realitykeeper wrote: » I think if a kid sees an adult support a particular cause, it seems like permission to do likewise. Evil is not monopolized by any single group. It is spread throughout all of humanity and it is constantly in a state of flux between populations and places. Those of us who believe in God and Satan are aware of the invisible forces of evil and the need to separate it from what is good. One thing that is often overlooked about the treaty of 1920 was the oath of allegiance. The first representatives of the Dáil either had allegiance to the crown or more probably, they lied on oath. To lie on oath is to purger oneself. This was not a good basis for the foundation of the state.
umop episdn wrote: » Some haven't moved on at all .....
AudreyHepburn wrote: » While their aims are understandable I will never support any group that thinks maiming and killing innocent people to achieve their goals is acceptable and would be very wary of anyone who did or does support such actions. The Brits are terrorists and criminals as far as I’m concerned.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Nope, never supported it or their campaign. Both sides were as bad as each other really. What really saddens me though is the number of armchair republicans that still seem to be lurking out there spreading the old hatred and still living in those bad old days. You see it here anytime a SF/IRA or "British" thread pops up. Then there's the whole thing of people gleefully hoping Brexit turns out to be such a disaster so that the UK will suffer from it and "we" will get a united Ireland from it. I have no interest in either.. I am on record here as having serious issues with the way the EU has evolved over particularly the last decade and fully support those who are questioning this direction rather than blindly accepting the narrative that it's the only way for Europe, and anything else is just impossible - if the UK actually comes through it and prospers in the next few years it'll be a disaster for the EU as many other countries will start to pull out IMO (and that's also why the massive campaign of discrediting the electorate's decision has been waged. The EU simply cannot afford for Brexit to succeed). As for Ireland... We have more than enough problems domestically as it is without taking on the significant problems that absorbing Northern Ireland would represent - economically, structurally and of course the very real possibility that it could result in significant security problems. Problems which thankfully have largely been put behind us. I think people's expression of a desire for a united Ireland is purely superficial without any real thoughts of the consequences it would bring - put bluntly, we can barely run the country we have (housing, health, the economic divides between Dublin and the rest of the country, the political incompetence and corruption and general half-assed approaches to pretty much everything) , are busy pulling more people out of the tax system each year (imagine if people were told they'd need to pay another 150 quid of their monthly wage towards a "unification/solidarity" charge - how many would still be supportive then??), and given the largely bloated and inefficient mess that is our public sector and state services, imagine trying to integrate the systems of the North into that (assuming anyone would actually rather the HSE over the NHS for example). The best thing that can happen is some sort of border arrangement that reasonably tries to accommodate both sides (if such a thing is even possible on an island with 2 jurisdictions that will be even further apart in some ways), but anything more is just fantasy IMO.
Hamlet. wrote: » I strongly urge you to actually research the troubles
the_syco wrote: » The troubles; give us what we want, or we'll bomb your cities :pac:
maccored wrote: » was it the iraq war that the brits where showing the americans how to engage in close range, urban warfare? Probably with a hefty price tag too
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Then there's the whole thing of people gleefully hoping Brexit turns out to be such a disaster so that the UK will suffer from it and "we" will get a united Ireland from it. I have no interest in either.. I am on record here as having serious issues with the way the EU has evolved over particularly the last decade and fully support those who are questioning this direction rather than blindly accepting the narrative that it's the only way for Europe, and anything else is just impossible - if the UK actually comes through it and prospers in the next few years it'll be a disaster for the EU as many other countries will start to pull out IMO (and that's also why the massive campaign of discrediting the electorate's decision has been waged. The EU simply cannot afford for Brexit to succeed). As for Ireland... We have more than enough problems domestically as it is without taking on the significant problems that absorbing Northern Ireland would represent - economically, structurally and of course the very real possibility that it could result in significant security problems. Problems which thankfully have largely been put behind us. I think people's expression of a desire for a united Ireland is purely superficial without any real thoughts of the consequences it would bring - put bluntly, we can barely run the country we have (housing, health, the economic divides between Dublin and the rest of the country, the political incompetence and corruption and general half-assed approaches to pretty much everything) , are busy pulling more people out of the tax system each year (imagine if people were told they'd need to pay another 150 quid of their monthly wage towards a "unification/solidarity" charge - how many would still be supportive then??), and given the largely bloated and inefficient mess that is our public sector and state services, imagine trying to integrate the systems of the North into that (assuming anyone would actually rather the HSE over the NHS for example). The best thing that can happen is some sort of border arrangement that reasonably tries to accommodate both sides (if such a thing is even possible on an island with 2 jurisdictions that will be even further apart in some ways), but anything more is just fantasy IMO.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I supported the IRA 100%. If the conditions were the same today as they were in the past, I would 100% support them again. Hopefully there will be no need to return to the past though, and we will have a united Ireland within a relatively short period of time.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Oh yes former RUC officers got Irish passports under the Good Friday Agreement and went showing Americans how to conduct an interview under high stress conditions. They were well paid for it and never got into any serious trouble that I heard of.
corner of hells wrote: » The GFA had nothing to do with people being able to claim Irish Passports. Generally anyone born pre 2005 can claim an Irish passport. Give us a link to ex RUC supporting Americans interviewing people.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Didn't take long for Jean McConville to be exploited once again. :rolleyes:
skooterblue2 wrote: » So there wasnt anyone called Jean McConville? Nope nope wasnt us we know nothing crowd
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are using a victim to make a cheap point. It will happen sooner or later on these threads. There were approx 3000 victims of BOTH sides.
skooterblue2 wrote: » I have a widow woman with 8 orphans at the end of the road at the end of her theder for a few bob. I think she might be an informer any chance you can come around and take her for a drive up to beech or rob a country seaside town bank and shoot the manager.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Well I didnt make her a victim. I never dragged her out in front of her family. I never abducted her. I never hid her body and used it for negotiation for about 30 years? There is a big difference between an unarmed civilian and an operator (on either side) carrying a bomb or rifle.
archer22 wrote: » A large proportion of the IRA didn't even support the IRA, it's estimated about 25% of the ordinary members worked for the security forces and about 50% of the leadership. So I suppose you could say there were a lot of good IRA men .
DONTMATTER wrote: » Who killed the 1000 members of the British security forces then?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you extract anymore emotiveness out of her death there? You just demonstrated wonderfully well why her name keeps coming into these discussions. Approx 3000 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons or daughters died in our conflict/war. Yet let's pick a small few to exploit. ****ing appalling.
skooterblue2 wrote: » I am sure there are many other similar tales. But Remember Toiresa Ferris down in Kerry and She brought it up when she was running as MEP as much a do about nothing about 10 years back? Wasnt there Paddy Kieltys father as well. I am sure there were innocents on both sides and Guilt on both sides too. As for me gaining political points? I am Apolitical as I see all parties just trying to get their own men into office to rip off the system taxpayer and citizen through taxation and restrictions with red tape.
