Lurgan Bomb

dlofnep

Terry wrote: »

In fairness, he did apologise. Do you not think that post was a bit too much?
It's a rare occasion that the Flutter is classy in AH.

I don't. If he had of actually read the posts, before interjecting - he would have needed to apologise. His post was the typical crass, smarmy bollocks that we've become accustomed to seeing on these forums when it comes to his discussions on Republicans.

Accusing people of condoning attacks on children deserves a very stern response, and he justifiably got it. I don't take kindly to anyone accusing me, or any other poster of condoning terrorist attacks which have injured children.

dlofnep

Terrontress wrote: »

I'd just like to point out the utter hypocrisy of trotting out an 8% Catholic figure as evidence that the RUC was unequal.

There is no hypocrisy in that figure whatsoever. Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

Do you dispute that the actions of the RUC played a part on a low intake of catholics?

Terry

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't. If he had of actually read the posts, before interjecting - he would have needed to apologise. His post was the typical crass, smarmy bollocks that we've become accustomed to seeing on these forums when it comes to his discussions on Republicans.

Accusing people of condoning attacks on children deserves a very stern response, and he justifiably got it. I don't take kindly to anyone accusing me, or any other poster of condoning terrorist attacks which have injured children.

Fair enough.
I'll admit to just having skimmed the last couple of pages of this thread.
I didn't see the accusation.

dlofnep

Terry wrote: »

Fair enough.
I'll admit to just having skimmed the last couple of pages of this thread.
I didn't see the accusation.

He interjected, without context with the following.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67468810&postcount=204

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67468918&postcount=209

All this mind you, after I had clearly condemned the act on pages previous to his post.

FlutterinBantam

Let's get a few things straight there was no accusation


You know that.


Just a straight question. as to where exactly you stood


That was answered , let's leave it that shall we.

Try a few more cheap shots and watch out pal.

Terry

dlofnep wrote: »

He interjected, without context with the following.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67468810&postcount=204

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67468918&postcount=209

All this mind you, after I had clearly condemned the act on pages previous to his post.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Let's get a few things straight there was no accusation


You know that.


Just a straight question. as to where exactly you stood


That was answered , let's leave it that shall we.

Try a few more cheap shots and watch out pal.

I'm out.

Wolfe Tone

Terry wrote: »

I'm out.

Coward!

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Let's get a few things straight there was no accusation


You know that.


Just a straight question. as to where exactly you stood


That was answered , let's leave it that shall we.

I had already stated my position prior to you asking it. Why would you then ask me for a second time, after I had made my position clear?

I'm more than happy to let it rest here. Next time, try read my prior posts - before you ask such a loaded question. You know very well that I oppose this attack, and indeed any attacks in the north - as they are all counter-productive to the peace process. This isn't a secret that I've been hiding, and I've always been a vocal supporter of the peace process.

Terrontress

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no hypocrisy in that figure whatsoever. Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

Do you dispute that the actions of the RUC played a part on a low intake of catholics?

It's a bit chicken and egg I suppose.

I suppose, being on the wrong side of the law, it suited the IRA not to have people in their community on the right side of it. From that perspective it suited them. It enabled them to continue their nefarious activities with less threat of observation.

I definitely believe the imbalance in RUC numbers is every bit to do with the IRA's threat as it is to do with any negative element with in the force.

dlofnep

Terrontress wrote: »

It's a bit chicken and egg I suppose.

I suppose, being on the wrong side of the law, it suited the IRA not to have people in their community on the right side of it. From that perspective it suited them. It enabled them to continue their nefarious activities with less threat of observation.

I definitely believe the imbalance in RUC numbers is every bit to do with the IRA's threat as it is to do with any negative element with in the force.

Grand. We're in agreement and have come to a shared conclusion. The RUC's actions (including collusion with loyalists/harassment/upholding civil injustice) lost trust in the community, and the IRA's threats and attacks dissuaded people from joining the RUC. What percentage of people each side had an effect on is up in the air, and any estimates would be purely subjective.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

Do you lay the blame for any of that imbalance at the door of PIRA, given that anyone from a nationalist area who joined the RUC was expelled from that area and threatened with murder?

It must have been difficult for the RUC to attract Catholic recruits and the one-sidedness of the organisation, facilitated by the IRA, allowed less than favourable cultures to develop.

Many of those from nationalist areas who refused to be intimidated by thugs and joined up anyway managed to prosper through the ranks. Guys like Brian McCargo and Desmond Conroy spring to mind.

The RUC was a hive of sectarian bigotry from the founding of the NI statelet. The PIRA arrived long after. In fact, it was the attitude of the RUC and its 'B' Special reserve towards peaceful protest that contributed to the start of the armed campaign

The dates of the founding, the attitude of the RUC are all a matter of historical record. However, given your view, you might petition for an 'Alternative History' section, where you may believe what you want, and post without fear of contradiction from those interested in reality.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Let's get a few things straight there was no accusation


You know that.


Just a straight question. as to where exactly you stood


That was answered , let's leave it that shall we.

Try a few more cheap shots and watch out pal.

Threats time already?

TootFkingSweet

With all due regards to the kids involved whom regardless, didnt deserve to be injured, some people need to stop being so PC.

Corporate media and the such have a terrific ability to paint a certain group of people heros and the others as terrorist, case in point, do you think we hear about every poor afghan kid blown limb from limb by american troops? no we hear about poor valiant jonny who went and died valiantly for his country, for fk all.

I personally dont see the IRA or any dissidents up the north as terrorists, events over the past while, highlighted by the media have brought certain things to the surface again...

ejmaztec

TootFkingSweet wrote: »

fyp

TootFkingSweet

ejmaztec wrote: »

fyp

sound lol

Little My

I wish the republic of ireland could keep its terrorists to itself... Northern Ireland might not have such a problem if we didnt have dissendent republicans from Co.Louth crossing the border and planting bombs.

rovert

Anyone will a tri-colour tatoo should be interned.

dlofnep

rovert wrote: »

Anyone will a tri-colour tatoo should be interned.

What a tolerant and understanding person you are.

If you want to bait people, you're going to have to try be a little less obvious next time.

Micky Dolenz

rovert, Don't post in this thread again.

TootFkingSweet

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

rovert, Don't post in this thread again.

lol, cmon and we blow up his bins Mick

steddyeddy

Northern ireland has two major lines of thought

A: The north is the rightful part of the uk and should never go back to irish rule

B: The north rightfully belongs to ireland and should go back to irish rule

You cannot reconcile the two, even if the two sides live in peace small numbers in each will use force to support the view.

There is also a number of people who see this as tenable, I lived for a short time up in the north and knew many people who didnt see any problem in considering themselves irish/english/northern irish and that the problems in the north will be short lived, as long as you cant reconcile the unionist or republican views and some of those groups will use force to achieve their aims then the situation is untenable.

What I cant understand is how some people seem to think that the the violence in the north is the same as violence in most places ( ie non political ). For those who think everythings all wine and roses in the north your posting on a thread about a bomb going off up there.

Wolfe Tone

Are there anymore updates on the bombing? Have we gotten confirmation of the wording of the warning yet? That could be interesting. Or on the bombs design? That could help tell which IRA it was, if indeed it was a republican attack, which seems most probable.

Biggins

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Are there anymore updates on the bombing? Have we gotten confirmation of the wording of the warning yet? That could be interesting. Or on the bombs design? That could help tell which IRA it was, if indeed it was a republican attack, which seems most probable.

See the previous articles for indications given to whom is responsible.
(Post 180 and 125)

Terry

The only viable solution is to give them their independence and let them sort out their own problems.
A few brown bulls wouldn't go astray either.

moonpurple

rovert wrote: »

Anyone will a tri-colour tatoo should be interned.

are tatoos of the tricolour popular with men under age 30 in the louth cavan armagh area who would be sympathetic to the rira and cira?

PeterIanStaker

rovert wrote: »

Anyone will a tri-colour tatoo should be interned.

Suuure, and lets intern anyone who got over a D in Pass Irish and didn't read the Sindo yesterday while we're at it. :rolleyes:

moonpurple

Terry wrote: »

The only viable solution is to give them their independence and let them sort out their own problems.
A few brown bulls wouldn't go astray either.

the 'solution' was put to the many and varied Irish people over 32 counties and was accepted, the good friday agreement opens with the following declaration:

DECLARATION OF SUPPORT
1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the
agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new
beginning.
2. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable
legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been
injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh
start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of
reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and
vindication of the human rights of all.
3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the
basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South,
and between these islands.

Terrontress

Independence is not economically viable for Northern Ireland.

While NI was historically an industrial powerhouse and net contributor to the UK, the troubles put an end to that, leading to a state reliant on outside assistance.

Independence would lead to even greater social issues than those which exist at present.

Wolfe Tone

The North is a failed economic entity and would not be able to survive on its own.

Wolfe Tone

Biggins wrote: »

See the previous articles for indications given to whom is responsible.
(Post 180 and 125)

In fairness those articles tell us feck all, bordering on sensationalism also, especially with regards to the quote from an "OnH source". I say they made that up.

I would be interested to see the wording of the warning though.


Also in addition to police being fired on there have been multiple bomb scares since the blast, this morning the Lurgan-Portadown line was closed due to one.