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
Comments
-
You are now offering a defence for northern nationalists using force to achieve civil rights. And some justification could be made for that, even if IMO, what was achieved was not a consequence of that violence.no - I mean a political path to ensure nationalists and republicans have a voice and arent treated like ****.
But my issue is with the political project of PIRA in seeking to bring about a united Ireland by means of force, means that were not approved of by the vast majority of Irish people. And if this course of action was justifiable for PIRA (perhaps you like me, don’t think it was?) then why is it not similarly justified for dissidents?0 -
Think everybody knows why there was republican violence. The real kick in the teeth must be when somebody like Martin mcG starts apoligising for it and downplaying it. When he was one of the leading players.This neither benifits the victims or those who feel it was justified.tim_holsters wrote: »No. Anyone who says yes should get out and about and meet some of the families of people who died because of republican violence and tell them why their family members death was justifiable. Will they do that? Will they Fuk.0 -
tim_holsters wrote: »No. Anyone who says yes should get out and about and meet some of the families of people who died because of republican violence and tell them why their family members death was justifiable. Will they do that? Will they Fuk.
Yes. Anyone who says no should get out and about and meet some of the families of people who died because of British and Loyalist violence, people burnt out of their homes in '69, people discriminated against in their own country due to their religion, denied equal rights in employment, education, and housing - and tell them why their family members death was justifiable, why the absolute discrimination in the north of Ireland up to '69 was justifiable. Will they do that? Will they Fuk.
Simple opinions merit simple replies. I think that was simple enough.0 -
How about this - most people are fantastic at condemning Republicans for their actions, but how about you suggest what should have been done if violence was not the answer? If you are all so certain that the Republican campaign was not justifiable then you must have an alternative? Bear in mind that the political route was closed off to the Nationalist community and they did not even have basic civil rights. Bear in mind that they were beaten off the streets for protesting peacefully, eventually being shot dead in Derry for this 'crime'. Bear in mind also that when people began to seek a political settlement representatives of the Republican community were excluded. In fact, bear in mind that when a restricted form of power sharing was brought in under Sunningdale, Loyalists wrecked it because they would not share power with even the SDLP, the most inoffensive and moderate of Nationalist parties. Bearing all of this in mind, what would your alternative have been? Also, I presume that you would all consider 1916, the War of Independence, the South African campaign for Civil Rights, and other similar struggles to be unjustifiable also? Otherwise you are a hypocrite.0
-
The PIRA was never about Civil Rights. Republicans need to get that right. The PIRA wanted political status in the prisions. Not fighters for Civil Rights. It was a fight for a United Ireland.FeckinUsername wrote: »How about this - most people are fantastic at condemning Republicans for their actions, but how about you suggest what should have been done if violence was not the answer? If you are all so certain that the Republican campaign was not justifiable then you must have an alternative? Bear in mind that the political route was closed off to the Nationalist community and they did not even have basic civil rights. Bear in mind that they were beaten off the streets for protesting peacefully, eventually being shot dead in Derry for this 'crime'. Bear in mind also that when people began to seek a political settlement representatives of the Republican community were excluded. In fact, bear in mind that when a restricted form of power sharing was brought in under Sunningdale, Loyalists wrecked it because they would not share power with even the SDLP, the most inoffensive and moderate of Nationalist parties. Bearing all of this in mind, what would your alternative have been? Also, I presume that you would all consider 1916, the War of Independence, the South African campaign for Civil Rights, and other similar struggles to be unjustifiable also? Otherwise you are a hypocrite.0 -
Advertisement
-
FeckinUsername wrote: »How about this - most people are fantastic at condemning Republicans for their actions, but how about you suggest what should have been done if violence was not the answer? If you are all so certain that the Republican campaign was not justifiable then you must have an alternative? Bear in mind that the political route was closed off to the Nationalist community and they did not even have basic civil rights. Bear in mind that they were beaten off the streets for protesting peacefully, eventually being shot dead in Derry for this 'crime'. Bear in mind also that when people began to seek a political settlement representatives of the Republican community were excluded. In fact, bear in mind that when a restricted form of power sharing was brought in under Sunningdale, Loyalists wrecked it because they would not share power with even the SDLP, the most inoffensive and moderate of Nationalist parties. Bearing all of this in mind, what would your alternative have been? Also, I presume that you would all consider 1916, the War of Independence, the South African campaign for Civil Rights, and other similar struggles to be unjustifiable also? Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
What about the protestants burned out of thier homes, that then had to flee to Liverpool. Of course these piddling little facts don't suit certain republicans narrative, as far as they are concerned (espically those that never lived through the troubles) they are the only victims. They are so victimised even irish forums, staffed by Irish moderators are against them. Found this intersting articule in the Irish independent, now I already know what the replys will be, some sort slabbering about a west Brit newspaper or so such, still its an interesting read.
Executions of 1916 still form toxic staple of brainwashing that passes for education in schools
Some Dublin friends had builders in last May, for a job to be completed in July. So, of course, they spent the third week of December desperately trying to get the builders to finish by Christmas. And the really serious problem with this story is the effortless ease with which Irish readers know it is possible. Moreover, Irish builders -- not being parachuted down from Mars -- are probably a fair representation of the standards in much of Irish life.
Lying to ourselves is like concealing tumours from a doctor, yet it is what we repeatedly do. This year we begin a decade of anniversaries of largely calamitous events, the choicest of which will be officially suffused with a roseate glow of approval. But if you canonise historical tragedy, you should not be surprised if others then seek sainthood by repeating the bloody blunders of the past.
All of Europe has reason to remember the catastrophic events of a century ago; but only in Ireland will they be commemorated with pride. In part, this is because people have been lied to by their school textbooks, and their political masters.
Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?
Yes, we all know about the Black and Tans, and the Auxiliaries. They are part of the educational staple, are they not? And no civilised person can today celebrate the burning of Cork or the Croke Park butchery. Yet just over a year ago, we had the minister for defence officially endorsing fancy-dress re-enactments of the ambushes in which Irish RIC-men were slain by Irishmen. This is barbaric.
No one else in Europe will actually be CELEBRATING the dreadful events of a century ago. That melancholy distinction falls to the Irish; so is it surprising that we are endlessly reliving different versions of the same story of bloody failure? Those annual gatherings at Bodenstown and Beal na mBlath and the GPO are nothing more than the semi-religious and wholly pagan sanctification of homicide.
And where do the builders come in this story? Why, because they are the living embodiment of the culture of moral imprecision that officially allows us to ignore the Ten Commandments of our choice. Some revere paramilitarism; or semi-states bosses who fiddle their expenses, and bank regulators on whose watch the State was destroyed, are allowed to retire early on full pension; or in the HSE, sick-leave = Monday hangovers.
Yes, I go on about this culture, and yes, I do so, ad nauseam. Why? Because it guarantees a return to failure, that familiar pit of sloth and dirges, where an addictive commemorationalism unfailingly provides the blueprint for Plan B.
Freed from the shackles of this perverse and dysfunctional domestic ethos, the Irish are probably the most successful ethnic group in the US. Yet 20th Century independent Ireland has historically been the least successful state in Western Europe. All other countries, including the North, increased their populations by 40pc between 1920 and 2000: ours, though boosted by an atypical decade of the Celtic Tiger, increased by just 20pc. But demographic growth up to 1980 was actually half that.
Revelling in bad history makes for a terrible future. And I can see it unfolding over the coming months; an orgy of self-pitying and ahistorical hubris over events of a century ago. Just about everywhere in Europe passed through a Golgotha between 1912 and 1923, and many countries experienced terrible civil wars. But only one country will actually, albeit selectively, rejoice in the deeds of that time: the one where even in an economic meltdown, builders promise to leave by July, and are still there in December.
Irish Independent0 -
what?
Im answering your question .... sorry you obviously dont find that answer fitting and instead try to tell me what i was trying to say. and have it arseways.You are now offering a defence for northern nationalists using force to achieve civil rights. And some justification could be made for that, even if IMO, what was achieved was not a consequence of that violence.
But my issue is with the political project of PIRA in seeking to bring about a united Ireland by means of force, means that were not approved of by the vast majority of Irish people. And if this course of action was justifiable for PIRA (perhaps you like me, don’t think it was?) then why is it not similarly justified for dissidents?0 -
The PIRA was never about Civil Rights. Republicans need to get that right. The PIRA wanted political status in the prisions. Not fighters for Civil Rights. It was a fight for a United Ireland.
That is very true. It was a fight for a united Ireland - a fight with a greater sense of urgency than most of those that went before because the events in the lead up to '69 proved beyond all doubt that 'northern Ireland' was a failed entity, totally impossible to reform. It is well known also that many of the early recruits to the IRA were fighting for the very survival of their own communities. There were major efforts right throughout the conflict to politicise those Volunteers to develop a truly Republican force. What started for many as a knee-jerk reaction to what they saw going on around them soon developed into an all out battle for the freedom of their country. The latest story to be put forward by the anti-Republican lobby in this country is that the PIRA were mostly young northern men and women who wished to defend their communities, who were moulded and taken advantage of by the southern hawks in the Republican leadership. That was the latest one that I have heard.0 -
What about the protestants burned out of thier homes, that then had to flee to Liverpool. Of course these piddling little facts don't suit certain republicans narrative, as far as they are concerned (espically those that never lived through the troubles) they are the only victims. They are so victimised even irish forums, staffed by Irish moderators are against them. Found this intersting articule in the Irish independent, now I already know what the replys will be, some sort slabbering about a west Brit newspaper or so such, still its an interesting read.
You are right a Chara. I forgot to mention that. In amongst the thousands of Nationalist families burnt out of their homes and affected by violence there were indeed a small number of protestant families also. The reason why so few Protestant families were affected in comparison to Nationalists is probably because the Nationalists did not have the State police force helping them to lay siege to entire communities. In fairness though, this pro-Unionist bias did not always hold - in Operation Demetrius in 1971 not a single Loyalist paramilitary suspect got to enjoy internment without trial, this privilege was reserved for Republican suspects.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of that article you posted. You took away one of my answers - which would have been to look at the paper that published it! There are so many historical inaccuracies and simplifications in it that I would not be sure where to start....0 -
FeckinUsername wrote: »What about the protestants burned out of thier homes, that then had to flee to Liverpool. Of course these piddling little facts don't suit certain republicans narrative, as far as they are concerned (espically those that never lived through the troubles) they are the only victims. They are so victimised even irish forums, staffed by Irish moderators are against them. Found this intersting articule in the Irish independent, now I already know what the replys will be, some sort slabbering about a west Brit newspaper or so such, still its an interesting read.
You are right a Chara. I forgot to mention that. In amongst the thousands of Nationalist families burnt out of their homes and affected by violence there were indeed a small number of protestant families also. The reason why so few Protestant families were affected in comparison to Nationalists is probably because the Nationalists did not have the State police force helping them to lay siege to entire communities. In fairness though, this pro-Unionist bias did not always hold - in Operation Demetrius in 1971 not a single Loyalist paramilitary suspect got to enjoy internment without trial, this privilege was reserved for Republican suspects.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of that article you posted. You took away one of my answers - which would have been to look at the paper that published it! There are so many historical inaccuracies and simplifications in it that I would not be sure where to start....
what within the lexicons of the republican vocabulary is the definition of a few, is that 10, 30, 50, couple of hundred?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
It wasn't about civil rights though. That is the whole point. It is important to debunk the myths.FeckinUsername wrote: »That is very true. It was a fight for a united Ireland - a fight with a greater sense of urgency than most of those that went before because the events in the lead up to '69 proved beyond all doubt that 'northern Ireland' was a failed entity, totally impossible to reform. It is well known also that many of the early recruits to the IRA were fighting for the very survival of their own communities. There were major efforts right throughout the conflict to politicise those Volunteers to develop a truly Republican force. What started for many as a knee-jerk reaction to what they saw going on around them soon developed into an all out battle for the freedom of their country. The latest story to be put forward by the anti-Republican lobby in this country is that the PIRA were mostly young northern men and women who wished to defend their communities, who were moulded and taken advantage of by the southern hawks in the Republican leadership. That was the latest one that I have heard.0 -
Quoting myers has nothing to do with my Case or cause, it's merely 'of interest' as myers is an Irishman who does not buy into normal republican ideology and present an alternative 'irish' view on
Things, which is proberly why so many republicans dislike him0 -
Quoting myers has nothing to do with my Case or cause, it's merely 'of interest' as myers is an Irishman who does not buy into normal republican ideology and present an alternative 'irish' view on
Things, which is proberly why so many republicans dislike him
Well there's that, the double standard as regards violence, the racism and the frequent lies.0 -
Quoting myers has nothing to do with my Case or cause, it's merely 'of interest' as myers is an Irishman who does not buy into normal republican ideology and present an alternative 'irish' view on
Things, which is proberly why so many republicans dislike him
Well there's that, the double standard as regards violence, the racism and the frequent lies.
I agree, it's really quite a disgusting attuitude amoung some republicans0 -
No, you are not answering the question. You are doing what all republican apologists do when faced with this question, you answer a different question.what?
Im answering your question .... sorry you obviously dont find that answer fitting and instead try to tell me what i was trying to say. and have it arseways.
I am not querying whether PIRA were justified in their use of violence to win basic civil rights for northern nationalists (which is not to say that it was justified or that they achieved very much) I am asking you about their political objective to bring about a united Ireland by using means that the vast majority of Irish people did not sanction. Do you agree that in this respect the activities of PIRA were not justified?0 -
It wasn't about civil rights though. That is the whole point. It is important to debunk the myths.
The PIRA were a broader front movement than many of the Republican groups that went before them. To Republicans the war was for freedom, but there is a suspicion though that certain Volunteers were happy to attain civil rights. Some suggest that this is why we have such a problem these days with compromising politicians, they were never actually Republicans in the first place. Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that the conditions and experiences of the northern Nationalist community up to '69 fanned the flames of revolution.0 -
After suffering through this post, surely it could have been summed up like this some protestants houses where burned and they had to return to the country of their ancestors. Hopefully they bought their property in liverpool or their goverment provided them with homes. Maybe they done like their ancestors and murdered the rightful owners and claimed ownership under false pretences. The rest of that woefully long post was about how backward irish people are and how grateful we should be to the british for trying to drag us up from the gutter. Instead those ungrateful irish rebeled and even turn their noses up at the possibility of home rule, they truly deserved everything they got, those freedom seeking irish dirt.What about the protestants burned out of thier homes, that then had to flee to Liverpool. Of course these piddling little facts don't suit certain republicans narrative, as far as they are concerned (espically those that never lived through the troubles) they are the only victims. They are so victimised even irish forums, staffed by Irish moderators are against them. Found this intersting articule in the Irish independent, now I already know what the replys will be, some sort slabbering about a west Brit newspaper or so such, still its an interesting read.
Executions of 1916 still form toxic staple of brainwashing that passes for education in schools
Some Dublin friends had builders in last May, for a job to be completed in July. Aago; but only in Ireland will they be commemorated with pride. In part, this is because people have been lied to by their school textbooks, and their political masters.
Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?
Yes, we all know about the Black and Tans, and the Auxiliaries. They are part of the educational staple, are they not? And no civilised person can today celebrate the burning of Cork or the Croke Park butchery. Yet just over a year ago, we had the minister for defence officially endorsing fancy-dress re-enactments of the ambushes in which Irish RIC-men were slain by Irishmen. This is barbaric.
No one else in Europe will actually be CELEBRATING the dreadful events of a century ago. That melancholy distinction falls to the Irish; so is it surprising that we are endlessly reliving different versions of the same story of bloody failure? Those annual gatherings at Bodenstown and Beal na mBlath and the GPO are nothing more than the semi-religious and wholly pagan sanctification of homicide.
And where do the builders come in this story? Why, because they are the living embodiment of the culture of moral imprecision that officially allows us to ignore the Ten Commandments of our choice. Some revere paramilitarism; or semi-states bosses who fiddle their expenses, and bank regulators on whose watch the State was destroyed, are allowed to retire early on full pension; or in the HSE, sick-leave = Monday hangovers.
Yes, I go on about this culture, and yes, I do so, ad nauseam. Why? Because it guarantees a return to failure, that familiar pit of sloth and dirges, where an addictive commemorationalism unfailingly provides the blueprint for Plan B.
Freed from the shackles of this perverse and dysfunctional domestic ethos, the Irish are probably the most successful ethnic group in the US. Yet 20th Century independent Ireland has historically been the least successful state in Western Europe. All other countries, including the North, increased their populations by 40pc between 1920 and 2000: ours, though boosted by an atypical decade of the Celtic Tiger, increased by just 20pc. But demographic growth up to 1980 was actually half that.
Revelling in bad history makes for a terrible future. And I can see it unfolding over the coming months; an orgy of self-pitying and ahistorical hubris over events of a century ago. Just about everywhere in Europe passed through a Golgotha between 1912 and 1923, and many countries experienced terrible civil wars. But only one country will actually, albeit selectively, rejoice in the deeds of that time: the one where even in an economic meltdown, builders promise to leave by July, and are still there in December.
Irish Independent
Its truly a display of republicans strenght, intelligence, discipline, self control and ability to rise above the gutter journalism, that kevin myers is still alive0 -
Thats true the absence of civil rights provided a recruitment drive as did the british army and n.i security services biased approach to policing. Then you had the wonderful protestant politicans like ian paisley etc. the small group of badly armed republicans fighting for a united ireland couldnt have asked for more. put simply the protestant have only themselves to blame for the rise of the ira and the blame for their deaths is solely theirsIt wasn't about civil rights though. That is the whole point. It is important to debunk the myths.0 -
john reilly wrote: »
After suffering through this post, surely it could have been summed up like this some protestants houses where burned and they had to return to the country of their ancestors. Hopefully they bought their property in liverpool or their goverment provided them with homes. Maybe they done like their ancestors and murdered the rightful owners and claimed ownership under false pretences. The rest of that woefully long post was about how backward irish people are and how grateful we should be to the british for trying to drag us up from the gutter. Instead those ungrateful irish rebeled and even turn their noses up at the possibility of home rule, they truly deserved everything they got, those freedom seeking irish dirt.What about the protestants burned out of thier homes, that then had to flee to Liverpool. Of course these piddling little facts don't suit certain republicans narrative, as far as they are concerned (espically those that never lived through the troubles) they are the only victims. They are so victimised even irish forums, staffed by Irish moderators are against them. Found this intersting articule in the Irish independent, now I already know what the replys will be, some sort slabbering about a west Brit newspaper or so such, still its an interesting read.
Executions of 1916 still form toxic staple of brainwashing that passes for education in schools
Some Dublin friends had builders in last May, for a job to be completed in July. Aago; but only in Ireland will they be commemorated with pride. In part, this is because people have been lied to by their school textbooks, and their political masters.
Nationalists still do not know that Home Rule had been legally established in 1914. They do not know that there were no British regiments in Ireland in 1916, and that the 1916 Rising was directed solely at Irishmen, who for the most part didn't join the army to defend the UK, but to fight for Belgium and Home Rule.
They do not know that all the violence between 1916-l923 finally resulted in largely the kind of parliamentary democracy that Home Rule would have produced anyway: whatever the differences were, they were not worth a single life, never mind the thousands of dead and the economic ruination resulting from the abominable civil wars of 1916-23.
The executions of 1916 still form the toxic staple of the brainwashing that passes for education in our secondary schools. Were you taught about the other executions, of the 77 helpless anti-Treaty prisoners taken from their cells, and shot in batches, as a means of ending the Civil War? Were you taught about the thousands of protestants chased from their homes in the 26 counties between 1919-23?
Did you learn about how the IRA evicted around 100 children from the two protestant orphanages in Clifden in 1922, and burnt the buildings down, while the Royal Navy had to send in a warship to save the homeless waifs? Did you learn about the protestants abducted in Cork City, murdered and secretly buried in the farm of an IRA leader who was to be a Fianna Fail TD for over 40 years?
Yes, we all know about the Black and Tans, and the Auxiliaries. They are part of the educational staple, are they not? And no civilised person can today celebrate the burning of Cork or the Croke Park butchery. Yet just over a year ago, we had the minister for defence officially endorsing fancy-dress re-enactments of the ambushes in which Irish RIC-men were slain by Irishmen. This is barbaric.
No one else in Europe will actually be CELEBRATING the dreadful events of a century ago. That melancholy distinction falls to the Irish; so is it surprising that we are endlessly reliving different versions of the same story of bloody failure? Those annual gatherings at Bodenstown and Beal na mBlath and the GPO are nothing more than the semi-religious and wholly pagan sanctification of homicide.
And where do the builders come in this story? Why, because they are the living embodiment of the culture of moral imprecision that officially allows us to ignore the Ten Commandments of our choice. Some revere paramilitarism; or semi-states bosses who fiddle their expenses, and bank regulators on whose watch the State was destroyed, are allowed to retire early on full pension; or in the HSE, sick-leave = Monday hangovers.
Yes, I go on about this culture, and yes, I do so, ad nauseam. Why? Because it guarantees a return to failure, that familiar pit of sloth and dirges, where an addictive commemorationalism unfailingly provides the blueprint for Plan B.
Freed from the shackles of this perverse and dysfunctional domestic ethos, the Irish are probably the most successful ethnic group in the US. Yet 20th Century independent Ireland has historically been the least successful state in Western Europe. All other countries, including the North, increased their populations by 40pc between 1920 and 2000: ours, though boosted by an atypical decade of the Celtic Tiger, increased by just 20pc. But demographic growth up to 1980 was actually half that.
Revelling in bad history makes for a terrible future. And I can see it unfolding over the coming months; an orgy of self-pitying and ahistorical hubris over events of a century ago. Just about everywhere in Europe passed through a Golgotha between 1912 and 1923, and many countries experienced terrible civil wars. But only one country will actually, albeit selectively, rejoice in the deeds of that time: the one where even in an economic meltdown, builders promise to leave by July, and are still there in December.
Irish Independent
Its truly a display of republicans strenght, intelligence, discipline, self control and ability to rise above the gutter journalism, that kevin myers is still alive
Considering the article was written by an Irishman and published in an Irish newspaper then parhaps you direct your ire towards them if you feel so strongly about his alleged pro British sympathy. As for the rest that's just your normal extreme republican racism. So the planters were Scousers now?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well they certainly werent irish. With regard to kevin myers being an irishman, surely you being british but born in ireland know better than anybody that it takes more than being born in ireland to be a true irish manConsidering the article was written by an Irishman and published in an Irish newspaper then parhaps you direct your ire towards them if you feel so strongly about his alleged pro British sympathy. As for the rest that's just your normal extreme republican racism. So the planters were Scousers now?0 -
john reilly wrote: »
Well they certainly werent irish. With regard to kevin myers being an irishman, surely you being british but born in ireland know better than anybody that it takes more than being born in ireland to be a true irish manConsidering the article was written by an Irishman and published in an Irish newspaper then parhaps you direct your ire towards them if you feel so strongly about his alleged pro British sympathy. As for the rest that's just your normal extreme republican racism. So the planters were Scousers now?
Well if you want to be pedantic then I am British because I was born in part of the united kingdom known as northern Ireland, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. As for what's makes a 'true Irish man' care to elaborate on that?0 -
The vast majority of irish people may not have sanctioned it but then the vast majority of irish people werent living under british oppression. being subjected to harassment and tortured by goverment sponsored terrorists (otherwise known as the security forces. Also the vast majority of irish people werent sold out by the irish free state goverment and then ignored and left to fend for themselves as a minority second class citizen in their own country.No, you are not answering the question. You are doing what all republican apologists do when faced with this question, you answer a different question.
I am not querying whether PIRA were justified in their use of violence to win basic civil rights for northern nationalists (which is not to say that it was justified or that they achieved very much) I am asking you about their political objective to bring about a united Ireland by using means that the vast majority of Irish people did not sanction. Do you agree that in this respect the activities of PIRA were not justified?0 -
Well that is fine as an attitude if all republicans, like you, reject the fundamental basis of democracy, i.e. that you do not purport to represent a people if they explicitly make clear that you do not want you to represent them.john reilly wrote: »The vast majority of irish people may not have sanctioned it but then the vast majority of irish people werent living under british oppression. being subjected to harassment and tortured by goverment sponsored terrorists (otherwise known as the security forces. Also the vast majority of irish people werent sold out by the irish free state goverment and then ignored and left to fend for themselves as a minority second class citizen in their own country.
The problem is that quite a few of these republican fellows have taken in recent years to telling us that they are democrats. But simultaneously they, to a man seemingly, endorse this decidedly anti-democratic view of yours.
Which is why some of us retain a smidgeon of suspicion about their belated conversion to democracy.0 -
Let me get this right somebody born in scotland is scottish, somebody born in wales is welsh, somebody born in england is english yet somebody born in the north of ireland is british. even more strange when you consider its great britain and northern ireland like they were two seperate disticnt placesWell if you want to be pedantic then I am British because I was born in part of the united kingdom known as northern Ireland, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. As for what's makes a 'true Irish man' care to elaborate on that?0 -
john reilly wrote: »
Let me get this right somebody born in scotland is scottish, somebody born in wales is welsh, somebody born in england is english yet somebody born in the north of ireland is british. even more strange when you consider its great britain and northern ireland like they were two seperate disticnt placesWell if you want to be pedantic then I am British because I was born in part of the united kingdom known as northern Ireland, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. As for what's makes a 'true Irish man' care to elaborate on that?
Is that really the best you can do? And here was me thinking that it was taking so long for you to reply was because you were constructing an eloquent definition of what a 'true irish man' is0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
can you tell me what democratic choice the people of the six counties were given when they were left to rot by the british and irish goverments. I would imagine the men and women risking there life fighting for irish freedom werent doing so for the unanimous recognition of the brainwashed irish public.Well that is fine as an attitude if all republicans, like you, reject the fundamental basis of democracy, i.e. that you do not purport to represent a people if they explicitly make clear that you do not want you to represent them.
The problem is that quite a few of these republican fellows have taken in recent years to telling us that they are democrats. But simultaneously they, to a man seemingly, endorse this decidedly anti-democratic view of yours.
Which is why some of us retain a smidgeon of suspicion about their belated conversion to democracy.0
Advertisement