Question for Republicans (of the Irish variety)

whitey1

Maybe someone can provide a little insight into something that perplexes and confuses me. I get the impression that many in the Republican movement hold pretty strong anti American views. Its possible that their views are against the American military (and its involvement in Iraq) rather than America the country.

The problem is that Irish Americans have a very proud tradition of serving in the US Military so any criticism of the US Military is also a criticism of one of the cornerstones of the Irish American identity. These are the same Irish Americans who suported your struggle long before it was popular or fashionable to do so anywhere else inthe world.

When Gerry Adams was a pariah in his own country he was welcomed with open arms into the highest circles of influence within the Irish American community. American congressmen fought tooth and nail to prevent the extradition of Maze escapees.

At a more local level..Irish American cops turned a blind eye to illegal fundraising (I was present at several of these events). Irish American officials smuggled convicted IRA men through immigration. For Christs sake the Irish mob in Boston even sent you a boat filled with arms and explosives.

Heres my issue-in your hour of need we were not found wanting. We stood up and were counted even though it was not the popular thing to do.

In our hour of need, you are giving moral support to our enemies. In particular I am referring to Pro Palestinian, Pro Hamas, and even Pro Al Quada prpopganda that can be found on many Republican blogs and websites.

Anyone want to have a stab at explaining

2Scoops

whitey1 wrote: »

Anyone want to have a stab at explaining

Irish Republicans exploited Irish-American nostalgia to a country they retained a tenuous link to. They took the money, accepted the pats on the back and then the transaction was completed. At no point did they respect them or their views.

sink

2Scoops wrote: »

Irish Republicans exploited Irish-American nostalgia to a country they retained a tenuous link to. They took the money, accepted the pats on the back and then the transaction was completed. At no point did they respect them or their views.

QFT

On top of that they hold a grudge against the US for not recognising Irish independence in 1918 after Woodrow Wilson issued his fourteen points recognising the right to self determination.

He did not recognise Irelands independence because he did not want to upset relations with his closest ally in Europe the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

sink

Also the Irish republican movement has generally been socialist and contains a significant minority of communists even today. For this reason the first country to recognise an independent Ireland was Russia.

marco murphy

In our hour of need, you are giving moral support to our enemies. In particular I am referring to Pro Palestinian, Pro Hamas, and even Pro Al Quada prpopganda that can be found on many Republican blogs and websites.

The Republican Movement have never distributed or shown Pro-Hamas or Pro-Al Qieda propaganda, so do elaborate on that. As for pro-Palestine. If America considers Palestinians to be enemies then I know whose side I'd be on.
You'll find different Republicans have different views. Personally, the shipments and fundraising were to be welcomed, and I don't think any Republican would take lectures from people over there on fighting wars or anything like it. Republicans in general are greatful for the help, in whatever fashion. Republicans in general are also anti-imperialist and would frown upon if not totally condemn the US military. I must mention that a freind of mine was to be extradited, he joined the Marines however to secure his place in the US. Some people had no alternative.

CSC

Intreresting question and I think the previous poster has summed up what I was going to write.
One thing that needs clarification is, that if a party or person criticises the US government or the actions of their military in Iraq or Afghanastan that doesn't make them "Anti-American". Millions of American citizens took to the streets to protest at the invasion of Iraq, likewise that doesn't make them "Anti-American". That phrase is used by the American right to stifle any debate or criticism.

irish_bob

CSC wrote: »

Intreresting question and I think the previous poster has summed up what I was going to write.
One thing that needs clarification is, that if a party or person criticises the US government or the actions of their military in Iraq or Afghanastan that doesn't make them "Anti-American". Millions of American citizens took to the streets to protest at the invasion of Iraq, likewise that doesn't make them "Anti-American". That phrase is used by the American right to stifle any debate or criticism.

not to be a nit picker but nowhere near millions of ameircans took to the street

CSC

irish_bob wrote: »

not to be a nit picker but nowhere near millions of ameircans took to the street

Fair enough, millions is an exageration but if you look at old news reports from 02/03 there was hundreds of thousands of protesters in places like San Francisco and Washington. It doesn't take away from the point I was hoping to make though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SlabMurphy

I would say that Irish Americans have a stronger line on British occupation of the six counties due to the fact that they grow up in a strong country where people are encouraged to take pride in their country and not like the sheep in Ireland who have to grovel and look over the shoulder for approvement from Britian before they do anything. Sadly, the 26 counties suffers from what is called neo colonialism - the creation of political and economic arrangements by the former colonial power to maintain control of it's former colony.

sink wrote: »

QFT

On top of that they hold a grudge against the US for not recognising Irish independence in 1918 after Woodrow Wilson issued his fourteen points recognising the right to self determination.

He did not recognise Irelands independence because he did not want to upset relations with his closest ally in Europe the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

Complete bullsh**t. Most Republicans would propably have heard much about this, it's effectively irrelevant, though it is true that Wilson did not recognise Irelands independence, it was all part of the political skullduggery at the time as you say. But that was part of the gross hypocrisy of WW1 and the so called war for small nations. If WW1 was about the freedom of small nations, isn't it the greatest hypocrisy that Britian had a bigger empire at the end of it than before it ?

sink wrote: »

Also the Irish republican movement has generally been socialist and contains a significant minority of communists even today. For this reason the first country to recognise an independent Ireland was Russia.

" contains a significant minority of communists " More tripe :rolleyes:. Obviously you must be an avid believer of the British army and unionist 'information' statements. And they have also been accused of been Nazi's, Anarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, baby eaters etc, etc.

donegalfella wrote: »

Irish "republicans" believe in achieving a socialist state through terrorist means. They have no respect for human life, and their views are deeply antithetical to the American way.

Two recent changes stand out:

1) Irish Americans were once willing to overlook Irish republicans' terrorist/socialist leanings in the interest of nostalgia for the "auld sod" and a desire to help a country that was perceived as persecuted and impoverished. Now that Ireland has become a wealthy Western nation that is putting its colonial history firmly in the past, it does not any longer merit so much sympathy. Recent pleas for "special treatment" for Irish immigrants are falling on deaf ears—and justifiably so.

2) After 9/11, Americans became aware of the global terrorist threat in a way they hadn't been before. Support for republican terrorist groups consequently declined, especially when the connections between the IRA and international terrorist groups were exposed. Even Americans who support the idea of a united Ireland want to see that goal attained through a democratic, parliamentarian process that does not involve guns and bombs.

" They have no respect for human life, " Well they certainly have a lot more respect for human life than the US govt has or ever had. Ever hear of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Central America etc

"Now that Ireland has become a wealthy Western nation that is putting its colonial history firmly in the past " Allegedly been from Donegal, I would have thought it the most obvious thing in the world that we have'nt sadly put our colonial history in the past, as all your neighbouring counties of Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh are still under occupation.

" 2) After 9/11, Americans became aware of the global terrorist threat in a way they hadn't been before. Support for republican terrorist groups consequently declined " 9/11 was in 2001, the Provos are on ceasefire since July 1997.

sink

Well i'm sorry but the overwhelming majority of people on these islands don't give a crap what people like you think.

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" contains a significant minority of communists " More tripe :rolleyes:. Obviously you must be an avid believer of the British army and unionist 'information' statements. And they have also been accused of been Nazi's, Anarchists, Islamic fundamentalists, baby eaters etc, etc.

What about the INLA/IRSP and OIRA/WPI being self declared Marxists?

stovelid

sink wrote: »

What about the INLA/IRSP and OIRA/WPI being self declared Marxists?

The SFWP/OIRA and INLA/IRSP did. It was probably lost on them that blowing up and shooting working class people wasn't exactly contiguous to being Marxist though.

I doubt the SF/Provos ever really saw themselves as such though. As has been said here before, the provisionals were a broader church politically, even if being 'anti-imperialist' meant that SF described themselves as 'socialist' almost by default.

SlabMurphy

sink wrote: »

Well i'm sorry but the overwhelming majority of people on these islands don't give a crap what people like you think.



What about the INLA/IRSP and OIRA/WPI being self declared Marxists?

Not sure where the INLA got their hardware from, possibly the middle east and left wing groups on the continent, but certainly very little if anything from America - unless it was in hard cash and not from supporters.

As for those reprobates the stickies - OIRA/WP. I wouldn't for a second consider them part of the republican struggle, they were about as looney as only the looney left can be. Maybe you could ask Eoghan Harris and Prionias De Rossa, they'd certainly know more about them.

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

the 26 counties suffers from what is called neo colonialism - the creation of political and economic arrangements by the former colonial power to maintain control of it's former colony.

How does this work then? are you saying Bertie is the fault of the British as well?

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Maybe you could ask Eoghan Harris and Prionias De Rossa, they'd certainly know more about them.

EH and PDR got to the same place as Mcguiness and Adams did, 35 years down the line though: politicians on a still-partitioned island.

That said, EH or PDR (as much as I dislike EH) got there without contributing to the loss of thousands of lives, and alienating non-unionist protestants for at least another 1-2 generations.

marco murphy

sink wrote: »

Well i'm sorry but the overwhelming majority of people on these islands don't give a crap what people like you think.

What a childish and desperate comment.

sink

Perestroika wrote: »

What a childish and desperate comment.

Harsh perhaps but none the less the truth. Not that they give a crap what I think either. Being from a mixed Irish and British background it's hard not to take offence to nationalist drivel.

oscarBravo

Any chance we could discuss this civilly? Ta.

sink

oscarBravo wrote: »

Any chance we could discuss this civilly? Ta.

Sorry I admittedly went a bit overboard.

DublinWriter

whitey1 wrote: »

Maybe someone can provide a little insight into something that perplexes and confuses me. I get the impression that many in the Republican movement hold pretty strong anti American views. Its possible that their views are against the American military (and its involvement in Iraq) rather than America the country.

I think it's more to do with the Irish Republican movement being more leftist in outlook. Of course those with a left-wing agenda are going to strongly criticise a right-wing neo-con President.

whitey1 wrote: »

In our hour of need, you are giving moral support to our enemies. In particular I am referring to Pro Palestinian, Pro Hamas, and even Pro Al Quada prpopganda that can be found on many Republican blogs and websites.

Anyone want to have a stab at explaining

Sure. To put it simply, America brought all this upon herself by taking a very pro-Israeli position from the early 1970's. An America that meddles disastrously in foreign politics cannot expect to do so without consequence.

You think these people want to kill you because you have McDonalds and listen to Van Halen?

whitey1

What precipitated Bin Ladins attacks of 9/11 was the presence of American forces on Saudi soil. When Iraq invaded Kuwait he offered his services to the Saudis to boot em out. They politely declined and invited in the Americans instead. (I guess they figured they were next on Sadamms list). He got pretty pi$$ed off about that.

Unfortunately as a Superpower you cant remain neutral in a lot of conflicts. You just dont have that luxury. Would I be correct in assuming that their siding with Israel coincided with Russias siding with the Palestinians. Obvious the powerful Jewish lobby stateside had something to do with it too.

Bottom line-Irish Americans gave a lot of support to the Republcan movement when their cause enjoyed little support outside their immediate community. People like Adams, who were fringe politicians at best (as opposed to world recognised peace makers) in their own country, were feted at the highest levels of Irish America.

I am not asking for Republicans to come out in favor of the Iraq war, I am just disappointed that they seem to be taking sides with our enemies. As the saying goes-"when the chips are down you find out who your friends are".

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

EH and PDR got to the same place as Mcguiness and Adams did, 35 years down the line though: politicians on a still-partitioned island.

That said, EH or PDR (as much as I dislike EH) got there without contributing to the loss of thousands of lives, and alienating non-unionist protestants for at least another 1-2 generations.

So are we to conclude from your post that McGuinness and Adams were solely the ones respondcible for all the deaths during the conflict. Even the ones carried out by the brits and their unoffical allies the loyalists who they armed and directed throughout the conflict ?? (BTW, I notice you use the term SF/Provos, any chance you could use the term RUC/Brits/UVF ? since it's equally applicable ?)

Ofcourse the British and the unionists who created and sustained the conditions of repression and bigotry for decades that inevitably gave rise to the conflict aren't in anyway to blame either. No, it's all down to Gerry and Martin - in your views anyway.

And as for the southern govt. I would have thought it obvious the whole conflict could have been avoided if they had lived up to their promisies and firey speeches ( particulairily Fianna Fail ) since partition and retaken the six counties in August 1969 when the nationalists were facing an outslaught from the RUC and unionist mobs. An onslaught that was narrowly stopped by literally a handfull of armed IRA men while Lynch and co. stood idly by ?? ( To the amazement and bewilderment of the international community and Irish America in particuliar. )

Indeed the southern govt.'s policy of doing absoulutely nothing but issueing bland statements of " concern " during the whole two and half decades of the conflict could well be said to have done as much to convince Irish Americans to support Gerry and Co. than a bunch of weasles and quislings from the Dublin govt.

SlabMurphy

sink wrote: »

Harsh perhaps but none the less the truth. Not that they give a crap what I think either. Being from a mixed Irish and British background it's hard not to take offence to nationalist drivel.

EXTRAORDINARY - YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: " Being from a mixed Irish and British background " It's absoulutely amazing how many people who are always the most anti nationalist on boards.ie are never actually unionists, but ALWAYS allegedly come form

- Born in England but raised in Ireland from their teens
- Born in England but of Irish parents
- Born in Ireland but raised in England from an early age, hence explianing their pro Britsh opinions

It's extraordinary, but I cann't remember yet of seeing anyone spouting pro British thuggery being honest enough to claim that they are unionists from the six counties but obviously try and disguise their views under the already mentioned backgrounds

sink wrote: »

Well i'm sorry but the overwhelming majority of people on these islands don't give a crap what people like you think.

Do me a favour, try spouting your British views in public sometime and we'll see the nice agreement you'll get

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

EXTRAORDINARY - YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: " Being from a mixed Irish and British background " It's absoulutely amazing how many people who are always the most anti nationalist on boards.ie are never actually unionists, but ALWAYS allegedly come form

- Born in England but raised in Ireland from their teens
- Born in England but of Irish parents
- Born in Ireland but raised in England from an early age, hence explianing their pro Britsh opinions

It's extraordinary, but I cann't remember yet of seeing anyone spouting pro British thuggery being honest enough to claim that they are unionists from the six counties but obviously try and disguise their views under the already mentioned backgrounds

Being born of Irish parents in England, it was easy to lose any pro-nationalist feelings, when those representing Irish freedom were blowing up pubs and shops as part of a so-called military struggle.

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

Being born of Irish parents in England, it was easy to lose any pro-nationalist feelings, when those representing Irish freedom were blowing up pubs and shops as part of a so-called military struggle.

AND YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: :eek: ( though I've got to admit on the law of averages the odd one has to be telling the truth, unlike the majority of them are just unionists from teh six counties disguising their real background to try and make their arguement sound more acceptable )

Still, do you not think it a bit of an hypocrisy that the murders carried out by the British forces - RUC, Brits, UVF etc - didn't whatsoever make you loose your pro British views ....:rolleyes:

Anyway, getting off topic here, unionists posting under an alias, Bin Laden, Iraq etc are all coming into it. Let's get back to Irish America and the Republican movement.

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

It's absoulutely amazing how many people who are always the most anti nationalist on boards.ie are never actually unionists, but ALWAYS allegedly come form

- Born in England but raised in Ireland from their teens
- Born in England but of Irish parents
- Born in Ireland but raised in England from an early age, hence explianing their pro Britsh opinions

I'm anti-nationalist. And I was born in England but moved here when I was 11/12. However, my parents are both Irish. And republicans.

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

AND YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: :eek: ( though I've got to admit on the law of averages the odd one has to be telling the truth, unlike the majority of them are just unionists from teh six counties disguising their real background to try and make their arguement sound more acceptable )

Still, do you not think it a bit of an hypocrisy that the murders carried out by the British forces - RUC, Brits, UVF etc - didn't whatsoever make you loose your pro British views ....:rolleyes:
Anyway, getting off topic here, unionists posting under an alias, Bin Laden, Iraq etc are all coming into it. Let's get back to Irish America and the Republican movement.

No it didn't because I regarded all participants as complete ****, to put it into layman's terms. You are incorrect in your assumption that I have pro-British views.

The real hypocrisy is that you didn’t mention any un-necessary killings carried out by Republicans. I knew someone unfortunate enough to be in one of the Birmingham pubs. What did he do to get his leg blown off? He worked for the health service.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view, you assume them to be a West-Brit Unionists, because your blinkered view doesn't want them to be anything else.

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

I'm anti-nationalist. And I was born in England but moved here when I was 11/12. However, my parents are both Irish. And republicans.

AND YET ANOTHER ONE :eek::eek::eek: FFS, this is getting out of hand. The mods will have to intervene

Still it goes to show where the pro british propaganda is really coming from

Otacon

I am Irish, born and bred. No English in my roots as far back in my family as anyone can remember. I even had a grand-uncle or someone like that who was a member of the IRA.

I am firmly against Sinn Fein, the IRA, their policies, beliefs and ideals.

Am I another one?

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

No it didn't because I regarded all participants as complete ****, to put it into layman's terms. You are incorrect in your assumption that I have pro-British views.

The real hypocrisy is that you didn’t mention any un-necessary killings carried out by Republicans. I knew someone unfortunate enough to be in one of the Birmingham pubs. What did he do to get his leg blown off? He worked for the health service.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view, you assume them to be a West-Brit Unionists, because your blinkered view doesn't want them to be anything else.

I've yet to see you or your other british friends emphasise the british guilt and murders etc in the conflict. You unionists - and you are unionists wherever your supposed to be from - are always focusing solely on the IRA's actions to the complete ignoring of Britain.
Sure when it's pointed out you throw in the odd token comment regarding Britain's wrongs - but that's all it ever is TOKEN.

AckwelFoley

Firstly, irish republicanism has been hijacked by the filthy communist terrorist movement that is Sinn Fein, so in effect, true decent thinking moderates dont have an anti american bias.

SlabMurphy

Otacon wrote: »

I am Irish, born and bred. No English in my roots as far back in my family as anyone can remember. I even had a grand-uncle or someone like that who was a member of the IRA.

I am firmly against Sinn Fein, the IRA, their policies, beliefs and ideals.

Am I another one?

Well that would depend. If your against SF and the IRA - I suppose you have some good reasons. But when people come on again and again and again totally blaming the IRA for everything to the total ignoring of Britian and the unionists role, apart from the odd token comment, can you blame a person from starting to conclude their actaully unionists ??

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

So are we to conclude from your post that McGuinness and Adams were solely the ones respondcible for all the deaths during the conflict. Even the ones carried out by the brits and their unoffical allies the loyalists who they armed and directed throughout the conflict ??

Of course the British and the unionists who created and sustained the conditions of repression and bigotry for decades that inevitably gave rise to the conflict aren't in anyway to blame either. No, it's all down to Gerry and Martin - in your views anyway.

Nope. I said 'contributed to'. Which they did. As did the other agents in the conflict. I'd be the first to offer praise to both of them for steering the movement to the table. However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook.

I'm not assigning blame. As an ex-WP (or stick as you would say) member, was making a point that Harris and DeRossa made it to the same place (power-sharing, acknowledgment of protestant fears) as McGuiness and Adams have, without 35 years of war. Not that I endorse DeRossa or especially Harris, these days.

Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war?

SlabMurphy wrote: »

(BTW, I notice you use the term SF/Provos, any chance you could use the term RUC/Brits/UVF ? since it's equally applicable ?)

I also find it irritating when the DUP use the appellation SF/IRA, but I was answering the post re: Marxism and the Officials/INLA. As such, I was distinguishing between the three Republican political strands (SFWP/SF/IRSP) and their respective armed wings (OIRA/PIRA/INLA).

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I've yet to see you or your other british friends emphasise the british guilt and murders etc in the conflict. You unionists - and you are unionists wherever your supposed to be from - are always focusing solely on the IRA's actions to the complete ignoring of Britain.
Sure when it's pointed out you throw in the odd token comment regarding Britain's wrongs - but that's all it ever is TOKEN.

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

Fratton Fred

As a point of order, if it is acceptable to use the term RUC/Brits/UVF then should it also read SF/Irish/IRA?

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

oh, and also

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

Nope. I said 'contributed to'. Which they did. As did the other agents in the conflict. I'd be the first to offer praise to both of them for steering the movement to the table. However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook.

I'm not assigning blame. As an ex-WP (or stick as you would say) member, was making a point that Harris and DeRossa made it to the same place (power-sharing, acknowledgment of protestant fears) as McGuiness and Adams have, without 35 years of war. Not that I endorse DeRossa or especially Harris, these days.

Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war?


I also find it irritating when the DUP use the appellation SF/IRA, but I was answering the post re: Marxism and the Officials/INLA. As such, I was distinguishing between the three Republican political strands (SFWP/SF/IRSP) and their respective armed wings (OIRA/PIRA/INLA).

" However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook. " It was the unionists and the RUC who launched themselves on the nationalist community in August 1969, not the other way around. In fact young nationalists wrote on the walls of Belfast, Derry etc IRA - I Ran Away, such was the felling of disgust at the poor ability of the IRA to be properly armed to defend the areas ( a situation brought about by the so called ' leadrership ' ( Goulding, McGiolla, Garland etc ) in Dublin that went on to become the Stickies ).

Well since you use the British govt. speak ( DUP didn't make it up ) term SF/IRA, surely for balance you could use Brits/RUC/UVF

" Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war? " Yes, it was an all or nothing situation, no matter what gloss SF put on it, brits out or not. Looks like we'll have to outbreed them. Anyway through economic links etc teh process of integrating the two states has already started, letting the air out of the tyres slowly as a british minister said once off the record

( BTW, the brit PM Wilson firmly wanted to withdraw around 1974 but was argued out of it by Healy and Callaghan. It was around this time also that the brit dirty tricks dept where trying to smear Wilson as a Soveit agent -but that's entirely another story )

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

AND YET ANOTHER ONE :eek::eek::eek: FFS, this is getting out of hand. The mods will have to intervene

Still it goes to show where the pro british propaganda is really coming from

They certainly may have to intervene if you keep insisting that where you are born somehow makes you unable to form a political opinion, yes.

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As a point of order, if it is acceptable to use the term RUC/Brits/UVF then should it also read SF/Irish/IRA?

Well the term brits in this context is been used for the armed forces of that evil state. Maybe SF/Paddy's/IRA would be more appropriate ( although some of our insanely politically correct citizens might object ).

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook. " It was the unionists and the RUC who launched themselves on the nationalist community in August 1969, not the other way around.

Nope, the provos chose to respond to unionist misrule and the presence of the British army (at that stage deployed to aid the civil forces) with an armed campaign.

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Looks like we'll have to outbreed them.

Seriously Slab, this kind of attitude is foolish, and no different to some of the opinions in the cracker-wing of the DUP. It's counter-productive to any lasting settlement in NI.

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

Fratton Fred

so being a unionist or a republican is a genetic thing?

Why do people seem so certain that as yet unborn people will vote the way they are expected to?

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

They certainly may have to intervene if you keep insisting that where you are born somehow makes you unable to form a political opinion, yes.

Never said where anyone was born makes them unable to form a political opinion. Some of our greatest leaders were born in Britian, Connolly, Davitt, Liam Mellows. Which ironically throws further doubt on the unionists views continually expressed by so called people born in England but raised in Ireland etc, etc

stovelid wrote: »

Nope, the provos chose to respond to unionist misrule and the presence of the British army (at that stage deployed to aid the civil forces) with an armed campaign.

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles.As for the Provos and the Brits, the Brits came into the north in August 1969. The IRA's first killing of one of them was in August 1970, a full 12 months after their arrival ( and the murder of at least half a dozen nationalists in between by the brits, check out the Cain website) and in responce to what is called the Falls Road curfew when 3000 British army troops sealed off the streets around the nationalist Falls, home to about 10,000 people. They flooded the area murdering 4 civilians, smashing in doors, beating up nationalists of all ages, calling the women dirty fenian whores etc in an attempt to provoke the IRA in an excuse to recover IRA weapons. ( Though naturally, they didn't do the same on the Shankill Road to recover loyalist weapons, but that's british neutrality for you isn't it ) This event is widely regarded as the end of the British army's "honeymoon" period with the Irish nationalist community in the north. See Tim Pat Coogan's book, THE IRA.

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles, but what else would a unionist come out with.

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

probably because you and Mcarmalite do nothing but put the blame firmly on the British/Unionist population.

People trying to get you to see the other side does not mean they are ignoring your points, only pointing out an alternative viewpoint.

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles, but what else would a unionist come out with.

I have no idea. Seeing as I'm not one, perhaps a actual unionist could oblige you.

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

If you think that I ignored the actions of unionism and Britain, I would suggest that you read my posts again, only this time more carefully. :rolleyes:

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

I have no idea. Seeing as I'm not one, perhaps a actual unionist could oblige you.

:rolleyes:

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

If you think that I ignored the actions of unionism and Britain, I would suggest that you read my posts again, only this time more carefully. :rolleyes:

How many times does it have to be repeated, your continual emphasis on the IRA and your token mention of Britian and Unionism :rolleyes:.

SlabMurphy

snyper wrote: »

Firstly, irish republicanism has been hijacked by the filthy communist terrorist movement that is Sinn Fein, so in effect, true decent thinking moderates dont have an anti american bias.

You forgot to mention also their Anarchism, Islamic fundamentalism, baby eating etc

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

As for the Provos and the Brits, the Brits came into the north in August 1969. The IRA's first killing of one of them was in August 1970, a full 12 months after their arrival ( and the murder of at least half a dozen nationalists in between by the brits, check out the Cain website)

Though naturally, they didn't do the same on the Shankill Road to recover loyalist weapons, but that's british neutrality for you isn't it )

The IRA didn't kill a Brit until 1971.

Do you mean nationalists (I prefer the designation Catholic, myself) killed by the NI police forces? They (and loyalists) claimed the only catholic lives in 1969. Hence the deployment of the army.

On CAIN, the only fatalities attributed to the Brits in 1969 seem to protestants (from the Shankill incidentally!):

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

The Brits didn't claim a catholic life until the summer of the following year.

By the way, I'm not disputing the wrongs of Loyalists and the Brits. In 1969, I think armed defense from Loyalists incursion was valid. But you seem to think that Loyalist and Brit atrocities warranted a 35 armed campaign, including indiscriminate bombings.

I don't.

But that doesn't mean I'm a Unionist. Don't bother answering if you are simply going to call me a unionist and roll your eyes.

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

How many times does it have to be repeated, your continual emphasis on the IRA and your token mention of Britian and Unionism :rolleyes:.

Vision Express.