Sinn Fein vs Sieg Heil - Spot the Difference

[carribbear]

When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.
Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity? Point out the question about my identity that I've supposedly ducked. If you're referring to the request for a prediction in the Antrim match, then (a) he's taking the piss; and (b) an interest or disinterest in gaelic games has no bearing on someone's identity. So where's this question you're talking about?

More ducking and diving than Paul Berry in a Belfast Hotel Spa.

So there was no question then? Thank you for clearing that up. T

I did ask for your Antrim prediction but as having 'a passing interest' you might not have an opinion. You're a queer fella alright
To be honest I don't really care what you write, we all know the mask is off.

[The Watcher Pat]

Where am I?, Are those my feet? whats going on?

[Myles Na G.]

Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

He posed more than one, but his final query: 'Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?' My answer to that would be a clear and unequivocal yes - I think the British acted outside the normally accepted rules of warfare. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on here, I am not an apologist either for British foreign policy, nor for the actions of the British armed forces. Having said that, I would go on to point out that it was not just the British who acted outside the rules at this particular time in Irish history. When the British had packed up and gone home, there was the Irish civil war. More people died in this conflict between erstwhile comrades than had been killed in the Tan War. Whats more, some of the brutality and the atrocities carried out by Irishmen on Irishmen made the Black and Tans look like the Boy Scouts. 

[pintsofguinness]

Maybe you could answer this point

As always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

[Myles Na G.]

Maybe you could answer this point

As always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

Can you cite a single post I've made on here which uses the word 'terrorist' to describe anybody? Since it's not a word I use, I don't believe it's for me to answer that particular point.

[pintsofguinness]

Maybe you could answer this point

As always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.

Can you cite a single post I've made on here which uses the word 'terrorist' to describe anybody? Since it's not a word I use, I don't believe it's for me to answer that particular point.

So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

[Franko]

'What happened in Ireland in 1918 had fundamental repercussions for the history of the country, unlike any election before or since ... you cannot, like your English friends, simply ignore that fact and hope it goes away, you cannot ignore the fact that your English friends rode roughshod over the democratic wishes of the vast majority of Irish people and split the country in two  ... the message that their actions sent out is there for all to see, your English friends can't complain about 'terrorism' when it is them who caused it in the first place ... your hypocrisy is all you have'

Just because you like the result, that doesn't make it any more special or relevant. And who the fock are my English friends and how are they relevant to this conversation? Why is it that Irish republicans are toatlly obsessed with the English / British?  

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

[Myles Na G.]

So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

Again, not a phrase I'd use. It's the mirror image of 'terrorists' - totally without meaning.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

I can, but I suspect you wouldn't like it. 

[Franko]

So you think the IRA were/are freedom fighters?

Again, not a phrase I'd use. It's the mirror image of 'terrorists' - totally without meaning.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've ever heard posed on this board...  Can you really not seem to work out an anwer to this???

I can, but I suspect you wouldn't like it. 

Try me.

[Myles Na G.]

Try me.

It's how Irish republicans define themselves - not by what or who they are, but by what or who they aren't. Everything has to be compared and contrasted with the British. It's almost as if republicans can't act or form an opinion without first checking what the British are doing or have done in the past. It's like an insecurity tic.

[Franko]

Myles that answer almost made me laugh

Have you any examples of this 'definition' you speak of? ... or are you just waffling again...??

[mylestheslasher]

Irish republicanism stems from the French revolution which had repersussions in many countries through out the world. It is a whole lot more than just a hatred of the English. However, defining it as such gives the anti republican brigade a nice simple black and white enemy to oppose. The founding fathers of Irish republicanism were almost all protestant and had their family roots in England.

[Main Street]

Myles Na G - Nationalist. You can't help yourself, can you.

Now can we have your prediction for the Antrim game at the weekend?    

nationalist - republican. You just can't tell the difference, can you?
 

I think youre the one who's more than a little confused about your identity

When Myles is asked about the sensitive issue of the fake representation of his identity on this board, he usually answers with another question.

Myles Na G.

Where has anyone recently asked me about my identity?

[Lar Naparka]

Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

He posed more than one, but his final query: 'Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?' My answer to that would be a clear and unequivocal yes - I think the British acted outside the normally accepted rules of warfare. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on here, I am not an apologist either for British foreign policy, nor for the actions of the British armed forces. Having said that, I would go on to point out that it was not just the British who acted outside the rules at this particular time in Irish history. When the British had packed up and gone home, there was the Irish civil war. More people died in this conflict between erstwhile comrades than had been killed in the Tan War. Whats more, some of the brutality and the atrocities carried out by Irishmen on Irishmen made the Black and Tans look like the Boy Scouts. 

I've very little problem with your observations here, Myles. However, while you may have most of your facts right in the second part of your post that I'm quoting above; I don't see the relevance of this part at all.
In my original post I posed some queries alright but they were directed at the role played by British armed forces, with the full backing of their government, in a campaign that went on or a long period of time.
I had read some of MW's recent posts and I think it's fair to say that he has pointed out that international laws do exist and they outline the conditions under which the forces of a sovereign state may wage war against the forces of another sovereign state. I don't think that any country could start a war without the expectation that some of its people will kill others on the opposing side.
I've picked out some of his comments that I have selected randomly- I have only started reading this topic in the last few days and I haven't any desire to trawl back through the earlier posts. I read enough at a time when MW was very active to pose some questions.
I've no problem in saying that Constable Murphy was murdered and not killed under any convention of war.  However what happens when the roles are reversed? I'm referring to killings that were carried out by the armed forces of a sovereign state with the full knowledge of its government. The Tans/Auxies burned down the centre of Cork city. Now, the reason I'm told for this orgy of wanton destruction was that it was in response to actions by the IRA in the area.
But it was not directed at armed opponents.  Its aim was to cow the people of Cork and force IRA sympathisers in the locality to abandon their support for the 'boys.'
I doubt very much if my granny's ducks were wearing uniforms, bearing arms or involved n any sort of subversive activity when they were mowed down by a lorry load of drunken Tans. The Tans had the habit of careering at high seed through the rural roads of East Mayo, where I come from, deliberately ploughing through flocks of geese or ducks they encountered. My grandparents had the roof of their house destroyed by a burst from a Lewis gun on the same occasion.
I know that IRA atrocities certainly occurred but I'm not referring to them here.
They could well be the subject of another discussion but they were not covered by an article of the Geneva Convention or any other aspirational waffle anyone would care to mention.
The Tans on the other hand were.
My point is that I see eff all merit in referring to any sort of protocol when the signatories don't bother to abide by the rules. There have been numerous acts of illegal actions carried out by sovereign states around the world that broke any accepted protocol in existence. The Americans in Vietnam and later in Iraq come to mind, but I don't see any evidence that anything the Americans or indeed the British may have carried out elsewhere had the the official blessing of their respective governments.
I'm reproducing some of MW's comments here that set me thinking. I'm not in any way having a go at MW by doing this. It's just that he set me thinking...

Then you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the Geneva Convention, does exist.
Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there..
Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

[Myles Na G.]

 


So there was no question, Main Street? You just made that bit up? What a guy!