Is this letter not libellous?

[Main Street]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

Who said any of the above you listed was honourable?
Imo, the republican tradition is honourable and more recent times republican tradition is not far removed from the Fenians or the generation that followed that in the early part of the 20th C.

I can respect a unionist who felt his RUC acted honourably during the war but I seriously doubt if that would include the murder for example of the McCabe woman.

[Hardy]

Pints - in what way was Eniskillen or Omagh "fighting back"?"?

[pintsofguinness]

pINTS - IN WHAT WAY WAS eNISKILLEN OR oMAGH "FIGHTING BACK"?

I don't think those are examples of fighting back, should never have happened, I'm refering to republican movement as a whole.  I know some actions were carried out that are inexcusable.

[ardmhachaabu]

pINTS - IN WHAT WAY WAS eNISKILLEN OR oMAGH "FIGHTING BACK"?

I don't think those are examples of fighting back, should never have happened, I'm refering to republican movement as a whole.  I know some actions were carried out that are inexcusable.

Some?

Ok, so what didn't have to be excused?  Was the murder of Mountbatten 'fighting back'?

[pintsofguinness]

pINTS - IN WHAT WAY WAS eNISKILLEN OR oMAGH "FIGHTING BACK"?

I don't think those are examples of fighting back, should never have happened, I'm refering to republican movement as a whole.  I know some actions were carried out that are inexcusable.

Some?

Ok, so what didn't have to be excused?  Was the murder of Mountbatten 'fighting back'?

Id agree that he was a legitimate target, yes.

[Minder]

pINTS - IN WHAT WAY WAS eNISKILLEN OR oMAGH "FIGHTING BACK"?

I don't think those are examples of fighting back, should never have happened, I'm refering to republican movement as a whole.  I know some actions were carried out that are inexcusable.

Some?

Ok, so what didn't have to be excused?  Was the murder of Mountbatten 'fighting back'?

Id agree that he was a legitimate target, yes.

The teenage deckhand?

[pintsofguinness]

No

[ardmhachaabu]

No

On that particular slaughter you can't really discriminate between innocent and guilty.  Sure Patsy Gillespie was guilty too, of earning a f**king living.

[Puckoon]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

Who said any of the above you listed was honourable?Imo, the republican tradition is honourable and more recent times republican tradition is not far removed from the Fenians or the generation that followed that in the early part of the 20th C.

I can respect a unionist who felt his RUC acted honourably during the war but I seriously doubt if that would include the murder for example of the McCabe woman.

These acts were committed in the name of republicanism - something which you said was an honourable tradition. Unless I can't read.

They were also committed by the IRA - an organisation which you suggested membership of is not a matter of disrepute.

So my inference from your post is that YOU suggested any of the above acts were honourable when you waxed lyrical about the honor and integrity of republicanism and the IRA.

[ardmhachaabu]

pints, I won't say anything else here other than this... there were/are as many psychopaths on 'our' side who murdered people (including their 'own') as there were/are on the Loyalist side

If the media stories surrounding the Mount Vernon UVF are true and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then I would say that it's the top of the iceberg on both sides - they were/are all riddled with touts whether it was RUC/PSNI/MI5/MI6/Any Other intelligence agency

[pintsofguinness]

No

On that particular slaughter you can't really discriminate between innocent and guilty. Sure Patsy Gillespie was guilty too, of earning a f**king living.

I feel the same way about him as I feel about Mountbatten. 

[Puckoon]

No problem? At all?

Right through Enniskillen?
Omagh?
Jean McConville?
The corporals killings?

The list is endless.

Fenianism and Republicanism are one thing - terrorism is another altogether - and if you can see "honour" in any of the above, it is a sad indication.

Membership of an organisation which has planned and carried out, and then protected people who committed acts like this should most certainly be a matter of disrepute.

Sure everyone should have lay down and been walked across puck. I wonder what the world would be like today if no one, anywhere fought back.

Pints if you want to get involved in my post - try and stick to the point I am making.

This is not about who should have fought back, or what the world would be like if no one anywhere ever fought back.

My point is about people defending the indefensible (or in your words, the inexcusable) by suggesting that republicanism (and by that I mean the republican movement in Ireland - not the philosophy) is an honourable tradition, or that being a member of an organisation (the IRA), which committed the atrocities mentioned (plus too many others to mention) is not a matter for disrepute.

Organisations and principles which have protected members who are just as blood thirsty as Torrens Knight (except on the other side  - our "supposed" side) are not close to honourable, and are most spectacularly disreputable. Do we remember the thread about him a while back?

Unfortunatley for all its positives, the "republican movement" is steeped to its neck in some of the most disgusting, bloody and cold accounts of singular and mass murder, as well as the terror and intimidation of the people they were supposed to "protect". For gods sake they are still using the IRA baton as a means to protect the murderers of paul quinn and the fella stabbed to death outside magennises. These people are supposed republicans! So's 5ive Times FFS! Real honourable folks alright.

If people want to refer to the republican movement 'as a whole' - then failure to acknowledge that it is steeped in acts which are neither honourable, nor courageous is simply picking and choosing the facts to suit what they want to believe.

[Tony Baloney]

I thought it was only misty eyed Yanks believed in the noble freedom fighters of the IRA. Republicans like to believe that there was a nobility in the struggle and that they never stooped as low as the other side. Unfortunately Enniskillen, Omagh, Darkley, Teebane,"The Disappeared" etc. indicate otherwise.

[pintsofguinness]

Why isn't it honourable puck? Because of some inexcusable incidents?  Inexcusable incidents happen in all wars, all armies have their scumbags.  That doesnt make those incidents acceptable of course.

Paul Quinn's death had nothing to do with the IRA,  neither did they fella stabbed at magennises - just scumbags and criminals hiding behind a name.

[pintsofguinness]

I thought it was only misty eyed Yanks believed in the noble freedom fighters of the IRA. Republicans like to believe that there was a nobility in the struggle and that they never stooped as low as the other side. Unfortunately Enniskillen, Omagh, Darkley, Teebane,"The Disappeared" etc. indicate otherwise.

Anyone who gets misty eyed about any war or conflict, in any part of the world, is an idiot.