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

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Options
1…3132333436

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    lugha wrote: »
    Did you mean to say illegitimate?
    NO


    Yes, the Dail ratified the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922.
    THEY WOULD BUT THEY DIDNT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF IRISH PEOPLE WHICH YOU CLAIM IS SO IMPORTANT


    Don't know what you are on about here? CHANGE THE YOU TO AN "IAM" AND THIS WOULD BE YOUR MOST TRUTHFUL AND SENSIBLE POST SO FAR
    :confused:
    ...


  • Options
    #1053
    Ryuken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭Ryuken


    If republicans love Ireland so much than why do they vandalise walls up and down the country with graffiti?

    they are funded by skanger drug dealers. Thye import fire arms, they put fear and terror into peoples live. Some lovers of Ireland they are.

    No Longer justified!!!


  • Options
    #1054
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    maccored wrote: »
    Yes Keith. I was obviously hallucinating. you can have this one, really.
    You can't look past the bombs which they planted which killed Catholics. They planted bombs in areas which were going to kill anyone. They obviously didn't care about Catholics.

    That is why it is nonsense to suggest they protected Catholics. It is an insult on the families really who suffered from PIRA violence who are Catholics.


  • Options
    #1055
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    newsflash keith - there was a conflict happening. that whole thing is a different thread. You have to understand that the IRA were both the army and the police to the local republican community. They DID look after communities when the RUC wouldnt. They also fought a conflict, but as I say, thats a thing of its own.
    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You can't look past the bombs which they planted which killed Catholics. They planted bombs in areas which were going to kill anyone. They obviously didn't care about Catholics.

    That is why it is nonsense to suggest they protected Catholics. It is an insult on the families really who suffered from PIRA violence who are Catholics.


  • Options
    #1056
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    maccored wrote: »
    newsflash keith - there was a conflict happening. that whole thing is a different thread.
    Yes. So the PIRA set up wasn't an army for Catholics. If they wanted to defend Catholics, they would have watched what bombs they planted and would never have killed any Catholics. That didn't happen though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    He accuses the government (presumably the Irish one) of colluding with British terrorists (loyalists ?). I genuinely do not know what he is referring to.[/QUOTE]
    The loyalists were the lesser of british terrorists. I was refering to the british goverment and their stooges in the army who were resposible for more deaths than any other organisation. Also can you tell me who the irish goverment held responsible for the murders commited by the british in the so called legitimate state of ireland how many of these terrorist done time. how come the gardai who were capable of beating confessions out of innocent irishmen and when they didnt get these confessions they went ahead and made them up, sure this legitimate state was beyond reproach and they done everything they could to help there fellow countrymen


  • Options
    #1058
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Keep going! You'll wind someone up yet.
    Ryuken wrote: »
    If republicans love Ireland so much than why do they vandalise walls up and down the country with graffiti?

    they are funded by skanger drug dealers. Thye import fire arms, they put fear and terror into peoples live. Some lovers of Ireland they are.

    No Longer justified!!!


  • Options
    #1059
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    You might have to read me post again as I updated it before i read this
    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Yes. So the PIRA set up wasn't an army for Catholics. If they wanted to defend Catholics, they would have watched what bombs they planted and would never have killed any Catholics. That didn't happen though.


  • Options
    #1060
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You can't look past the bombs which they planted which killed Catholics. They planted bombs in areas which were going to kill anyone. They obviously didn't care about Catholics.

    That is why it is nonsense to suggest they protected Catholics. It is an insult on the families really who suffered from PIRA violence who are Catholics.


    Says the UVF supporter which killed more innocent catholics than anyone.

    And your just trolling as with out the PIRA in the early years your community would have annihilated the catholic minority.


  • Options
    #1061
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    You can't look past the bombs which they planted which killed Catholics. They planted bombs in areas which were going to kill anyone. They obviously didn't care about Catholics.

    That is why it is nonsense to suggest they protected Catholics. It is an insult on the families really who suffered from PIRA violence who are Catholics.
    Its good to see your new found concern for catholics, when in previous threads you were singing the praises of the u.v.f. The ira defending irish people regardless of religous persuasion. You have heard of wolfetone, Robert emmet and Henry Joy Mccracken to name just a few.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    maccored wrote: »
    You might have to read me post again as I updated it before i read this
    Yes and it still makes no sense maccored. The PIRA was a paramilitary organisation. That is it. The objective was to get a United Ireland by force. That is all they existed for.


  • Options
    #1063
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    maccored wrote: »
    No, seriously, no. I've had my fill of this wasteland of a conversation. Your question has been well and truly answered. that goose is long, long cooked.
    No, it absolutely has not being answered. So one final time (you'll be pleased to hear!) for clarity, I will state it.

    How can Irish republicans, if the claim to be democrats and whose mantra has long been that the fate of Ireland should be determined by the Irish, justify a small group who demonstrably only has the support of a tiny minority, purporting to represent all of the Irish people?

    And for further clarity, let me point out what are NOT answers to that question.

    Northern Catholics were treated appalling (certainly the most popular evasive answer)
    PIRA were not the first to make such a preposterous presumption
    Feck the free-staters!
    Most Irish people wanted a united Ireland
    Look at Nelson M
    Look at Bobby Sands
    The Brits did not respect democracy in the past
    John Reilly wrote: »
    THEY WOULD BUT THEY DIDNT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF IRISH PEOPLE WHICH YOU CLAIM IS SO IMPORTANT
    I would have no qualms in principle if PIRA or their political representatives has either solely, or in coalition commanded support for their actions in the Dail, even if they did not command a majority in the population. Of course, even when they did start to take seats the struggled to even get a single TD elected.

    Out of curiosity, who do you think should get to decide on the Irish question, if not the Irish people?


  • Options
    #1064
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    realies wrote: »
    Says the UVF supporter which killed more innocent catholics than anyone.

    And your just trolling as with out the PIRA in the early years your community would have annihilated the catholic minority.
    The key difference is I don't claim the UVF or the UDA defended the Protestant community. That is the key difference in this discussion.


  • Options
    #1065
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    lugha wrote: »
    How can Irish republicans, if the claim to be democrats and whose mantra has long been that the fate of Ireland should be determined by the Irish, justify a small group who demonstrably only has the support of a tiny minority, purporting to represent all of the Irish people?

    I challange you to read what you wrote, and define how any of it has anything to do with the creation of PIRA. The provos came into being because of what was happening in the north. NOT because all of a sudden, groups of men decided to suddenly get together, get some guns and go claim ownership of Ireland. yes, its a basic aim of the republican movement, but no, its not the reason the pira came into being. there were other pressing issues, like people being killed.

    For the final time, I tell you I cannot see the relevance of your question, and the North.

    If though you want to know why republicans claim that the 2nd dail was illegitimate, and therefore the first dail which had never been broken up, was the *real* government - then I suggest you read up on your Irish history.


  • Options
    #1066
    Sunnyisland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,562 ✭✭✭✭Sunnyisland


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    The key difference is I don't claim the UVF or the UDA defended the Protestant community. That is the key difference in this discussion.



    :eek: You have many time in this forum claimed your volunteers were defending your PUL community against attack from republicans.


  • Options
    #1067
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    maccored wrote: »
    I challange you to read what you wrote, and define how any of it has anything to do with the creation of PIRA.
    Why do you focus solely on the reasons for the creation of PIRA? The OP asked if the actual republican campaign justified (i.e. as it proceeded AFTER PIRA were formed) , not only if it was a fairy reasonably idea at the outset.

    By your logic you could excuse everything the British army subsequently did on the grounds that initially sending them into protect the Catholics (as many thought they would do) was a good idea.


  • Options
    #1068
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    lugha wrote: »
    (i.e. as it proceeded AFTER PIRA were formed)

    By my logic, you need to ask WHY they formed. You'll find that first and foremost, it wasnt to go claim the government of Ireland and decide to talk for everyone on the island. I really cant see how this basic republican aim has anything to do with how the conflict in the north happened. Im not a history teacher so please dont be asking me to try and explain anything to you.


  • Options
    #1069
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    maccored wrote: »
    By my logic, you need to ask WHY they formed. You'll find that first and foremost, it wasnt to go claim the government of Ireland and decide to talk for everyone on the island. I really cant see how this basic republican aim has anything to do with how the conflict in the north happened

    Neither did the PIRA which is why the civil rights movement of the late 60s and early 70s was hijacked for completely unrealistic aims of a 'united Ireland' via violent means.


  • Options
    #1070
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    The civil rights movement was highjacked by loyalists attackers and the police force halfway through a peaceful march. It was actions like that - again attacks on the nationalist community - that brought out the pira. Please read up on your history and stop trying to pretend it was different than it was. If you are going to bring up things that happened in that past, at least get your facts straight.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Neither did the PIRA which is why the civil rights movement of the late 60s and early 70s was hijacked for completely unrealistic aims of a 'united Ireland' via violent means.


  • Options
    #1071
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    maccored wrote: »
    By my logic, you need to ask WHY they formed. You'll find that first and foremost, it wasnt to go claim the government of Ireland and decide to talk for everyone on the island. I really cant see how this basic republican aim has anything to do with how the conflict in the north happened. Im not a history teacher so please dont be asking me to try and explain anything to you.

    Yes yes yes but there's a WHY to everything.

    There were reasons for the development of unionism, reasons for their secessionist actions and monopolisation of political power within the state that they created, a reason for their defensive mindset and the generation of paramilitary forces.

    If history has taught us anything is that there is always an understandable motivation behind every movement. Whether such movements are ultimately justifiable or not is an entirely different question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    maccored wrote: »
    The civil rights movement was highjacked by loyalists attackers and the police force halfway through a peaceful march.

    They weren't hijacked (which means to seize or appropriate) by the loyalists or RUC - they were opposed.


  • Options
    #1073
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    maccored wrote: »
    The civil rights movement was highjacked by loyalists attackers and the police force halfway through a peaceful march. It was actions like that - again attacks on the nationalist community - that brought out the pira. Please read up on your history and stop trying to pretend it was different than it was. If you are going to bring up things that happened in that past, at least get your facts straight.
    The civil rights movement was the least on the minds of the PIRA by the mid-70s.
    Are you going to be similarly subjective with a suggested reading list for me to "read my history"? How about you start with Peter Taylor's three book series 'Provos'/'Loyalists'/'Brits', Tim Pat Coogan's The Troubles, Diarmuid Ferriter's Ireland 1900-2000 or even Robert Kee's History of Modern Ireland?
    I can remember the late 70s, 80s onwards and know fully well what it was like. Civil rights were long forgotten when sectarian murder, punishment shootings, racketeering, kidnapping, robbery and bombing were undertaken to pursue subsequent goals.


  • Options
    #1074
    john reilly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭john reilly


    JustinDee wrote: »
    The civil rights movement was the least on the minds of the PIRA by the mid-70s.
    Are you going to be similarly subjective with a suggested reading list for me to "read my history"? How about you start with Peter Taylor's three book series 'Provos'/'Loyalists'/'Brits', Tim Pat Coogan's The Troubles, Diarmuid Ferriter's Ireland 1900-2000 or even Robert Kee's History of Modern Ireland?
    I can remember the late 70s, 80s onwards and know fully well what it was like. Civil rights were long forgotten when sectarian murder, punishment shootings, racketeering, kidnapping, robbery and bombing were undertaken to pursue subsequent goals.
    An entirely legitimate goal . Would you not agree


  • Options
    #1075
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    john reilly wrote: »
    An entirely legitimate goal . Would you not agree

    Via the means I mentioned? Not a chance. Not even remotely.
    The inhabitants of the entire island voted to say just that too.


  • Options
    #1076
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    If you can keep up and read the thread, you'd see I was responding to another posters talk of the civil rights movement oops .... That was you I was responding to. How did you manage to lose the point of the question so quickly?

    I've no interest, by the way, in reading others people's opinions of a time I experienced firsthand

    JustinDee wrote: »
    maccored wrote: »
    The civil rights movement was highjacked by loyalists attackers and the police force halfway through a peaceful march. It was actions like that - again attacks on the nationalist community - that brought out the pira. Please read up on your history and stop trying to pretend it was different than it was. If you are going to bring up things that happened in that past, at least get your facts straight.
    The civil rights movement was the least on the minds of the PIRA by the mid-70s.
    Are you going to be similarly subjective with a suggested reading list for me to "read my history"? How about you start with Peter Taylor's three book series 'Provos'/'Loyalists'/'Brits', Tim Pat Coogan's The Troubles, Diarmuid Ferriter's Ireland 1900-2000 or even Robert Kee's History of Modern Ireland?
    I can remember the late 70s, 80s onwards and know fully well what it was like. Civil rights were long forgotten when sectarian murder, punishment shootings, racketeering, kidnapping, robbery and bombing were undertaken to pursue subsequent goals.


  • Options
    #1077
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Sorry, I meant to say 'viciously attacked by loyalists and the ruc'.

    RandomName2 wrote: »
    maccored wrote: »
    The civil rights movement was highjacked by loyalists attackers and the police force halfway through a peaceful march.

    They weren't hijacked (which means to seize or appropriate) by the loyalists or RUC - they were opposed.


  • Options
    #1078
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Course there's a why to everything. I highlighted the fact you have to look at why - and in this case the question was about the pira. What's your point exactly? I don't see it in your question. No-one is talking about things being justifiable.


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    maccored wrote: »
    By my logic, you need to ask WHY they formed. You'll find that first and foremost, it wasnt to go claim the government of Ireland and decide to talk for everyone on the island. I really cant see how this basic republican aim has anything to do with how the conflict in the north happened. Im not a history teacher so please dont be asking me to try and explain anything to you.

    Yes yes yes but there's a WHY to everything.

    There were reasons for the development of unionism, reasons for their secessionist actions and monopolisation of political power within the state that they created, a reason for their defensive mindset and the generation of paramilitary forces.

    If history has taught us anything is that there is always an understandable motivation behind every movement. Whether such movements are ultimately justifiable or not is an entirely different question.


  • Options
    #1079
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    maccored wrote: »
    If you can keep up and read the thread, you'd see I was responding to another posters talk of the civil rights movement oops .... That was you I was responding to. How did you manage to lose the point of the question so quickly?
    If its a private conversation you should try PMs. If not, expect anyone to respond to your posts.

    maccored wrote: »
    I've no interest, by the way, in reading others people's opinions of a time I experienced firsthand
    Thats the problem, far too often.
    Subjectively convenient memories accompanied by a myopic refusal to take on board any other view or experience.


  • Options
    #1080
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    JustinDee wrote: »
    If its a private conversation you should try PMs. If not, expect anyone to respond to your posts.

    Well - considering it was you I was responding to, it worked out fine enough.


    Thats the problem, far too often.
    Subjectively convenient memories accompanied by a myopic refusal to take on board any other view or experience.

    no - talking rubbish is the main problem I find. Too many people talk it, and then try to back it up by quoting someones book.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    maccored wrote: »
    no - talking rubbish is the main problem I find. Too many people talk it, and then try to back it up by quoting someones book.

    Oh ffs. Who writes the proverbial "history book" that you tell people they should read?
    Playing the victim doesn't justify ignoring everybody else's experiences of what has gone on in the North.
    Seriously . . .


Advertisement