Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If there was no IRA....

Options
12467…10

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,327 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    markodaly wrote: »
    So we would still be part of the UK in 2020, even though Scotland had a free and independent referendum in 2014 for their own independence...

    Does.Not.Compute.




    You mean Scotland and Wales got devolved governments in 1997, something offered to Ireland in 1914?
    And you think we would have stood still all that time?
    As I said, fantasy land stuff.

    Scotland got an independence referendum not 17 years later after devolution.
    Home Rule would have given us devolved powers in 1914 (or when it was going to be enacted post-WWI) and no doubt would have given us the freedom to achieve freedom some decades later, as the famous words were uttered

    Remember, we only officially became a Republic in 1949, decades after the Treaty. I have no doubt in the years after WWII if the democratic will was there for it, Ireland would have gained its independence, like we have today.

    You keep bringing up Scotland, you think that that backs up your ridiculous hypothesis. It doesn’t.

    David Cameron granted the Scots an Indy Ref in 2014. He granted it because the polling showed they would vote No. It ended up a bit closer than they thought but the gamble worked out. Cameron also gambled on UK participation in the EU because again polling showed he’d win but this time the gamble backfired.

    Current polling in Scotland is showing 55percent in favour of Independence. With polling figures like that the current UK PM Johnson will not be granting the Scots with another Indy Ref. The English are under no obligation to grant the Scottish electorate another Referendum and they won’t unless it suits them or they think it will likely be defeated again. They’ll just say you’ve had your say on the matter.

    You see, the English never gave up anything (whether it was morally the right thing to do or not) bar when they were staring down the barrel of a gun. If you knew your history you’d know that.

    Here endeth today’s history lesson.


  • Options
    #93
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    It would have been countless thousand lost in world war 2 just like world war 1. Britain was fighting to save its own ass not ours. At least we had the right to make our own decision rather than our people being sent to their deaths.

    Well 5,000 Irish men who volunteered in WWII died in that conflict.
    The number would possibly have been higher, but nowhere near as high as WWI.

    On the plus side, we would have been able to access funds from the Marshal Plan and liberalised our society like the rest of Europe after the war instead of waiting another 40 years to do so to be free to buy a packet of condoms. :pac:


  • Options
    #94
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    You keep bringing up Scotland, you think that that backs up your ridiculous hypothesis. It doesn’t.

    David Cameron granted the Scots an Indy Ref in 2014. He granted it because the polling showed they would vote No. It ended up a bit closer than they thought but the gamble worked out. Cameron also gambled on UK participation in the EU because again polling showed he’d win but this time the gamble backfired.

    Current polling in Scotland is showing 55percent in favour of Independence. With polling figures like that the current UK PM Johnson will not be granting the Scots with another Indy Ref. The English are under no obligation to grant the Scottish electorate another Referendum and they won’t unless it suits them or they think it will likely be defeated again. They’ll just say you’ve had your say on the matter.

    You see, the English never gave up anything (whether it was morally the right thing to do or not) bar when they were staring down the barrel of a gun. If you knew your history you’d know that.

    Here endeth today’s history lesson.

    Mark lives in fairytale land. Probably would have shook hands with hitler in 1938 and took him on his word too.


  • Options
    #95
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    Well 5,000 Irish men who volunteered in WWII died in that conflict.
    The number would possibly have been higher, but nowhere near as high as WWI.

    On the plus side, we would have been able to access funds from the Marshal Plan and liberalised our society like the rest of Europe after the war instead of waiting another 40 years to do so to be free to buy a packet of condoms. :pac:

    Have you heard of Northern Ireland? You go be gay up there a few months and let us know how liberalised it is. Don't mention Climate Change or Evolution though and certainly not as Gaeilge.


  • Options
    #96
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    .

    You see, the English never gave up anything (whether it was morally the right thing to do or not) bar when they were staring down the barrel of a gun. If you knew your history you’d know that.

    Here endeth today’s history lesson.

    That is the 'Irish Republican, everything the English did was evil' version of history.

    Tell me, did the 'English' give up Australia, Canada and New Zealand because they were threatened with a gun?

    Did they give up Hong Kong, like that? 8 Million Hong citizens would love to be back under British rule tomorrow.

    The fact is, Scotland was granted a free vote on independence and most likely will have another go within a decade. Ireland was granted Home Rule without any violence.
    I know this narrative does not suit violent Irish Republicanism as it destroys their higher moral authority.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Bowie wrote: »
    Have you heard of Northern Ireland? You go be gay up there a few months and let us know how liberalised it is. Don't mention Climate Change or Evolution though and certainly not as Gaeilge.

    All the more reason not to have a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #98
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    markodaly wrote: »
    Well 5,000 Irish men who volunteered in WWII died in that conflict.
    The number would possibly have been higher, but nowhere near as high as WWI.

    On the plus side, we would have been able to access funds from the Marshal Plan and liberalised our society like the rest of Europe after the war instead of waiting another 40 years to do so to be free to buy a packet of condoms. :pac:

    Possibly? You think a British pm would have cared a jot about conscripting Irish lads and sending them to die. I sometimes wonder what version of Irish history you read.


  • Options
    #99
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    That is the 'Irish Republican, everything the English did was evil' version of history.

    Tell me, did the 'English' give up Australia, Canada and New Zealand because they were threatened with a gun?

    Did they give up Hong Kong, like that? 8 Million Hong citizens would love to be back under British rule tomorrow.

    The fact is, Scotland was granted a free vote on independence and most likely will have another go within a decade. Ireland was granted Home Rule without any violence.
    I know this narrative does not suit violent Irish Republicanism as it destroys their higher moral authority.

    You're threading water now.

    You said Ireland wasn't occupied because we secured Home Rule.
    The rest is just chaff.
    Your people might have been happy and comfortable tipping their top hats to the crown but the average Irish person wasn't.


  • Options
    #100
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    markodaly wrote: »
    All the more reason not to have a United Ireland.

    So on one hand you state how liberal Britain was and then when given evidence to the contrary somersault the other way.


  • Options
    #101
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Possibly? You think a British pm would have cared a jot about conscripting Irish lads and sending them to die. I sometimes wonder what version of Irish history you read.


    Why "read" it when he can make it up as he goes along.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Why "read" it when he can make it up as he goes along.

    He’d give lord haw haw a run for his money.


  • Options
    #103
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Possibly? You think a British pm would have cared a jot about conscripting Irish lads and sending them to die. I sometimes wonder what version of Irish history you read.

    Well, Irish people were not conscripted in WWI, unlike mainland Britain.
    What makes you think they would have done so in Ireland when there was NO conscription in Northern Ireland in WWII?

    I wonder what history books you read when basic facts and opinions you peddle are flat out wrong and untrue.


  • Options
    #104
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Bowie wrote: »
    You're threading water now.

    You said Ireland wasn't occupied because we secured Home Rule.

    I didn't say that.
    Your people might have been happy and comfortable tipping their top hats to the crown but the average Irish person wasn't.

    Who are my people?
    I can tell you, I come from a very humble background.


  • Options
    #105
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,327 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    markodaly wrote: »
    That is the 'Irish Republican, everything the English did was evil' version of history.

    Tell me, did the 'English' give up Australia, Canada and New Zealand because they were threatened with a gun?

    Did they give up Hong Kong, like that? 8 Million Hong citizens would love to be back under British rule tomorrow.

    The fact is, Scotland was granted a free vote on independence and most likely will have another go within a decade. Ireland was granted Home Rule without any violence.
    I know this narrative does not suit violent Irish Republicanism as it destroys their higher moral authority.

    Your narrative is false.

    Australia Canada NewZealand are still all in the Commonwealth. However the substantive point the English don’t rule those big countries on the other side of the World anymore like they do Scotland and Wales because it’d logistically be impossible in this day and age; don’t be ridiculous.

    Honk Kong? Didn’t they do a deal with China for Hong Kong, probably a lot of money involved.

    So a lot of money I suppose might work, but we didn’t have a lot of money so we had to point guns at them otherwise they’d still be here or they’d still be telling us what to do from Westminster.

    Bad and all as FFG are can you imagine having that arsehole Johnson as your PM? What am I asking you that for LOL.


  • Options
    #106
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So on one hand you state how liberal Britain was and then when given evidence to the contrary somersault the other way.

    Britain was more liberal Ireland.

    They had divorce laws in 1937, we got it in 1996
    They had abortion laws in 1967, we got it in 2019
    They had full legal contraception in 1967, we got it in 1992

    Is this something you want to defend?


  • Options
    #107
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭circadian


    Maybe we'd see more people being able to tell the difference between there, their and they're.


  • Options
    #108
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,327 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    markodaly wrote: »
    Britain was more liberal Ireland.

    They had divorce laws in 1937, we got it in 1996
    They had abortion laws in 1967, we got it in 2019
    They had full legal contraception in 1967, we got it in 1992

    Is this something you want to defend?

    Are you trying to argue that we should rejoin the UK Mark LOL


  • Options
    #109
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    TheCitizen wrote: »

    Australia Canada NewZealand are still all in the Commonwealth.

    And they can leave at any time of their choosing.

    Next time you see an Australian or a Kiwi, go up to them and tell them that they are still being occupied by the English. They will probably give you a kicking for questioning their patriotism and nationhood.

    Honk Kong? Didn’t they do a deal with China for Hong Kong, probably a lot of money involved.

    The fact that you used the word, probably, belies the fact you have zero knowledge of the history of Hong Kong or the British involvement there.

    There is a lot more to British History than 'Up da Ra' stuff you get in Ireland.


  • Options
    #110
    gossipgirl123
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭gossipgirl123


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    So you start a thread to tell us that? Was there not enough other anti SF threads already where you could have vented your spleen.

    In your op you said “if the IRA didn’t exist would we have peace today”. Well seeing as we have peace today and SF played a huge role in the Peace Process I suppose what you’re saying is; if the IRA didn’t or never existed we wouldn’t have peace today. I think that’s what you’re saying even though it mightn’t be what you meant to say.

    Fair enough....if the IRA did not exist, would we have peace today.


  • Options
    #111
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    The IRA were a collection of criminals, racketeers, murderers and other assorted scumbags and psychopaths.

    50% of the people they murdered were either civilians, members of their own group or Irish security personnel.

    Rather than that brave resistors against British oppression they like to portray themselves as, their attacks were generally cowardly and against the softest targets they could find to further the criminal operations they were running. The 'I Ran Away' moniker bestowed on them was well-earned.

    In summary, if there was no IRA , the would would have been a far, far better place. They made no positive contribution to anything and actually hampered the civil rights movement.

    This is so utterly clueless but then we should expect no less from you.

    50% civilians is wrong.

    'I Ran Away' was a taunt by the Catholic people aimed at the official IRA for not defending them (from your unionist friends who were shooting and burning them out of their homes) which led to the formation of Provisional IRA.

    You really ought to read up on this stuff more, you'd think you'd be tired of being corrected on it by now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Are you trying to argue that we should rejoin the UK Mark LOL

    Not at all, just arguing that Britain post-WWII was more liberal than Ireland. It seems an uncomfortable fact for some.


  • Options
    #113
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    Are you trying to argue that we should rejoin the UK Mark LOL



    Poncing round the houses of parliament in tights for her majesty, so delusional they put themselves out of the EU.....getting dragged into wars to keep their american pals happy.......yeah, we're really missing out.


  • Options
    #114
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    I didn't say that.

    You certainly did.
    markodaly wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    Remember the Government of Ireland Bill of 1914 Act (Home Rule)
    Achieved without a shot being fired.

    Scotland had an independence referendum in 2014, all without anyone dying or anyone murdering anyone else because of their political beliefs.

    The 'British Occupation' thing is a what-if revisionist myth used to justify the wrongs of the past. It's like a religion.

    So you say we weren't, we were. And we'd be more liberalised if still under british rule and when shown that may not be the case in occupied NI, cite lack of liberalisation as a reason we shouldn't have a united Ireland.
    You are all over the place.
    Who are my people?
    I can tell you, I come from a very humble background.

    You seem to miss the Empire days and have a dislike of those fought for our independence.


  • Options
    #115
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,327 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    gossipgirl123 wrote: »
    Fair enough....if the IRA did not exist, would we have peace today.

    Isn’t that what you already asked


  • Options
    #116
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,619 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    chicken foot wrote: »
    This is a very, very simplistic view based on your personal opinion of what you view as "the IRA". The six counties were chosen strategically. The quality of the land and the Protestant to Catholic ratio - which was higher there and would allow voting in their favour.

    Indeed, it was only on that Michael Portillo documentary last week that initially they had only intended 4 counties for Northern Ireland but at the last minute added on Fermangh and Tyrone because they felt a 4 county statelet would not be viable.
    markodaly wrote: »
    Britain was more liberal Ireland.

    They had divorce laws in 1937, we got it in 1996
    They had abortion laws in 1967, we got it in 2019
    They had full legal contraception in 1967, we got it in 1992

    Is this something you want to defend?

    And we didnt have divorce, abortion or contraception because Fine Gael and Fianna Fail handed over the keys of the country to the Catholic Church. Thats on Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, not the IRA or the British.


  • Options
    #117
    CBear1993
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭CBear1993


    gossipgirl123 wrote: »
    I have personally started to enjoy Irish politics, I honestly can't abide Sinn Fein I disagree with the policies and I don't think the sums add up. That aside I have been thinking what would life be like if the IRA never existed would we have peace today.

    Terrible, divisive thread. You should be grateful for your freedom.

    Your modern day west Brit gobsh*tes celebrating VE Day like Neale Richmond in FG show you all you need to know about what state we’d be in without the existence of an Irish Republican Army.

    Like many southerners, I am guessing you don’t have a clue what the troubles in the north were like. Before I’m tarred with a “chip on his shoulder nordie” brush, I didn’t live through the troubles but I was born in them and my parents were constantly harassed while trying to live normal lives. If you were a young man and your brother had just been killed by your fiercest enemy over the water wouldn’t you want retaliation? Some chose politics, some chose to fight back. Why should you portray them in a certain light to fit your modern day narrative?

    I understand you are only trying to comprehend what it would have been like without said guerrilla army, but your tone isn’t appropriate. It Infuriates me that “woke” young people can just come up with a thread like this and wonder and wish and try to change the past from their point of view. You can’t change the past, but if you’d rather be a bootlicker then go ahead move across the water, or to certain factions of cork or south Dublin.

    You can read all you want about it but the only way you’ll find out the truth is by talking to real people from those times who lived through it. The media is poisoned here and have twisted the truth- I give you RTE and the independent newspaper.

    And don’t start with the “there’d be a lot more people walking around today” BS as I saw one poster on this thread. I would argue the case the opposite, without making a stand for OUR people, the Brits would have trampled over the top of us and killed at will more than they did. While many residents of the 26 sit back today and verbally attack republicans and people who stood for something in the past , they should remember that while they sat cosy and watched the news their was a totally different world going on a couple of hundred miles (or less) up the road. This goes with the exception of the border counties as they went through the same.

    There are victims of the violence that the IRA orchestrated and carried out which damaged family lives of innocent civilians forever, I acknowledge that. But you can’t say that it was for the greater good.

    Today it doesn’t matter what you are, IRA/UVF/Kinahan, they’re all just scumbags and drug dealers.


  • Options
    #118
    atticu
    Registered Users Posts: 691 ✭✭✭atticu


    TheCitizen wrote: »

    Australia Canada NewZealand are still all in the Commonwealth.

    The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 54 independent and equal countries.


  • Options
    #119
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    atticu wrote: »
    The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 54 independent and equal countries.




    ...or a victim support group.


  • Options
    #120
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    hilarious to think some people believe the whole thing was caused by the IRA


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,327 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    atticu wrote: »
    The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 54 independent and equal countries.

    That was probably the least pertinent thing I said in that comment you quoted, yet you single that sentence out? Grasping at straws.


Advertisement