Why no big Republican split in 86?

oldozer · 27-02-2015 1:06am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Why was there no split in the Republican movement in 86 (okay there was a very small on) but nothing like 69 which was the biggest split since 21. I know there was a lot of reasons why they split in 69 but historically the straw that broke the camels back was to take seats in the Dail, which is what exactly happened in 86 & later Stormont.

Was the split in 69 then due to something else then? The moving towards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that traditionalists taught even tho they were socialist was to extreme form of Socialism? Or was that the "communists" just weren't militaristic enough to wage a successful campaign?

I've not read this thread completely, but have you thought of Dev being a "plant" of Mr Churchill...............

Henry Makow (I think). Made me think of Gerry...........

Dozer.

Brian Shanahan · 28-02-2015 1:47pm

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

take it down from the mast blueshirt traitors lol if collins hadnt have sold out the troubles wouldnt have happened

What does this even mean?

If you knew anything about history, you'd know that a) deV (the originator of the post war of Independence IRA and its successors) sent Collins et al over to negotiate with Lloyd George because he had a pretty good handle on what Ireland could get from the British and he didn't want to be seen as the man "selling out Ulster". And he was very much suprised at what Collins managed to wrangle out of Lloyd George.

Negotiations were started with the British government because the Irish government and the IRA were exhausted by three years of war, the British were willing to come to a peace and there was a general feeling that it was the best moment to come to terms (even by the majority of those who later rebelled against the state in the Civil War) and finally c) both sides in the Free State, both pro and anti-treaty were very complacent when it came to the Boundary Commission. They assumed that because of population, most of Derry, Fermanagh, South Armagh and a good part of Tyrone would automatically be given to the Free State, and thus there was very little interaction between IFS officials and the commission. The Craigavon government in the North however were worried that with only approx. four counties their statelet wouldn't be viable and either be absorbed by the IFS or pulled fully back into the Westminster system (and they then wouldn't be able to gerrymander a permanent unionist majority) and thus lobbied very hard for the whole of Ulster (originally) and, failing that, the six counties be given to the North.

There was no treason by Collins, he was sent to do a job by his Taoiseach, deValera, a job which he managed to exceed the expectations of said Taoiseach while doing it.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:15pm

oldozer wrote: »

I've not read this thread completely, but have you thought of Dev being a "plant" of Mr Churchill...............

Henry Makow (I think). Made me think of Gerry...........

Dozer.

Liking planting him in Bollands Mill & it was really Churchill who planned the whole Easter Rising because he he secretly didn't want Ireland & that's why he never invaded Ireland like he did Iceland in WW2 & that the Free State government was passing on vital information to him during the war.

Yes, but not very seriously.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:24pm

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

take it down from the mast blueshirt traitors lol if collins hadnt have sold out the troubles wouldnt have happened

I don't think you can call him a traitor for the partition of Ireland as bill passed in 1920 had already done that, so the Troubles probably would have happened either way. To me the Nationalists in the North gained more from the GFA than the South did from the Anglo-Irish Treaty, nothing changed for the people on the ground only for a few at the very top, suppose that some of that could be contributed to the Civil War.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 10:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

It depends. I wouldn't call the Volunteers at Loughgall murdered (as painful as their deaths were to Republicans it was not murder.) as they were on active service at the time. The 3 at Gibraltar were there to carry out a mission yes, but not on active service or posed a threat to anyone when they were murdered. I would call, Mountbatten's death murder, Joe McCanns death murder, the deaths of Julie Livingstone & Carol Anne Kelly murder etc...
But the soldiers killed by the IRA in the Drummuckavali Ambush or in the counter-ambush in Operation Conservation for example & other similar engagements were not murders, those soldiers were looking to engage the enemy, they did & lost.

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 11:12pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't calling the death of British service personnel a "Killing", but using the term "murder" for the Gibraltar 3 also hypocritical?

You aso forgot Nick Spanos, Stephen Melrose, Heidi Hazell and Nivruti Islania.

Yeah the Australians were murdered, they didn't mean to murder two Australians but they did, I actually watched a 30 min documentary on it a month or two ago it was very sad. That would be bring up to about 14 or 15 then. How many British security force members died in mainland Europe?

DarkyHughes · 28-02-2015 11:26pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What does this even mean?

If you knew anything about history, you'd know that a) deV (the originator of the post war of Independence IRA and its successors) sent Collins et al over to negotiate with Lloyd George because he had a pretty good handle on what Ireland could get from the British and he didn't want to be seen as the man "selling out Ulster". And he was very much suprised at what Collins managed to wrangle out of Lloyd George. Negotiations were started with the British government because the Irish government and the IRA were exhausted by three years of war, the British were willing to come to a peace and there was a general feeling that it was the best moment to come to terms (even by the majority of those who later rebelled against the state in the Civil War) and finally c) both sides in the Free State, both pro and anti-treaty were very complacent when it came to the Boundary Commission. They assumed that because of population, most of Derry, Fermanagh, South Armagh and a good part of Tyrone would automatically be given to the Free State, and thus there was very little interaction between IFS officials and the commission. The Craigavon government in the North however were worried that with only approx. four counties their statelet wouldn't be viable and either be absorbed by the IFS or pulled fully back into the Westminster system (and they then wouldn't be able to gerrymander a permanent unionist majority) and thus lobbied very hard for the whole of Ulster (originally) and, failing that, the six counties be given to the North.

There was no treason by Collins, he was sent to do a job by his Taoiseach, deValera, a job which he managed to exceed the expectations of said Taoiseach while doing it.

Really? The country was already partitioned like I pointed out. It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head. And like I said the ordinary people on the ground gained nothing from it, still mass immigration, still low levels of unemployment, still bad working conditions for the working class etc...I would be happy to be apart of a British Republic if those types of social issues were improved on. Like I said the deal only benefited a small few at the top. Capitalism in Ireland doesn't work.

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2015 12:32am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Really? The country was already partitioned like I pointed out. It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head.

Look believe your revisionist fantasies all you want, but don't be throwing them in my direction.

DarkyHughes · 01-03-2015 2:50am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Look believe your revisionist fantasies all you want, but don't be throwing them in my direction.

It's not revisionism there facts. The Government of Ireland Act1920, full name (An Act to provide for the better government of Ireland) partitioned Ireland into North & South. Ireland became a Free State with the King of England as head of state. There facts sorry if they ruin your own made up version of history.

Nice skipping past all the social problems that existed & some still do today. We lost very few military engagements in the Tan war, most of the world's press felt Ireland be given a fair, deal & the American were getting increasingly impatient with Britain's military in Ireland, all the cards weighed heavily in Collins favor. He didn't surpass anybody's expectation.

What did treaty have in it for working class people? Nothing. "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain" How right Connolly was.

Do you know why we don't have a independence day? Were not really independent at all & a part of the country is under a other countries jurisdiction.

DarkyHughes · 07-03-2015 3:05am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It's not revisionism there facts. The Government of Ireland Act1920, full name (An Act to provide for the better government of Ireland) partitioned Ireland into North & South. Ireland became a Free State with the King of England as head of state. There facts sorry if they ruin your own made up version of history.

Nice skipping past all the social problems that existed & some still do today. We lost very few military engagements in the Tan war, most of the world's press felt Ireland be given a fair, deal & the American were getting increasingly impatient with Britain's military in Ireland, all the cards weighed heavily in Collins favor. He didn't surpass anybody's expectation.

What did treaty have in it for working class people? Nothing. "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain" How right Connolly was.

Do you know why we don't have a independence day? Were not really independent at all & a part of the country is under a other countries jurisdiction.

Although you raise an interesting question Brian.

Do people think Lloyd George would have went ahead with his threat of "Terrible War" or was it a bluff? And if it was a bluff & talks broke down could SF TD's now go about looking & campaign for more recognition of an Irish Republic after already been given it by the largest country in the world without the danger of any military threat?

Or if he wasn't bluffing & the talks broke & he really meant "Terrible War" would they have used chemical weapons on us like they did to the Iraqi's in the 20's?

oldozer · 07-03-2015 3:37am

Good question really as to why no split in 86 ? Well I would be of the opinion of there being many splits. There were many splits/splinters just some were guided a bit more deftly. The old idiom of divide and conquer still had a few acts ere the "final" curtain.

What organization could park outside No10 and almost wipe out a government ?

What organization could almost wipe out a government in Brighton ?

What organization worldwide could not copy what the Irish did for so many decades just one time ?

Actors/Theater/Producers/Directors. All honing skills for some new blockbuster.

Do you really think there would have been a theater of Iraq with all the crew busy at home ?

So many directors watching from the wings to see if it could be taken on a world stage.

Those directors must surely have been delighted with such a production.........

Dozer.

Fratton Fred · 07-03-2015 9:29am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Although you raise an interesting question Brian.

Do people think Lloyd George would have went ahead with his threat of "Terrible War" or was it a bluff? And if it was a bluff & talks broke down could SF TD's now go about looking & campaign for more recognition of an Irish Republic after already been given it by the largest country in the world without the danger of any military threat?

Or if he wasn't bluffing & the talks broke & he really meant "Terrible War" would they have used chemical weapons on us like they did to the Iraqi's in the 20's?

Lloyd George made no such threat.

derry dirtfisher · 08-03-2015 8:43pm

it means collins signed the 6 counties out to the british crown. 100 years of slaughter is what he gave us

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What does this even mean?

.

derry dirtfisher · 08-03-2015 8:47pm

wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of, "terrible and immediate war"[13] if the Treaty was not signed at once, but this was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[14] Barton noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lloyd George made no such threat.

oldozer · 09-03-2015 1:42am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Liking planting him in Bollands Mill & it was really Churchill who planned the whole Easter Rising because he he secretly didn't want Ireland & that's why he never invaded Ireland like he did Iceland in WW2 & that the Free State government was passing on vital information to him during the war.

Yes, but not very seriously.

I don't think Churchill planted Dev in Bolands Mills. Churchill for all his so called tactics was not I think quite the genius he would be given accolade for. He was a most shrewd character but then so was QE 1 once her recce parties told her of how the natives were a most formidable force. She knew quite well she was up against a most formidable enemy. Her enemy had the advantage of being a more resilient enemy by virtue of the fact of being more adaptable to the terrain. Much like the resistors in our modern Ukraine. QE 1 had to resort to purchase, poisoning, and a rethink of her advisers. Guile, and a well informed network. not to mention a ready supply of funding was a great deception.

Churchill in a former time after the 14 war set this to work as to our demise as he reinvented our modern 'Orangism' after that war. That was of course started to ferment hatred on this island from Scotland after that war. Not really a plan of Churchill as to how to attack a problem in the planning. He was after all honed on 'Pig Sticking' a rule of thumb of Indian times. Tying men of dissent to cannon being another pastime of such people, leaders of that history was also a thing to make the local Sepoy rethink thought. Quite the hobby really but like all hobbies, we need some funds to play our little games. To loosely quote one of the redshields here..........If my sons disliked war. There would be no such thing.

Cromwell, and later George would be given endless supply of monies and mercenaries. Just like hiring the best chippy in town in our world. You get what you pay for by planning and payment. Not really rocket science but if you have the resources with any old chippy. The house he designs will stand as long as he is involved.

One of Napoleon's greatest regrets in one of his last letters would have him believe Ireland was the gateway to empire. I am quite sure Hitler had read that letter. Guile again springs to mind as to how both of those thinking men. Most likely better thinkers than Churchill in their own rite barring advisers. Some odd features of that history which pertains to a lot of conflict. Why did both thinkers loose out to to the latter thinker. When faced with defeat in Fonteny equally armed Irish troops of the French King decimated a far great number of British troops. Likewise a defeated Europe were allowed to escape a total defeat at Dunkirk. A defeated Europe of both world wars were saved by what is now known as a False Flag. The 14 war was decided by the sinking of The Lusitania. Stranger than fiction Mr Ripley. Most of those opposed to the Federal Reserve just happened to be on that ship.

This Ukraine war has so Many similarities to both of our world wars. Hitler was refused his corridor to stem the Polish problem. Hess, well that speaks volumes as does the abdication of King Edward. Hitler went rouge when his country became powerful enough to redress the Armistice of victor tyranny of Germany as per the 14 war. Putin is playing a similar game as to provocation of world banker elite. He watched as his people were being killed in his neighbourhood. Maybe the bankers missed that opportunity as to another colour revolution. Putin played a bold move as his popularity slumped. Soros, Nuland (nee Kagan) seemed to be playing checkers then as the grand master moved his chess pieces. Patience, a lot of armour, a few thousand Russian you may think turned the tide. You will be forgiven for such thinking though as there is a determination of the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine without the East of that country is a non entity. What those so called rebels have is what is the problem for the bankers. The bankers Churchills, the Hitlers, are aware of the civil war/coup they have to control before they move to the next piece on the board game. Look at the body bags, broken old coffins coming out of Western Ukraine. They hold the brothers of our time of aeons ago. The main pieces in this game are still working on the game.

A footnote if you will. The Bilderberg of which my own country will take orders. It was I believe an overheard statement of a private conversation. It is all going quite nicely someone said.... If only we could be sure of controlling Putin....

Dozer.

feargale · 09-03-2015 2:17am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It couldn't have been all that hard to make the the South a Free State with the English king still as all of Ireland's head. And like I said the ordinary people on the ground gained

I believe that John Devoy, the old Fenian who died in 1928 said in 1921/22 that he didn't care who was king of Ireland so long as the British got out of Ireland.

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of, "terrible and immediate war"[13] if the Treaty was not signed at once, but this was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[14] Barton noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

I wonder if the reality was as follows: Immediately before the Treaty negotiations the IRA, having suffered some serious reverses, particularly in Dublin, was close to collapse. Nobody knew this better than Collins, but he dared not let his right hand know what his left hand knew. For operational reasons this could not be divulged to the rank and file as they deliberated on the Treaty, much less to the people at large. Ironic that the IRB faction including Collins were overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

Arsemageddon · 09-03-2015 4:10pm

oldozer wrote: »

I don't think Churchill planted Dev in Bolands Mills. Churchill for all his so called tactics was not I think quite the genius he would be given accolade for. He was a most shrewd character but then so was QE 1 once her recce parties told her of how the natives were a most formidable force. She knew quite well she was up against a most formidable enemy. Her enemy had the advantage of being a more resilient enemy by virtue of the fact of being more adaptable to the terrain. Much like the resistors in our modern Ukraine. QE 1 had to resort to purchase, poisoning, and a rethink of her advisers. Guile, and a well informed network. not to mention a ready supply of funding was a great deception.

Churchill in a former time after the 14 war set this to work as to our demise as he reinvented our modern 'Orangism' after that war. That was of course started to ferment hatred on this island from Scotland after that war. Not really a plan of Churchill as to how to attack a problem in the planning. He was after all honed on 'Pig Sticking' a rule of thumb of Indian times. Tying men of dissent to cannon being another pastime of such people, leaders of that history was also a thing to make the local Sepoy rethink thought. Quite the hobby really but like all hobbies, we need some funds to play our little games. To loosely quote one of the redshields here..........If my sons disliked war. There would be no such thing.

Cromwell, and later George would be given endless supply of monies and mercenaries. Just like hiring the best chippy in town in our world. You get what you pay for by planning and payment. Not really rocket science but if you have the resources with any old chippy. The house he designs will stand as long as he is involved.

One of Napoleon's greatest regrets in one of his last letters would have him believe Ireland was the gateway to empire. I am quite sure Hitler had read that letter. Guile again springs to mind as to how both of those thinking men. Most likely better thinkers than Churchill in their own rite barring advisers. Some odd features of that history which pertains to a lot of conflict. Why did both thinkers loose out to to the latter thinker. When faced with defeat in Fonteny equally armed Irish troops of the French King decimated a far great number of British troops. Likewise a defeated Europe were allowed to escape a total defeat at Dunkirk. A defeated Europe of both world wars were saved by what is now known as a False Flag. The 14 war was decided by the sinking of The Lusitania. Stranger than fiction Mr Ripley. Most of those opposed to the Federal Reserve just happened to be on that ship.

This Ukraine war has so Many similarities to both of our world wars. Hitler was refused his corridor to stem the Polish problem. Hess, well that speaks volumes as does the abdication of King Edward. Hitler went rouge when his country became powerful enough to redress the Armistice of victor tyranny of Germany as per the 14 war. Putin is playing a similar game as to provocation of world banker elite. He watched as his people were being killed in his neighbourhood. Maybe the bankers missed that opportunity as to another colour revolution. Putin played a bold move as his popularity slumped. Soros, Nuland (nee Kagan) seemed to be playing checkers then as the grand master moved his chess pieces. Patience, a lot of armour, a few thousand Russian you may think turned the tide. You will be forgiven for such thinking though as there is a determination of the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine without the East of that country is a non entity. What those so called rebels have is what is the problem for the bankers. The bankers Churchills, the Hitlers, are aware of the civil war/coup they have to control before they move to the next piece on the board game. Look at the body bags, broken old coffins coming out of Western Ukraine. They hold the brothers of our time of aeons ago. The main pieces in this game are still working on the game.

A footnote if you will. The Bilderberg of which my own country will take orders. It was I believe an overheard statement of a private conversation. It is all going quite nicely someone said.... If only we could be sure of controlling Putin....

Dozer.

This post is unintelligible gibberish.

pedroeibar1 · 09-03-2015 7:43pm

What did you expect, when it follows a post suggesting that Dev was planted in Bolands by Churchill?:D

oldozer · 09-03-2015 8:14pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

This post is unintelligible gibberish.

Why thank you for that most intelligent reply. You really shot me down there with a one line drive by comment.

Thought process much.....?

Dozer.

Brian Shanahan · 10-03-2015 10:36am

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

it means collins signed the 6 counties out to the british crown. 100 years of slaughter is what he gave us

If I wanted ridiculous fantasies I'd buy a Stephanie Meyer novel, not listen to the febrile ramblings of a 32 county republican fantasist. So like with darkyhughes, please stop regurgitating them at me.

Brian Shanahan · 10-03-2015 10:46am

feargale wrote: »

I wonder if the reality was as follows: Immediately before the Treaty negotiations the IRA, having suffered some serious reverses, particularly in Dublin, was close to collapse. Nobody knew this better than Collins, but he dared not let his right hand know what his left hand knew. For operational reasons this could not be divulged to the rank and file as they deliberated on the Treaty, much less to the people at large. Ironic that the IRB faction including Collins were overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

It was actually deV that did the most of the negotiations with Lloyd George, and framed the essential outlines of the treaty. He knew both how exhausted the Irish were and how much room for negotiation there was with the British government. He simply sent Collins and the others over on the final round in a tawdry political manoeuvre to try and land the blame for "failing" to get total victory from the British government. He was then mightily suprised that a) Collins managed to wrangle a few more concessions out of Lloyd George than he was, and that b) the majority of the Irish were senisble enough to take what they could and accept the treaty.

It amazes me that the 32 county fantasists in this thread don't recognise the simple and connected facts that their hated treaty was largely due to deV (who was a brilliant negotiator, and actually managed to get a lot before handing over to Collins), and not those in the Irish government they have labelled "traitors". They don't realise that the progenitor of their whole movement largely formulated the treaty, would have gladly signed it if he thought it would give him an advantage and only repudiated it in the end because of a wrongheaded politcial manoeuvre which backed him into a corner with the anti-treaty camp.

DarkyHughes · 11-03-2015 6:14pm

feargale wrote: »

I believe that John Devoy, the old Fenian who died in 1928 said in 1921/22 that he didn't care who was king of Ireland so long as the British got out of Ireland.

I wonder if the reality was as follows: Immediately before the Treaty negotiations the IRA, having suffered some serious reverses, particularly in Dublin, was close to collapse. Nobody knew this better than Collins, but he dared not let his right hand know what his left hand knew. For operational reasons this could not be divulged to the rank and file as they deliberated on the Treaty, much less to the people at large. Ironic that the IRB faction including Collins were overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

Well he sounds like a racist moron.

DarkyHughes · 11-03-2015 6:17pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It was actually deV that did the most of the negotiations with Lloyd George, and framed the essential outlines of the treaty. He knew both how exhausted the Irish were and how much room for negotiation there was with the British government. He simply sent Collins and the others over on the final round in a tawdry political manoeuvre to try and land the blame for "failing" to get total victory from the British government. He was then mightily suprised that a) Collins managed to wrangle a few more concessions out of Lloyd George than he was, and that b) the majority of the Irish were senisble enough to take what they could and accept the treaty.

It amazes me that the 32 county fantasists in this thread don't recognise the simple and connected facts that their hated treaty was largely due to deV (who was a brilliant negotiator, and actually managed to get a lot before handing over to Collins), and not those in the Irish government they have labelled "traitors". They don't realise that the progenitor of their whole movement largely formulated the treaty, would have gladly signed it if he thought it would give him an advantage and only repudiated it in the end because of a wrongheaded politcial manoeuvre which backed him into a corner with the anti-treaty camp.

Still such giant waste. Like 10,000 people dead 50,000 injured & 1000's left homeless just for a partitioned country still within an Empire.

DarkyHughes · 11-03-2015 6:20pm

oldozer wrote: »

I don't think Churchill planted Dev in Bolands Mills. Churchill for all his so called tactics was not I think quite the genius he would be given accolade for. He was a most shrewd character but then so was QE 1 once her recce parties told her of how the natives were a most formidable force. She knew quite well she was up against a most formidable enemy. Her enemy had the advantage of being a more resilient enemy by virtue of the fact of being more adaptable to the terrain. Much like the resistors in our modern Ukraine. QE 1 had to resort to purchase, poisoning, and a rethink of her advisers. Guile, and a well informed network. not to mention a ready supply of funding was a great deception.

Churchill in a former time after the 14 war set this to work as to our demise as he reinvented our modern 'Orangism' after that war. That was of course started to ferment hatred on this island from Scotland after that war. Not really a plan of Churchill as to how to attack a problem in the planning. He was after all honed on 'Pig Sticking' a rule of thumb of Indian times. Tying men of dissent to cannon being another pastime of such people, leaders of that history was also a thing to make the local Sepoy rethink thought. Quite the hobby really but like all hobbies, we need some funds to play our little games. To loosely quote one of the redshields here..........If my sons disliked war. There would be no such thing.

Cromwell, and later George would be given endless supply of monies and mercenaries. Just like hiring the best chippy in town in our world. You get what you pay for by planning and payment. Not really rocket science but if you have the resources with any old chippy. The house he designs will stand as long as he is involved.

One of Napoleon's greatest regrets in one of his last letters would have him believe Ireland was the gateway to empire. I am quite sure Hitler had read that letter. Guile again springs to mind as to how both of those thinking men. Most likely better thinkers than Churchill in their own rite barring advisers. Some odd features of that history which pertains to a lot of conflict. Why did both thinkers loose out to to the latter thinker. When faced with defeat in Fonteny equally armed Irish troops of the French King decimated a far great number of British troops. Likewise a defeated Europe were allowed to escape a total defeat at Dunkirk. A defeated Europe of both world wars were saved by what is now known as a False Flag. The 14 war was decided by the sinking of The Lusitania. Stranger than fiction Mr Ripley. Most of those opposed to the Federal Reserve just happened to be on that ship.

This Ukraine war has so Many similarities to both of our world wars. Hitler was refused his corridor to stem the Polish problem. Hess, well that speaks volumes as does the abdication of King Edward. Hitler went rouge when his country became powerful enough to redress the Armistice of victor tyranny of Germany as per the 14 war. Putin is playing a similar game as to provocation of world banker elite. He watched as his people were being killed in his neighbourhood. Maybe the bankers missed that opportunity as to another colour revolution. Putin played a bold move as his popularity slumped. Soros, Nuland (nee Kagan) seemed to be playing checkers then as the grand master moved his chess pieces. Patience, a lot of armour, a few thousand Russian you may think turned the tide. You will be forgiven for such thinking though as there is a determination of the people of Eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine without the East of that country is a non entity. What those so called rebels have is what is the problem for the bankers. The bankers Churchills, the Hitlers, are aware of the civil war/coup they have to control before they move to the next piece on the board game. Look at the body bags, broken old coffins coming out of Western Ukraine. They hold the brothers of our time of aeons ago. The main pieces in this game are still working on the game.

A footnote if you will. The Bilderberg of which my own country will take orders. It was I believe an overheard statement of a private conversation. It is all going quite nicely someone said.... If only we could be sure of controlling Putin....

Dozer.

What?

DarkyHughes · 11-03-2015 6:27pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If I wanted ridiculous fantasies I'd buy a Stephanie Meyer novel, not listen to the febrile ramblings of a 32 county republican fantasist. So like with darkyhughes, please stop regurgitating them at me.

I wasn't regurgitating anything at you. I gave you an answer your mind couldn't handle. I stop with the made up phrases.

"32 county republican fantasist" Wtf like. Couldn't you just say Republican or if you really needed to dissident republican.

derry dirtfisher · 11-03-2015 8:39pm

<Mod>
Post deleted, infracted and two week ban, personal abuse of this sort won't be tolerated
</Mod>

feargale · 11-03-2015 9:30pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Well he sounds like a racist moron.

Re racism, I'm sure he was referring to the Britush administration, not British people.
I've never heard anyone call him a moron before, and I don't know why anyone would unless you want to say that getting oneself a sentence of 15 years for treason, and serving five is moronic.

Brian Shanahan · 11-03-2015 11:09pm

derry dirtfisher wrote: »

...<snip>...

That's exactly the level I was expecting from you. You don't know the first thing about me but you are happy to throw libellous insults my way.

Shows exactly the kind of low moralled person you are.

oldozer · 11-03-2015 11:38pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It was actually deV that did the most of the negotiations with Lloyd George, and framed the essential outlines of the treaty. He knew both how exhausted the Irish were and how much room for negotiation there was with the British government. He simply sent Collins and the others over on the final round in a tawdry political manoeuvre to try and land the blame for "failing" to get total victory from the British government. He was then mightily suprised that a) Collins managed to wrangle a few more concessions out of Lloyd George than he was, and that b) the majority of the Irish were senisble enough to take what they could and accept the treaty.

It amazes me that the 32 county fantasists in this thread don't recognise the simple and connected facts that their hated treaty was largely due to deV (who was a brilliant negotiator, and actually managed to get a lot before handing over to Collins), and not those in the Irish government they have labelled "traitors". They don't realise that the progenitor of their whole movement largely formulated the treaty, would have gladly signed it if he thought it would give him an advantage and only repudiated it in the end because of a wrongheaded politcial manoeuvre which backed him into a corner with the anti-treaty camp.

Collins was a soldier, and Dev a politician. I most often thought of Dev being a cute hure.

There was talk way back in the 70s as to a Federal solution as to a 32 County country. It had support by some leading people of the day.
No money in peace though I may say.

Dozer.

Why no big Republican split in 86?

Comments