super_furry wrote: » It'll be a bit harder to ignore the bombs going off in Dublin and Cork though. Massive own goal by the precessional Republican classes. Just like that farce of a 'Love Ulster' march, the way to win was to just ignore it. Instead there's even more ammunition for the unionists who will point to things like this as to why there's never going to a place for them in any United Ireland.
Fann Linn wrote: » Here's some more of those Shinner bots,https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ric-controversy-fine-gael-councillors-hit-out-at-decision-to-hold-commemoration-1.4132772
Nathaniel Greasy Warrior wrote: » I wonder how many people raging about this idea are unknowingly descended from the same people. The civil war wasn't baddies versus goodies. The Irish state hasn't demonstrated itself to be morally superior than the UK. Horrific levels of corruption and abuse have been present throughout its history. The root of the war was that northern Unionists promised to march on Dublin Castle if Home Rule was granted. So the British caved and Pearse et al took the opportunity to drum up support for their alternative movement. The reason the northern unionists gave for opposed home rule was they were concerned about an undue level of influence by the RC Church. This was pretty accurate in hindsight. T he idea of a separate state altogether was not a popular one before that. Plenty of Irish people disagreed with the notion even when it gained momentum. Of course that's not how they write about it now.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Yes or course they were by & large a good force with many Catholics in their ranks, but that logic doesn't apply anymore. Nowadays we must look back and recognise the the RIC & DMP as Nazi like, terrible people who sought the genocide of the Irish people! Or at least that's how several posters here would have you believe.
Calhoun wrote: » If this ball can keep rolling to the GE be some **** show, look what swing gate did for them. I can guarantee that Leo will be gone if they suffer for this blunder.
Strazdas wrote: » You reckon there are Irish people who would rather the country was still part of the UK?
Hamsterchops wrote: » To put it another way, can you imagine Northern Ireland leaving the Commonwealth?
Nathaniel Greasy Warrior wrote: » I wonder how many people raging about this idea are unknowingly descended from the same people. The civil war wasn't baddies versus goodies. The Irish state hasn't demonstrated itself to be morally superior than the UK. Horrific levels of corruption and abuse have been present throughout its history. The root of the war was that northern Unionists promised to march on Dublin Castle if Home Rule was granted. So the British caved and Pearse et al took the opportunity to drum up support for their alternative movement. The reason the northern unionists gave for opposed home rule was they were concerned about an undue level of influence by the RC Church. This was pretty accurate in hindsight. The idea of a separate state altogether was not a popular one before that. Plenty of Irish people disagreed with the notion even when it gained momentum. Of course that's not how they write about it now.
An Claidheamh wrote: » Would anyone even notice? It’s a Mickey Mouse pretend empire club for British slow learners. Most British either have never heard of it or are embarrassed by it’s pretend Olympics. Good for African and Asian immigrants to the UK though lol
rockatansky wrote: » Honestly what were they thinking with this crap. Looking for a pat on the back for being the 'all inclusive party' no doubt. I actually think Leo doesn't give a toss anymore. He knows he's out on his arse in a few months time so will hand it over to Coveney to take charge as the main opposition party.
Fann Linn wrote: » All the more reason that this is cancelled and not 'deferred' as Flanagan suggests. This can will be kicked down the road and forgotten about.
Sir Oxman wrote: » It was the War of Independence or the Anglo-Irish War not a civil war as Lord Bruton
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » John Bruton is not a member of the house of lords FYI.
I have a lot of respect for Bruton - speaks so much common sense it's hard for most to take it in all at once.
ygolometsipe wrote: »
An Claidheamh wrote: » Typical British thicko. Irrelevant that they were Catholics, they were serving anti-Catholic Imperialist henchmen. Lord Haw Haw was a Protestant, great supporter of the RIC, RUC and Tans. Wonder when London will commemorate him? Wonder when Fine Gael will commemorate him? Nazis = British imperialists. Same thing, different countries. RIC = RUC = IRA dog food
Millionaire only not wrote: » drew Harris ( another British p...k )
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » and he is sorting out the guards finally.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Drew Harris is from the north and he is sorting out the guards finally.
extra gravy wrote: » Loving all the keyboard warriors on here and on social media. My grandad was in the RIC and like most in it he wasn't a murderer or a traitor, he was just a regular guy trying to provide for his family. But of course, he should have taken the moral high ground, quit his job and let them starve. I'd like to see how many parents now would be prepared to put their country before the needs of their children. Not many I'd wager.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » John Bruton is not a member of the house of lords FYI. :cool:
ReginaldSmythV wrote: » Exactly, British. He’s a loyalist who worked for the terrorist organisation that was the RUC. He should not be afforded any position in this country.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If unionists are labouring under the illusion that we are all going to lie about the past to 'persuade' them they have another thing coming.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Have you gone mad or are you just being provocative, the RUC was not a terrorist organisation so why are you saying that?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a76cb640f98d9dcd3d00bb9366a306.svg)
