nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Tokyo

Mod:

Continuation of the How long before Irish reunification? thread.

Please note that all mod warnings, actions and threadbans from the previous thread carry across to here.

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
blanch152
Randy Archer
Natterjack from Kerry
littlevillage

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Have you some inside knowledge to know what crimes bobby Sands committed? You are quoting the only one he got convicted for. So he had no part in all the horrendous sectarian crimes that the IRA were committing in Belfast while he was an operator? Pull the other one.

Process of elimination, because he was just out of prison (5 years) for possession of some guns when he was arrested and sent back to prison for 14 years for possession of a gun.

He didn't really have much time to commit anything.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

To suggest PIRA's targets were State Security Forces - well I think we all know the nonsense that that is.

The majority of PIRA killings were security forces.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

As the Warrington bombs were left outside argos and boots in a shopping area,in steel bins to cause maximum injuries,who or what would have been the 'legitimate' targets?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings#Second_attack

The PIRA phoned the Samaritans about them as they obviously didn't trust the British Security Forces to act on their calls.

timthumbni

jm08 wrote: »

Bobby Sands didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism, so I'm not sure you can call him a terrorist. I'd refer to him as a paramilitary.

You can't just forget their motives or principles when deciding whether they were a terrorist or not. For example, the PIRA's targets were State Security Forces and were considered as legitimate targets by them.

Well I certainly can and would call him a terrorist as do many others. He was a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation ie the Ira. You are dancing around a bit anyway talking about motives and principles. You say he was put inside after being caught with a gun. I assume that he wasn’t planning on using it to help end world poverty so his principles could certainly be questioned.

Anyway, if you support the actions of the IRA then just say it. You would have plenty of friends judging by some of the posts here. Someone even said they would struggle to condemn the actions of the Dissident Irish republicans. It’s certainly a rich tapestry.

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

Well I certainly can and would call him a terrorist as do many others. He was a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation ie the Ira. You are dancing around a bit anyway talking about motives and principles. You say he was put inside after being caught with a gun. I assume that he wasn’t planning on using it to help end world poverty so his principles could certainly be questioned.

Anyway, if you support the actions of the IRA then just say it. You would have plenty of friends judging by some of the posts here. Someone even said they would struggle to condemn the actions of the Dissident Irish republicans. It’s certainly a rich tapestry.

They were all 'terrorists'.
Please don't tell me the British had legitimacy when another country had a constitutional claim on the part that was partitioned from the whole.

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were all 'terrorists'.
Please don't tell me the British had legitimacy when another country had a constitutional claim on the part that was partitioned from the whole.

1 . The Irish Constitutional claim was baseless and no other nation recognised it !

2. Our own Supreme Court , in 1988/ 1990, when McGimpsey brothers (UUP) brought a case against the State , held that this so called claim clearly was a statement of ASPIRATION of 32 county island and no more . It was not a claim of ownership and this is evident with all of the legislation of The State that only concerned the 26 counties

Don’t comment on Constitutional issues again , you are wrong

3. The U.K. was the U.K. of GB AND Northern Ireland . NI constitutionally belonged to the U.K. . Only a few Narnia heads who still believed that the 1921 government was still the only government of Ireland rejected that

4. The majority of the people of NI supported remaining in the U.K. and considered themselves as British only . The his is confirmed in multiple local and general elections

5. The IRA and it’s various branches , terrorist groups , publicly aimed to over throw by force the State of Northern Ireland

The British had every legitimacy to be in Northern Ireland . They had every right to go after the IRA who openly sought to attack the union . The IRA has No mandate from the Irish people and they refused to recognise this State . They weren’t above attacking agents of This State either

(On que the usual nit job bar stoolers )

FrancieBrady

Randy Archer wrote: »

1 . The Irish Constitutional claim was baseless and no other nation recognised it !

2. Our own Supreme Court , in 1988/ 1990, when McGimpsey brothers (UUP) brought a case against the State , held that this so called claim clearly was a statement of ASPIRATION of 32 county island and no more . It was not a claim of ownership and this is evident with all of the legislation of The State that only concerned the 26 counties

Don’t comment on Constitutional issues again , you are wrong

3. The U.K. was the U.K. of GB AND Northern Ireland . NI constitutionally belonged to the U.K. . Only a few Narnia heads who still believed that the 1921 government was still the only government of Ireland rejected that

4. The majority of the people of NI supported remaining in the U.K. and considered themselves as British only . The his is confirmed in multiple local and general elections

5. The IRA and it’s various branches , terrorist groups , publicly aimed to over throw by force the State of Northern Ireland

The British had every legitimacy to be in Northern Ireland

(On que the usual nit job bar stoolers )

I quit reading your post after you dismissed our own constitution. That is classic hat doffing, 'sorry sir', servile stuff...'how dare we'...is it?

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I quit reading your post after you dismissed our own constitution. That is classic hat doffing, 'sorry sir', servile stuff...'how dare we'...is it?

Thankfully , most other readers are intelligent and well see how ignorant you are

Best you actually read what was said then . You clearly didn’t read it or understand it , especially Point 2 !!!

You have zero legal qualifications to allow you to successfully challenge me on well known facts . You most certainly have no grounds to challenge our Supreme Court on this matter or the European Court of Justice who also accepted this

Spare us the usual Shinner Bs . You actually undermine their movement with ignorance like that

Waffling about the Constitution Lol

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I quit reading your post after you dismissed our own constitution. That is classic hat doffing, 'sorry sir', servile stuff...'how dare we'...is it?

Eh no, it’s pointing out the Actual Constitutional position set out by our Supreme Court . Something you have zero qualification to allow you to comment

Better luck next time

Junkyard Tom

Randy Archer wrote: »

The IRA has No mandate from the Irish people..

The British had no mandate to be in Ireland and after the elections of 1918 should have left when it was clearly proved as such.

Seeing as you're such a legal genius you're aware that the British considered the north a transitory solution that would end with one parliament for the all of Ireland:

Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry ... With a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland.

Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Larbre34

You're talking nonsense Randy, the only "legitimacy" was artificially created by the partition of the island itself.

Lets say I have two sons with my wife. The male majority in our house is 3 to 1. Its an irrelevance though, because we are one household, we operate as a family. Say my wife gets a bit fed up of all the male behaviours, shuts herself in the kitchen and paints it pink, says she is having it to herself and we can just manage without a kitchen, it's her domain and she's keeping it. She is now the majority in her bit of the house, ruler of her own destiny, but me and the boys are surviving on takeaways and yesterday's underwear and the wife is peeing in a bucket by the back door.

Thats all Northern Ireland is, a pink kitchen without a jacks. The partition is still only temporary, and Northern Ireland can't really prosper without the rest of the house. The next thing we'll hear from the ultra loyalists when the nationalist majority is firmed up in the south and west, "lets keep Antrim British!"

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

Process of elimination, because he was just out of prison (5 years) for possession of some guns when he was arrested and sent back to prison for 14 years for possession of a gun.

He didn't really have much time to commit anything.

Possession of a firearm is a very serious offence which results in a prison sentence,it`s not rocket science.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were all 'terrorists'.
Please don't tell me the British had legitimacy when another country had a constitutional claim on the part that was partitioned from the whole.

No Francie, there is a big difference between a professional army like the British army & a relatively small terrorist organisation like the Provos, the UFF, the INLA, or the UVF.

The Terrorist plans attacks, it plans murders, it plans where to plant bombs, it plans terrorism, it's very raison d'etre is to terrorise, maim & kill.

The army was put there (as a blunt tool) to try and stop the two sides going at each other, and no army is perfect, but by & large the British army did a great job in stifling & containing much of the infighting over the course of the Troubles. The bomb squad in particular did a great job in diffusing many terrorist bombs...

Things would have been much much worse between the two tribes had the army not been sent to try to quell the fighting. The police had lost control...

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're talking nonsense Randy, the only "legitimacy" was artificially created by the partition of the island itself.

Lets say I have two sons with my wife. The male majority in our house is 3 to 1. Its an irrelevance though, because we are one household, we operate as a family. Say my wife gets a bit fed up of all the male behaviours, shuts herself in the kitchen and paints it pink, says she is having it to herself and we can just manage without a kitchen, it's her domain and she's keeping it. She is now the majority in her bit of the house, ruler of her own destiny, but me and the boys are surviving on takeaways and yesterday's underwear and the wife is peeing in a bucket by the back door.

Thats all Northern Ireland is, a pink kitchen without a jacks. The partition is still only temporary, and Northern Ireland can't really prosper without the rest of the house. The next thing we'll hear from the ultra loyalists when the nationalist majority is firmed up in the south and west, "lets keep Antrim British!"

Utter nonsense. The idea that we neeeded the affirmation of others for our own constitutional provisions is bizarre.
The fact is we had a claim to it at the time....what happened later is immaterial to the point.

Randy Archer

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British had no mandate to be in Ireland and after the elections of 1918 should have left when it was clearly proved as such.

Oh dear

Irish MPs voted for Ireland to join the U.K. in 1801

The election of 1918 was the Election for Returning Irish MPs to Westminster ! It wasn’t an election for an Irish Parliament

Dáil Éireann barely sat after 19th January 1919 for obvious reasons

At best , the decision not to return to Westminster was legal , Home Rule was in the Statute Books since 1914 , hence the decision of the British to enact the updated Government of Ireland Act 1920

The rest of the world refused to recognise the New political reality in Ireland

If all that you claimed was true , and it wasn’t , why would Irish politicians even bother talking about a Treaty ? Why would they sign away a pretend Republic In favour of Dominion Status which the public voted to accept ? Sure , after all, Brits had no mandate , right ?

The fact that the public voted in favour of the Treaty utter undermines the nonsense you spout out the lack of British mandate in Ireland .

Waffling about 1918, informing what the public ultimately voted for in 1922 &#55358;&#56596;&#55357;&#56834; Good lad

Thanks for the laugh but I prefer to deal with reality

Secondary schools have a lot to answer for with this level of ignorance

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No Francie, there is a big difference between a professional army like the British army & a relatively small terrorist organisation like the Provos, the UFF, the INLA, or the UVF.

The Terrorist plans attacks, it plans murders, it plans where to plant bombs, it plans terrorism, it's very raison d'etre is to terrorise, maim & kill.

The army was put there (as a blunt tool) to try and stop the two sides going at each other, and no army is perfect, but by & large the British army did a great job in stifling & containing much of the infighting over the course of the Troubles. The bomb squad in particular did a great job in diffusing many terrorist bombs...

Things would have been much much worse between the two tribes had the army not been sent to try to quell the fighting.

I never saw the difference between dropping bombs from 10,000 feet and detonating a bomb remotely.
Each side will fight within it's means.
Your view of the quality of the job the BA did is subjective and your own.

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The army was put there (as a blunt tool) to try and stop the two sides going at each other

They were brought in to prevent Unionist paramilitary security forces from massacring the natives. They ended up being used to try to enforce Unionist/British rule.

At no point could any honest person claim the British Army was 'keeping the two sides apart'. The British negotiated with the PIRA to bring the conflict to an end, Unionist paramilitaries were a just a bunch of drug-dealing serial killers.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never saw the difference between dropping bombs from 10,000 feet and detonating a bomb remotely.
Each side will fight within it's means.
Your view of the quality of the job the BA did is subjective and your own.

The brits doing great work in afganistan....the SAS have found to been a murder gang,killing all males of military age out there

Hamsterchops will be along to tell us,this makes them better than the paramilitaries,somehow

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Utter nonsense. The idea that we neeeded the affirmation of others for our own constitutional provisions is bizarre.
The fact is we had a claim to it at the time....what happened later is immaterial to the point.

Our own Supreme Court reject your interpretation

Eamonn De Valera himself , the creator of the Constitution , produced multiple articles and his own notes are also at odds with you

The language of the old articles 2 and 3 Constitution is pretty clear too . Aspirational and no more

You must be so distraught being under such an informed position all your life . Lol

Hamsterchops

Trying to inform the readers of a non biased persuasion, I understand my description of the the Terrorist Vs the army makes for upsetting reading, specially for any posters who may have supported terrorist organisations like the PIRA, but the fact remains that there cannot be any comparison between the security forces and the terrorism they had to deal with on a daily basis.

FrancieBrady

Randy Archer wrote: »

Our own Supreme Court reject your interpretation

Eamonn De Valera himself , the creator of the Constitution , produced multiple articles and his own notes are also at odds with you

The language of the old articles 2 and 3 Constitution is pretty clear too . Aspirational and no more

You must be so distraught being under such an informed position all your life . Lol

Aspirational?

Go on...explain what an aspiration is Randy?

Republicans aspired to a UI - as laid out in OUR constitution. A constitution we owed nobody apologies for.

Junkyard Tom

Randy Archer wrote: »

The election of 1918 was the Election for Returning Irish MPs to Westminster !

And the people overwhelmingly returned Sinn Fein who vowed to establish an independent Irish Republic, refused to sit in Westminster, and considered British rule illegitimate.

In summary, Britain had no mandate to rule Ireland and the vast majority of the Irish people wanted to govern themselves.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Trying to inform the readers of a non biased persuasion, I understand my description of the the Terrorist Vs the army makes for upsetting reading, specially for any posters who may have supported terrorist organisations like the PIRA, but the fact remains that there cannot be any comparison between the security forces and the terrorism they had to deal with on a daily basis.

If you were genuinely unbiased you would recognise the terror the BA brought to nationalists.

Randy Archer

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're talking nonsense Randy, the only "legitimacy" was artificially created by the partition of the island itself.

Lets say I have two sons with my wife. The male majority in our house is 3 to 1. Its an irrelevance though, because we are one household, we operate as a family. Say my wife gets a bit fed up of all the male behaviours, shuts herself in the kitchen and paints it pink, says she is having it to herself and we can just manage without a kitchen, it's her domain and she's keeping it. She is now the majority in her bit of the house, ruler of her own destiny, but me and the boys are surviving on takeaways and yesterday's underwear and the wife is peeing in a bucket by the back door.

Thats all Northern Ireland is, a pink kitchen without a jacks. The partition is still only temporary, and Northern Ireland can't really prosper without the rest of the house. The next thing we'll hear from the ultra loyalists when the nationalist majority is firmed up in the south and west, "lets keep Antrim British!"

Your academic and professional qualifications are what exactly ?

Even the more intelligent SF official would face palm himself reading your guff

“Artificially” created ? That what you call elections supported by the MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC ?

Artificial ? Really ? That’s on the SF (1919) revisionists At no stage of Irish history did this Island stand as a united 32 county sovereign independent State .

Your blathering has no relevancy and like clock work , the head bangers came out . You didn’t disappoint

With economic illiterates like your Pals in SF , spare us any lecture about prosperity

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I understand my description of the the Terrorist Vs the army makes for upsetting reading

Because it's nonsense. There was one community being terrorised in the late 60's and early 70's. One community were burned and driven out of their homes in their thousands. The British Army attempted to disarm one community while it openly participated in terrorism against it too.

I'm afraid the actual facts of the past don't line up with your silly views.

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Aspirational?

Go on...explain what an aspiration is Randy?

Republicans aspired to a UI - as laid out in OUR constitution. A constitution we owed nobody apologies for.

Go read the Supreme Court decision of McGimpsey v Ireland

You can find it on www.bailii.org . May also find it on the supreme Couet website

Hell, read the bloody text of old article 2 and 3 . The wording is clear

I am tied up at the moment to spell it out for you . Life etc, don’t have 20 hours a day 7 days a week to be on here , but the Supreme Court text on said website will answer for you

Get a dictionary too, you seem to note understand basic words

Read the Supreme Court text and then ask questions , I will get back to you later because I have no doubt whatsoever that you will prove to it understand what the judgment says despite communicated in plain English

You have proven not to understand what was said in old articles 2 and 3 . They were NOT as you originally claimed , to be a claim of ownership of the island

Statements of aspiration are meaningless in practice

timthumbni

Deleted User wrote: »

How did stopping and searching people going to mass/GAA matches help quell fighting

Used to get stopped on way to school regularly. If the BA only stopped at certain times of the day or not when the fecking gaa was on, then do you possibly think that the terrorists, both loyalist and republican may have used that to their advantage. The Ira terrorists weren’t exactly into fair play.

And speaking of mass wasn’t one of the suspects in one of the most disgusting IRA actions in the Claudy bombings a priest. Just the 9 civilians murdered by the IRA that day, including 3 children, the youngest being an 8yr old girl.

But let’s not call these IRA “men” terrorists so quickly. We should probably sit down first and examine their home life and religious morals.

FrancieBrady

Randy Archer wrote: »

Go read the Supreme Court decision of McGimpsey v Ireland

You can find it on www.bailii.org . May also find it on the supreme Couet website

Hell, read the bloody text of old article 2 and 3 . The wording is clear

I am tied up at the moment to spell it out for you . Life etc, don’t have 20 hours a day 7 days a week to be on here , but the Supreme Court text on said website will answer for you

Get a dictionary too, you seem to note understand basic words

Read the Supreme Court text and then ask questions , I will get back to you later

You have proven not to understand what was said in old articles 2 and 3 . They were NOT as you originally claimed , to be a claim of ownership of the island

Statements of aspiration are meaningless in practice

I'm watching a match here.

Get back to me when you realise I was talking about the beginning of the conflict/war and not 89/90, when our constitution was OUR constitution.

And when you grasp what an 'aspiration' is.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

The PIRA targetted business and people that had connections to the security forces in NI. In the UK, they were after economic targets but they always gave warnings so that the place could be cleared.

Most of what you said is nonsense, but this bit is simply obscene. The Protestant community in my local town were under continual attack from the IRA, even after every one of them with any connections to the British forces had left. They continued to drive basically every last Protestant out of the town. There are now only two Protestant households left. One of them a 94-year-old man with a disabled daughter and he is still under intimidation. He never gets through a year without his windows broken at least twice.
I am normally quite calm on here, but I am actually very angry to hear anybody talk the sh1t you are currently talking, about the IRA only targeting economic targets. They put off endless bombs in my town. A predominantly Catholic town. And they only touched two catholic premises. One of them because a member of the family was in the RUC and the other one because local farmers drunk in the bar. Every Protestant premises was blown up several times
Unfortunately it is attitudes like yours that will mean we never get out of this mess.
I can take you to the last Protestant house left in my town and they have grills in their windows and they have no connections whatsoever with security forces. I could take you to the last Protestant premises in the actual town - a church and the Orange Hall, both with serious protection on their windows etc.
you really are living in some sort of cloud cuckoo land

Randy Archer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm watching a match here.

Get back to me when you realise I was talking about the beginning of the conflict/war and not 89/90, when our constitution was OUR constitution.

And when you grasp what an 'aspiration' is.

Francie , I am talking about precisely the same time period , you spoofer 😂😂😂!! I am even pointing out to you the papers of De Valera from 1933-1937 . You compete and utter waffler . Nothing but a liar !

You are talking rubbish !! Utter rubbish and you are refusing to read the court report from a case that was held in 1987-1990

Why do you, a grossly under educated person getting so much air time ? You have zero qualifications to challenge me on anything. You always fall flat

Next time , read what I said , would save you a lot of time realising that you are wrong

Your claim was that before GFA , Ireland had a constitutional claim to the North. It didn’t and never had