Loyalist Marchers forced to defend themselves from attack!

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

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

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

[Nally Stand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lynchbhoy]

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

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

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

Three posts and counting.

[Nally Stand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the widespread collusion, you must be talking about republicans, given that every other member of the republican movement seemed to be working as a British agent. How many lives do you think that cost?

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

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

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

Answers on a postcard.

[Myles Na G.]

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

[Main Street]

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

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

[Nally Stand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

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

[supersarsfields]

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

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

[Myles Na G.]

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

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

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

[ziggysego]

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

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

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

Yet again, the mask slips.

[supersarsfields]

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

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

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

Must of touched a nerve then so.