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

Would you be in favour of a border poll?

Options
1…7374757678

Comments

  • Options
    #2312
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
    b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops
    c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare

    I didn't ask what the definition of a war was, I asked about the definition of an army (there's a difference simpleton), so stop trying to squirm out of answering the question.

    In the above 3 definitions, point out in bold exactly where it states any of the criteria you mentioned? For the record, a state isn't a nation and "usually" having a headquarters does not mean you HAVE to have a headquarters to be considered an army. Although you already acknowledged they had a headquarters earlier when you attempted to further change the goalposts to "known headquarters". So any day now...


  • Options
    #2313
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I didn't ask what the definition of a war was, I asked about the definition of an army (there's a difference simpleton), so stop trying to squirm out of answering the question.

    In the above 3 definitions, point out in bold exactly where it states any of the criteria you mentioned? For the record, a state isn't a nation and "usually" having a headquarters does not mean you HAVE to have a headquarters to be considered an army. Although you already acknowledged they had a headquarters earlier when you attempted to further change the goalposts to "known headquarters". So any day now...

    Mary gave you the definition of an army in her "a" if you had bothered to look it up!
    No need for the "simpleton" horse,


  • Options
    #2314
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    Mary gave you the definition of an army in her "a" if you had bothered to look it up!
    No need for the "simpleton" horse,

    If you read back, the definition of an army is not the point, the point is if her made up criteria of what an army is, is actually covered in any of the definitions she herself provided.


  • Options
    #2315
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Right if you sleep with dogs you lie down with fleas so I can't take much more of some unionists here. I don't know if the Jim Alisister wilfull stupidity is real or pit on but Jesus it made me sure I am on the right side.


  • Options
    #2316
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    If you read back, the definition of an army is not the point, the point is if her made up criteria of what an army is is covered in any of the definitions she herself provided.

    Point appreciated, and reading as I went along I wouldn't be on mary's side but she did leave a few defs of army as asked for and "simpleton" isn't called for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2317
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,037 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    Mary gave you the definition of an army in her "a" if you had bothered to look it up!
    No need for the "simpleton" horse,

    Mary's arguments were demolished again last night and she stubbornly refused, again, to accept she was totally wrong.

    She herself posted the definitions of 'war' 'army' and 'soldier' and tried pathetically to get parts of those definitions to be the only ones considered. When that failed she invented a few more, 'headquarters' 'uniforms' etc. and clung to them for a while too.
    She didn't even see the irony of that insistence when she tried to absolve Carson of paramilitarism and setting up an organisation that actually perfectly fitted her narrow form definitions of 'army' and 'soldier' and that he threatened a 'war' if he didn't get his way.
    She herself proved that the entire statelet of NI is founded on unionist paramilitary action.

    It was fabulous stuff.


  • Options
    #2318
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    Point appreciated, and reading as I went along I wouldn't be on mary's side but she did leave a few defs of army as asked for and "simpleton" isn't called for.

    No, what was asked for were definitions which met her outlined criteria:
    maryishere wrote: »
    Not my criteria, but most peoples criteria, and that of dictionaries.

    If an army is not the army force of a state, if it does not represent a government (democratic or not), if it does not have a known headquarters etc then it is a group of terrorists.

    Of course, she was unable to provide any definitions which met her selective criteria of what an army was. Now I'm not big into name calling like "simpleton", but when points continually go over someones head on every thread and the said person then proceeds to ruin every thread which has the potential for good debate, then what else are you? The fact she hasn't been banned yet is bewildering to say the least. "Katydid" was banned last year who posted in an eerily similar manner


  • Options
    #2319
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,037 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    What do people think the effect of the various inquiries will have on a border poll and attitudes.
    Or films like these?
    http://www.unquietgraves.com/

    http://66daysthefilm.com/the-film

    apparently the Sands film is the highest grossing documentary ever in a country reputedly not interested in these issues, according to some.
    I am sure, judging from the views expressed here, that they won't change hardened minds but it will have a huge effect on the next generations, and the extent to which the police and British were players in the conflict/war looks like it will keep dripping out for a long time to come.


  • Options
    #2320
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    maryishere wrote: »
    Unfortunately our state here came about through actual terrorist violence, so not such a great start.

    With regards fighting off empire I think the use of terrorist is a simple slur against one's enemy.

    It's amazing how far removed from the British view of the Irish rebellions unionists are.

    For example Churchill on Collins: He was an Irish patriot, true and fearless When in future times the Irish Free State is not only prosperous and happy, but an active and annealing force regard will be paid by widening circles to his life and to his death

    Successor to a sinister inheritance, reared among fierce conditions and moving through ferocious times, he supplied those qualities of action and personality without which the foundations of Irish nationhood would not have been re-established.
    I think the term is used when they plant bombs which decapitate children and leave pieces of human meat on the floor. I mean that is just a hunch, I could be wrong. :ermm:


  • Options
    #2321
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,037 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I think the term is used when they plant bombs which decapitate children and leave pieces of human meat on the floor. I mean that is just a hunch, I could be wrong. :ermm:

    Killed in the name of NATO non-'terrorists'.

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/styles/standardimage/public/imce/costs/human/afghan-civilians-killed-wounded.jpg?itok=9q_DZlME


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2322
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I think the term is used when they plant bombs which decapitate children and leave pieces of human meat on the floor. I mean that is just a hunch, I could be wrong. :ermm:

    When was Collins et all planting bombs? Or do you have no interest in honest discussion or the actual points raised and just look for any excuse to push your agenda?


  • Options
    #2323
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I think the term is used when they plant bombs which decapitate children and leave pieces of human meat on the floor. I mean that is just a hunch, I could be wrong. :ermm:

    When was Collins et all planting bombs? Or do you have no interest in honest discussion or the actual points raised and just look for any excuse to push your agenda?
    You obviously have no agenda at all do you, no sir.

    The thread gets more silly every time I read some of the pages. Full of guff from bitter Republicans.


  • Options
    #2324
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,037 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You obviously have no agenda at all do you, no sir.

    The thread gets more silly every time I read some of the pages. Full of guff from bitter Republicans.

    He isn't slanting the truth or myth making (how many attempts at myth making have been made in the last week here?) to suit an agenda, is the point.

    'Terrorist' applies to anyone who uses violence to achieve their aims. If the IRA are 'terrorists' so too are the British.


  • Options
    #2325
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You obviously have no agenda at all do you, no sir.

    The thread gets more silly every time I read some of the pages. Full of guff from bitter Republicans.

    I reply to the points at hand, a concept clearly alien to you. Now where were Collins and Co planting bombs?


  • Options
    #2326
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You obviously have no agenda at all do you, no sir.

    The thread gets more silly every time I read some of the pages. Full of guff from bitter Republicans.

    I reply to the points at hand, a concept clearly alien to you. Now where were Collins and Co planting bombs?
    I was referring to the PIRA.


  • Options
    #2327
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,030 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I reply to the points at hand, a concept clearly alien to you. Now where were Collins and Co planting bombs?

    Ballyseedy and Countess Bridge?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executions_during_the_Irish_Civil_War#The_Ballyseedy_Massacre_and_its_aftermath

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #2328
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I was referring to the PIRA.

    If know you are. Which is why I asked what it's relevance is? You replied to a poster who was querying how the founders of the southern state were terrorists. So I'll ask again, do you have any interest in honest debate or are you just looking for any excuse to shoehorn in your agenda?


  • Options
    #2329
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Esel wrote: »
    Ballyseedy and Countess Bridge?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executions_during_the_Irish_Civil_War#The_Ballyseedy_Massacre_and_its_aftermath

    The poster in question was referring to the IRA before the treaty so try again. I don't really care if any of them planted bombs or not before you try and sidetrack the debate, I was just asking little Pony what the relevance of the pIRA had in all of this? But you knew that already and still tried to jump on the bandwagon for an excuse to attack anything associated to republicanism


  • Options
    #2330
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,030 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    The poster in question was referring to the IRA before the treaty so try again. I don't really care if any of them planted bombs or not before you try and sidetrack the debate, I was just asking little Pony what the relevance of the pIRA had in all of this? But you knew that already and still tried to jump on the bandwagon for an excuse to attack anything associated to republicanism

    Wow! That is some rant.

    I posted what I thought was information relevant to your question. No ulterior motive. Sorry for not being totally au fait with the intricacies of your to-and-fro with Pony. My time on Boards is not consumed by threads like this one. I have however posted in this and similar threads before - check my history if you like.

    May I suggest that you don't go off half-cocked next time, and that you save your bile for your usual suspects.

    tl/dr: WTF? :confused:

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #2331
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    When was Collins et all planting bombs?
    Extremist Republicans / IRA had no need to always plant bombs in early 20th century Ireland in order to terrorise. They often done it by shooting, burning, destroying, intimidating, stealing, vandalising, whatever. Take Collins own county of Cork for example. As said before, think of the events of St Patrick's Night in 1922 -- ie after the Truce and before the Civil War -- when six members of the Young Men's Christian Association in Cork were abducted and executed at Corry's farm. That same week, half a dozen loyalist farmers were similarly disappeared in west Cork.

    Overall, from the summer of 1920 to the start of the Civil War, 33 Protestants were shot in Cork city proper, while another 40 were killed nearby -- a total of 73 Protestant victims from a small minority community. From around 1921, IRA units murdered or "disappeared" at least 85 civilians. Some 26 were killed after the Truce. So "disappearing" and murdering was not a new tactic the PIRA invented when it disappeared Jean McColville or the many other unfortunates who were disappeared but not remembered as much because they were not widow mothers of 10.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2332
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    Extremist Republicans / IRA had no need to always plant bombs in early 20th century Ireland in order to terrorise. They often done it by shooting, burning, destroying, intimidating, stealing, vandalising, whatever. Take Collins own county of Cork for example. As said before, think of the events of St Patrick's Night in 1922 -- ie after the Truce and before the Civil War -- when six members of the Young Men's Christian Association in Cork were abducted and executed at Corry's farm. That same week, half a dozen loyalist farmers were similarly disappeared in west Cork.

    Overall, from the summer of 1920 to the start of the Civil War, 33 Protestants were shot in Cork city proper, while another 40 were killed nearby -- a total of 73 Protestant victims from a small minority community. From around 1921, IRA units murdered or "disappeared" at least 85 civilians. Some 26 were killed after the Truce. So "disappearing" and murdering was not a new tactic the PIRA invented when it disappeared Jean McColville or the many other unfortunates who were disappeared but not remembered as much because they were not widow mothers of 10.

    Why do you go to the effort of writing such gibberish when no one even takes it serious? But of all people, there was never a question you'd miss the point of the original post.... whoosh. Anyway I take the above as an acknowledgment that you can't give one instance of those who founded the free state planting bombs then? Care to provide a definition of 'army' that contains the words state, government and known headquarters since you have purposely ignored what you can't address once again?


  • Options
    #2333
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Why do you go to the effort of writing such gibberish when no one even takes it serious?
    Its not gibberish, its all fact if you care to research it. Other Republicans have acknowledged it happened but brushed it off saying such things happen in war, worse happened in Dresden and Hiroshima etc.
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Anyway I take the above as an acknowledgment that you can't give one instance of those who founded the free state planting bombs then?
    I never went off on a tangent about those who planted bombs and were involved in the founding of the free state...are you claiming Republicans never "acquired" explosives and used them in some capacity in the great liberation struggle against the great oppressor? We know the IRA favoured guns and other tactics in 1916 etc, perhaps you can fill us in on Republicans early use of explosives / bombs?
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Care to provide a definition of 'army' that contains the words state, government and known headquarters since you have purposely ignored what you can't address once again?
    I already gave you definitions from well known dictionaries of "army", "soldier" and "war". See post 2311. Sorry but your PIRA, RIRA or continuityIRA does not fit the definitions of "soldiers" in an "army" fighting a "war". Your personal attacks are nothing but a deflection tactic. The majority of the Irish people do not agree with you or the 3 or 4 other hard core Republicans that the PIRA, INLA etc were great lads.


  • Options
    #2334
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,037 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Why do you go to the effort of writing such gibberish when no one even takes it serious? But of all people, there was never a question you'd miss the point of the original post.... whoosh. Anyway I take the above as an acknowledgment that you can't give one instance of those who founded the free state planting bombs then? Care to provide a definition of 'army' that contains the words state, government and known headquarters since you have purposely ignored what you can't address once again?

    It is not possible to do what you ask and Mary obviously knows it.


  • Options
    #2335
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It is not possible to do ....
    It is not possible for you or Golden Miller to answer the following questions and well you know it:
    If indeed the like of the PIRA / INLA / UVF/ / RIRA etc were each an army as you claim : " Do / Did each wear uniforms? Where were their headquarters? Where were their army bases? Did each adhere to the rules of the geneva convention? Each one was the army of what government?"

    Why was membership of these "armies" (as you call them lol ) deemed illegial on both sides of the border?

    What do you think of the Irish Army and Gardai? ( do not forget the PIRA have murdered some of them ).


  • Options
    #2336
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    Its not gibberish, its all fact if you care to research it. Other Republicans have acknowledged it happened but brushed it off saying such things happen in war, worse happened in Dresden and Hiroshima etc.

    I never went off on a tangent about those who planted bombs and were involved in the founding of the free state...are you claiming Republicans never "acquired" explosives and used them in some capacity in the great liberation struggle against the great oppressor? We know the IRA favoured guns and other tactics in 1916 etc, perhaps you can fill us in on Republicans early use of explosives / bombs?

    And what does any of this have to do with any point currently running on this thread? Do you think people care about your random delusional musings and "history lessons" you come out with every so often? When you quote somebodies post and give a big spiel completely unrelated to any point raised, quite frankly, it makes you look stupid. I was replying to a mistake little miss pony made. What part can you not process?
    maryishere wrote: »
    I already gave you definitions from well known dictionaries of "army", "soldier" and "war". See post 2311. Sorry but your PIRA, RIRA or continuityIRA does not fit the definitions of "soldiers" in an "army" fighting a "war". Your personal attacks are nothing but a deflection tactic. The majority of the Irish people do not agree with you or the 3 or 4 other hard core Republicans that the PIRA, INLA etc were great lads.

    Yes, you gave definitions. That is not the point. Do you think that is the point? The point is you laid out your own criteria for what an army is, and the definitions you supplied to back this up did not match your criteria. Can you really not comprehend this? What part are you struggling with exactly?


  • Options
    #2337
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    It is not possible for you or Golden Miller to answer the following questions and well you know it:
    If indeed the like of the PIRA / INLA / UVF/ / RIRA etc were each an army as you claim : " Do / Did each wear uniforms? Where were their headquarters? Where were their army bases? Did each adhere to the rules of the geneva convention? Each one was the army of what government?"

    ;)

    What are you winking about exactly? What relevance do the above questions have to do with what an army is, or the definition? Can you please explain this? Can you then find a definition of what an army is which contains all the above criteria? Or can you still not comprehend what is being asked? Give me a definition of what an army is which contains the words state, government and known headquaters. YOU said this was the criteria of what an army is, so where is the definition containing these words? Also, why do you expect people to answer your questions while you continually ignore the questions of others which were asked first, like the question I just supplied, a definition including those words.


  • Options
    #2338
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    What are you winking about exactly?
    Because you are still refusing to answer any questions. Any questions at all.
    I answered all of yours, more than once. A proper answer to the questions I put to you is long overdue. See - you cannot.:D


  • Options
    #2339
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    Because you are still refusing to answer any questions. Any questions at all.
    I answered all of yours, more than once. A proper answer to the questions I put to you is long overdue.

    Where is the definition of an army which includes your outlined criteria of GOVERNMENT, STATE and KNOWN HEADQUATERS then? Where is this definition? If you can not provide it, how have you answered the question? You do realise my question predates yours, ye? Do you think you are above other people that you deem it not necessary to give a straight reply while asking others for the same courtesy? And why have you gone back to selectively quoting my posts and ignoring most of the content?


  • Options
    #2340
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    You do realise my question predates yours, ye?

    It does not, actually. As said before, I already gave you definitions from well known dictionaries of "army", "soldier" and "war". See post 2311, and posts before that. Sorry but your PIRA, RIRA or continuityIRA does not fit the definitions of "soldiers" in an "army" fighting a "war". Your personal attacks are nothing but a deflection tactic. The majority of the Irish people do not agree with you or the 3 or 4 other hard core Republicans that the PIRA, INLA etc were great lads.

    Now when are you going to make a stab at answering even some of the questions I asked you? See post 2335.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2341
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    maryishere wrote: »
    It does not, actually. As said before, I already gave you definitions from well known dictionaries of "army", "soldier" and "war". See post 2311, and posts before that. Sorry but your PIRA, RIRA or continuityIRA does not fit the definitions of "soldiers" in an "army" fighting a "war". Your personal attacks are nothing but a deflection tactic. The majority of the Irish people do not agree with you or the 3 or 4 other hard core Republicans that the PIRA, INLA etc were great lads.

    Now when are you going to make a stab at answering even some of the questions I asked you?

    It does actually. What was the post number of you directing a question at me on this topic that predates my original question to you?
    maryishere wrote: »
    Not my criteria, but most peoples criteria, and that of dictionaries.

    If an army is not the army force of a state, if it does not represent a government (democratic or not), if it does not have a known headquarters etc then it is a group of terrorists.

    Can you supply a definition of an army that contains the words government, state and known headquaters? We can then move onto your "questions" after, seeing as my question to you predates any question you directed to me i.e my question on post 2273 directed at you, to your post 2305 directed at me. OK? Simples? You understand this basic English?


Advertisement