Worst Irish person in History

[Nally Stand]

I answered your question about the 3500 deaths already. Yes your an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist trying to use the most non de script argument in order to justify the smuggling of Fuel, fags, Drugs and the killing of innocents on a Large scale. The tan war was nearly 90 years ago. I dont know what went on then but I'm pretty confident that the tan war didnt have the savagery that existed in the "Volunteers" of the Provisonal IRA. Just one question for you. Are you trying to justify the Provisonal/Real/Official campaign in Northern Ireland and beyond? If you are they are saying that the targetting of children and innocents was a legitimate act of war. To finish off I dont even even think its justified to call it war. War is carried out by men not by cowards who hide behind a balaclava.

You didn't answer my question about the number of victims. You simply stated that you accepted your figure was inaccurate. My question was about why it was inaccurate. So I will now ask it for the FOURTH time:
Did you not know that there were 3500 victims (approx) in the northern conflict or were you quite deliberately using lies and sensationalism when you claimed the IRA were responsible for "3500 deaths"?

And as for your question in your previous post: Is that supposed to be a difficult question?
I believe that, exactly like the Tan War, the PIRA's campaign was entirely legitimate and justified. I also believe that like the Tan War, (and EVERY other war I've ever heard of) some tactics used were unjustified and immoral. This does not necessarily mean the entire conflict was unjustified and immoral. If you believe otherwise, then how could you defend the legitimacy of ANY WAR EVER considering that any war will have many examples of innocents being killed unjustifiably?

[Tonto]

Maybe you should also read "The IRA and It's Enemies" by Peter Hart who noted how from March 29th - April 19th that 323 Post Offices were robbed and the Great Western Railway was repeatedly robbed by the IRA which repeatedly denied responsibility.

Nally, I'm surprised that a republican like yourself would reference the late Peter Hart's work. The guy's history is highly dubious to say the least. His take on the Kilmichael Ambush for instance has been largely discredited by Meda Ryan in her study of Tom Barry.

I'd agree to a large extent with most of your points regarding the War Of Independence but I find it strange that you would cite Hart to back up your argument.

If you're calling Peter Hart's work 'dubious' because he was contradicted by Meda Ryan you are making a very questionable point.  I'm fairly sure that Meda Ryan is related in some way to Tom Barry, the leader of the IRA flying column who carried out the Kilmichael Massacre. Who is most likely to be biased?

[Peter Solan the Great]

I answered your question about the 3500 deaths already. Yes your an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist trying to use the most non de script argument in order to justify the smuggling of Fuel, fags, Drugs and the killing of innocents on a Large scale. The tan war was nearly 90 years ago. I dont know what went on then but I'm pretty confident that the tan war didnt have the savagery that existed in the "Volunteers" of the Provisonal IRA. Just one question for you. Are you trying to justify the Provisonal/Real/Official campaign in Northern Ireland and beyond? If you are they are saying that the targetting of children and innocents was a legitimate act of war. To finish off I dont even even think its justified to call it war. War is carried out by men not by cowards who hide behind a balaclava.

You didn't answer my question about the number of victims. You simply stated that you accepted your figure was inaccurate. My question was about why it was inaccurate. So I will now ask it for the FOURTH time:
Did you not know that there were 3500 victims (approx) in the northern conflict or were you quite deliberately using lies and sensationalism when you claimed the IRA were responsible for "3500 deaths"?

And as for your question in your previous post: Is that supposed to be a difficult question?
I believe that, exactly like the Tan War, the PIRA's campaign was entirely legitimate and justified. I also believe that like the Tan War, (and EVERY other war I've ever heard of) some tactics used were unjustified and immoral. This does not necessarily mean the entire conflict was unjustified and immoral. If you believe otherwise, then how could you defend the legitimacy of ANY WAR EVER considering that any war will have many examples of innocents being killed unjustifiably?

FOR THE THIRD TIME I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ON THE 3500 VICTIMS. I SAID SINN FEIN/IRA BY THEIR ACTIONS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER 1500 DEATHS.

Your justfying a terrorist campaign hence you are the lowest of the low. It wasnt a war it was scumbags lining their pockets and taking advantage of an awful situation. What did PIRA acheive exactly besides its members becoming incredibly wealthy? 30 years of arnachy? setting back the unification of Ireland by generations, alienating a majority of the population of Northern Ireland away from anything remotely Irish. The high jacking of the Irish flag athem and language. How ever the PIRA started out it certainly turned into a criminal  gang towards the end.

Was the robbing of Irish banks post offices justified. Was the murder of Gardai justified. Was the Northern bank robbery justified.

[Nally Stand]

I answered your question about the 3500 deaths already. Yes your an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist trying to use the most non de script argument in order to justify the smuggling of Fuel, fags, Drugs and the killing of innocents on a Large scale. The tan war was nearly 90 years ago. I dont know what went on then but I'm pretty confident that the tan war didnt have the savagery that existed in the "Volunteers" of the Provisonal IRA. Just one question for you. Are you trying to justify the Provisonal/Real/Official campaign in Northern Ireland and beyond? If you are they are saying that the targetting of children and innocents was a legitimate act of war. To finish off I dont even even think its justified to call it war. War is carried out by men not by cowards who hide behind a balaclava.

You didn't answer my question about the number of victims. You simply stated that you accepted your figure was inaccurate. My question was about why it was inaccurate. So I will now ask it for the FOURTH time:
Did you not know that there were 3500 victims (approx) in the northern conflict or were you quite deliberately using lies and sensationalism when you claimed the IRA were responsible for "3500 deaths"?

And as for your question in your previous post: Is that supposed to be a difficult question?
I believe that, exactly like the Tan War, the PIRA's campaign was entirely legitimate and justified. I also believe that like the Tan War, (and EVERY other war I've ever heard of) some tactics used were unjustified and immoral. This does not necessarily mean the entire conflict was unjustified and immoral. If you believe otherwise, then how could you defend the legitimacy of ANY WAR EVER considering that any war will have many examples of innocents being killed unjustifiably?

FOR THE THIRD TIME I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ON THE 3500 VICTIMS. I SAID SINN FEIN/IRA BY THEIR ACTIONS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER 1500 DEATHS.

Your justfying a terrorist campaign hence you are the lowest of the low. It wasnt a war it was scumbags lining their pockets and taking advantage of an awful situation. What did PIRA acheive exactly besides its members becoming incredibly wealthy? 30 years of arnachy? setting back the unification of Ireland by generations, alienating a majority of the population of Northern Ireland away from anything remotely Irish. The high jacking of the Irish flag athem and language. How ever the PIRA started out it certainly turned into a criminal  gang towards the end.

Was the robbing of Irish banks post offices justified. Was the murder of Gardai justified. Was the Northern bank robbery justified.

It's like debating with a child. Did I not provide you with evidence of robberies, including of hundreds of post offices in a three year period carried out by the Old Cork Brigade? Grow up. Hypocrite.

[RedandGreenSniper]

I answered your question about the 3500 deaths already. Yes your an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist trying to use the most non de script argument in order to justify the smuggling of Fuel, fags, Drugs and the killing of innocents on a Large scale. The tan war was nearly 90 years ago. I dont know what went on then but I'm pretty confident that the tan war didnt have the savagery that existed in the "Volunteers" of the Provisonal IRA. Just one question for you. Are you trying to justify the Provisonal/Real/Official campaign in Northern Ireland and beyond? If you are they are saying that the targetting of children and innocents was a legitimate act of war. To finish off I dont even even think its justified to call it war. War is carried out by men not by cowards who hide behind a balaclava.

You didn't answer my question about the number of victims. You simply stated that you accepted your figure was inaccurate. My question was about why it was inaccurate. So I will now ask it for the FOURTH time:
Did you not know that there were 3500 victims (approx) in the northern conflict or were you quite deliberately using lies and sensationalism when you claimed the IRA were responsible for "3500 deaths"?

And as for your question in your previous post: Is that supposed to be a difficult question?
I believe that, exactly like the Tan War, the PIRA's campaign was entirely legitimate and justified. I also believe that like the Tan War, (and EVERY other war I've ever heard of) some tactics used were unjustified and immoral. This does not necessarily mean the entire conflict was unjustified and immoral. If you believe otherwise, then how could you defend the legitimacy of ANY WAR EVER considering that any war will have many examples of innocents being killed unjustifiably?

FOR THE THIRD TIME I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ON THE 3500 VICTIMS. I SAID SINN FEIN/IRA BY THEIR ACTIONS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER 1500 DEATHS.

Your justfying a terrorist campaign hence you are the lowest of the low. It wasnt a war it was scumbags lining their pockets and taking advantage of an awful situation. What did PIRA acheive exactly besides its members becoming incredibly wealthy? 30 years of arnachy? setting back the unification of Ireland by generations, alienating a majority of the population of Northern Ireland away from anything remotely Irish. The high jacking of the Irish flag athem and language. How ever the PIRA started out it certainly turned into a criminal  gang towards the end.

Was the robbing of Irish banks post offices justified. Was the murder of Gardai justified. Was the Northern bank robbery justified.

It's like debating with a child. Did I not provide you with evidence of robberies, including of hundreds of post offices in a three year period carried out by the Old Cork Brigade? Grow up. Hypocrite.

Took you a long time to realise that Nally.

[Peter Solan the Great]

I answered your question about the 3500 deaths already. Yes your an IRA/Sinn Fein apologist trying to use the most non de script argument in order to justify the smuggling of Fuel, fags, Drugs and the killing of innocents on a Large scale. The tan war was nearly 90 years ago. I dont know what went on then but I'm pretty confident that the tan war didnt have the savagery that existed in the "Volunteers" of the Provisonal IRA. Just one question for you. Are you trying to justify the Provisonal/Real/Official campaign in Northern Ireland and beyond? If you are they are saying that the targetting of children and innocents was a legitimate act of war. To finish off I dont even even think its justified to call it war. War is carried out by men not by cowards who hide behind a balaclava.

You didn't answer my question about the number of victims. You simply stated that you accepted your figure was inaccurate. My question was about why it was inaccurate. So I will now ask it for the FOURTH time:
Did you not know that there were 3500 victims (approx) in the northern conflict or were you quite deliberately using lies and sensationalism when you claimed the IRA were responsible for "3500 deaths"?

And as for your question in your previous post: Is that supposed to be a difficult question?
I believe that, exactly like the Tan War, the PIRA's campaign was entirely legitimate and justified. I also believe that like the Tan War, (and EVERY other war I've ever heard of) some tactics used were unjustified and immoral. This does not necessarily mean the entire conflict was unjustified and immoral. If you believe otherwise, then how could you defend the legitimacy of ANY WAR EVER considering that any war will have many examples of innocents being killed unjustifiably?

FOR THE THIRD TIME I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ON THE 3500 VICTIMS. I SAID SINN FEIN/IRA BY THEIR ACTIONS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER 1500 DEATHS.

Your justfying a terrorist campaign hence you are the lowest of the low. It wasnt a war it was scumbags lining their pockets and taking advantage of an awful situation. What did PIRA acheive exactly besides its members becoming incredibly wealthy? 30 years of arnachy? setting back the unification of Ireland by generations, alienating a majority of the population of Northern Ireland away from anything remotely Irish. The high jacking of the Irish flag athem and language. How ever the PIRA started out it certainly turned into a criminal  gang towards the end.

Was the robbing of Irish banks post offices justified. Was the murder of Gardai justified. Was the Northern bank robbery justified.

It's like debating with a child. Did I not provide you with evidence of robberies, including of hundreds of post offices in a three year period carried out by the Old Cork Brigade? Grow up. Hypocrite.

Were they not financial institutions of the British state? which is better robbing the financial institutions of the British state or robbing the financial institutions of the state you want to unite in a Republic with. Anyway there will never be a United Ireland not in our life times anyway best to keep the savagery behind the border.

[Donnellys Hollow]

Maybe you should also read "The IRA and It's Enemies" by Peter Hart who noted how from March 29th - April 19th that 323 Post Offices were robbed and the Great Western Railway was repeatedly robbed by the IRA which repeatedly denied responsibility.

Nally, I'm surprised that a republican like yourself would reference the late Peter Hart's work. The guy's history is highly dubious to say the least. His take on the Kilmichael Ambush for instance has been largely discredited by Meda Ryan in her study of Tom Barry.

I'd agree to a large extent with most of your points regarding the War Of Independence but I find it strange that you would cite Hart to back up your argument.

If you're calling Peter Hart's work 'dubious' because he was contradicted by Meda Ryan you are making a very questionable point.  I'm fairly sure that Meda Ryan is related in some way to Tom Barry, the leader of the IRA flying column who carried out the Kilmichael Massacre. Who is most likely to be biased?

Meda Ryan's work came after Peter Hart's and she is not the only historian to have discredited Hart's version of the Kilmichael Ambush.

Hart claimed to have interviewed veterans of the ambush who said that no 'false surrender' took place from the Auxiliaries and that Barry ordered his men to wipe them out. Ryan has shown that all the veterans of the ambush were dead before the time that Hart claimed to have conducted his interivews.

Also, the document that Hart claimed was compiled by Barry in the aftermath of the ambush is now widely accepted to be a forgery by most historians including Ryan and Barry Murphy.

This is not to say that all of Hart's history of the War Of Independence is questionable but his take on Kilmichael is clearly flawed. Even the Auxiliary commander in Ireland (Crozier) acknowledged the 'false surrender' in his account of the war - Ireland For Ever (1932).

[Tonto]

Meda Ryan's work came after Peter Hart's and she is not the only historian to have discredited Hart's version of the Kilmichael Ambush.

Hart claimed to have interviewed veterans of the ambush who said that no 'false surrender' took place from the Auxiliaries and that Barry ordered his men to wipe them out. Ryan has shown that all the veterans of the ambush were dead before the time that Hart claimed to have conducted his interivews.

Also, the document that Hart claimed was compiled by Barry in the aftermath of the ambush is now widely accepted to be a forgery by most historians including Ryan and Barry Murphy.

This is not to say that all of Hart's history of the War Of Independence is questionable but his take on Kilmichael is clearly flawed. Even the Auxiliary commander in Ireland (Crozier) acknowledged the 'false surrender' in his account of the war - Ireland For Ever (1932).

Fair enough although I'm not sure that Ryan and Murphy constitutes "wide acceptance" that Barry's original statement (which doesn't mention a false surrender) was a forgery.  And if Crozier acknowledged the 'false surrender' this is hardly surprising when it became the accepted view for over 70 years.  And anyway, the coroners report at the time stated that many of the soldiers killed had been shot several times, some from point blank range.  So even if there WAS a false surrender (which, let us remember, is open for debate) then the manner that young men were murdered is hardly justified.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

It's like debating with a child.

And you made him go and remove his Da O'Duffy from his list! 

[Nally Stand]

It's like debating with a child.

And you made him go and remove his Da O'Duffy from his list! 

Must be making room for Enda Kenny or Michael Collins then!!

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

It's like debating with a child.

And you made him go and remove his Da O'Duffy from his list! 

Must be making room for Enda Kenny or Michael Collins then!!

For crimes against the Nation, being from Islandeady/Castlebar 

[seafoid]

No business people in there. William Martin Murphy.

[Banana Man]

It's like debating with a child.

And you made him go and remove his Da O'Duffy from his list! 

Must be making room for Enda Kenny or Michael Collins then!!

No he had michael collins up and pulled it, typical u turn

[Olly]

Finn McCool

He lifted a bit lump out of Ireland and threw it into the Irish Sea with no regard for the people of the land living on it. There's a strong argument that Antrim would've won more All-Ireland titles at all codes had they still the land where Lough Neagh still stands. The people who were on the piece of land that now is Isle of Man were so manically frightened at being flung in the air that they must've bitten the tails off all the cats in the ensuing pandemonium.

[Bogball XV]

Finn McCool

He lifted a bit lump out of Ireland and threw it into the Irish Sea with no regard for the people of the land living on it. There's a strong argument that Antrim would've won more All-Ireland titles at all codes had they still the land where Lough Neagh still stands. The people who were on the piece of land that now is Isle of Man were so manically frightened at being flung in the air that they must've bitten the tails off all the cats in the ensuing pandemonium.

Why would Antrim have any more claim to that land than the any of the other bordering counties?  Is it because the northwest is in antrim, so the motorcycling tradition of Isle of Man proves the connection?