Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Options
12467…37

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    trendyvicar wrote: »
    Don't scientists claim we all come from Africa?

    Go back far enough, and we all come from the sea. But yes - Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. At least, that is the leading theory.


  • Options
    #93
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It wasn't an argument. It was an observation, and not even an important one. Perhaps you'd care to actually address the number of relevant issues I highly with regards to the treatment of the nationalist population by the British state?



    Sure there is - It just doesn't suit you to accept that there was a population native to this Island here before planters came, and drove the indigenous population unjustly off their land. It's not really relevant at the moment - but to ignore this historical fact, only demonstrates ignorance on your behalf.
    You talk as if those people had been the original people on the island which they weren't. They weren't the indigenous people.

    Republicans going on about oppression from the British state is rather rich when the state they wanted to join was doing the same thing to their own people for decades with Rome rule well under way.


  • Options
    #94
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    four counties in Northern Ireland which presently has a majority of the population from a Catholic community background, according to the 2001 census.

    Slightly off topic but can we not get back the four counties in northern Ireland with a catholic majority (provided they want to join with us). How could a two county statelet exist? At least Derry, I really like Derry.

    I think you'd be better counting Nationalists than Catholics my man before you implement your ethnic partition plan.

    :D


    What about just transferring the west side of The Foyle, Strabane and Newry/South Armagh (if they agreed) - I'd say most of them would be positive.


  • Options
    #95
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You talk as if those people had been the original people on the island which they weren't. They weren't the indigenous people.

    Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.
    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Republicans going on about oppression from the British state is rather rich when the state they wanted to join was doing the same thing to their own people for decades with Rome rule well under way.

    There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

    All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.


  • Options
    #96
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    10 or 15 years? More like 100 years with the way the Republic is at the moment. The Republic is in decline and will be for many years to come. A lot of people don't even want to live in the country any more and are so desperate to get out of the country.

    Sure, 100 years to balance our budget. :rolleyes: It'd probably take that long to decline to the levels in the north. I think you'll find a lot of people are leaving the country with a view of coming back, granted, some will, some won't, but so what.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.
    They weren't natives on the land though. That would be applying that they were an indigenous people which they weren't.
    There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

    All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.
    The treatment of Atheists in the Irish Republic was dreadful and the religious laws like contraception was cowardly and oppressive to non religious people. Non religious people had to not only put up with awful laws but also had to watch the Pope visit their country and watch the leader of the biggest corrupt organisation in the world be greeted by a million people.


  • Options
    #98
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Agreed on Derry. It would look something like this I'd imagine.

    elections.png

    The far north-east would remain in the UK, and the rest would leave the UK.

    I like the look of that. We can then take east Belfast and work on from there. Happy days, we'll have our teddies head back in no time. :)


  • Options
    #99
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Sure, 100 years to balance our budget. :rolleyes: It'd probably take that long to decline to the levels in the north. I think you'll find a lot of people are leaving the country with a view of coming back, granted, some will, some won't, but so what.
    You don't look like recovering. I see it all the time on here about the politicians you have and how rubbish they are. Saying you will take all of Ulster in 10-15 years time is beyond daft.


  • Options
    #100
    FUNKY LOVER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭FUNKY LOVER


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.
    They weren't natives on the land though. That would be applying that they were an indigenous people which they weren't.
    There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

    All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.
    The treatment of Atheists in the Irish Republic was dreadful and the religious laws like contraception was cowardly and oppressive to non religious people. Non religious people had to not only put up with awful laws but also had to watch the Pope visit their country and watch the leader of the biggest corrupt organisation in the world be greeted by a million people.
    I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.

    EDIT-no worst than what your lot were doing the people who were catholic during the troubles.


  • Options
    #101
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    realies wrote: »
    Was the Republican campaign justifiable


    The P.IRA deployed terror for the political purpose of destroying an obscene system that would not have been defeated otherwise, I believe that the Irish Republican conflict/war was justified in a response to the murder and oppression of the mainly catholic/nationalist community by the Unionists/UK governments, The truth is (imo) that although non-violent protest may be effective and more favorable way in to change a Government, it often in practice needs a focusing act of violence or the threat of violence to bring those with power to a decision to change their policy or behaviour. And in that the Republican movements campaign was justified against the ever no moving no surrender unionist/loyalist mindset.

    absolutley , anyone who thinks the mind of a bully can be persuaded , shamed , urged to act differently by a well articulated opposition voice has either spent thier entire lives living in an ivory tower or they are willfully ignorant of how the real world works

    the world over , power , order , control is administrated and enforced with the threat of violence lurking not far underneath , its merley a case of the likes of the IRA not having the same degree of PR and sophisticated dressing to cover it up , i.e , political establishments


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    michael999999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭michael999999


    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.
    Ask him to tell you about the loyalist websites he frequents, plenty more like him on there!


  • Options
    #103
    FUNKY LOVER
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭FUNKY LOVER


    michael999999 wrote: »
    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.
    Ask him to tell you about the loyalist websites he frequents, plenty more like him on there!
    Oh I'm well aware of the sites he visits and comments he leaves.brave computer warrior.


  • Options
    #104
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You don't look like recovering. I see it all the time on here about the politicians you have and how rubbish they are. Saying you will take all of Ulster in 10-15 years time is beyond daft.

    Well actually I said when we get our sh1t together that each county should be given an independent vote on whether to stay with Engerland or join with their sounthern Irish brothers and sisters and I didn't say all of 'Ulster', you know we already have a bit of that, I meant the six counties of which four we will take back, then east Belfast, then Rathlin Island and that should be fine for then. Sit back and see how long a two county statelet lasts. :)


  • Options
    #105
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.

    EDIT-no worst than what your lot were doing the people who were catholic during the troubles.
    I don't claim it was a utopia though, like Republicans do when it comes to the Irish Republic. Flying the same myth all the time does the Republican argument no favours.


  • Options
    #106
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Well actually I said when we get our sh1t together that each county should be given an independent vote on whether to stay with Engerland or join with their sounthern Irish brothers and sisters and I didn't say all of 'Ulster', you know we already have a bit of that, I meant the six counties of which four we will take back, then east Belfast, then Rathlin Island and that should be fine for then. Sit back and see how long a two county statelet lasts. :)
    You will never get East Belfast for starters. Would be impossible to police and control.


  • Options
    #107
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.



    There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

    All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.

    keith often likes to engage in nostalga about the glory days of the british empire , im talking the days of the raj and the colonys of africa , imperilism has always been built on a lie , the lie being that the invader and subjugator was doing the indigenous a favour , i.e , they needed to be civilised , pacified and modernised and only the imperilist could do it , therefore , the unionist population never really mistreated the nationalist population , its just that the nationalist was feral and needed a firm hand you see


  • Options
    #108
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Nonsense. It's as much a reason as many to liberate one's people from an oppressive regime (The British state).

    That doesn’t address the issue I raised but I have come to accept it as the stock answer republicans will give you. I.e. I ask; how do PIRA justify their decision to go beyond the role of Catholic defenders and pursue a political project of a united Ireland using violence, against the wishes of the people?
    And I get the answer; someone had to defend the Catholics! :rolleyes:
    dlofnep wrote: »
    It just doesn't suit you to accept that there was a population native to this Island here before planters came, and drove the indigenous population unjustly off their land.

    Much of the Irish nationalist view on Ireland stems from the assertion that Ireland is one nation / country and were is not for an aggressive and unjust act almost half a millennium ago there would be no constitutional quarrel in the North East corner of this island.

    Of course there was and there is. Just as aggressive acts shaped and reshaped a sizable number of countries the world over. But not many, Irish nationalists aside, think it sensible to proceed by attempting to right all the wrongs of history.
    Do you have a template for deciding what historical wrongs should be put right and how you might proceed to do so?


  • Options
    #109
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    keith often likes to engage in nostalga about the glory days of the british empire , im talking the days of the raj and the colonys of africa , imperilism has always been built on a lie , the lie being that the invader and subjugator was doing the indigenous a favour , i.e , they needed to be civilised , pacified and modernised and only the imperilist could do it , therefore , the unionist population never really mistreated the nationalist population , its just that the nationalist was feral and needed a firm hand you see
    I just point out the truth to some myths. The Republican/Nationalist view that the Island was once one nation and was ruled by one ideology for one people is just nonsense. And no matter how much the likes of Gerry Adams try to tell us, it just isn't true.

    The island had many different kingdoms all looking to rule over others and actually use oppressive techniques to do it.

    Not to mention the English actually being invited over in the first place. Not this whole "Invasion" nonsense Republicans go on about.


  • Options
    #110
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You talk as if those people had been the original people on the island which they weren't. They weren't the indigenous people.

    Republicans going on about oppression from the British state is rather rich when the state they wanted to join was doing the same thing to their own people for decades with Rome rule well under way.
    jesus, i'd didn't realise rome rule dictated how we voted or who got council houses or jobs (there's bount to be someone stupid enough to utter that incident in mayo) looking forward to hearing about the protestant abuse cases,which did happen.


  • Options
    #111
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    jesus, i'd didn't realise rome rule dictated how we voted or who got council houses or jobs (there's bount to be someone stupid enough to utter that incident in mayo) looking forward to hearing about the protestant abuse cases,which did happen.
    Rome rule effected many people at that time with laws. I never actually mentioned the child abuse cases. It was an example that the Republic was not some sort of great country to live in for everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    blahfckingblah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    as a matter of interest if there was a united ireland in the next say 15-20 years would you accept it kieth?


  • Options
    #113
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    jesus, i'd didn't realise rome rule dictated how we voted or who got council houses or jobs (there's bount to be someone stupid enough to utter that incident in mayo) looking forward to hearing about the protestant abuse cases,which did happen.

    Just ignore. It's just whataboutery at its finest.

    Remember, the Nationalist population didn't go out marching for a United Ireland. They went out looking for equality and were brutally oppressed.

    Being a Nationalist in NI was a frustrating experience for Catholics. My own family experienced it.

    You had young newlywed Catholics with babies living in caravans in their parents gardens waiting for a house while Protestants were going on their honeymoons with keys to a new house in their pockets.

    The discrimination was very real.


  • Options
    #114
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    blahfckingblah wrote: »
    as a matter of interest if there was a united ireland in the next say 15-20 years would you accept it kieth?
    Depends what you mean by accept. I don't think many Republicans "accept" Northern Ireland but they "live" with it. Depends what you mean by accept.


  • Options
    #115
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Rome rule effected many people at that time with laws. I never actually mentioned the child abuse cases. It was an example that the Republic was not some sort of great country to live in for everyone.

    you dont give a **** about ( rome rule ) or how it effected people in the irish republic , its just a loaded term you use as a stick


  • Options
    #116
    blahfckingblah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭blahfckingblah


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Rome rule effected many people at that time with laws. I never actually mentioned the child abuse cases. It was an example that the Republic was not some sort of great country to live in for everyone.
    for a person who claims to have no religion you like bringing things back to religion while providing a blanket defence for the "PUL" community.


  • Options
    #117
    trendyvicar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭trendyvicar


    This thread is pretty pointless - most countries glorify their own soldiers - it's just that The Irish Republic hasn't fought any wars so The Irish glorify The IRA instead. The other main difference is that in advanced liberal democracies people vary in their support for their nations wars - Vietnam etc. Because Ireland is a relatively new country there tends to be a lot more 'my country right or wrong' thinking than there is in mature democracies such as The UK or even The US. In many ways Ireland is psychologically more like Croatia or even a third world banana republic. But hey, The Irish will arrive in the modern world at some point - it just takes time and a decent educational system not based upon spinning romantic fantasies about how bad your neighbours are/were! A bit like Ali G. LOL

    Good luck.


  • Options
    #118
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    FUNKY LOVER wrote: »
    I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.

    EDIT-no worst than what your lot were doing the people who were catholic during the troubles.


    Unfortuanlly I have met & listened to lots of keith's and yes they are unbelievable.


  • Options
    #119
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You will never get East Belfast for starters. Would be impossible to police and control.



    You have been told and shown before never say never.


  • Options
    #120
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    No-one has said otherwise.

    So why didn't they do that ? Why did they choose to target and murder innocents ?

    Who said that the murder of innocents was justified? I believe the topic is discussing the campaign against the British forces/RUC/Loyalists.

    I didn't see any words in the title to distinguish between their attacks and murders.

    Their "campaign" included both.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Who said that the murder of innocents was justified? I believe the topic is discussing the campaign against the British forces/RUC/Loyalists.

    No, the topic is about the republican campaign.

    As much as the apologists like to make excuses and turn a blind eye, the campaign included such acts as Le Mons, Warrington and proxy bombing. I noticed you conveniently separated out some of the less palatable bits.

    I would like to ask all the "nationalists" who needed protecting, how much did the cold blooded killing of innocent people help them sleep at night?


Advertisement