Anyone willing to admit that they supported the IRA at any point?

skooterblue2

PTH2009 wrote: »

An independent 50/50 Northern Ireland away from the UK/Republic is the way to go

Northern Ireland could never survive on its own. It wouldnt have its own currency being separated from the UK and wouldnt qualify for the EURO or the EU. It cant even balance its own books without money from London. Crazy bat**** setup up there. The IMF would be in there in 6 weeks trying to sortout the mess. Civil service offices moved back to the UK and no funding for the NHS because of no manufacturing.

Dont go comparing it to Monaco and Liechtenstein and other micro states because it aint in that category

JupiterKid

For the record I grew up Catholic but have first cousins on my father's side from the "other side" of the divide, so saw both perspectives.

Also, Middle class leafy South Belfast was somewhat shielded from the worst of the violence but I still lost two second cousins to the violence as a baby. I harbour no hatred or ill will.

DONTMATTER

feargale wrote: »

That is a clumsy, spraygun attempt to deflect from my challenge to you to substantiate or show a source for the following statement of yours:




As for your history lecture, I read history at university before your posterior was the size of a shirtbutton, in particular Ireland under the Union. Your posts here would suggest that your knowledge of that period begins and ends with pamphlets published by an Phoblacht.




Including much of the rising Irish Catholic middle class who profited. But don't let such complexities tax your propagandist mind or your simplistic version of events. After all, they don't bother your bible, an Phoblacht. There were landlords who profited and others who bankrupted themselves in efforts at relief.


You have been doing fine on threads to do with the proposed GAA partition of Dublin. You need to up your game on the partition of Ireland.

I knew your reply would look exactly like this. You're one of these internet weirdos who takes their online image very seriously. It's an anonymous forum, relax yourself, don't be going around searching people's post history. You just look really sad.

As for your post. I've never read an phoblact in my life. If you studied history, how come you know so little about it? As I said, I'm not your teacher but I'll give you a clue. Look up the actions of British governments in relation to previous famines in Ireland and compare it to what they did in the1840's.

And everyone knows that there were Irish people who profited and survived at the expense of other Irish. It happened before then and it has happened many times since. You haven't just made an amazing revelation.

I'm sure you'll be very busy today as a proud west Brit!

Necessary evil. The peaceful approach was attempted and resulted in situations like Burntollet Bridge, Bloody Sunday and Catholic areas being burned to the ground under the watchful eye of the RUC in west Belfast . After that the Catholics/nationalists knew they would not be protected by the state, on the contrary, they needed their own weapons and to rely on 'themselves alone' to borrow from the SF name.

DONTMATTER

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I'm sure you'll be very busy today as a proud west Brit!

Deleted User wrote: »

Default response to a differing opinion?

you said it :rolleyes:

DONTMATTER

Aegir wrote: »

you said it :rolleyes:

I was being too subtle!

feargale

feargale wrote: »

As for your history lecture, I *read* history at university

Hmmm.

Gadgetman496

Creol1

Deleted User wrote: »

Necessary evil. The peaceful approach was attempted and resulted in situations like Burntollet Bridge, Bloody Sunday and Catholic areas being burned to the ground under the watchful eye of the RUC in west Belfast . After that the Catholics/nationalists knew they would not be protected by the state, on the contrary, they needed their own weapons and to rely on 'themselves alone' to borrow from the SF name.

This is a re-writing of history. The IRA's own stated aim in the Troubles was to bring about a "United Ireland". Their military campaign was offensive in nature, not defensive by any measure.

In 1969, the year when the Provisional IRA split away from the Official IRA to launch its murderous campaign, 19 people were killed. In the next 30 years, over 3,600 people were killed.

Gadgetman496

http://puu.sh/AV7Ov/18fbc69e56.mp4

feargale

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You're one of these internet weirdos

I reckon you have had a lesson in good manners since you posted this. Therefore I prefer not to dignify it with a reply.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It was a purposeful act to kill as many native Irish as possible.

You have been challenged to substantiate this and you have failed to do so.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

a proud west Brit!

Again, I assume you have had a lesson in good manners since you posted this. Otherwise you mustn't be planning a long career in boards.ie if you persist in stooping to this idiocy.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I'm sure you'll be very busy today

Not sure what you're on about here. As it was posted last wednesday it could refer to either of two things:

1. Croatia v. England.
I had no strong feelings either way. Croatia - it's always nice to see a new name on the cup. England - An England-France final would have been interesting and I feel more affinity with Connemara than Zagreb.
I prefer to celebrate triumphs of myself and my friends rather than gloat over others' sporting setbacks. The latter tends to be the preserve of ten year old boys. But, of course, I don't know your age.

2. The royal visit to Dublin.
No, while I feel no personal animosity towards the couple, their visit doesn't interest me. I'm a republican, i.e. a believer in government of the people for the people by the people as opposed to a fascist posing as a republican i.e. a believer in government by an army council.

feargale

feargale wrote: »

As for your history lecture, I *read* history at university

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hmmm.

O my God. Did I use an English-language word that is used by the English people? and in response to this:

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You need to read a history book.

Very well then. When "You Know Who" apologises to your lordship for the same blasphemy I shall follow suit.

twinytwo

May Contain Small Parts wrote: »

it's a common mistake to assume that there's a right side and a wrong side in every conflict. Usually it's two wrong sides.

Similarly, people who are in a conflict or support a particular side trend to assume* that "if you're not for us, you must be against us".
mostly others are looking on thinking "what a bunch of eejits".

* (that's giving you the benefit of that doubt that you're not using it as a clumsy straw-man)

There was a wrong side in NI though.

Why was the BA originally sent to NI?
Why were Catholics treated as second class citizens in their own country?
Who started the violence?

Ragnar Lothbrok

Creol1 wrote: »

This is a re-writing of history. The IRA's own stated aim in the Troubles was to bring about a "United Ireland". Their military campaign was offensive in nature, not defensive by any measure.

In 1969, the year when the Provisional IRA split away from the Official IRA to launch its murderous campaign, 19 people were killed. In the next 30 years, over 3,600 people were killed.

You are guilty of re-writing history yourself there, Creol1.

The main reason for the split in the Republican Movement was precisely because the Goulding leadership had deliberately wound down the capacity of the IRA to conduct any sort of military operations - defensive or offensive.

In the late 60s the IRA was almost defunct. When the attacks on nationalist areas began (or more correctly, became more intensive) the IRA were absolutely incapable of defending these areas to any real extent. Those who would go on to lead the Provisional movement eventually gathered enough arms purely and simply to defend the nationalist areas from loyalist pogroms.

A United Ireland was in many ways the last thing on the mind of the early Provisional leadership, although it was and always would be the main political aspiration of the IRA. However, the defence of nationalist areas was the practical momentum which caused the split in the Republican Movement.

It was only when the IRA were able to defend the areas under threat that the leadership could even begin to think about moving the Army into an offensive war, and this did not happen overnight by any means.

As to be expected, I note that you mention 3,600 deaths in 30 years, without qualifying that this was the total number of deaths caused by all sides in the conflict.

According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN) there were 3,532 casualties as a result of the conflict between 1969 to 2001. Republican volunteers were responsible for 2,058 of these deaths. The Provisional IRA were far from being the only armed Republican organisation responsible for these deaths. Official IRA, INLA, IPLO as well as smaller splinter groups were responsible for a percentage of these 2,058 deaths.

Just under 1,500 deaths were caused by loyalist paramilitary organisations, the British Army/UDR and the RUC.

So, please, stop inferring that 3,600 people were killed by the Provisional IRA. And please stop accusing others of re-writing history when you are guilty of exactly the same thing!