt and in reality it's just terrorism. They couldn't defeat the British (the many informers in their own organisation didn't help) so they adopted the most cowardly approach as possible. I don't see how you can consider that a legitimate campaign
Your careful use of language is revealing. You say the PIRA "targeted" civilians in a "sick and twisted strategy", but that civilians "got hurt or killed" by the Old IRA. They were TARGETED by the Old IRA. In the same, if not higher proportion than they were targeted by the PIRA did. So you're notion that it's "some leap" between targeting civilians in 1921 and targeting them in 1969 is just a symptom of your complete and utter hypocrisy. With your word games like that you could end up writing headlines for the Indo if you're not careful.
The provisonals deliberately targeted and wanted to kill/injure as as innocent people as possible when they planted bombs in places like Canary Wharf. Is that clear enough? If that's not terrorism, what is? Clearly we aren't going to agree on this so I'll be saying no more on this
There's
Is that why they phoned in warnings for those bombs?
You really immune to bombing/killing in the north. A bomb has only one purpose, to detonate and kill/destroy anything in it's area. I'm not aware of any military targets in Canary Wharf. Lots of normal office workers based around there.
Gerry Adams did say the bombing was the fault of the British government so maybe I'm wrong blaming the IRA
It was a very strategic target that impacted the financial economy of the City of London greatly and certainly got the Brits to the table.
Not like the Brits to bomb factories and the likes during WW2 and various different infrastructure in Iraq and the likes.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 07:28:38 AM
Acknowledging the victims of the Provos were real people must not be allowed
They must be airbrushed from history
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
Did you know him dublin7, sounds like you did or did you copy paste that out of a newspaper clipping.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 09:39:07 PM
He clearly and went and googled the victims
Quote from: Franko on May 13, 2021, 11:00:58 PM
Yeah, this is a lie.
What are you on about now?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Not strictly true, Michelle O'Neill father, uncle and cousin(s) were deeply involved in the troubles.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it
A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang
Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?
Doesn't look like it
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The
overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:30:52 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 13, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 13, 2021, 08:18:04 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 12, 2021, 11:13:25 PM
It's quite delicious to see all our resident Provos suddenly coming across as the bastard love children of Eoghan Harris and Ruth Dudley Edwards. ;D
Their self hatred must be off the charts.
They hate the IRA of the war of independence era because they were led and manned by Southerners
And the key point
They Won
They drove the Brits out of their areas
Something they couldn't achieve in the north
They failed. They wanted to free ireland. They didn't
True, they only managed to free 26 of our counties.
I guess you didn't participate much the 2016 celebrations/commemorations? The Wolfe Tone songbook must make you puke?
No, why would I "puke" at commemorating the Old IRA? I'm not foolish enough to argue that their campaign was unjustified purely because they didn't achieve everything they set out to achieve.
Do you think the Palestinian intifada of 2000-2003 was justified?
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Really? That's what you're going with? Your father heard a bomb going off??
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it
A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang
Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?
Doesn't look like it
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Your Da heard a bomb going off? who does he blame for the bomb going off? Gerry Adams perchance or maybe the British Army before you had you Road to Damascus moment? Did he seek help?
You can always have an opinion, I and many have opinions on Covid and various other things but they're not worth my arse full of warm snow compared to an epidemiologist.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Jaysus that must have been incredibly traumatic. Just a mile away, imagine if he was half a mile or if the metric system was in at the time 1/2 a kilometre. Thats life changing stuff, those big bad Nordies would have nothing on your father. You have won this debate for sure Sid. Close the thread ;D
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed. It seems to me that a majority of posters have no idea of the situation nationalist were in which led to the troubles. They are either too young or live in the South. Nationalism's lot has improved significantly from the GFA. But prior to that and from the foundation of NI there was systematic government and institutional discrimination. I am not in any way condoning violence but as with the rest of Ireland in the early 20th century to many violence seemed to be the only way to get the British attention. I think that the point that Angelo is making is valid in so far as it applies to political parties both North and South but not to all the population in the ROI, some do understand the complicated situation here.
Quote from: Rudi on May 14, 2021, 11:46:59 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Jaysus that must have been incredibly traumatic. Just a mile away, imagine if he was half a mile or if the metric system was in at the time 1/2 a kilometre. Thats life changing stuff, those big bad Nordies would have nothing on your father. You have won this debate for sure Sid. Close the thread ;D
So by your logic, living in NI during the Troubles was not traumatic for most people
Where are you from?
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 12:31:21 PM
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed.
Very few NI opinions on this forum are informed
They are ruled by extreme emotion
These are the very worst types of opinions
On the whole, posters from the Republic seem far better informed
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it
A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang
Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?
Doesn't look like it
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
What I said was true
You seem angry that your views have been exposed, and by a poster from the Republic at that
Calling me names isn't helping your case
It seems Shinnerbots here have very little else other than childish insults
It's frustrating
This thread is modern day SF in a nutshell. The good old PIRA were protecting the nationalist community.
No mention of
The people they disappeared from their own communities
The many murders against innocent nationalists
The shootings and beatings carried out against their own community
The racketeering and protection money
Fags, Diesel, Drugs and other illegal smuggling operations
The many members of the PIRA who told the British Secret Service everything compromising many innocent lives like Anthony Hughes at Loughgal.
PIRA did more harm to their own community than the British Army ever did.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Really? That's what you're going with? Your father heard a bomb going off??
You didn't have to live down here
Your view is ill-informed
A little reminder of the realities of growing up in Portadown and its environs. The one time Billy and his mates tried to conduct an operation, shooting up the Tír na nÓg clubhouse, they managed to miss the building.
https://youtu.be/a3fpAoIeuZ8
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 12:56:22 PM
PIRA did more harm to their own community than the British Army ever did.
And look at what the PIRA did to the Teggarts who did suffer at the hands of the Brits at Ballymurphy
Dragged 15 year old Bernard out and shot him dead two years later
"Protecting our community"
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 12:31:21 PM
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed.
Very few NI opinions on this forum are informed
They are ruled by extreme emotion
These are the very worst types of opinions
On the whole, posters from the Republic seem far better informed
Shocker, since we actually lived the troubles.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 12:56:22 PM
PIRA did more harm to their own community than the British Army ever did.
And look at what the PIRA did to the Teggarts who did suffer at the hands of the Brits at Ballymurphy
Dragged 15 year old Bernard out and shot him dead two years later
"Protecting our community"
And you were a big supporter of the Provisional IRA and their campaign up until the last few years.
So it's clear that you are disingenuous and duplicitous in your claims.
The history has never changed, it is you that has manipulated the same history to tell two different versions of events, contradictory versions that supported your agenda each time.
A bit like Eoghan Harris never addressing his Sticky past, you never address your PIRA supporting past.
Personality disorder.
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 12:56:22 PM
This thread is modern day SF in a nutshell. The good old PIRA were protecting the nationalist community.
No mention of
The people they disappeared from their own communities
The many murders against innocent nationalists
The shootings and beatings carried out against their own community
The racketeering and protection money
Fags, Diesel, Drugs and other illegal smuggling operations
The many members of the PIRA who told the British Secret Service everything compromising many innocent lives like Anthony Hughes at Loughgal.
PIRA did more harm to their own community than the British Army ever did.
John Hume played a tremendous role in the peace process and that should be acknowledged and praised.
What did the SDLP ever achieve for nationalists up until that point though?
A few nice MP pensions and a place in the House of Lords while republicans were risking life and limb to better the circumstances and conditions for their communities. This is why the nationalist people now acknowledge SF as the party that represents them.
The SDLP were not called Stoops for nothing.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 12:31:21 PM
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed.
Very few NI opinions on this forum are informed
They are ruled by extreme emotion
These are the very worst types of opinions
On the whole, posters from the Republic seem far better informed
Shocker, since we actually lived the troubles.
And thus you and others who are ruled by emotion have to try and justify to yourself that the IRA's campaign of murder was a noble one, when you know it wasn't
It's scary to confront the truth that it was not some romantic, noble struggle, it was a pointless madness
But trying to pretend 27 years of slaughter were not futile is even scarier
It must engender mind bending levels of cognitive dissonance that can tip people over the edge into genuine craziness
At least one poster here is proof of that
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it
A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang
Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?
Doesn't look like it
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
What I said was true
You seem angry that your views have been exposed, and by a poster from the Republic at that
Calling me names isn't helping your case
It seems Shinnerbots here have very little else other than childish insults
It's frustrating
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 12:31:21 PM
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed.
Very few NI opinions on this forum are informed
They are ruled by extreme emotion
These are the very worst types of opinions
On the whole, posters from the Republic seem far better informed
Shocker, since we actually lived the troubles.
And thus you and others who are ruled by emotion have to try and justify to yourself that the IRA's campaign of murder was a noble one, when you know it wasn't
It's scary to confront the truth that it was not some romantic, noble struggle, it was a pointless madness
But trying to pretend 27 years of slaughter were not futile is even scarier
It must engender mind bending levels of cognitive dissonance that can tip people over the edge into genuine craziness
At least one poster here is proof of that
Yet you believe the opposite.
There are dozens and dozens of posts made by you which directly contradict the views you have made there.
The GFA was signed in 1998 yet you were a very vocal support and legitimiser of the Provisional Campaign up until a few years back. Now you're selling a different version of history to support your narrative.
Much like Eoghan Harris wants people to forget he was ever a member of The Stickies, you want people to forget you were ever a vocal support of the PIRA campaign.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 01:23:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:59:06 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:52:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
If you didn't want to be accused of doing that, you shouldn't have done it
A bit how if the PIRA don't want to be accused of being murderers, they shouldn't have been a murder gang
Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me?
Doesn't look like it
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
What I said was true
You seem angry that your views have been exposed, and by a poster from the Republic at that
Calling me names isn't helping your case
It seems Shinnerbots here have very little else other than childish insults
It's frustrating
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Have a wee think about why that was, like a good lad
You've a lot to learn
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Much like Eoghan Harris wants people to forget he was ever a member of The Stickies, you want people to forget you were ever a vocal support of the PIRA campaign.
Ha ha, you're the guy who was quoting Harris's fake history here the other day, taken from Peter Hart, the historian of choice of Unionists
Looks like you're a closeted Blueshirt ;D
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Much like Eoghan Harris wants people to forget he was ever a member of The Stickies, you want people to forget you were ever a vocal support of the PIRA campaign.
Ha ha, you're the guy who was quoting Harris's fake history here the other day, taken from Peter Hart, the historian of choice of Unionists
Looks like you're a closeted Blueshirt ;D
A silly reply designed to deflect that your rambling views are in direct contradiction to your past vocal support of PIRA.
Maybe you should eviscerate your former self for voting SF and supporting and legitimising the PIRA campaign.
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/a/1/a1d98aa5268701767224a2774e5a9f8e7264eade.png)
Until 2021 that is and Sidney has rebranded to an ardent unionist.
You're just a shit Eoghan Harris.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 01:25:22 PM
Much like Eoghan Harris wants people to forget he was ever a member of The Stickies, you want people to forget you were ever a vocal support of the PIRA campaign.
Ha ha, you're the guy who was quoting Harris's fake history here the other day, taken from Peter Hart, the historian of choice of Unionists
Looks like you're a closeted Blueshirt ;D
A silly reply designed to deflect that your rambling views are in direct contradiction to your past vocal support of PIRA.
Maybe you should eviscerate your former self for voting SF and supporting and legitimising the PIRA campaign.
OK Blueshirt Boy
Your standard response to me is what's called in the trade an "escape hatch", or more commonly known as deflection
The favourite tactic of those who can;t debate the points
And, incidentally, Israel
We had another poster earlier use the same excuse Israel does when it bombs Gaza to try and make out that IRA bombs were not murder
It's quite the turn up to see the Ra lads reach for the Israeli narratives
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 12:31:21 PM
It is ok to have an opinion, but it must be informed.
Very few NI opinions on this forum are informed
They are ruled by extreme emotion
These are the very worst types of opinions
On the whole, posters from the Republic seem far better informed
Shocker, since we actually lived the troubles.
And thus you and others who are ruled by emotion have to try and justify to yourself that the IRA's campaign of murder was a noble one, when you know it wasn't
It's scary to confront the truth that it was not some romantic, noble struggle, it was a pointless madness
But trying to pretend 27 years of slaughter were not futile is even scarier
It must engender mind bending levels of cognitive dissonance that can tip people over the edge into genuine craziness
At least one poster here is proof of that
Not at all Sid. I can step back and look at the stuggles objectively....and that is with family members lost via Loyalism/British Army and indeed it could be argued, at the hands of the IRA themselves. I have no extreme views whatsoever regarding the IRA but there are certain things as a Southerner you are unable to comprehend. It's not your fault, you just don't know.
For me war was war. It's all over now, thankfully.
The only issue I'll have with you that goes to extreme is the fact that we in the North are uninformed.
That's actually seriously offensive. We lived in fear, we were the ones lost family members, we were the ones checking under cars, we were the ones getting stopped going 2 mile down the road searched because the Gaelic Pitch was on the way.
Nobody in the South, like you, can ever understand that. So to call us informed? I will never agree with.
Escape hatch ahoy!
Bobby Sands and the other nine hunger strikers were very brave, nobody denies that, and in some respects indeed they were heroic
But ultimately, what did they die for?
The answer, as we all know, is absolutely nothing
Their deaths were futile, all they achieved was their own deaths
That's a scary thing to have to confront
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 01:46:55 PM
The only issue I'll have with you that goes to extreme is the fact that we in the North are uninformed.
Some are uninformed, with others it's probably more a case of blocking out things they don't want to hear
But that ends with a propagandist view of history, not a rounded one
It's the history one
wants to believe - this happens with literally every conflict in history
Propaganda is there as a protection for one's state of mind
It's a warm, soothing balm
Sure look how the Unionists are behaving now as regards Brexit and the NI Protocol
They've reached for the warm, soothing balm of victimhood propaganda
I'm not an NI Unionist, I don't live among their community, but I don't have to to see they're having a collective mental breakdown as an entity
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
Again, take a look at the British attitude to peace talks immediately before, and immediately after, Canary Wharf in 1996. Then try seriously arguing that violence had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
And yet eulogize the Old IRA, who targeted at least the same, and likely higher, proportion of civilians.
"I've no sympathy for them! They killed civilians! SOUTHERN civilians! It's only OK to kill civilians when I stand to gain from it!"Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
Irrelevant in day-to-day life, yet most in the south would still speak fondly of the Old IRA and it's exploits and haven't lost any sympathy/fondness for them despite the frequency of immoral actions they carried out. Funny how sympathetic emotions disappear when the PIRA kill civilians, but no sympathy for the Old IRA disappears, even after the frequency of their attacks on civilians is laid out in black & white. It's a matter of consistency. If targeting civilians was wrong in 1969, then it was wrong in 1921. That's the bit that people of the south seem to live in denial about. I've no doubt that many, deep down, know they are being hypocritical, but it's maybe just easier to live in denial and pontificate, than to come to terms with being a hypocrite.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 01:56:38 PM
I've no doubt that many, deep down, know they are being hypocritical, but it's maybe just easier to live in denial and pontificate, than to come to terms with being a hypocrite.
I laughed when I read that
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 02:00:25 PM
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/c/dc13b39f6e7c66926873efd25a33dbfadd0c01b9.png)
Self awareness not something you possess much of.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 01:46:55 PM
The only issue I'll have with you that goes to extreme is the fact that we in the North are uninformed.
Some are uninformed, with others it's probably more a case of blocking out things they don't want to hear
But that ends with a propagandist view of history, not a rounded one
It's the history one wants to believe - this happens with literally every conflict in history
Propaganda is there as a protection for one's state of mind
It's a warm, soothing balm
Sure look how the Unionists are behaving now as regards Brexit and the NI Protocol
They've reached for the warm, soothing balm of victimhood propaganda
I'm not an NI Unionist, I don't live among their community, but I don't have to to see they're having a collective mental breakdown as an entity
Would you not concede some families who have suffered unimaginable loss (on both sides) and unimaginable brutality (on both sides) might just have to do things like that to survive, i.e. reach for the soothing balm of propaganda?
You should read about the Shankill Bombing and it's aftermath or the Loughgall Ambush and the aftermath of it. You'll see why some people in the North, as you rightly point out, seek to block out certain things, because the truth might just break them once and for all. Some of the people that were recognised from the Shankill Bombing by dental records, or some of those in Loughgall that had no body left, just slabs of flesh from the amount of bullets tore through them.
But the fact is, that is their lives. That was our lives in the North. It's not yours. They lived it, we lived it. You didn't.
I like your posts Sid, you seem good craic and half the time I know you are on the wind up. I rarely read the SF/North South Threads on this board for this type of thing. I just cannot and will not hear about what we lived through from someone who didn't. I hope you understand.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 12:56:42 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
A bit like the Sinn Fein leadership
Ha ha, Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The overwhelming majority of people who lived through conflict did so through no choice whatsoever of their own
Strange you think I'd be "damning" them
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that SF supporters here routinely say that other posters have no right to an opinion because they didn't live through the NI Troubles - though I would point out the Troubles were far from confined to NI, my father lived a mile from where the 1974 Dublin bomb went off, he heard it going off
The current Sinn Fein leader did not, so by their reckoning she is clueless
Yet they deny she is, even though by what they say she would have to be
Really? That's what you're going with? Your father heard a bomb going off??
You didn't have to live down here
Your view is ill-informed
You are quite correct about me not living down there. Probably why I'm not bleating about someone living a mile away from where a bomb went off and hearing it
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 02:00:25 PM
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/c/dc13b39f6e7c66926873efd25a33dbfadd0c01b9.png)
Self awareness not something you possess much of.
What way is the wind blowing today, sort of lad.
Quote from: Rudi on May 14, 2021, 02:13:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 02:00:25 PM
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/c/dc13b39f6e7c66926873efd25a33dbfadd0c01b9.png)
Self awareness not something you possess much of.
What way is the wind blowing today, sort of lad.
A person who will manipulate the facts to suit his agenda.
He is the guy who thinks he is morally superior so maybe he should address his own former views. How can anyone take a person who wants to vilify others when he once held the same former views and wants us to forget we ever did.
Amazing a man who gets up on his soapbox to preach about the troubles justified the death of Jean McConville.
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/6/d/6dbd2b17535145c9999bd73b16bcfa2e4d9a9b1c.png)
People are entitled to change their opinions. I'd like to know why but that is Sid's business
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 02:18:42 PM
People are entitled to change their opinions. I'd like to know why but that is Sid's business
Changing your opinion is one thing.
Rewriting an entirely different version of a 50 year old history is another thing entirely.
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 02:18:42 PM
People are entitled to change their opinions. I'd like to know why but that is Sid's business
you don't change your opinion like that unless he was 5 years old posting the first time. He's clearly trolling.
Permanent bans incoming.....
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 02:00:25 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 01:56:38 PM
I've no doubt that many, deep down, know they are being hypocritical, but it's maybe just easier to live in denial and pontificate, than to come to terms with being a hypocrite.
I laughed when I read that
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 02:16:55 PM
Quote from: Rudi on May 14, 2021, 02:13:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 02:00:25 PM
It's like Donald Trump accusing others of being liars
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/d/c/dc13b39f6e7c66926873efd25a33dbfadd0c01b9.png)
Self awareness not something you possess much of.
What way is the wind blowing today, sort of lad.
A person who will manipulate the facts to suit his agenda.
He is the guy who thinks he is morally superior so maybe he should address his own former views. How can anyone take a person who wants to vilify others when he once held the same former views and wants us to forget we ever did.
Amazing a man who gets up on his soapbox to preach about the troubles justified the death of Jean McConville.
(https://tfkdatatfk.s3.dualstack.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/original/3X/6/d/6dbd2b17535145c9999bd73b16bcfa2e4d9a9b1c.png)
Did this fella have a Lobotomy or something. Hard to take someone serious that argues so strongly one way at one time and now argues equally strongly in the opposite direction. Lobotomy or attention seeking, I cant be sure.
Seeing all these posts from some other apparent forum. Do you ever feel like you aren't part of the joke?
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on May 14, 2021, 03:09:13 PM
Seeing all these posts from some other apparent forum. Do you ever feel like you aren't part of the joke?
But have a life / job?
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
I dont believe the national party politics of the late 1800s and early 1900s would have delivered a fair free Ireland (eventually) for what was to become the 26 counties. I believe 1916 and the Tan War were necessary to deliver that, it would not have come any other way.
I also believe nationalists in the North would not have got down the road to power sharing without the provisional ira campaign from 1969 onwards, I dont believe Hume and Mallon by peaceful means alone would have succeeded.
Unless you were happy to be a 2nd class citizen in your own country the IRA campaign was unfortunately necessary due to the fact that those in power had only one thought in their head, to keep the croppie down
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
Was that preface to the absolute tosh you posted after it?
There's a reason why the SDLP are a busted flush and can only attract window lickers like yourself.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
FF member assassinated a sitting FG minister for justice in 1927.
How are free staters so ignorant of their own history?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
The difference between 73 and 98 is night and day, I'm surprised you had to ask what changed. You can argue that those changes would have happened with or without the 25 years of war. But those arguments are just theories therefore relatively pointless and are unlikely to sway a person from a previously held position.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Are you trying to imply that attacks on Gardaí were a typical, everyday occurrence by the PIRA? In a 30 year conflict, they killed 6 Gardaí. Would you say you don't have any sympathy for the Old IRA when you learned they killed more than 6 illegitimate targets? Or is that a threshold you only apply to the PIRA?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
What do we have now that we don't have in 1973? Are you for real? Are you just going to continue to pretend that, for instance, Canary Wharf, didn't bring about a wholesale change in British attitudes to peace talks?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
I have sympathy for Southerners as they were fed a particular line for years from respective parties in government and the state media and we need to help them out.
The likes of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday weren't one off events, there's loads of similar atrocities where civilians were shot in cold blood by the Army and they got away scot free.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
Your last line doesn't really help the argument that people in the south are informed
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
I have sympathy for Southerners as they were fed a particular line for years from respective parties in government and the state media and we need to help them out.
The likes of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday weren't one off events, there's loads of similar atrocities where civilians were shot in cold blood by the Army and they got away scot free.
Would you have sympathy for them?
The same fools here have been informed of facts they are quite clearly ignorant of either by choice or not and are still doubling down on their hypocritical views. They have been given the views and experiences of people who have had first hand experience of the conflict or what their families/neighbours/friends experienced and still think they know better.
It's the kind of high handed attitude southerners feel they deserve to take when it comes to northern matters. They don't make any effort to understand or inform themselves on it but have no problem giving their opinions and judgements.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 03:36:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
FF member assassinated a sitting FG minister for justice in 1927.
How are free staters so ignorant of their own history?
When I read this message all I could think of was Hitler in Inglorious Basterds NEIN NEIN NEIN 😂😂
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
I agree you are talking all of the above. It is a fact that at no stage would Unionism or the British have moved without the troubles to say otherwise shows a total bias and lack of understanding. I in no way ever supported the PIRA nor agreed with violence.However they had a lot of support in the communities from which they sprung. The conflict in NI was complicated and dirty and the nationalist community was much more nuanced in its view of the IRA than you suggest. To make the claims you are making displays at best ignorance and at worst trolling.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:40:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
The difference between 73 and 98 is night and day, I'm surprised you had to ask what changed. You can argue that those changes would have happened with or without the 25 years of war. But those arguments are just theories therefore relatively pointless and are unlikely to sway a person from a previously held position.
Just a cursory glance of the state of Unionism today will tell you that they would not have budged without that push of the troubles. I would say though if the IRA had targeted England sooner and not targets in NI it might have changed more quickly. Though by 98 demographic changes were beginning to show.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Yet you did all the above.
Numerous examples of it but apparently your past views warrant no scrutinty.
Just like Eoghan Harris did not want any comment on his former Worker Party past.
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
Sad to see a poster having a breakdown in real time
It's nice to be living rent free in his head though!
Lots and lots of space in there
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
That tends to happen with martyrs
A short burst of anger-driven emotional enthusiasm followed by a rapid drop off
A bit like the Manchester United protests against the Glazers
That short burst of emotional enthusiasm wasn't enough to retain the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat at the following General Election, when it returned to Unionist control, as it stayed for the next 18 years
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
That tends to happen with martyrs
A short burst of anger-driven emotional enthusiasm followed by a rapid drop off
A bit like the Manchester United protests against the Glazers
That short burst of emotional enthusiasm wasn't enough to retain the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat at the following General Election, when it returned to Unionist control, as it stayed for the next 18 years
Largely irrelevant. Those people didn't just 'lose' that sympathy. The passage of time meant that they may just have lost the urge to physically act on it.
The other problem with this argument is that British actions topped up the nationalist "anger driven emotional enthusiasm" tank at very regular intervals.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
Another two and a half thousand funerals and a quarter of a century of heartache and extra mutual hatred
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
I agree you are talking all of the above. It is a fact that at no stage would Unionism or the British have moved without the troubles to say otherwise shows a total bias and lack of understanding. I in no way ever supported the PIRA nor agreed with violence.However they had a lot of support in the communities from which they sprung. The conflict in NI was complicated and dirty and the nationalist community was much more nuanced in its view of the IRA than you suggest. To make the claims you are making displays at best ignorance and at worst trolling.
Bollocks. Sure Unionism signed up to Sunningdale FFS. They couldn't carry their base.
This shite that we would'nt be where we are only for PIRA is complete nonsense. Everything achieved in the GFA was agreed almost 30 years earlier. No other concessions were achieved around rights or equality.
The RA just enjoyed the murder so they on doing it... even after the GFA.
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
That tends to happen with martyrs
A short burst of anger-driven emotional enthusiasm followed by a rapid drop off
A bit like the Manchester United protests against the Glazers
That short burst of emotional enthusiasm wasn't enough to retain the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat at the following General Election, when it returned to Unionist control, as it stayed for the next 18 years
Largely irrelevant. Those people didn't just 'lose' that sympathy. The passage of time meant that they may just have lost the urge to physically act on it.
The other problem with this argument is that British actions topped up the nationalist "anger driven emotional enthusiasm" tank at very regular intervals.
They had sympathy for somebody who died on hunger strike
It's a fairly natural human emotion
Which did not amount to supporting the Ra
Sands became a folk hero like Che Guevara, but again that doesn't amount to support for the Ra
I doubt most of those who went to his funeral could name the other nine who died
The short burst of enthusiasm in 1981 was frittered away by atrocity after atrocity
The INLA were active around this time too and it often puzzles me how the INLA's reputation has never been rehabilitated, given that they did the exact same things the Ra did
That's branding for ya, or lack of it
Did a bomb go off close to your head Sid to turn you from a hard-core violence supporting Sinn Feiner to a little Fine Gael west brit inside 7 years. 7 years in peace times I might add.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
That tends to happen with martyrs
A short burst of anger-driven emotional enthusiasm followed by a rapid drop off
A bit like the Manchester United protests against the Glazers
That short burst of emotional enthusiasm wasn't enough to retain the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat at the following General Election, when it returned to Unionist control, as it stayed for the next 18 years
Largely irrelevant. Those people didn't just 'lose' that sympathy. The passage of time meant that they may just have lost the urge to physically act on it.
The other problem with this argument is that British actions topped up the nationalist "anger driven emotional enthusiasm" tank at very regular intervals.
They had sympathy for somebody who died on hunger strike
It's a fairly natural human emotion
Which did not amount to supporting the Ra
Sands became a folk hero like Che Guevara, but again that doesn't amount to support for the Ra
I doubt most of those who went to his funeral could name the other nine who died
The short burst of enthusiasm in 1981 was frittered away by atrocity after atrocity
The INLA were active around this time too and it often puzzles me how the INLA's reputation has never been rehabilitated, given that they did the exact same things the Ra did
That's branding for ya, or lack of it
Bollocks.
People don't sympathise with a martyr unless they also sympathise with his cause.
Were there many unionists in attendance?
Quote from: Itchy on May 14, 2021, 05:00:19 PM
Did a bomb go off close to your head Sid to turn you from a hard-core violence supporting Sinn Feiner to a little Fine Gael west brit inside 7 years. 7 years in peace times I might add.
West Brit is such a great argument, isn't it
When stuck for something to say, just fire out a witless insult, very persuasive
TFK is mainly a performative banter forum
The Ra thing became quite the in joke, half the forum at one point or another claimed to be in the Ra, a bit like the Rubberbandits do
I never supported atrocities against civilians
I used to think there was a logic to targetting Loyalists or Brits and RUC etc, possibly even certain hardline Unionist/Tory politicians, in that you are at least bringing the fight to those who are directly oppressing you
Some part of me probably still thinks that
But it was pointless, because you could never win
Why? Because the people never supported the Ra, simple as
And when the people don't support you, when you have no mandate, when you have no chance of winning, when your demands are totally unrealistic, any plausible moral case falls away
Atrocities against civilians were an indivisible part of the Ra's campaign, a primary modus operandi
You can't support a party that claims to campaign for social justice, but which has as its central ideology the idea that you must defend an armed campaign of which utterly pointless and civilian murder for 27 years was an integral part
I expect that will become an issue for quite a few SF supporters down South during the coming years
I mean, it's a bit rich to call out Boris Johnson for making horrible racist comments and comments which were prejudiced against gay people back in 2002, while at the same time defending the people who did Kingsmills
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 03:54:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
Your last line doesn't really help the argument that people in the south are informed
Sunningdale Agreement, Power sharing and all that.
A ceasefire and going into politics by the Provos would have taken the fig leaf of "terrorism" away from Unionists to hide behind.
Terrible thing to say but if Thatcher was in charge of the British Government in 1974 she'd have given Paisley and his strike short shrift.
She fairly by passed the Unionist veto with the AI agreement in 85.
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 05:06:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on May 14, 2021, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Most of us know well that Nationalists in the North had a terrible time of it, oppression, discrimination etc, beaten off the Streets by Michaelg's RUC pals etc etc.
The PIRA was an inevitable outcome.
However what did they achieve by continuing their War past 1973/4? *
They lost any sympathy in the 26 when they decided to engage in their war this side of the border too, killing Gardai etc, sectarian murder of a Protestant Senator and so on.
As for the title of the thread ...events of 100 years ago are irrelevant to most "freestaters" (sic) just as events of 1968- 98 are irrelevant to those younger voters who voted SF in the 2020 GE.
* They enabled the Brits to turn the situation from being an Irish/British political thing into a Police v Criminals matter and "those Irish fighting each other about religion"
There was definitely no justification for carrying on a war after the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement.
The title of the thread is typical of Angelo and IMO insulting. However your comments are un-informed. With out the PIRA activity reprehensible as it might have been, there would never have been any of the change in NI which led to the GFA. Unionism is intransigent and then some. The point which Angelo makes and which is totally lost because of his approach is basically the actions that formed the original Irish State were every bit as reprehensible and this is not mitigated by an extra 50 years. So call one out call all out. It is also the case that these actions were no more popular with the general population of that time. An yes the killing of the Gardai and Senator lost them support but similar atrocities occurred in the '10/'20's. So be consistent in your condemnation.
Nonsense, lies, bollocks and bullshit. Only when the PIRA fucked off could peace be achieved. PIRA had very little support within the Nationalist community. And they did far more damage to their own community than years of British oppression.
100000 (yes, one hundred thousand) people turned up at Bobby Sands' funeral.
Between 15 and 20% of the entire nationalist population of the north.
"Very little support" says yer man.
That tends to happen with martyrs
A short burst of anger-driven emotional enthusiasm followed by a rapid drop off
A bit like the Manchester United protests against the Glazers
That short burst of emotional enthusiasm wasn't enough to retain the Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat at the following General Election, when it returned to Unionist control, as it stayed for the next 18 years
Largely irrelevant. Those people didn't just 'lose' that sympathy. The passage of time meant that they may just have lost the urge to physically act on it.
The other problem with this argument is that British actions topped up the nationalist "anger driven emotional enthusiasm" tank at very regular intervals.
They had sympathy for somebody who died on hunger strike
It's a fairly natural human emotion
Which did not amount to supporting the Ra
Sands became a folk hero like Che Guevara, but again that doesn't amount to support for the Ra
I doubt most of those who went to his funeral could name the other nine who died
The short burst of enthusiasm in 1981 was frittered away by atrocity after atrocity
The INLA were active around this time too and it often puzzles me how the INLA's reputation has never been rehabilitated, given that they did the exact same things the Ra did
That's branding for ya, or lack of it
Bollocks.
People don't sympathise with a martyr unless they also sympathise with his cause.
Were there many unionists in attendance?
The 1916 Rising had little enough real support among the population at the time
It was only when the rebels were executed that the game changed
When the 1916 rebels were executed the Brits were now seen to be murderers and the same people that were variously thought of as hopelessly naive, fools or even wreckers a couple of weeks previously suddenly became heroes
Why? Basic human sympathy, and also because the rebels were essentially on broadly the same side of a population which wanted Home Rule, they already wanted greater autonomy from Britain, just that the Rebels were more extreme
Quite similar to the way a lot of SDLP supporters would have had sympathy for the hunger strikers because they, like the hunger strikers, were Northern Catholics
A lot of Northern Catholics in 1981 would have had a lot of sympathy for the particular demands of the hunger strikers, ie. political status
Again, that's not the same as supporting the Ra, and the proof is in SF's wide electoral failure in the decades afterwards
Most Northern Catholics understood that the Provos' campaign was unwinnable and indefensible
Can you tell me why the INLA haven't been rehabilitated like the Provos have been, you didn't answer that
Maybe they didn't have a sexy enough name or didn't dress in sharp enough suits?
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
There clearly was change but precisely none of it was thanks to the Provos
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
hi
There clearly was change but precisely none of it was thanks to the Provos
That's your opinion. (At least currently)
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 14, 2021, 05:00:19 PM
Did a bomb go off close to your head Sid to turn you from a hard-core violence supporting Sinn Feiner to a little Fine Gael west brit inside 7 years. 7 years in peace times I might add.
West Brit is such a great argument, isn't it
When stuck for something to say, just fire out a witless insult, very persuasive
TFK is mainly a performative banter forum
The Ra thing became quite the in joke, half the forum at one point or another claimed to be in the Ra, a bit like the Rubberbandits do
I never supported atrocities against civilians
I used to think there was a logic to targetting Loyalists or Brits and RUC etc, possibly even certain hardline Unionist/Tory politicians, in that you are at least bringing the fight to those who are directly oppressing you
Some part of me probably still thinks that
But it was pointless, because you could never win
Why? Because the people never supported the Ra, simple as
And when the people don't support you, when you have no mandate, when you have no chance of winning, when your demands are totally unrealistic, any plausible moral case falls away
Atrocities against civilians were an indivisible part of the Ra's campaign, a primary modus operandi
You can't support a party that claims to campaign for social justice, but which has as its central ideology the idea that you must defend an armed campaign of which utterly pointless and civilian murder for 27 years was an integral part
I expect that will become an issue for quite a few SF supporters down South during the coming years
I mean, it's a bit rich to call out Boris Johnson for making horrible racist comments and comments which were prejudiced against gay people back in 2002, while at the same time defending the people who did Kingsmills
So those posts Angelo put up was your attempt at satire? Jaysus lad wise up will ya. More like some SF heavy gave you a slap I'd say.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
hi
There clearly was change but precisely none of it was thanks to the Provos
That's your opinion.
It was thanks to peaceful politics, Sunningdale as mentioned earlier brought the Official Unionists to accept power sharing for the first time even if it was to fall apart
Peaceful politics had already demonstrated it was effective
It was the Civil Rights Movement in NI which ended gerrymandering - not the Provos
In any political movement, discipline is key
The emergence of the Provos largely destroyed the prospect of a disciplined, peaceful political mass movement which could have made many more serious gains for Northern Catholics a lot quicker than peaceful politics was able to amid the backdrop of constant killing
Quote from: Itchy on May 14, 2021, 05:46:21 PM
So those posts Angelo put up was your attempt at satire? Jaysus lad wise up will ya. More like some SF heavy gave you a slap I'd say.
Interesting that you presume SF people resort to violence
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
hi
There clearly was change but precisely none of it was thanks to the Provos
That's your opinion.
It was thanks to peaceful politics, Sunningdale as mentioned earlier brought the Official Unionists to accept power sharing for the first time even if it was to fall apart
Peaceful politics had already demonstrated it was effective
It was the Civil Rights Movement in NI which ended gerrymandering - not the Provos
In any political movement, discipline is key
The emergence of the Provos largely destroyed the prospect of a disciplined, peaceful political mass movement which could have made many more serious gains for Northern Catholics a lot quicker than peaceful politics was able to amid the backdrop of constant killing
In your opinion.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on May 14, 2021, 03:42:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 03:23:49 PM
Police killed before 1921 were members of the Crown forces.
Those killed after the setting up of An Gárda Síochána were serving an Irish State and Government.
Fianna Fáil broke away and forsook violence 1926 and were elected to Government 6 years later.
Again what did 25 years of War from 1973 to 1998 achieve that wasn't already there in 1973?
1973?
Oh, at a quess, the right to vote in a local council election even if you didn't pay rates or own a business, Fair employment legislation for starters.
It's posts like this that demonstrates how ignorant some southern posters are of what went on up here.
How would it demonstrate ignorance?
All this stuff is well known, there are any number of books, historical documentaries, podcasts etc. which can tell you the history
It most certainly does not amount to a justification for slaughtering civilians for a quarter of a century
The only reason to claim ignorance on the part of others is to claim justification for that slaughter
Otherwise the reference of supposed ignorance makes no sense
Do you think there was no difference between NI from 73-98?
hi
There clearly was change but precisely none of it was thanks to the Provos
That's your opinion.
It was thanks to peaceful politics, Sunningdale as mentioned earlier brought the Official Unionists to accept power sharing for the first time even if it was to fall apart
Peaceful politics had already demonstrated it was effective
It was the Civil Rights Movement in NI which ended gerrymandering - not the Provos
In any political movement, discipline is key
The emergence of the Provos largely destroyed the prospect of a disciplined, peaceful political mass movement which could have made many more serious gains for Northern Catholics a lot quicker than peaceful politics was able to amid the backdrop of constant killing
In your opinion.
In his uninformed, contradictory opinion.
OK. Tell me this. How did the murder of Joanne Mathers a Mother of a two year old out collecting census forms help deliver what we as a nationalist population have today?
Quote from: trailer on May 14, 2021, 06:36:49 PM
OK. Tell me this. How did the murder of Joanne Mathers a Mother of a two year old out collecting census forms help deliver what we as a nationalist population have today?
It didn't.
You're being hysterical and selectively picking out certain events.
A theatrical performance.
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're the arsehole who tried to pretend Dunmanway never happened.
You have some neck to then seek condemnation on Fox.
How was the murder sectarian btw?
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
The IRA and unionist terrorists held back NI for years and they're only starting to recover now. At the start of the 90s the Irish economy started to pick up and multi national companies started operating here.
NI didn't get any benefit from this due to climate the terrorists had created and not only missed out on the economic boom but now rely on the UK government to keep them solvent.
That's quite a legacy for over two decades of terrorism on both sides
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
The IRA and unionist terrorists held back NI for years and they're only starting to recover now. At the start of the 90s the Irish economy started to pick up and multi national companies started operating here.
NI didn't get any benefit from this due to climate the terrorists had created and not only missed out on the economic boom but now rely on the UK government to keep them solvent.
That's quite a legacy for over two decades of terrorism on both sides
You don't know what you're talking about.
The north was in an annual deficit before the troubles even kicked off. Certainly the troubles didn't help in any way, shape or form; but here we are 23 years post GFA agreement and still an economic basket case.
There has been an abject failure on behalf of the UK government to properly invest in the North which they proclaim to hold so dear. Our workforce is paid less than the rest of the UK, less qualified than the rest of the UK, have the lowest employment rate in the UK, highest rate of economically inactive people, lowest rate of start-ups, over-reliance on public sector, inefficient (& segregated) education system, brain-drain, etc etc. You can't blame the Ra for all that, almost a quarter of a century after the troubles ended.
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 05:06:47 PM
Bollocks.
People don't sympathise with a martyr [i.e.Sands] unless they also sympathise with his cause.
There's your "bollocks", right there.
It is entirely possible for people to sympathise with a cause (United Ireland) but not with a method of achieving it (Provisional campaign). Which is why Provisional SF had minimal political support pre-GFA.
Likewise with Sands, it is possible to sympathise with the individual, but not endorse his methods.
More pertinently, it is possible not to sympathise either with the individual
or his methods, but still attend his funeral for some other reason (in this case, to express anger and revulsion at Thatcher and the British Government).
Which is exactly the same as 1916, in that there was no great support for the Rebels before or during the Rising, but there was widespread anger and revulsion against the British Government after the executions.
Quote from: Franko on May 14, 2021, 05:06:47 PM
Were there many unionists in attendance?
More bollocks.
The fact Unionists didn't sympathise with the individual, his cause or his methods and so didn't attend, does not permit you to contend that those who were there automatically
did sympathise with all three, or even any* of those three elements.
Which is yet more evidence to show why no-one will ever mistake you for a student of Socratic Dialogue...
* - It's the Thatcher thing again
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
The IRA and unionist terrorists held back NI for years and they're only starting to recover now. At the start of the 90s the Irish economy started to pick up and multi national companies started operating here.
NI didn't get any benefit from this due to climate the terrorists had created and not only missed out on the economic boom but now rely on the UK government to keep them solvent.
That's quite a legacy for over two decades of terrorism on both sides
Yeah the place was a real utopia until the IRA appeared out of the blue and started killing peope for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 06:44:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're the arsehole who tried to pretend Dunmanway never happened.
You have some neck to then seek condemnation on Fox.
How was the murder sectarian btw?
Angelo,
You are very abusive on this board.
Do you want to get banned again?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 08:45:05 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
The IRA and unionist terrorists held back NI for years and they're only starting to recover now. At the start of the 90s the Irish economy started to pick up and multi national companies started operating here.
NI didn't get any benefit from this due to climate the terrorists had created and not only missed out on the economic boom but now rely on the UK government to keep them solvent.
That's quite a legacy for over two decades of terrorism on both sides
Yeah the place was a real utopia until the IRA appeared out of the blue and started killing peope for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever.
Well the south/free state in the 80s was a high tax, high unemployment and high emigration state, but while FF/FG/LAB governments started to turn the economy around in early 90s by attracting FDI and EU funding the republican/Unionists terrorists were destroying the state/economy for the ordinary working people who lived and tried to run a business in NI.
For all the abuse these parties get from some of the northern posters in here you could easily accuse them of having no idea what it's like living in the south
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 08:45:05 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on May 14, 2021, 07:01:26 PM
My granny went to Bobby Sands funeral yet she was no lover of the IRA. In fact, she didn't have much of a relationship with her brother in law. My mother has been an SDLP voter all her adult life and would have little time for the IRA, yet she was sympathetic to their cause in her own way. The arguments from free staters here are very simplistic.
Also, if anyone says the Provos had nothing to do with getting things going in the 6 counties they are sorely mistaken
The IRA and unionist terrorists held back NI for years and they're only starting to recover now. At the start of the 90s the Irish economy started to pick up and multi national companies started operating here.
NI didn't get any benefit from this due to climate the terrorists had created and not only missed out on the economic boom but now rely on the UK government to keep them solvent.
That's quite a legacy for over two decades of terrorism on both sides
Yeah the place was a real utopia until the IRA appeared out of the blue and started killing peope for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever.
Well the south/free state in the 80s was a high tax, high unemployment and high emigration state, but while FF/FG/LAB governments started to turn the economy around in early 90s by attracting FDI and EU funding the republican/Unionists terrorists were destroying the state/economy for the ordinary working people who lived and tried to run a business in NI.
For all the abuse these parties get from some of the northern posters in here you could easily accuse them of having no idea what it's like living in the south
Your implication is that the north was "held back" by the IRA. Was it a utopia before they appeared on tbe scene? Was it an economic powerhouse, if only the croppies had stayed down?
By ths way, last time you engaged with me, I asked you a question and you ran away. I'll try again:
The Old IRA targeted and killed as high a proportion of civilians (and likely more) than the PIRA. Targeted. Not accidentally killed. Targeted. If that was a terrorist thing to do in 1969, then why wasn't it in 1921?
Quote from: seafoid on May 14, 2021, 08:50:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 06:44:27 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're the arsehole who tried to pretend Dunmanway never happened.
You have some neck to then seek condemnation on Fox.
How was the murder sectarian btw?
Angelo,
You are very abusive on this board.
Do you want to get banned again?
Given some of the insults Trailer has been allowed use against posters on a regular basis here without a ban then it's clear that rule is no longer been enforced.
So if you want that rule to be enforced, I've got plenty of posters who should be banned for the insults aimed at me.
I think you should be banned for some of the nonsense you've posted on here.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
You're the guy who not only dismissed a sectarian massacre by the Old IRA but actively denied it ever happened.
A holocaust denier.
QuoteDublin, 29 April 1921 – Kate Carroll was dragged from her home in Aghanameena, Co. Monaghan and murdered by the IRA, a report issued from Dublin Castle has stated.
Ms Carroll was known to have been involved in the illicit distilling of whiskey, for which her house had been raided by both the IRA and the British authorities on numerous occasions. Earlier reports from Dublin Castle had noted that Ms Carroll had written anonymous letters to the police in which she made accusations against others in the area for operating illegal stills. Some of these letters were apparently captured by the IRA who took them as evidence that Carroll was a spy. Her killing, which occurred on the night of 16/17 April, was her punishment.
In his evidence to a military court of inquiry in Monaghan, Patrick Carroll, brother of the deceased woman, said he was sitting with his sister in front of the kitchen fire on the night in question when, about midnight, they heard dogs begin to bark.
Ms Carroll went to the door and a man with a white mask entered. He asked Ms Carroll if she was 'making any drink now?' Mr Carroll testified that his sister responded that 'she was not and that she would not pay any more fines.'
The masked man informed Ms Carroll that she would have to come with him, though her mother begged him not to take her.
As she was taken from the house with wrists bound together, she screamed out 'I will never come back'. Her body was found by her brother the following morning in a lane at Drummore. A card was pinned to her clothing stating: 'Spies and informers, beware. Convicted, IRA.'
A constable testified to finding an empty cartridge at the scene and the court of inquiry returned a finding of wilful murder against certain unknown members of the IRA.
This is the type of stuff Rossfan, Seafoid and Dublin7 glorify.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign was a terrorist one because they once shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
A brief few words from two well known figures:
1. Brian Feeney (Historian, former SDLP Cllr, Co-author of Lost Lives book which chronicled every death of the conflict in the north)
2. Dennis Bradley (Former Priest and student of John Hume, Former vice chair of the Policing Board, Co-chair, along woth Robin Eames, of the Consultative Group on the Past)
https://twitter.com/Revolution_IRL/status/1227157956300541952?s=19 (https://twitter.com/Revolution_IRL/status/1227157956300541952?s=19)
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:19:05 PM
A holocaust denier.
Fair play to you, shouting at people that they are holocaust deniers is top, top debatering and a point I know your fellow Shinners will agree with wholeheartedly
A very positive contribution from you there
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:10:20 PM
The Old IRA targeted and killed as high a proportion of civilians (and likely more) than the PIRA. Targeted. Not accidentally killed. Targeted. If that was a terrorist thing to do in 1969, then why wasn't it in 1921?
What about the French resistance in 1944?
What about the dissos in 2019?
There's no united Ireland in 2019, or 2021
Therefore surely by your logic it is acceptable to target civilians in 2021
The greater goal being a united Ireland, thus the justification is provided
That's the logic anyway
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiable actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?
If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.
If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.
So which is it?
You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?
You also, STILL haven't outlined why it is OK to target civilians at a rate of around 35% in 1921, but not in 1969.
Can someone tell me which PIRA murders brought us to this point (a utopia) and which didn't? Because I am confused.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
You really don't like it when your hypocrisy is highlighted do you? Your in knots!!
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?
If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.
If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.
So which is it?
You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?
So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
When the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claim is the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Still we have to be fair to PIRA. Not all of the terrorist acts were typical PIRA attacks. Us free staters just wouldn't understand as we don't live in the north
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?
If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.
If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.
So which is it?
You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?
So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Expect they didn't.
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
It's a view that simply doesn't make sense, certain posters here know they're losing the argument so the modus operandi has now become to paint as negative a picture of the old IRA as possible in order to paint a reputation of the Provisionals as the good guys - a bizarre strategy
In that, the pro-Provo posters have resorted to the Eoghan Harris/Peter Hart version of history
I'm not here to say the old IRA were very nice people incidentally, far from it
But it's almost got to the stage where you'd suspect some of these pro-Provo posters would reject joining with the South in a united Ireland because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole of singling out the old IRA on this thread for deflection purposes
The people who set out on this thread to justify the Provo's modus operandi of killing civilians have trained their e-guns on the old IRA as a coping mechanism, their verdict - the old IRA were the real evil and must be repudiated
Maybe that logic would also mean the current dissos have a more noble cause than the 1920s IRA
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.
You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?
Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?
If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.
If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.
So which is it?
You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?
So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
So the PIRA bombing the London docklands was "terrorism" but Michael Collins ordering the bombing of Liverpool docks was "taking the war to the british". You're like a parody of free statism!
And where did I say I hated the Old IRA? Didn't I already point out that my views are consistent? That I view both campaigns as legitimate and that both contained a similar proportion of unjustifiable actions?
You are the only trying to draw a distinction but yet again, you can't explain why targeting civilians was wrong in 1969 but fine in 1921. In fact, the only justification that you have offered is that "Collins drove the occupying force out of Ireland" (setting aside the small matter of Ireland having 32 counties and the fact that Collins didn't set out to achieve partition), so are you now arguing that its ok to kill the same (and likely a higher) proportion of civilians as the PIRA as long as you think the end result is a degree of success? Safe to assume that youd have no issue with the actions of the PIRA if the brits decided in 1998 to withdraw? Because if not, how would that not make you a great big f**king hypocrite?
This is all part of SF revisionism. PIRA are the same as the old IRA. Vote these c***ts in at your peril.
When republicans were busy putting their lives on the line for the betterment of their communities, Stoops were busy taking up Lordships for the betterment of themselves.
That is why only people like Trailer vote for them anymore.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Expect they didn't.
And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state
A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force
This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war
One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:41:47 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
It's a view that simply doesn't make sense, certain posters here know they're losing the argument so the modus operandi has now become to paint as negative a picture of the old IRA as possible in order to paint a reputation of the Provisionals as the good guys - a bizarre strategy
In that, the pro-Provo posters have resorted to the Eoghan Harris/Peter Hart version of history
I'm not here to say the old IRA were very nice people incidentally, far from it
But it's almost got to the stage where you'd suspect some of these pro-Provo posters would reject joining with the South in a united Ireland because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole of singling out the old IRA on this thread for deflection purposes
The people who set out on this thread to justify the Provo's modus operandi of killing civilians have trained their e-guns on the old IRA as a coping mechanism, their verdict - the old IRA were the real evil and must be repudiated
Maybe that logic would also mean the current dissos have a more noble cause than the 1920s IRA
Holy feck. The posts are there from Snapchat saying that he viewed both in the same light. It's the likes of you, Rossfan and Dublin7 who are getting their knickers in a twist about that. You'd prefer to focus on the Provos rather than accept the old IRA were no different.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:53:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:41:47 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
It's a view that simply doesn't make sense, certain posters here know they're losing the argument so the modus operandi has now become to paint as negative a picture of the old IRA as possible in order to paint a reputation of the Provisionals as the good guys - a bizarre strategy
In that, the pro-Provo posters have resorted to the Eoghan Harris/Peter Hart version of history
I'm not here to say the old IRA were very nice people incidentally, far from it
But it's almost got to the stage where you'd suspect some of these pro-Provo posters would reject joining with the South in a united Ireland because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole of singling out the old IRA on this thread for deflection purposes
The people who set out on this thread to justify the Provo's modus operandi of killing civilians have trained their e-guns on the old IRA as a coping mechanism, their verdict - the old IRA were the real evil and must be repudiated
Maybe that logic would also mean the current dissos have a more noble cause than the 1920s IRA
Holy feck. The posts are there from Snapchat saying that he viewed both in the same light. It's the likes of you, Rossfan and Dublin7 who are getting their knickers in a twist about that. You'd prefer to focus on the Provos rather than accept the old IRA were no different.
In some ways they weren't different but in other ways they were very, very different
They knew when to stop for one - the Provos didn't
And this is a key component when making an argument for whether a campaign could be plausibly justified or not
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Expect they didn't.
And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state
A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force
This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war
One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history
It is fantasy unfortunately, as it's all theoretical. We'll never know, as they agreed to sell out and divide the island. The rest as they say is history. But let's not claim dividing the country was a victory as you say, they didn't achieve a united ireland.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:58:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:53:36 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:41:47 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 09:59:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 09:02:45 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 14, 2021, 06:40:25 PM
I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.
You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?
I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.
Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!
The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles
Has anybody got a full list?
We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there
Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least
You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s
It's a view that simply doesn't make sense, certain posters here know they're losing the argument so the modus operandi has now become to paint as negative a picture of the old IRA as possible in order to paint a reputation of the Provisionals as the good guys - a bizarre strategy
In that, the pro-Provo posters have resorted to the Eoghan Harris/Peter Hart version of history
I'm not here to say the old IRA were very nice people incidentally, far from it
But it's almost got to the stage where you'd suspect some of these pro-Provo posters would reject joining with the South in a united Ireland because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole of singling out the old IRA on this thread for deflection purposes
The people who set out on this thread to justify the Provo's modus operandi of killing civilians have trained their e-guns on the old IRA as a coping mechanism, their verdict - the old IRA were the real evil and must be repudiated
Maybe that logic would also mean the current dissos have a more noble cause than the 1920s IRA
Holy feck. The posts are there from Snapchat saying that he viewed both in the same light. It's the likes of you, Rossfan and Dublin7 who are getting their knickers in a twist about that. You'd prefer to focus on the Provos rather than accept the old IRA were no different.
In some ways they weren't different but in other ways they were very, very different
On that we can Agree.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:59:33 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Expect they didn't.
And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state
A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force
This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war
One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history
It is fantasy unfortunately, as it's all theoretical. We'll never know, as they agreed to sell out and divide the island. The rest as they say is history. But let's not claim dividing the country was a victory as you say, they didn't achieve a united ireland.
It would never have been achieved
It wasn't near being achieved in the 1970s and 1980s with far more ruthless tactics, so how could it have been achieved in the 1920s
The logical upshot of the words "sell out" that is that you believe the rest of Ireland had a moral duty to remain part of the UK until some point where the fantasy of a 32 county Irish Republic could have been achieved in one fell swoop
Was never going to happen
If you believe Collins sold out, you automatically believe SF and the PIRA sold out, because now they're administering British rule themselves
The only people who wouldn't have "sold out" are those who wanted perpetual war, ie. McKevitt etc., who did Omagh
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:59:33 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 14, 2021, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 14, 2021, 10:33:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on May 14, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.
Wheb the PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.
The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in
Expect they didn't.
And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state
A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force
This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war
One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history
It is fantasy unfortunately, as it's all theoretical. We'll never know, as they agreed to sell out and divide the island. The rest as they say is history. But let's not claim dividing the country was a victory as you say, they didn't achieve a united ireland.
It would never have been achieved
It wasn't near being achieved in the 1970s and 1980s with far more ruthless tactics, so how could it have been achieved in the 1920s
The logical upshot of the words "sell out" that is that you believe the rest of Ireland had a moral duty to remain part of the UK until some point where the fantasy of a 32 county Irish Republic could have been achieved in one fell swoop
Was never going to happen
If you believe Collins sold out, you automatically believe SF and the PIRA sold out, because now they're administering British rule themselves
The only people who wouldn't have "sold out" are those who wanted perpetual war, ie. McKevitt etc., who did Omagh
Well they were looking a 32 county Ireland. They didn't get that. Maybe sell out is the wrong word, but they didn't get what they wanted either. And it caused quite a backlash. Hard to spin that as a complete victory.
I wonder did Collins and the other negotiators ever think of looking a 20 or 22 county state
You would have tipped the balance in a 10 or 12 county NI before long, I guess the Unionists were too cute for that
But I wonder do present day Unionists now regret their predecessors didn't make more use of the boundary commission to ensure a bigger majority
It would obviously have a meant a smaller NI state
https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 12:45:23 AM
https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/
Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174 (https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174)
What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?
We know the Old IRA targetted at least the same proportion, and likely a higher proportion, of civilians compared to the PIRA. So unless you are also going to post up, without comment, another link to a story about the Old IRA targetting an innocent civilian, then maybe all you're going to suceed in doing is validating the accusation made in the title of the thread.
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.
As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?
"Wee man"
Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.
People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.
Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.
I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.
I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.
Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?
Quote from: smelmoth on May 15, 2021, 08:20:23 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.
As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?
"Wee man"
Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.
People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.
Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.
I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.
I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.
Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?
Where are your posts about the bloody abd violent past of the Old IRA?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you
And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?
No. I have never said that. You keep bringing it up as i had said. But I haven't. Illuminating. No end up doing "an Angelo"
You stated that it isn't possible to separate the notions of taking part in an armed conflict and being happy about killing. Patent nonsense.
This is what I mean about faux argument. I didn't say "happy". I said that you cannot separate a campaign of violence and the deaths the violence causes. Its simple cause and effect. Literally. If you don't shoot someone they are not going to die from you having shot them.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?
I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.
Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?
Show me the quote where I have only applied this to the troubles? I am accusing you of making things up and having faux arguments. Demonstrate your credibility by producing the quote or quotes that your argument is based upon.
See the bit I put in bold. You limited your question to those taking part in The Troubles, in a thread not specifically about the Troubles, but about the founding of the free state.
I was asked a question about the troubles and I answered the question in the context of the troubles. You object to that? At point in that statement did I say that the point exclusively applied to the troubles so again I ask you where did i say this ONLY applied to the Troubles and didn't apply to any other conflict? Stick to quotes and facts. Stay away from fantasy. ?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
A belief that the end justifies the means does't justify it. If someone burgles your house to fund their drug habit I am sure that they would feel that the end (getting their fix) justified the means (pilfering your stuff). So that is ok then?
A loyalist who feels that his community is under attack kidnaps and murders a catholic feels he is justified. Is that ok then? Should we have a commemoration for that individual then?
A belief that the end justifies the means is not a justification its a self-justification. Don't fall for it.
That's why I sad Collins did what he did "because he believed the ends justified the means. What was that you were saying about faux arguments? Do you believe the Old IRA campaign was justified?
2 points. Firstly I have already provided you with examples that a belief that the end justifies the means is not valid. Secondly I have given the test that I would apply to the Old Ira (just as I would apply it to PIRA, today's dissos, UDA etc, etc). I have invited you to apply that test to any act. I can do no more.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.
And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.
Ok. You win. Add the number of people who provided safe houses to the number of direct combatants and STILL an overwhelming majority of people suffering oppression didn't engage in an armed struggle.
Of course the overwhelming majority didn't engage in it. Where did I claim otherwise? Faux arguments? What I did do was address the ridiculousness of your argument. So what the majority didn't join the PIRA. A majority didn't join the Old IRA either.
Another faux argument. I haven't claimed that you said an overwhelming majority engaged in the armed campaign. The faux aspect of your posts is that you think you have an answer and pretend that I am making the opposing point so that you can use your point.
Your original point was that the armed conflict was inevitable. My response is that is not true. My evidence is that an overwhelming majority of nationalists experiencing the oppression manifestly did not think it inevitable that they take up arms. Fact. You cannot re-write that. There was no inevitability.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.
Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?
Election results during the armed struggle when and where SF ran candidates.
That old absolute chestnut. I already addressed this just a few posts ago. For the majority of the conflict, SF barely functioned and people who dared put their heads above the parapet to join SF, be seen working for the party, or to run as a candidate, set themselves up as targets for state assassination. Does that sound like a party competing in a fair and level playing field? I don't think even you would be as ignorant enough to say yes. Combine that with the fact that many nationalists did not engage for years with electoral politics in the north and you get the picture. So to suggest that SF' electoral performance was an accurate gauge of support for the armed struggle is utterly daft. My own family was fairly typical of many nationalist areas for many years of the conflict - we supported the right to armed struggle but did not engage with electoral politics for many years.
Plain nonsense. How do you explain people rejecting the SF candidate where they stood?
Was the threat of violence (against) unique to SF?
Does republicanism come to this particular argument with clean hands?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.
Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?
Again another faux argument.
How so? I asked you to furnish me with a guide to how we could have gotten to where we are now without armed conflict. Bearing in mind that the peaceful route was tried and the state reacted to that at Burntollet and in Derry with ruthless brutality.
The Faux argument is the whole thing about me living in the south or being from the south or both. The extent to which your premise is wrong is 100%. Its a faux argument.
In getting to where we are today the single biggest obstacle was removing the armed actors. If they hadn't been there we would have got there quickly.
The single biggest thing that held us back was the "othering" of our neighbours. Nothing fed that suspicion of your neighbour like the armed conflict.
The pressure on unionism to accept powersharing was external to NI and to large extent external to UK and Ireland. Those players had no interest in investing in us and supporting us whilst the violence was ongoing.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.
Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?
Your first argument is frankly bollocks. A contention (that I don't dispute) that innocent casualties are inevitable does not excuse them away. If I drive at 80 mph, in the wrong direction and across both lanes of a motorway there will be inevitably be casualties. Hardly an excuse or a rationale though is it?
Your second argument is more interesting. The test that I would apply would be did the acts of the old IRA have popular support (I would say democratic support if there had of been elections), where they assured of achieving their outcome and was there any workable alternative. Happy to consider any act that you think meets all 3.
How is it bollocks ffs. My point, clearly, was that the inevitability of civilian victims does not automatically mean a conflict is unjustified. You were the one who implies otherwise by asking how I could "account for" atrocities where civilians lost their lives.
And as for the questions regarding the Old IRA, I have stated my view on that conflict a thousand times here. Perhaps you could tell me if YOU think it was justified?
In an earlier response to BCB I set out why this argument is bollocks. The Tony Blair example should be enough for you.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:42:53 PM
You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?
I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
Seriously. For a man that likes to accuse me of engaging in faux arguments, you've just produced quite a list of them yourself. This one takes the biscuit. I've lost count of the number of times that I've state on this board that the PIRA, just like the Old IRA, carried out acts that were unjustified. Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times clowns like you still attempt to accuse me of trying to justify every action. It's not inconsistent to support an armed campaign and to believe that certain actions that took place in it were unjustifiable. Most people would support the allied fight in WW2. Does that mean they "presumably jutify" the carpet bombing of Dresden? Cop yourself on.
You see I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act.
You continually fail to follow the thread of an argument and make up your own argument.
To break it down for you you cannot use Canary Wharf to justify the the armed campaign. What was the rest of it -target practice for slow learners?
Quote from: Snapchap on May 14, 2021, 10:29:17 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:12:34 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 03:16:47 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 13, 2021, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 13, 2021, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: mouview on May 13, 2021, 01:41:50 PM
So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.
Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?
Another belter.
SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.
And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?
So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.
And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.
You do get it that I lived through the troubles in the north.
Stop making these things up.
I find it hard to believe, given some of the pure nonsense you've been posting here. My guess is you're with from the south, or from the north and grew up in peace times. Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.
I think you have single handedly destroyed your own argument that "belief" is the basis of any argument.
Belief isn't enough. You have to know. That is true of a discussion board. Its true of life and its most definitely true if you are taking a human life.
Quote from: Angelo on May 15, 2021, 08:57:37 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 15, 2021, 08:20:23 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:22:40 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 14, 2021, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:15:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on May 13, 2021, 03:58:00 PM
This has been a great win for the forum republicans.
This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler ::)
The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.
Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?
The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.
Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.
If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?
Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.
As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?
"Wee man"
Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.
People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.
Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.
I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.
I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.
Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?
Where are your posts about the bloody abd violent past of the Old IRA?
Which ones?
I really cannot be bothered with all this quoting nonsense. Particularly when your counter arguments are gems like "I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act" when if you went back up a few lines in quotes to your previous comment, you said:
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
So what was that you were saying about faux arguments? ::)
So how about cut the waffle and answer straight:
If you believe the PIRA campaign was a terrorist one, then was the Old IRA campaign also a terrorist one?
Only Angelo could start a thread with over 340 replies in about 4 days. (Well maybe not only Angelo but kudos to him for managing to do it.) :D
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 09:15:54 AM
I really cannot be bothered with all this quoting nonsense. Particularly when your counter arguments are gems like "I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act" when if you went back up a few lines in quotes to your previous comment, you said:
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
So what was that you were saying about faux arguments? ::)
So how about cut the waffle and answer straight:
If you believe the PIRA campaign was a terrorist one, then was the Old IRA campaign also a terrorist one?
Don't fall into the Angelo trap. As much as I fundamentally disagree with you, you have at least engaged in the debate up to this point.
Angelo on the other hand appears to be a Loyalist agent trying to bring republicanism down from within.
But more importantly I would ask you to read my post again. I have given you response to the points you have raised. I appreciate the posts are long and so each has to fill in the gaps but you can't just fill them in with wild assumptions in your favour.
On the point of justifying every act. I never said you had. I have now explained twice what I (clearly) meant. Not much more I can do.
On the old IRA you seem to under the misapprehension that I have justified them. I haven't. I have set the rules that I would judge them by. I have invited you to put any act to that test. Which you haven't done.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 12:45:23 AM
https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/
Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174 (https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174)
What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?
A number of pages back I pointed out that by taking their war to the 26 Counties the Provos alienated a lot of support/sympathy they might have had.
I listed some of their actions in this war on the 26 Co State including the sectarian murder of an elected* representative.
The silence from the Provo supporters on that act was notable (with one exception...."But the 1921 IRA...).
The Fox murder was the last straw for my dad and he says a lot of others who had been sympathisers were the same.
Making war on and denying the legitimacy of a State which had been legitimised by 98% of its population were not very wise
moves.
* only the Senate I know.
Quote from: smelmoth on May 15, 2021, 10:52:28 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 09:15:54 AM
I really cannot be bothered with all this quoting nonsense. Particularly when your counter arguments are gems like "I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act" when if you went back up a few lines in quotes to your previous comment, you said:
Quote from: smelmoth on May 14, 2021, 09:06:20 AM
So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?
So what was that you were saying about faux arguments? ::)
So how about cut the waffle and answer straight:
If you believe the PIRA campaign was a terrorist one, then was the Old IRA campaign also a terrorist one?
Don't fall into the Angelo trap. As much as I fundamentally disagree with you, you have at least engaged in the debate up to this point.
Angelo on the other hand appears to be a Loyalist agent trying to bring republicanism down from within.
But more importantly I would ask you to read my post again. I have given you response to the points you have raised. I appreciate the posts are long and so each has to fill in the gaps but you can't just fill them in with wild assumptions in your favour.
On the point of justifying every act. I never said you had. I have now explained twice what I (clearly) meant. Not much more I can do.
On the old IRA you seem to under the misapprehension that I have justified them. I haven't. I have set the rules that I would judge them by. I have invited you to put any act to that test. Which you haven't done.
Were I at a PC, I might be more inclined to engage in longer debate and reply to individual quotes. Writing on a phone is not worth the effort.
I have never said you endorse the Old IRA. I merely asked you if you do. My problem is hypocritical attitudes to the two eras of conflict. If someone thinks the violence in 1921 was not terrorism, but that violence 50 years later was, then I would be interested in hearing a valid excuse why they believe so. I've yet to hear one sensible, rational reason. If someone thinks both conflicts were terrorist, then I have no issue. I might disagree, but I recognise the consistency.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 12:45:23 AM
https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/
Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174 (https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174)
What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?
A number of pages back I pointed out that by taking their war to the 26 Counties the Provos alienated a lot of support/sympathy they might have had.
I listed some of their actions in this war on the 26 Co State including the sectarian murder of an elected* representative.
The silence from the Provo supporters on that act was notable (with one exception...."But the 1921 IRA...).
The Fox murder was the last straw for my dad and he says a lot of others who had been sympathisers were the same.
Making war on and denying the legitimacy of a State which had been legitimised by 98% of its population were not very wise
moves.
* only the Senate I know.
That's all well and good but it is not a rational excuse for holding two different attitudes. Why would an utterly unjustifiable action like the murder of Senator Fox be enough to deem the entire campaign as terrorist, but the murder of a man in 1921 for refusing to close his shop for a funeral, not be enough to cause the same assessment of that conflict's validity?
Why, in a thread specifically about the violent formation of the free state (a topic you seem desperate to avoid), would you choose to only post a link to a story about one single PIRA sectarian attack without comment? Why not post a link about an Old IRA sectarian attack without comment?
PIRA had one aim. Brits Out. They failed. 30 years over 3000 dead and for what?
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 07:37:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2021, 12:45:23 AM
https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/
Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174 (https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174)
What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?
A number of pages back I pointed out that by taking their war to the 26 Counties the Provos alienated a lot of support/sympathy they might have had.
I listed some of their actions in this war on the 26 Co State including the sectarian murder of an elected* representative.
The silence from the Provo supporters on that act was notable (with one exception...."But the 1921 IRA...).
The Fox murder was the last straw for my dad and he says a lot of others who had been sympathisers were the same.
Making war on and denying the legitimacy of a State which had been legitimised by 98% of its population were not very wise
moves.
* only the Senate I know.
The Assassination of Kevin O'Higgins (1927)
November 24, 2010 by Sam
O'Higgins, who was once called the 'Irish Mussolini', is one of the most notorious Free State figures and has been a figure of hate of republicans for generations. Between 1922 and 1923, he personally ordered the execution of seventy-seven republican prisoners including Rory O'Connor (who had been best man at O'Higgins' wedding), Liam Mellows and Erskine Childers. A unapologetic social traditionalist, he famously remarked that was part of a generation of 'the most conservative-minded revolutionaries that ever put through a successful revolution'. [1]
back row l-r: Eamon de Valera, O'Higgins and Rory O'Connor at O'Higgins' wedding, 1921.
He was killed just before midday on Sunday, 10 July 1927 as he walked from his home Dunamase House on Cross Avenue to the Church of the Assumption on Booterstown Avenue. As he approached the junction of Booterstown and Cross Avenue, a man stepped out of a parked motor car and fired at point-blank range.
O'Higgins staggered, turned and began to run, followed by the man firing. O'Higgins collapsed on the other side of the road and two men came from the rear of the car and fired down at O'Higgins as he lay on the ground. The men then leaped into the car and drove off.[2]
The three anti-Treaty IRA men who killed him – Archie Doyle, Bill Gannon and Tim Coughlan – apparently saw him by chance. Gannon later recalled:
'seeing him ... we were just taken over and incensed with hatered. You can have no idea what it was like, with the memory of the executions, and the sight of him just walking along on his own. We started shooting from the car, then getting out of the car we continued to shoot. We all shot at him, he didn't have a chance'.[3]
The motor car in which they used was believed to have been stolen from a Captain McDonnell on the night before. After the shooting, the car was later found abandoned at Richmond Avenue in close by Milltown. [4]
A weekly mass goer, O'Higgins was usually accompanied by his wife or by P. J. Hogan the Minister for Agriculture and his closest friend. This week however he was escorted by Detective O'Grady. When the two men were 'between their house and Booterstown avenue', O'Higgins sent the detective back to collect something that he had forgotten. It was later believed that the Garda escort was in fact sent to Blackrock to buy cigarettes [5]
O'Higgins was found lying by a 'lamppost outside the gates of the house Sans Souci, which directly faces up Cross Avenue' [6] by locals on their way to mass who heard the shots. Apparently local resident Eoin MacNeill was one of the first people to reach the dying O'Higgins. He was moved to his house and miraculously lingered on for another five hours. (Tens of thousands attended his funeral. You can see footage of it here.)
The Boards.ie user GusherING believes that there used to be a 'little cross' to mark the spot in which he was shot 'near the entrance to Sans Souci'. A local history site confirms that there a 'small cross inscribed on the present footpath' that identified the location.
The question that now has to be asked is whether 'historians' like ourselves should be pushing to replace the cross that marked the spot of O'Higgins assassination. I think we should be. No matter your political views or opinions on individuals, historical moments in our city's life should be properly identified.
Quote from: trailer on May 15, 2021, 11:45:39 AM
PIRA had one aim. Brits Out. They failed. 30 years over 3000 dead and for what?
They make a nice few quid from selling t-shirts bearing Bobby Sands' image
And they get to administer British rule in NI now
So you can't say it was futile
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 11:27:13 AM
Why would an utterly unjustifiable action like the murder of Senator Fox be enough to deem the entire campaign as terrorist,
Wha
You think that was the only nasty thing the Provos did? ;D
Quote from: trailer on May 15, 2021, 11:45:39 AM
PIRA had one aim. Brits Out. They failed. 30 years over 3000 dead and for what?
The Old IRA failed too to get the Brits out. Hence the sectarian statelet being formed and the 'border campaign' of the 50s IRA and the troubled plight of northern nationalists which eventually led to the PIRA being formed.
I don't know if there will ever be a united Ireland now, given GB has turned into a Tory-reich, but we'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 11:27:13 AM
Why would an utterly unjustifiable action like the murder of Senator Fox be enough to deem the entire campaign as terrorist,
Wha
You think that was the only nasty thing the Provos did? ;D
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made a false allegation that another poster accused you of child rape. Stop trying to engage with me, you lowlife.
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 15, 2021, 11:27:13 AM
Why would an utterly unjustifiable action like the murder of Senator Fox be enough to deem the entire campaign as terrorist,
Wha
You think that was the only nasty thing the Provos did? ;D
You accused me of being "into dead children" and made an allegation that another poster accused you of child rape.
Yes
Absolutely
This thread has confirmed what I said in the opening post.
The hypocrisy is off the charts from the Free Staters.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 15, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
The Old IRA failed too to get the Brits out.
Many Brits in Mayo over the last 100 years?
Quote from: Angelo on May 15, 2021, 12:34:05 PM
This thread has confirmed what I said in the opening post.
The hypocrisy is off the charts from the Free Staters.
If you find citizens of the RoI so distasteful, Angelo, you must be happy to live in the UK.
Quote from: seafoid on May 15, 2021, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on May 15, 2021, 12:34:05 PM
This thread has confirmed what I said in the opening post.
The hypocrisy is off the charts from the Free Staters.
If you find citizens of the RoI so distasteful, Angelo, you must be happy to live in the UK.
He doesn't want to live in ROI.
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 12:36:38 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 15, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
The Old IRA failed too to get the Brits out.
Many Brits in Mayo over the last 100 years?
Far from me be it open up another front but if one wants to give credit to the people who did most to gain Irish (partial) independence, the Black and Tans must be given credit where it's rightfully due.
The bastards won Ireland's freedom by default.
The heinousness of their actions caused so much revulsion amongst the British general public that the pressure on Lloyd George to reach an agreement with his adversaries was overpowering. He just had to call off the tans.
The same thing was happening in the US where Dev had been on a fundraising campaign and the very large Irish American faction had been pressurising Woodrow Wilson to force Lloyd George to end the war. Most impartial commentators felt that a stalemate had been reached in the war; neither the Crown forces nor the IRA could overcome the other and a state of stalemate existed. Imo, you had a similar situation at the end of the more recent troubles; bothe the security forces and the Provos realised that neither could gain an outright victory and both were sick of conflict after close on 40 years of fighting.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 15, 2021, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 12:36:38 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 15, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
The Old IRA failed too to get the Brits out.
Many Brits in Mayo over the last 100 years?
Far from me be it open up another front but if one wants to give credit to the people who did most to gain Irish (partial) independence, the Black and Tans must be given credit where it's rightfully due.
The bastards won Ireland's freedom by default.
The heinousness of their actions caused so much revulsion amongst the British general public that the pressure on Lloyd George to reach an agreement with his adversaries was overpowering. He just had to call off the tans.
The same thing was happening in the US where Dev had been on a fundraising campaign and the very large Irish American faction had been pressurising Woodrow Wilson to force Lloyd George to end the war. Most impartial commentators felt that a stalemate had been reached in the war; neither the Crown forces nor the IRA could overcome the other and a state of stalemate existed. Imo, you had a similar situation at the end of the more recent troubles; bothe the security forces and the Provos realised that neither could gain an outright victory and both were sick of conflict after close on 40 years of fighting.
It's a pity the Provos didn't realise that after, say, four years of fighting that they could not win
As was obvious
The Brits were not "fighting to win"
Neither were Loyalists
Only the Provos were
There's a great irony as regards Bobby Sands
Sands' victory in the Fermanagh/South Tyrone by election was the seed of modern day Sinn Fein - concentration on electoral politics
It was the seed that was the beginning of the end of the IRA's armed campaign - it was the seed of surrender, sown in electoral victory
But that's not what Bobby Sands stood in that by election for - he did not stand to sow the seed of surrender
So you could say in a way he was duped
Bobby Sands' sister herself clearly believed the ceasefires were surrender, hence her being anti-peace process and her support for the Real IRA
Sinn Fein have traded off the image of Sands for 40 years - but the reality is they betrayed him - and they have lied for decades about what his death "achieved"
Bernadette Sands was Bobby Sands' sister, he was her brother, her own flesh and blood - to others, ie. Sinn Fein, he was merely a franchise whose image could be used as a rallying cry, like Fianna Fail used "Up the Republic" as a rallying cry
Here is what Bernadette Sands said in February 1998:
https://magill.ie/archive/interview-bernadette-sands
Quote"Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers. He did not die for nationalists to be equal British citizens within the Northern Ireland state. In the last extract he made in his diary, he writes that he will never be broken because the desire for freedom is in his heart. He says that one day the Irish people will have their freedom and it is then we will see 'the rising of the moon'. That day of the 'rising of the moon' has not yet arrived, and I think it is well worth struggling for."
Quote"British rule is just as wrong today as it was 10 years, 20 years or 80 years ago. As we approach the new millennium, Britain should do the modern, progressive thing and leave Ireland."
Sinn Feiners pretended to be confused about Bernadette Sands' position:
QuoteRepublican grassroots in Belfast are confused about her position. The lack of media interviews by The 32 County Sovereignty Committee means many don't understand what it stands for. One activist who knows her family says: "Any divisions within our community are tragic, even more so when they involve the relative of a hunger-striker."
Some Sinn Fein insiders were quite insulting about her:
QuoteStaunch supporters of the Sinn Féin leadership are less philosophical. One says: "Bernie Sands's problem is that she is over-ambitious. That's what is behind all this. She won't get far. There won't be too many republicans following her line."
But Bernadette Sands' position was quite easy to understand - for her, the ceasefires were a sell out, and meant her brother and the other hunger strikers died for nothing
Which, understandably, must be a very difficult thing to swallow, because Bobby Sands was her brother, not a meme or a slogan
Especially not a meme or a slogan to be used by those who surrendered - the antithesis of what Bobby Sands wanted
So you'd be happier that the arm struggle continued?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 04:45:06 PM
So you'd be happier that the arm struggle continued?
Obviously not
But you can see the point of those who had been within the Sinn Fein/IRA sphere who were against the peace process, like Bernadette Sands
They are quite entitled to feel betrayed
I don't see how somebody can support SF now and aim the term "sell out" at 1920s Republicans who supported the Treaty
Because SF "sold out" themselves
One of the reasons the Provos came into existence was abstentionism - not recognising the Republic of Ireland Dáil
A policy they walked back on in November 1986
If Gerry Adams has a gift, it is in portraying selling out as victory
The hunger strikes were a defeat, they're now proclaimed as a glorious chapter of blood sacrifice - they were certainly a chapter of myth making
The end of abstentionism was a climb down, portrayed as forward thinking and pragmatism
The ceasefires were a surrender, portrayed as victory
The Good Friday Agreement was a surrender, portrayed as victory
Administering British rule in NI was defeat packaged as victory
Essentially what Gerry Adams did was to transform the Provisional IRA into the new SDLP
I'm glad he did that, because it means peace, but there's no getting away from the fact it was a complete betrayal of what the Provos were set up to do
You're a confused lad in fairness to you. The betrayal happened when the south turned its back on the north and washed its hands of its countrymen.
We wouldn't be having these conversations and any acts if war that would have happened would be talked about with nostalgia rather than brutality.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:00:41 PM
You're a confused lad in fairness to you. The betrayal happened when the south turned its back on the north and washed its hands of its countrymen.
We wouldn't be having these conversations and any acts if war that would have happened would be talked about with nostalgia rather than brutality.
Anybody who has never had some degree of confusion about the topic has never thought seriously about the topic
Sinn Fein washed its hands of what Bobby Sands was fighting for
As I said the other day, the only people who can claim not to have sold out are the dissos, the likes of McKevitt
But McKevitt was responsible for Omagh, which was an outrage
"Selling out" is a by product of cold reality and always has been
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
For true hypocrisy look no further than neoliberal Sinn Féin.
Thousands of families in NI are dependent on food banks. Nobody gives a f**k about Loyalist education levels.
Ignorance imposes huge costs on society .
Derry is still very poor.
Bernadette McAliskey nails it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bernadette-mcaliskey-i-am-astounded-i-survived-i-made-mad-decisions-1.2798293?mode=amp
It would be wrong to say there has been no progress at all since 1969," says McAliskey. "But 1969 came at the end of almost 50 years of neglect by the British state, where unionists were allowed to treat the Catholic community as unequal citizens. To my mind, since then, we went round in a very long, destructive circle to end up in a place close to where we started in 1924.
Passive acquiescence
"If you see the problem purely in terms of unionism running the lives of nationalists, then you can say we have made significant progress. You can say, 'Look, we now have Catholics at the very heart of power.' But if that is not what you were ever about, then things may in fact be worse, because what we have is passive acquiescence in a society where the things I took for granted growing up have been destroyed."
The economic and social brutality meted out to the Catholic, and Protestant, poor of the 1960s by a unionist-dominated Stormont is now meted out by "capitalism, neoliberalism or any other -ism you care to call it," she says.
"I grew up in this state with the opportunity, by virtue of free education and universal healthcare, of not only surviving extreme poverty but having a university education. I look at my granddaughter now, living in the same place [Co Tyrone], going to the same university, and she will be in debt until she's 50. If you look at those pillars, of education and health, they were accessible regardless of religion. That no longer exists. The welfare state is being destroyed."
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The North never fought in the War of Independence
So they sold themselves out
Quote from: seafoid on May 15, 2021, 05:14:27 PM
For true hypocrisy look no further than neoliberal Sinn Féin.
Thousands of families in NI are dependent on food banks. Nobody gives a f**k about Loyalist education levels.
Ignorance imposes huge costs on society .
Derry is still very poor.
Bernadette McAliskey nails it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bernadette-mcaliskey-i-am-astounded-i-survived-i-made-mad-decisions-1.2798293?mode=amp
It would be wrong to say there has been no progress at all since 1969," says McAliskey. "But 1969 came at the end of almost 50 years of neglect by the British state, where unionists were allowed to treat the Catholic community as unequal citizens. To my mind, since then, we went round in a very long, destructive circle to end up in a place close to where we started in 1924.
Passive acquiescence
"If you see the problem purely in terms of unionism running the lives of nationalists, then you can say we have made significant progress. You can say, 'Look, we now have Catholics at the very heart of power.' But if that is not what you were ever about, then things may in fact be worse, because what we have is passive acquiescence in a society where the things I took for granted growing up have been destroyed."
The economic and social brutality meted out to the Catholic, and Protestant, poor of the 1960s by a unionist-dominated Stormont is now meted out by "capitalism, neoliberalism or any other -ism you care to call it," she says.
"I grew up in this state with the opportunity, by virtue of free education and universal healthcare, of not only surviving extreme poverty but having a university education. I look at my granddaughter now, living in the same place [Co Tyrone], going to the same university, and she will be in debt until she's 50. If you look at those pillars, of education and health, they were accessible regardless of religion. That no longer exists. The welfare state is being destroyed."
Aren't something like 8 out of the 10 most disadvantaged wards in NI majority Catholic?
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:16:02 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The North never fought in the War of Independence
So they sold themselves out
15 & 17 April 1920: Clashes erupted in Derry when republican prisoners were brought to Derry Gaol. British soldiers fired on a Catholic crowd (which included women and children) to disperse them. Later, an assault on patrolling British soldiers in Derry sparked clashes between Irish nationalists and unionists in the city. This culminated in an attack on an RIC barracks, during which the RIC shot six people.
9 May 1920: Some 200 IRA volunteers under Frank Aiken attacked the RIC barracks in Newtownhamilton, County Armagh. After a two-hour firefight, the IRA breached the barracks wall with explosives and stormed the building. The RIC refused to surrender until the building was set alight with petrol from a potato-spraying machine.
15–16 May 1920: Loyalists attacked a Catholic district of Derry, sparking a four-hour gun battle between armed republicans, loyalists and the RIC. A Detective Sergeant from RIC Special Branch was shot dead, the first RIC officer to be killed in Ulster. A Catholic man was also killed. Armed UVF members took over Carlisle Bridge and assaulted Catholics attempting to cross, despite the presence of British troops and police.
1 June 1920:
At least 200 IRA volunteers led by Roger McCorley attacked the RIC barracks in Crossgar, County Down. They opened fire on the building, wounding two officers, and attempted to breach the walls with explosives before withdrawing.
I could go on but don't want to embarrass you any more than you're going by these threads
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The north did nothing of consequence in the war of independence
The usual nordie setting of blaming someone else
Quote from: clonadmad on May 15, 2021, 05:30:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The north did nothing of consequence in the war of independence
The usual nordie setting of blaming someone else
There's no blame, the minute the south turned its back it created a political nightmare. Anyone that doesn't see that and is sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle is a hypocrite, my opinion, I don't need to blame anyone. That's just what happened
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 15, 2021, 05:30:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The north did nothing of consequence in the war of independence
The usual nordie setting of blaming someone else
There's no blame, the minute the south turned its back it created a political nightmare. Anyone that doesn't see that and is sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle is a hypocrite, my opinion, I don't need to blame anyone. That's just what happened
The reality is the British army were in a position to send units to the likes of Munster from the north due to the north being so ineffective
The inactivity of the cowardly north in taking the fight to the British even in nationalist areas is a shameful chapter of the war of independence
You lot couldn't even help yourself and then had the gall to tar those brave men in the south as having "turned their backs" on the north
I really don't know what bringing in Palestine has to do with your argument
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 06:39:31 PM
The treaty was signed and any self governance was taken very quickly.
People may choose to stay as uk citizens, I do t know any, some southern citizens will choose not to have a United Ireland, that's their choice. Like it was in 1920
Instead of churning out bumper sticker utterances of nordie victim-hood history, go and actually read about your own Irish history. you haven't got the foggiest notion of 20c Irish history.
And quit waffling about nordie nationalists, there are not enough of them now ready to vote for an UI. Stockholm syndrome.
The vast majority of southerners would vote for an UI
I'd even rather live in Cavan for life than spend a month in the occupied north.
Quote from: Main Street on May 15, 2021, 06:55:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 06:39:31 PM
The treaty was signed and any self governance was taken very quickly.
People may choose to stay as uk citizens, I do t know any, some southern citizens will choose not to have a United Ireland, that's their choice. Like it was in 1920
Instead of churning out bumper sticker utterances of nordie victim-hood history, go and actually read about your own Irish history. you haven't got the foggiest notion of 20c Irish history.
And quit waffling about nordie nationalists, there are not enough of them now ready to vote for an UI. Stockholm syndrome.
The vast majority of southerners would vote for an UI
I'd even rather live in Cavan for life than spend a month in the occupied north.
I didn't say the vast majority wouldn't vote for a UI, you're making stuff up now. It's ok, I'm not bothered if you want to stay away from here, no biggy
Quote from: Main Street on May 15, 2021, 06:33:20 PM
And now there's a sizable rump of Northern nationalists who are very happy with their lot as dual nationals and wouldn't vote for an AI tomorrow, a major block on the path to unity.
These are what are commonly known as unionists.
Quote from: Main Street on May 15, 2021, 06:33:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 06:15:43 PM
I've given some examples of the war in the north during that period, there are countless more. I can't be arsed posting them up. You said they were cowards, that's fine if you believe that.
It's still won't change how the south signed away the north and partitioned the country, you didn't do it, the government at the time did.
The south thought it was the right thing to do at the time, you'd have a different view had you been born in, let's say Belfast.
Sold out my arse, partition was already a de facto reality years before the truce. And even with that certainty there was a bloody civil war disagreeing with the terms of the watery treaty. We were sold out to the English by Pope Adrian, you don't hear us moaning about that and wallowing in victim-hood. And now there's a sizable rump of Northern nationalists who are very happy with their lot as dual nationals and wouldn't vote for an AI tomorrow, a major block on the path to unity.
Aye, because Irish nationality in the North meant a big pile until recently. It was only properly recognised due to the De Souza case.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on May 15, 2021, 05:30:05 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 15, 2021, 05:12:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 15, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
You sold out, you feel bad about it and deflect accordingly. Shame on you
I don't feel bad about it at all, I'm delighted I did sell out actually
More people should have sold out and much quicker
You are happy with how the north was sold out? Ok, then there's nothing to discuss.
The north did nothing of consequence in the war of independence
The usual nordie setting of blaming someone else
There's no blame, the minute the south turned its back it created a political nightmare. Anyone that doesn't see that and is sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle is a hypocrite, my opinion, I don't need to blame anyone. That's just what happened
So you think the Republic should have stayed part of the UK, without even a Home Rule parliament, never mind independent statehood
I don't ever remember this board being as toxic as it has in recent months. A lot of it transparent trolling , with presumably intelligent posters taking the bait.
I can't believe that this thread has reached 28 pages in a week where British forces and their political leaders were exposed in court for cold blooded murder of innocents , then besmirching their names , and waiting 50 years to give an apology which was grossly insulting to those families.
Look at the BLM movement, rightly up in arms about racial injustice. How would it look if Paras went into a black neighbourhood and shot innocent blacks in their backs and left a mother of 8 to bleed to death , continued attacks over 3 days ignoring the opportunity to reflect and step back, then be allowed to manipulate the media in besmirching their name. Their colleagues in the RUC conducting cursory inadequate investigations.
I don't condone any death, and know families on " both sides " who have suffered , and they must remain at the centre of our thoughts. Surely it's appropriate this week to reflect on one of the most horrific pre-mediated outrages in this islands history without point scoring .
Thankfully the views of trolls on this board are not representative of the majority of people on these islands who will be concentrating on real life issues .
Quote from: 6th sam on May 15, 2021, 09:25:50 PM
I don't ever remember this board being as toxic as it has in recent months. A lot of it transparent trolling , with presumably intelligent posters taking the bait.
I can't believe that this thread has reached 28 pages in a week where British forces and their political leaders were exposed in court for cold blooded murder of innocents , then besmirching their names , and waiting 50 years to give an apology which was grossly insulting to those families.
Look at the BLM movement, rightly up in arms about racial injustice. How would it look if Paras went into a black neighbourhood and shot innocent blacks in their backs and left a mother of 8 to bleed to death , continued attacks over 3 days ignoring the opportunity to reflect and step back, then be allowed to manipulate the media in besmirching their name. Their colleagues in the RUC conducting cursory inadequate investigations.
I don't condone any death, and know families on " both sides " who have suffered , and they must remain at the centre of our thoughts. Surely it's appropriate this week to reflect on one of the most horrific pre-mediated outrages in this islands history without point scoring .
Thankfully the views of trolls on this board are not representative of the majority of people on these islands who will be concentrating on real life issues .
Well said, I haven't even bothered to read the most recent pages upon pages of toxic posts because I have a fair idea of what's in them. It seems that the determination to score cheap political points supersedes everything else. Just sad really.
Agreed. Some absolute shite posted.
Deleted a few posts and possibly some that were harmless enough...apologies to any poster aggrieved by a missing, but genuine post.
Thread being locked now. Don't want to rush into bans right now – I've more important things to do on a Saturday than go through every post to determine who is feuding with who.
Feuds will be identified and the culprits dealt with.