Saoradh dissident republican march in Dublin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To achieve what? An end to partition. I.E. Partition is the cause of this.

...and... here you are again, giving those perpetrators of violence a pass.
Partition is not the cause of this, the people who plant bombs and use guns are.

This island will be partitioned until those in the North democratically decree otherwise. That.Is.It.

People who go on about getting a United Ireland by the gun and giving them a pass are not people we should either entertain in public discourse.

Agreeing with it and abandoning Irish people to their fate and ignoring the sectarian bigoted actions of the artificially created Unionist majority for 60 odd years, until it inevitably went up in flames, would be collusion imo.

That is New IRA speak in my opinion.

I asked before, but what should they have done differently?
Ignored the border?
Invaded?
Some magical solution?

markodaly wrote: »

...and... here you are again, giving those perpetrators of violence a pass.
Partition is not the cause of this, the people who plant bombs and use guns are.

This island will be partitioned until those in the North democratically decree otherwise. That.Is.It.

People who go on about getting a United Ireland by the gun and giving them a pass are not people we should either entertain in public discourse.

How did I give them a 'pass'?

That is New IRA speak in my opinion.

I asked before, but what should they have done differently?
Ignored the border?
Invaded?
Some magical solution?

You are really desperate to out the hidden New IRA. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have outlined what they did above, they should not have done that.

Farawayhome

RobMc59 wrote: »

You've said all this before on other threads and wasn't that alledged statement 100 years ago?

Well, why are the same lies being repeated? It will have to be continually corrected.
Nothing alledged about the statement. The last time Irish people got to vote as one without the threat of violence was over 100 years ago. We overwhelmingly voted for full independence in that election. Why are you against a democratic vote?

RobMc59

Farawayhome wrote: »

Well, why are the same lies being repeated? It will have to be continually corrected.
Nothing alledged about the statement. The last time Irish people got to vote as one without the threat of violence was over 100 years ago. We overwhelmingly voted for full independence in that election. Why are you against a democratic vote?

I'm not against any democratic vote and I think all sides have done bad things in the past.

briany

Farawayhome wrote: »

Well, why are the same lies being repeated? It will have to be continually corrected.
Nothing alledged about the statement. The last time Irish people got to vote as one without the threat of violence was over 100 years ago. We overwhelmingly voted for full independence in that election. Why are you against a democratic vote?

The island was also politically fractious at the time, and remains so. You had one larger group of people who voted one way, and a smaller group who voted another. Now that happens in every election, you might say, but when it happens along sectarian lines, you're looking at a force that can tear a nation asunder. This was a problem for Ireland in 1918, and Brexit Britain faces a similar problem in 2019 with Scotland voting against Brexit. It is a problem that cannot be ignored.

Billy86

gaelwave wrote: »

Because they are far left scumbags and terrorist apologists

I agree, and I'm actually of the mindset that extremists like this should not be given access to these social media platforms if they are going to break their terms of service, abd/or generally spread hate.

But that doesn't change the fact that there is uproar on AH whenever far right terrorists and their sympathisers are banned off twitter, etc because of their supposed right to unfettered free speech on whatever platform they choose.

It's pretty interesting how little outcry there has been here by comparison.

blanch152

Farawayhome wrote: »

Well, why are the same lies being repeated? It will have to be continually corrected.
Nothing alledged about the statement. The last time Irish people got to vote as one without the threat of violence was over 100 years ago. We overwhelmingly voted for full independence in that election. Why are you against a democratic vote?

We change our mind over some referenda in eighteen months, others a couple of decades, relying on a 100-year old vote is a really deluded point of view, typical though of the nasty illogical republican mindset.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To achieve what? An end to partition. I.E. Partition is the cause of this.

Agreeing with it and abandoning Irish people to their fate and ignoring the sectarian bigoted actions of the artificially created Unionist majority for 60 odd years, until it inevitably went up in flames, would be collusion imo.

You may not condone the New IRA, but your words excuse them. A slightly lower level of approval, but approval nonetheless.

blanch152 wrote: »

You may not condone the New IRA, but your words excuse them. A slightly lower level of approval, but approval nonetheless.

Wouldn't be the first time you made stuff up about what a poster has said.

I have consistently condemned the dissidents while most others were ignoring them...which includes most of those at the front of the church this week actually.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wouldn't be the first time you made stuff up about what a poster has said.

I have consistently condemned the dissidents while most others were ignoring them...which includes most of those at the front of the church this week actually.

You have consistently explained their actions, or given reason to their actions and reasons for their actions. Despite the professed outward condemnation, this is approval and defence of what they did in a particularly insidious and dissembling way. It is possible you are not even aware of what you are doing, but it has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you continue.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have consistently explained their actions, or given reason to their actions and reasons for their actions. Despite the professed outward condemnation, this is approval and defence of what they did in a particularly insidious and dissembling way. It is possible you are not even aware of what you are doing, but it has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you continue.

I have also given reasons for BA activity, loyalist and unionist activity. Is that 'condoning' them too?

Give up the cheap shots blanch. It's smacks of being desperate at this stage.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have also given reasons for BA activity, loyalist and unionist activity.

We all know the reasons for the activities of the BA and everyone else. The fact remains you condoned the activities of the PIRA. The new IRA is just doing what the PIRA always did, which is to use violence / physical activity in the pursuit of political goals. It is wrong now, it was wrong then.

janfebmar wrote: »

and everyone else.

So if you express those reasons here, apparently you are condoning and giving encouragement to the UFF, UDA, and the likes of the Glenanne Gang etc.

You happy to be seen as doing that?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So if you express those reasons here, apparently you are condoning and giving encouragement to the UFF, UDA, and the likes of the Glenanne Gang etc.

Rubbish. To know the reason an organization would give to explain its actions is not the same thing as condoning those actions. I never condoned the UFF, UDA etc. You did condone the PIRA. That is the difference.

janfebmar wrote: »

Rubbish. To know the reason an organization would give to explain its actions is not the same thing as condoning those actions. I never condoned the UFF, UDA etc. You did condone the PIRA. That is the difference.

I gave what imo were the 'reasons' the New IRA exist. Apparently expressing those reasons is to 'condone at a low level' or to 'encourage' them

Are you happy (you have stated you know the reasons the others did what they did) to be seen 'condoning' and 'encouraging' them by expressing those reasons.*

Or Perhaps like me you repudiate the notion that to give reasons or to understand why, is not the same as condoning or encouraging.

*There is a yes or no answer to that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I gave what imo were the 'reasons' the New IRA exist. Apparently expressing those reasons is to 'condone at a low level' or to 'encourage' them

You condoned the PIRA. We all know the reasons the New Ira exist. If the older generation (those in their 40's and 50's etc) did not brainwash the young lads who shot at police lines last week in Derry, the journalist would not be dead. Those lads of 17 or 18 were not born evil, they were just brought up on a one-sided diet of being told the PIRA were great lads, that it was noble to attack crown forces as some call them etc.

janfebmar wrote: »

You condoned the PIRA. We all know the reasons the New Ira exist. If the older generation (those in their 40's and 50's etc) did not brainwash the young lads who shot at police lines last week in Derry, the journalist would not be dead. Those lads of 17 or 18 were not born evil, they were just brought up on a one-sided diet of being told the PIRA were great lads, that it was noble to attack crown forces as some call them etc.

They detest PIRA and SF.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They detest PIRA and SF.

They see themselves as following in the footsteps, in attacking "Crown" forces same as the PIRA did. They hope to be "heroes" too. Quote from Wiki: "Like the Provisional IRA before it, the RIRA sees itself as the only rightful successor to the original Irish Republican Army and styles itself as "the Real Irish Republican Army" in English or Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish."

janfebmar wrote: »

They see themselves as following in the footsteps, in attacking "Crown" forces same as the PIRA did. They hope to be "heroes" too. Quote from Wiki: "Like the Provisional IRA before it, the RIRA sees itself as the only rightful successor to the original Irish Republican Army and styles itself as "the Real Irish Republican Army" in English or Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish."

Watch now - giving reasons or understanding them will get you accused of condoning them!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Watch now - giving reasons or understanding them will get you accused of condoning them!

No: saying they were correct in undertaking their course of action over the decades, and saying the murders etc they committed were justified, will get you accused of condoning them.

janfebmar wrote: »

No: saying they were correct in undertaking their course of action over the decades, and saying the murders etc they committed were justified, will get you accused of condoning them.

And my consistent opinion is that all the violence was wrong...from the beginning to the end.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And my consistent opinion is that all the violence was wrong...from the beginning to the end.

But you define violence as whatever the dastardly British did, and the glorious actions by the PIRA was war and was not violence. We have been through that before.

janfebmar wrote: »

But you define violence as whatever the dastardly British did, and the glorious actions by the PIRA was war and was not violence. We have been through that before.

What?

I refer to it as a conflict/war. You choose what you think it was (whatever difference that makes)

'Was not violence' ??? What kind of looney tune idea is that?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I refer to it as a conflict/war.

You have condoned the actions of the PIRA in that conflict / war. Simple as.

janfebmar wrote: »

You have condoned the actions of the PIRA in that conflict / war. Simple as.

I have answered that. This thread is not your interrogation of me...again. :rolleyes:

I think it is quite telling that partitionists, rather than allow a conversation on the reasons and failings in our history be discussed, behave in this way.
'Republicans have to be always wrong and 'wronger' than anybody else in the conflict/war'...there is a reason for that position as well.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is quite telling that partitionists, rather than allow a conversation on the reasons and failings in our history be discussed, behave in this way.

Ugh, that word again.

Tell me Francie, are you in favor of the Good Friday Agreement?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have outlined what they did above, they should not have done that.

What should the Free State have done differently when it came to the border Francie? How could they not have colluded with the British?

markodaly wrote: »

What should the Free State have done differently when it came to the border Francie? How could they not have colluded with the British?

I have already outlined some of that. I think the Irish state's clampdown in the border region in the mid 70's on into the 80's did more to enflame the southern communities than anything else and was what like their British counterparts in the north did with Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday etc. They both only succeeded in exacerbating the problem and driving people into the arms of paramilitaries.

It is notable however that some lessons have been learned from that with the current FG government's stance on a border. It is right out of republican policy on it, which is very satisfying to hear as a border dweller. Hopefully there is some steel behind it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the Irish state's clampdown in the border region in the mid 70's on into the 80's did more to enflame the southern communities than anything else and was what like their British counterparts in the north did with Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday etc. They both only succeeded in exacerbating the problem and driving people into the arms of paramilitaries.

They should have let the Provos circumvent the law and do what they want I suppose? Smuggling arms, explosives, robbing post offices and killing Gardai...

Only in the extremist Republican circles can upholding the law be deemed colluding with the British.

Also, as I asked, do you support the Good Friday Agreement?