The Tricolour on the coffins of terrorists

quirkster

I wish the scum would make themselves a new flag to adorn the coffins of their terrorist 'heros' instead of desecrating the flag of our legitimate and publicly mandated State.

We had that thug Alan Ryan's coffin adorned by the Tricolour last year and now Prices's. We're at the embarrassing stage were if one flies our nations flag (outside of sporting events) eyebrows are raised and questions asked.

The real irony being that they're using the flag of a State they supposedly don't recognise as legitimate and consider illegal. Neanderthals.
Such intolerable stupidity.

xLexie

:rolleyes:

frag420

Every terrorist should have their coffin adorned with a bright pink flag!!

Skinnykenyan

In the eyes of these people the tricolour represents the republic they strive for and not the "republic" we live in. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

leeomurchu

This won't end well

TwoShedsJackson

xLexie wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well there's no answer to that... Anyone who posts a single rolleyes as a response should be banned.

mike65

I never got why "republicans" were not buried with the Starry Plough flag. Would seem more in keeping.

Chuck Stone

They took draped err fleg.

No surreindeer to Santa Gerry Adams.

quirkster

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

In the eyes of these people the tricolour represents the republic they strive for and not the "republic" we live in. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

While I agree with that statement as a general rule, when there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are against them and what they stand for and do, they have no mandate or legitimacy except in their own minds.

They constitute such a tiny minority of Irish, yet 'fight for a freedom' that only they want, and will see innocent citizens of the majority die in order to achieve it.

SEPT 23 1989

mike65 wrote: »

I never got why "republicans" were not buried with the Starry Plough flag. Would seem more in keeping.

I thought the INLA did that?

average_runner

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Well there's no answer to that... Anyone who posts a single rolleyes as a response should be banned.

Yes almighty one

awec

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I thought the INLA did that?

Think you're right.

TBH, this is a side effect of living in a free society. They're free to put the flag on top of their coffin if they want.

Logical_Bear

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Well there's no answer to that... Anyone who posts a single rolleyes as a response should be banned.

anyone who gets the emoticon wrong should get a permaban:cool:

My name is URL

If it's okay for the likes of Haughey & Lenihan to have it draped over their coffins then I couldn't care less who else does the same.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm more offended by seeing flags covered in writing at soccer games tbh.

Pompey Magnus

quirkster wrote: »

The real irony being that they're using the flag of a State they supposedly don't recognise as legitimate and consider illegal. Neanderthals.
Such intolerable stupidity.

The Irish Republic also used the Tricolour.

mike65

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I thought the INLA did that?

They did but the flag is used by just abut every socialist, republican group in Ireland

Chuck Stone

quirkster wrote: »

when there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are against them and what they stand for and do, they have no mandate or legitimacy except in their own minds.

Majorities don't make right. Ask the native Americans. Ask the Aboriginals of Lolstrailia.

I'm a supporter of the GFA (no, not the Ghana Football Association) and think these guys should just **** off and stop living in the past. Or perhaps they should team up with Willie Frazer and his ship of fools who are annoyed with the status quo too.

Clubman2012

The do nothing but intimidate and deal drugs. They arent even terrorist organisations anymore. They are part timers that learned the value of a bag of heroin.

Jokers

Chuck Stone

Logical_Bear wrote: »

anyone who gets the emoticon wrong should get a permaban:cool:

That's not fair on people with autism and asperger's.

:pac::eek::o:rolleyes::):D;):p:confused::pac:

quirkster

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Majorities don't make right. Ask the native Americans. Ask the Aboriginals of Lolstrailia.

I'm a supporter of the GFA (no, not the Ghana Football Association) and think these guys should just **** off and stop living in the past. Or perhaps they should team up with Willie Frazer and his ship of fools who are annoyed with the status quo too.

In a democracy, yes they do.

juice1304

quirkster wrote: »

They constitute such a tiny minority of Irish, yet 'fight for a freedom' that only they want, and will see innocent citizens of the majority die in order to achieve it.

I don't agree with violence or those tards, But is that not exactly how the state was formed in the first place. The leaders of the rising were spat on and were hated until they were made martyrs. They also murdered civilians. And once they won they took up arms from the british and shot their own country men that did'nt agree with the treaty.

Easter rising
Casualties and losses


Irish Rebels
64 killed
unknown wounded
16 executed

British killed
132 killed
397 wounded

254 civilians killed
2,217 civilians wounded
Total killed: 466:pac:

anncoates

Should be forced to have their coffins draped with the flag of the country they hate most.

Would be a bit of craic.

Chuck Stone

quirkster wrote: »

In a democracy, yes they do.

That's the tyranny of the majority you're talking about.

okedoke

quirkster wrote: »

While I agree with that statement as a general rule, when there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are against them and what they stand for and do, they have no mandate or legitimacy except in their own minds.

They constitute such a tiny minority of Irish, yet 'fight for a freedom' that only they want, and will see innocent citizens of the majority die in order to achieve it.

I'm no supporter of the IRA/other republican groups but the above sentence would have been as true in the aftermath of the 1916 rising as it is right now after that Garda's murder

WindSock

Flags. They're not just flags. They're FLAGS.

quirkster

okedoke wrote: »

I'm no supporter of the IRA/other republican groups but the above sentence would have been as true in the aftermath of the 1916 rising as it is right now after that Garda's murder

A fair point but not really applicable now after the War of Independence, the decades of the Troubles, the nationwide condemnation of Omagh bombings etc, the GFA, and the move by 'arguably' most parties into peaceful politics and power sharing, reconciliation and desire for lasting peace.

I would argue that the public mood at the time of the Rising was waiting for a spark to ignite nationalism and violence to achieve freedom. And in hindsight, it's clear that it was.

However I don't think anyone can argue now is that all we Irish people are waiting for is for the executions of the leaders of the INLA, CIRA, PIRA, 32CSM etc, in order to rise once more?
Although I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't be against it in order for no more innocents to be murdered and for lasting peace and stability.

al28283

It's only a flag, take these things too seriously and that's when problems start

juice1304

DaayTukUrrFleeeg

Elessar

The people who fought for Irelands independence were also terrorists. In fact without them we'd probably still be under British rule.

Is it ok for them and not for others? Where do you draw the line?

quirkster

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's the tyranny of the majority you're talking about.

I have no problem being part of the tyranny of the majority (in this case, the banning, condemnation and illegality) when it is directed towards a proven tyrannical minority who's modern tyranny includes murder, extortion, and terrorism against the majority.

quirkster

Elessar wrote: »

The people who fought for Irelands independence were also terrorists. In fact without them we'd probably still be under British rule.

Is it ok for them and not for others? Where do you draw the line?

In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

gallag

Elessar wrote: »

The people who fought for Irelands independence were also terrorists. In fact without them we'd probably still be under British rule.

Is it ok for them and not for others? Where do you draw the line?

Planting bombs to kill women and children in shoping centers, also ireland has never been independent, went from British rule to vatican rule to Brussels rule, out of them three the British mabey were not the worst?

Fratton Fred

quirkster wrote: »

In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

I would define them more as Freedom fighters. At least they had the cajones to take a stand and hoist a flag, rather than place bombs in four cars and high tail it leaving innocent people to face the consequences.

In all honesty, would Pearse et al have approved of the actions of Delours Price?

okedoke

quirkster wrote: »

In relation to the War of Independence, they were terrorists in the sense they rose against the established ruler of the land, yes. However they rose on behalf of the majority who were and been oppressed and who expressed their desire to be free from said ruler in a legitimate election.

I'd draw the line when they lose a mandate from the people and are not acting on behalf of (in Ireland's case), an overwhelming majority. Post Civil War, they had no mandate.

Certainly no mandate in 1916 for a rising - fair enough there was in 1919

Logical_Bear

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's not fair on people with autism and asperger's.

:pac::eek::o:rolleyes::):D;):p:confused::pac:

ban will be waived on production of doctors note:pac:

Skinnykenyan

The ideologies of the modern day IRA are so muddied they dont even know what they represent anymore.
But look at it this way the IRA that secured us partial independence were also terrorists?
If modern day republicans weren't the perpetrators of such horrible crimes against the public but instead waged war against the British institution in the name of full independence would they have our mandate to do so?

ITS_A_BADGER

whos going to stop someone putting the tricolour on someones coffin? I dont think anyones would upset a dead persons family

Fratton Fred

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

The ideologies of the modern day IRA are so muddied they dont even know what they represent anymore.
But look at it this way the IRA that secured us partial independence were also terrorists?
If modern day republicans weren't the perpetrators of such horrible crimes against the public but instead waged war against the British institution in the name of full independence would they have our mandate to do so?

Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.

quirkster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would define them more as Freedom fighters. At least they had the cajones to take a stand and hoist a flag, rather than place bombs in four cars and high tail it leaving innocent people to face the consequences.

In all honesty, would Pearse et al have approved of the actions of Delours Price?

I'd agree.
Interestingly, Brugha (if I remember correctly) proposed the machine gunning of crowds leaving the cinemas in Britain something Tom Barry vehemently opposed.

Skinnykenyan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.

I think there was aspects of the IRA in the 20s who targeted British civilians. I dont support the IRA in any way I'm just putting an idea out their. If the IRA today or a new group for that matter fought against Britain and the British institution in Ireland without deliberately targeting civilians would they have our mandate. They would be freedom fighters in effect. Yet they would still be viewed as terrorists.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Can you compare the IRA of 1921 and the IRA of 1981 though?

In 1921, did they deliberately target civilians?

Genuine question. I'm curious as to whether or not the comparison that modern day republicans like to make is actually a bonafide one.

Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

Now then, enter the What About Brigade...

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

Now then, enter the What About Brigade...

Did you type that with a straight face?

Busted Flat.

A fitting tribute to a fine lady.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/headlines/in-pictures-funeral-for-ira-bomber-dolours-price-1-4728271

melekalikimaka

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Well there's no answer to that... Anyone who posts a single rolleyes as a response should be banned.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

donvito99

Dolours Price was married to Stephen Rea?

Da fuq?

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes, you can. For one thing they were the one army.
Neither generation deliberately targeted civilians.
There were, in both cases,incidents where civilians were killed accidentally and even occasions when individuals from both generations intentionally targeted civilians but these were isolated incidents that were carried out without the approval of the organisation itself.

Now then, enter the What About Brigade...

awec wrote: »

Did you type that with a straight face?

Sadly, he probably believes it.

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

Did you type that with a straight face?

Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this

GRMA

Take it down from the mast....

Someone has hijacked the tricolour alright and it aint the likes of Price.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this

are you seriously trying to claim that (for example) the Birmingham pub bombings were carried out without the full knowledge of the IRA army council?

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Accounting for what I wrote beneath it as well, yes I did.
Why would they, I mean, even moral reasons aside, it would have served them no purpose. They gained nothing from it.
Im not saying civilians weren't killed, Im not saying individuals didn't purposely target them on occasion, but it's simply false to state the IRA in 1921 or 1981 targeted civilians.
Statistics from both phases, as well as the IRA's own rules, attest to this

Well, you are talking out of your hoop if that's what you really believe.

Out of the 2000 odd people killed by the IRA over 700 of them were civilians. They either actively targeted them or they were incredibly bad at avoiding them.

Which was it?

I mean, if you stop a bus, get everyone out, line them up and shoot them is that an accident? If you plant a bomb in a busy street and then detonate it, is that an accident? If you plant a bomb at a memorial service that people are attending, is that an accident? What about bombing a hotel? Accident as well?