Saoradh dissident republican march in Dublin

rockatansky

Larbre34 wrote: »

I never said they would turn up to "do violence", I said if they were to be opposed, it could turn violent.

The Organisers of these marches are well versed on their rights and boundaries of the law. They know the Gardai are watching them very closely at all times and are just looking for an excuse to lift a few of them. They now know more than ever that the media will be watching them for any slip up. Violence is not going to happen from their side.

Likewise, I know of no other group out there who would turn up en mass to protest that could lead to violence happening through their opposition.

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe the free state army is equipped for a defence force. Our military presence is shambolic.

I am entitled to my opinion, and as it happens I agree with you the defence forces are under-resourced, however their status in the Nation are not my opinion, but rather a matter of fact.

Article 15.6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann...

1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

You can say Free State Army too, but that has no status, the statutory title is Óglaigh na hÉireann or otherwise in English, Irish Defence Forces.

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're aware a few of the crowd in Anti Fa who fought with pegida were 32csm members and are now Saoradh.

I am, its why I used the words ad hoc.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion, and as it happens I agree with you the defence forces are under-resourced, however their status in the Nation are not my opinion, but rather a matter of fact.

Article 15.6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann...

1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

You can say Free State Army too, but that has no status, the statutory title is Óglaigh na hÉireann or otherwise in English, Irish Defence Forces.

Well no in English it means Irish Volunteers, but I get what you mean. The only Oglaigh na hEireann I'd recognise is one that decommissioned it's arms in July 2005.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

I am, its why I used the words ad hoc.

Well none of that crowd would go against Saoradh the JR society links them quite close.

Dyr

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're aware a few of the crowd in Anti Fa who fought with pegida were 32csm members and are now Saoradh.

There was about 12 of them Pegida twats being chased by a pick n mix from various groups.

300 me hole, it wasn't Thermopylae.

branie2

They are complete and utter scumbags!

Tomas81

Bambi wrote: »

There was about 12 of them Pegida twats being chased by a pick n mix from various groups.

300 me hole, it wasn't Thermopylae.

Who said 300?

MrFresh

paw patrol wrote: »

I worry that a member of government who sits at cabinet describes this march as frightening. He shouldn't be frightened , he is a leader of the country and should show leadership, fortitude and all that good stuff.
Harris is out of his depth.

Also it worries me that government sources are seeking to ban these marches as per todays media. We have free assembly and any dilution of this brings us into the territory of banning people we don't like.
That will be used on these jackasses (about 150 people) today but others down the line. I always thought Leo was a wannabe dictator and this is evident now.

Which leads me to a final point, the indo said about 150 people march. We shouldn't really lose our minds over 150 people.

We also have the Offences Against the State Act which makes it illegal to be a member of an unlawful organisation.

Farawayhome

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

TheValeyard

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

The History that defined them.

upupup

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

There is a HUGE difference between the new IRA and the old IRA and IRB.
Read a history book and you will see

Farawayhome

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

The History that defined them.

Were all of them not fighting for the same thing? Were all of them not viewed as terrorists and were unlawful organisations?

Farawayhome

upupup wrote: »

There is a HUGE difference between the new IRA and the old IRA and IRB.
Read a history book and you will see

Tell me the difference.

Larbre34

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

zapitastas

Larbre34 wrote: »

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

The provos had an enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties. If the recent book on the issue is to be believed then they also had an enormous amount of support in the rest of the country as well

upupup

Farawayhome wrote: »

Tell me the difference.

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

OldMrBrennan83

Is this new IRA the ones doing the ATM's to tool up?

zapitastas

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

The IRA in the north in the early 70s would have have more community support than the IRA in the 20s. That is because they were the only line of defense against degenerate gangs of loyalists burning people out of house and home.

The Rape of Lucretia

Farawayhome wrote: »

Were all of them not fighting for the same thing? Were all of them not viewed as terrorists and were unlawful organisations?

They were indeed. The original IRA were an illegal murdering terrorist organisation who cleaved 26 counties out of the United Kingdom, and then wrote a historical narrative of themselves as heroes rather than enemies of the state.

Farawayhome

Larbre34 wrote: »

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

So none of the above which you've mentioned were legitimate according to the British government. If support is the meaure you're going by, then those who fought in 1916 were not legitimate. On the other hand, the IRA and the PIRA had huge support. I think you need to review your reasoning.

Farawayhome

Farawayhome wrote:

Tell me the difference.

Farawayhome

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

Why? They killed huge numbers, many civilians. They disappeared informers, they killed children, the civil war is littered with atrocities. Maybe you should read a history book!

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

Well no in English it means Irish Volunteers, but I get what you mean. The only Oglaigh na hEireann I'd recognise is one that decommissioned it's arms in July 2005.

And you'd be wrong. Apart from having no legitimacy in this Republic, they never had anything bar tiny pockets of support. And much of that tiny support was achieved through intimidation, racketeering, extorsion, kidnapping, torture and murder and they perpetrated any number of other completely non-political crimes such as smuggling, money and fuel laundering and despite their statements, drugs.

They were criminal scum, just like this current crowd are criminal scum for which their 'political aims' are just a red herring, only their support now could probably fit on a basketball court and as we've seen, no one is buying what they're selling, nor are they afraid of them.

upupup

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They were indeed. The original IRA were an illegal murdering terrorist organisation who cleaved 26 counties out of the United Kingdom, and then wrote a historical narrative of themselves as heroes rather than enemies of the state.

hahahahahahahahah
AM I DREAMING reading this?.............sadly no:(

Infini

It should be said that these idiot's and waster's are essentially relics long past their prime. They're also utter idiots doing this less than 2 days after a poor woman was shot dead by some idiot thinking he's hot stuff. This kinda stuff is best consigned to the past the majority are fed up with it.

janfebmar

zapitastas wrote: »

The provos had an enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties.

During the worst years of the troubles, 1969-1982, their political wing could not get a single MP or TD elected. First SF MP elected during the troubles was 82 or 83, first SF TD elected since the troubles started was not until 1997. So no, the provos did not have "enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties."

Infini

Infini wrote:

It should be said that these idiot's and waster's are essentially relics long past their prime. They're also utter idiots doing this less than 2 days after a poor woman was shot dead by some idiot thinking he's hot stuff. This kinda stuff is best consigned to the past the majority are fed up with it.

I'd thank this more if I could.

Larbre34

Farawayhome wrote: »

If support is the meaure you're going by, then those who fought in 1916 were not legitimate.

Of course they weren't legitimate and they had little support in a divided City and Country at the time, many of whom relied on the Queen's shilling coming back from the Western Front or the pension from their dead sons and brothers. They were spat upon by a divided City and only changed things through their martyrdom. The execution of the leaders was the biggest strategic mistake the Crown made in the previous 150 years of their rule in Ireland.

I mean Jesus, dont come in here pontificating when clearly you've either read or understood very little history.

Dyr

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

Yeah, because the old IRA was all Tom Barry ambushing Tans in country lanes, they weren't shooting off duty cops and civil servants in cold blood or robbing banks and throwing bombs around on busy streets.

The Old IRA were every bit like the provos, They were just white washed afterwards.