Saoradh dissident republican march in Dublin

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a fairly well expressed strategic interest in our ports during WW2.

Once again you show a fairly pathetic grasp of history.

Stop living in the past Francie-lad - embrace the future.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Stop living in the past Francie-lad - embrace the future.

What?

You stated something that was simply incorrect. The British had a very well expressed 'strategic interest' in Ireland.
That is a fact.

They have relinquished that interest, and have tacitly withdrawn from Ireland in the GFA.
They will not defend a majority decision by the Irish people for them to leave. They have even promised to be neutral on the subject.

Again, that is the reality of the achievement of the GFA.

Yet you paint it as a 'defeat'.

You don't need to support the IRA or even SF to see this reality.

Berserker

Tomas81 wrote: »

The IRA brought the Brits to a negotiations table where they said they'd never go with the IRA.

Never knew the IRA were the negotiating type.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a fairly well expressed strategic interest in our ports during WW2.

Once again you show a fairly poor grasp of history.

Probably keeping an eye out for U boats..

Hurrache

These assholes Twitter and Facebook page now gone. Twitter has been removed due to violation of Twitters terms, not sure what the story is with their Facebook page.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Probably keeping an eye out for U boats..

Absolutely.

Needs to be mentioned too that rather than the British altruistically defending our airspace, that by overflying us, they are actually defending themselves.

In the wrong hands (Germans in WW2 and the Russians today) Ireland represents a threat to their west. That is why they always had a 'strategic' interest here and were prepared to use military force to maintain it.

They couldn't do that militarily after 1916 and they couldn't maintain/defend it morally in northern Ireland after 1998.

Tomas81

Berserker wrote: »

Never knew the IRA were the negotiating type.

The mountainclimber?

Phileas Frog

Farawayhome wrote: »

Not really. 51% of those they killed during the war were innocent civilians, this doesn't include the innocents killed by their unionist allies using their bombs, guns and ammunition.

What percentage innocent people were murdered by the IRA / INLA / ANAL / $random IRA?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apart from pointing out that these guys would see themselves at war with the shinners too, it must be pointed out that the British started a catastrophic war on the basis that somebody had arms and explosives of mass destruction.

What kinda logic would you call that? The natives of the place they started a war with would call it 'terrorist' logic.

What on gods name are you waffling about now? Incoherent rubbish this is.

I guess the security forces should have left the Provos reduce the north to dust at will, I suppose. It was the PIRA that brought the bombs to the North, which culminated in Omagh.

Jamie2k9

Not sure if mentioned but FB and Twitter have suspended there accounts.

Baggly

markodaly wrote: »

What on gods name are you waffling about now? Incoherent rubbish this is.

I guess the security forces should have left the Provos reduce the north to dust at will, I suppose. It was the PIRA that brought the bombs to the North, which culminated in Omagh.

Mod

Markodaly, calm down on the hyperbole please. Final warning.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

What on gods name are you waffling about now? Incoherent rubbish this is.

I guess the security forces should have left the Provos reduce the north to dust at will, I suppose. It was the PIRA that brought the bombs to the North, which culminated in Omagh.

Simply making the point that on the pretext of 'security and defence' the British as well as the RUC, brutalised and damaged many innocent lives. As did the various paramilitaries. That is what happens in a war/conflict situation and enables either side to call the other the 'terrorist'.

Which is why that word is utterly useless as a 'definition'.

Fusitive

Phileas Frog wrote: »

What percentage innocent people were murdered by the IRA / INLA / ANAL / $random IRA?

Here are the numbers of all deaths in the troubles

Of those killed by British security forces:

187 (~51.5%) were civilians

145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries

18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries

13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:

1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces

723 (~35%) were civilians

187(~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries

57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries

11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

878 (~85.4%) were civilians

94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries

41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries

14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

Tomas81

markodaly wrote: »

What on gods name are you waffling about now? Incoherent rubbish this is.

I guess the security forces should have left the Provos reduce the north to dust at will, I suppose. It was the PIRA that brought the bombs to the North, which culminated in Omagh.

How are the provisional movement responsible for Omagh?

facehugger99

So the IRA killed nearly 600 more civilians than the big bad Brits?

Absolute Scumbags.

Fusitive

facehugger99 wrote: »

So the IRA killed nearly 600 more civilians than the big bad Brits?

Absolute Scumbags.

I think you've forgot about the scale of collusion the British army/MI6 had with Loyalist paramilitaries and admittance of senior BA officials to setting off false flag IRA attacks in the North. The British Army was an inflammatory source in the North. They should never have been there under the guise of peacekeepers. How could BA ever be an impartial peacekeeper?

A protected British spy Freddie Scappaticci was head of the nutting squad ffs. Some peacekeeping

markodaly

Tomas81 wrote: »

How are the provisional movement responsible for Omagh?

The men who carried it out were trained under the Provo regime and the leadership of the Real IRA were also high ranking ex PIRA members.

The tactic of leaving a car bomb on a busy market street was Provo bombing tactic 101 for decades

The PIRA have to accept their share of responsibility to that slaughter.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The men who carried it out were trained under the Provo regime and the leadership of the Real IRA were also high ranking ex PIRA members.

The tactic of leaving a car bomb on a busy market street was Provo bombing tactic 101 for decades

The PIRA have to accept their share of responsibility to that slaughter.

Who do you deem to have the ultimate responsibility for there being a slaughter?

Tomas81

markodaly wrote: »

The men who carried it out were trained under the Provo regime and the leadership of the Real IRA were also high ranking ex PIRA members.

The tactic of leaving a car bomb on a busy market street was Provo bombing tactic 101 for decades

The PIRA have to accept their share of responsibility to that slaughter.

The men who you say we're ex members of the provisionals left 16 months previous due to the PIRA backing primacy of politics that Sinn Fein offered.

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

Tomas81

markodaly wrote: »

The men who carried it out were trained under the Provo regime and the leadership of the Real IRA were also high ranking ex PIRA members.

The tactic of leaving a car bomb on a busy market street was Provo bombing tactic 101 for decades

The PIRA have to accept their share of responsibility to that slaughter.

And they weren't high ranking members, 1 member was QM of the provos the rest were members

Chips Lovell

Tomas81 wrote: »

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a fairly well expressed strategic interest in our ports during WW2.

Once again you show a fairly poor grasp of history.

If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything.

And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.

facehugger99

Tomas81 wrote: »

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

If you're Gerry Adams, then yes, it turned out he was.

Baggly

Tomas81 wrote:

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

Chips Lovell wrote:

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

facehugger99 wrote:

If you're Gerry Adams, then yes, it turned out he was.

Mod

One more false equivelancy with sex offendering will be a thread ban for those who post, quote and or respond to it.

Tomas81

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

The man who set up the RIRA was a QM wasn't involved in bomb making. What would of fell to the EO

Tomas81

Pter wrote: »

Mod

One more false equivelancy with sex offendering will be a thread ban for those who post, quote and or respond to it.

Sorry just seen this post as I responded.

citytillidie

facehugger99 wrote: »

So the IRA killed nearly 600 more civilians than the big bad Brits?

Absolute Scumbags.

Must make the loyalist the worst of the lot as they killed more bit not a peep from you about that

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apart from pointing out that these guys would see themselves at war with the shinners too, it must be pointed out that the British started a catastrophic war on the basis that somebody had arms and explosives of mass destruction.

What kinda logic would you call that? The natives of the place they started a war with would call it 'terrorist' logic.

This is nearly as funny as the Irish IP address post.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything.

And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.

Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'.

I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality.

The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'.

I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality.

The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.