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

Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

1…111213141517»

Comments

  • #482
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Because today we know, with absolute certainty who the membership was, we know who was on the executive committee, and we know what the goals were. We also can point to that time in history and know with absolute certainty why the Movement existed.

    I've said earlier that yes, the movement was definitely left leaning, but to accuse it of being a hotbed of Republicanism is farcical.
    What we know now did not affect the fears of loyalists at the time,


  • #483
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    "certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic."

    As much as I think this is a fabrication from an untrustworthy British establishment at the time let's just pretend that it's true.

    With the above in mind I put the this to you: so fucking what? What exactly would have been wrong with aspiring to an all island socialist Republic? There were socialist and communist parties in the UK at the time that weren't being brutalised.
    the goals of the civil rights movement could have been achieved through useful means?

    The above is little more than idle conjecture that belongs 'what ifs, if only, should've, would've' section of boards wherever that may be. Also, the fact that you hold Nationalist civilians who were seeking equality by democratic means to higher standard than those who were brutalizing them exposes your blatant anti-Nationalist bias.

    In IWF's reality it's okay for the sectarian militias that were the B-Specials and RUC to beat Catholics to death but Nationalists should still have been throwing flowers and blowing bubbles at them?

    Now that's a perfect example of naivety.


  • #484
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What we know now did not affect the fears of loyalists at the time,

    That's not what you asked me, you asked why I can call the report a whitewash.

    It was feared because it was a threat to their hegemony. It's always been the Unionist way, the fear of change. Their primary function was to retain control of the state by any means.


  • #485
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.

    Tbh I'd be quite happy in dismissing a report by a British report or judge in 1969 about the NICRA.

    Why do you regard it so highly as to bring it into your argument?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #486
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No need to dig, they couldn't put down the IRA or the Taliban either. If the IRA fought like a real army like the Germans in WWI or II the IRA would have been beaten in a day, hell hours if they were on the one field..
    What do mean by a real army.
    You do realise one of the main objectives in war/battle is to disable/kill as many of the opposition while avoiding casualties on your own side.
    Ever heard of "camouflage", or do you know why those so called "smart bombs" were invented, how about Special Forces like the SAS operating behind enemy lines, your views on conflict are more than just naive, they are stuck centuries in the past, with brightly coloured troops standing in nice neat rows taking pot shots at each other.

    I find your (and others) attitude towards this baffling.
    Take for example Bloody Sunday 1920, you would consider the efficient surgical strike against the castle detectives as an horrific terrorist action, yet would consider the all out storming of the castle by regular troops as legit, even though one would involve many more casualties on both sides and no doubt take out many non-combatants, from secretaries to visitors and even passer-bys.
    Clinical surgical strike no, all out assaults yes. Very odd indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Can we keep the firing from the trenches civil, thanks.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #488
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    Rubeter wrote: »
    What do mean by a real army.
    You do realise one of the main objectives in war/battle is to disable/kill as many of the opposition while avoiding casualties on your own side.
    Ever heard of "camouflage", or do you know why those so called "smart bombs" were invented, how about Special Forces like the SAS operating behind enemy lines, your views on conflict are more than just naive, they are stuck centuries in the past, with brightly coloured troops standing in nice neat rows taking pot shots at each other.

    I find your (and others) attitude towards this baffling.
    Take for example Bloody Sunday 1920, you would consider the efficient surgical strike against the castle detectives as an horrific terrorist action, yet would consider the all out storming of the castle by regular troops as legit, even though one would involve many more casualties on both sides and no doubt take out many non-combatants, from secretaries to visitors and even passer-bys.
    Clinical surgical strike no, all out assaults yes. Very odd indeed.

    Ah, have you not realised the way some think, eg.
    A successful operation by the IRA = cowardly,sneaky,murderous Irish.
    A successful action by the BA= Brave, courageous, dashing action against inferior,stupid Irish.


  • #489
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    kabakuyu wrote: »
    Ah, have you not realised the way some think, eg.
    A successful operation by the IRA = cowardly,sneaky, murderous Irish.
    A successful action by the BA= Brave, courageous, dashing action against inferior,stupid Irish.

    Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

    The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.


  • #490
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

    The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.

    Nobody is denying that the British army had an extremely difficult job to do but lets not pretend they were not as "sneaky" as their foes or that their members always "played by the rules".


  • #491
    kabakuyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

    The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.

    Sorry Sutch, I should have clarified that I was referring to actions in the War of Independence as referred to by Rubeter in post #486.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Rubeter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Rubeter


    LordSutch wrote: »
    ...... Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group ..........
    You may say that from behind your keyboard but I think their opponents on the ground had quite a different opinion.

    BRITS SPEAK OUT
    British Soldiers' Impressions of the
    Northern Ireland Conflict
    By John Lindsay
    Peter - Cheshire Regiment:
    If you look at the IRA in a professional sense, then you have to admit that they are exceptional. I see them like the resistance against the Germans in the Second World War. If they were in the British Army they would be in the special services.

    In accounts from British soldiers or even Loyalist paramilitaries you rarely hear the word "cowardly", and this goes for all sides, ie none of the groups involved believed any of the others were cowards (such an attitude would have actually been quite dangerous), words such as yours only tend to be seen in a rant of angry rhetoric.

    As for sneaky; in conflict, sneaking up on the enemy is (believe it or not) quite common among those without a suicidal nature.

    Have you ever read a book such as the one quoted above?


Advertisement