Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

Manassas61 wrote: »

Go look up the Scottish Presbyterians during the Ulster plantation. I ain't discussing the English settlers.

If you find names such as Boyd, Buchannan, Campbell, Douglas, Ferguson, Bryce, Gilmore, Gow, Gowan, Keil, Keogh, Patterson, Sinclair, Taggart and Morrison you can be sure of also finding highland blood. The fact that Ulster Irish was spoken more than Ulster Scotch also goes against the myth of all Ulster Scots being all lowlanders.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Thanked for comedy value- particularly the underlined.

Go look up the Scottish Presbyterians during the Ulster plantation. I ain't discussing the English settlers.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

They can't handle the truth. Unless they are the dictators, then they don't like it.

And the award for most ironic statement of the year goes to...MANASSAS61

Manassas61 wrote: »

They can't handle the truth. Unless they are the dictators, then they don't like it. It is the truth that there is two distinct peoples in Ulster particularly. The Native Irish and the Ulster Scots people who came from the lowlands of Scotland.

These two people make up the vast bulk of both peoples.

One minute they want respect for the indigenous people of the Island and the next minute they start yelling at you when you recognize them and respect them. Beyond bizarre but there you go, that is Irish Republicanism for you.

Thanked for comedy value- particularly the underlined.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I love the way Nationalists claim we are distinct from the British as we share a common history, culture and ethnicity. But as soon as someone correctly points out that there are two distinct historical cultural and ethnic groups on this island they get all hot under the collar and try to forcibly impose their identity onto the Ulster Scots.

Hypocrasy is clearly a fundamental element of Irish nationalism.

They can't handle the truth. Unless they are the dictators, then they don't like it. It is the truth that there is two distinct peoples in Ulster particularly. The Native Irish and the Ulster Scots people who came from the lowlands of Scotland.

These two people make up the vast bulk of both peoples.

One minute they want respect for the indigenous people of the Island and the next minute they start yelling at you when you recognize them and respect them. Beyond bizarre but there you go, that is Irish Republicanism for you.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

That's quite wrong. If former goat herders from the mountains of Pakistan can lead fulfilling lives in a modern metropolis like Manchester how mental is it to imagine that former Unionists could be part of a 32 county United Ireland?

It is not that they can’t. But likewise it is not the case that Irish nationalists could not throw their lot back in with the UK. In both cases they simply don’t want to.

Yourself and S&F (or me) would not go for a UK of B and I no matter how compelling any case might be made to you about ethnicity or history. Because it is not about ethnicity or history, it is about constitutional aspirations. And outside of a few odd balls in the British National Party, nobody would try to make a case for a single nation state consisting of Britain and Ireland.

But here in our own turf Irish nationalists continue to perpetuate the nonsense that the natural arrangement for Ireland is a 32 county state. This may well come to be someday. But to pretend that unionists will be embraced as part of the Irish nation by nationalists is daft. Their thinking is predicated on some notion that there is some ancient integrity to the island country of Ireland, almost as if God made Ireland!

Nationalists want the unionist’s turf, not them. But they come as a job lot so nationalists will just have to tolerate them. But they’ll be slow to love them.

Iwasfrozen

I love the way Nationalists claim we are distinct from the British as we share a common history, culture and ethnicity. But as soon as someone correctly points out that there are two distinct historical cultural and ethnic groups on this island they get all hot under the collar and try to forcibly impose their identity onto the Ulster Scots.

Hypocrasy is clearly a fundamental element of Irish nationalism.

Firewalkwithme

SoulandForm - are you on the Absinth again tonight? You really should take it easy on that stuff.

Manassas61 wrote: »

I am a colonist because that is my ancestory history.

We're birds of a feather you and me. I have Norse heritage. Isn't it great how we have integrated into this island and become more Irish than the Irish themselves?

You'll note too that upwards of 200 thousand English people came here during the celtic pyramid? I'd imagine the vast majority of English people who settled here will have fully integrated Irish children but yet you who are many generations removed from people you're not sure you're related to still resist the idea of being from here.

You know what? I feel pity for you and people like you.

Manassas61 wrote: »

The people who are descended from Native Irish people. I am not one of them. I won't lie and say I am. Just being honest about it. I am a colonist because that is my ancestory history.

It's how most of us see it except different labels are used.

Look seriously drop your fantasies about Ulster Prods being Rhodesian super men or whatever. Its very interesting- and disturbing- that the type of Republican I consider sectarian and not very nice to put it politely comes out with extremely similar nonsense to hardcore Unionists. Crazy as I am I care about the six counties but Im very glad I dont live there anymore.

Manassas61 wrote: »

It's a word for the people here before the plantation. It's why the divide is so deep because ethnically there is a difference.

Uh most of the Ulster Scots were not part of the plantation. Only Anglicans were allowed in the plantation. Ethnically there is hardly any difference- just as there is very little difference between Irish and Scotch Gaelic.

The divide as it stands was manufactured after the 1798 rebellion and even than it didnt become solid until the early 20s.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Uh they both had "Native Irish" blood in their veins. The idea that there are two biological races in Ulster is just wrong.

It's a word for the people here before the plantation. It's why the divide is so deep because ethnically there is a difference.

Manassas61 wrote: »

They weren't but the vast bulk of people from Republicanism are Native Irish people.

Uh they both had "Native Irish" blood in their veins. The idea that there are two biological races in Ulster is just wrong.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Were Bobby Sands and Francis Hughes "Native Irish"?

Do you understand how dangerous that type of junk is?

Ulster Scots are very Irish- you need to if not travel more make friends from the other side.

They weren't but the vast bulk of people from Republicanism are Native Irish people.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Christ that's depressing. Hundreds of years later and you describe people as 'Native Irish'. What are you? A colonist? An invader?

The people who are descended from Native Irish people. I am not one of them. I won't lie and say I am. Just being honest about it. I am a colonist because that is my ancestory history.

It's how most of us see it except different labels are used.

Painted Pony wrote: »

Yeah well, sorry but I have no real interest in forging a state, or even a nation, with you.

You don't have a mandate - just a personal opinion.

But not in Ireland. Half a millennium after the plantation (which unquestionably was wrong) there is still the refusal to accept that this was the end (several centuries before it began!) of any homogeneous all-Ireland nation.

A 32 county state is not predicated on homogeneity; indeed, it's obvious that it wouldn't be considering that we have a large tranche of people who wouldn't identify as being 'native Irish' (depressingly).

two peoples who are about as different as any pairing you might select from the peoples of the islands of Britain and Ireland.

That's quite wrong. If former goat herders from the mountains of Pakistan can lead fulfilling lives in a modern metropolis like Manchester how mental is it to imagine that former Unionists could be part of a 32 county United Ireland?

Firewalkwithme

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: Fu*k off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: ****.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

REG: Stumm.

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ****ing Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

Manassas61 wrote: »

We are a unique people. Just different to other groups on the Island. Including the Native Irish.

Yeah well, sorry but I have no real interest in forging a state, or even a nation, with you.

There is of course nothing so surprising about fairly diverse peoples sharing the same land mass. It is not so usual on a small island like ours but just look at the diversity of nations and states on the landmass of Europe. The borders of European countries have being moved countless times, and almost always as a result of violence or regression. Yet most recognize the futility of trying to undo the wrongs of the past, few would appeal to ancient history and say: “here is where the true border of our country should be, as it was 1,000 years ago”.

But not in Ireland. Half a millennium after the plantation (which unquestionably was wrong) there is still the refusal to accept that this was the end (several centuries before it began!) of any homogeneous all-Ireland nation. But reality is no match for the hardy Irish nationalist. They will continue to insist that an island nation makes perfect sense and try to forge together two peoples who are about as different as any pairing you might select from the peoples of the islands of Britain and Ireland.

Manassas61 wrote: »

We are a unique people. Just different to other groups on the Island. Including the Native Irish.

Were Bobby Sands and Francis Hughes "Native Irish"?

Do you understand how dangerous that type of junk is?

Ulster Scots are very Irish- you need to if not travel more make friends from the other side.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Native Irish.

Christ that's depressing. Hundreds of years later and you describe people as 'Native Irish'. What are you? A colonist? An invader?

Painted Pony wrote: »

But in the aftermath of a British removal their plan was to (re)establish the Irish republic proclaimed in 1916. And that clearly was political.

The bottom line is that the US did not get the necessary mandate from the UN to go in to Iraq in ’03 but did so regardless and this is the basis on which many Irish republicans (reasonably enough) criticise them. That Iraq didn’t attack the US is irrelevant. That was also the case for the first Gulf war where the US were justified in going in. Why? Because then they did have a mandate.

But somehow, the same republicans who see the flagrant disregard for democracy by the US see no issue with their own, pursuing an all Ireland political project whilst totally disregarding the wishes of the people of Ireland.

In the video that S&F posted, Martin McGuinness freely admits that they had failed to persuade the people of the 26 counties, as he likes to call it.

You’re right. The British don’t give a toss about them. But neither do we here in the South (nor do nationalists in the North for that matter). Indeed many of us are pretty hostile to them. (I’d tolerate sharing an island with them but draw the line at sharing a state with them! )

So their choice is not between who doesn’t want them and who does. It is between who doesn’t want them and who really, really doesn’t want them!

We are a unique people. Just different to other groups on the Island. Including the Native Irish.

Painted Pony wrote: »

It is rarely possible to do this but it was possible in Ireland because in any election during the troubles (when SF did contest them) we could tally the support of the constitutional nationalists parties and the total did, and still does, massively exceed the vote given to those who favoured physical force.

ex post facto

SF didn't really engage in politics substantively until after the Hunger Strikes in the early 1980's and from not long after that I believe they were exploring a political solution to the conflict.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You're attributing too much virtue to a mandate.

For using force? Indeed and I am. Using violence is no trivial matter.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Having a mandate doesn't mean going to war is a just thing to do.

True. It is necessary but not sufficient.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Not having a mandate doesn't mean that engaging in conflict is automatically wrong.

Yes it absolutely does. You can of course cite plenty of scenarios where it was either impractical or impossible to formally establish that there was a mandate (apartheid era in SA for example). And you make have to do with anecdotal or subjective judgement to demonstrate that you have the necessary support.

But if it can be demonstrably shown that any group using force do not have the support from the people on whose behalf the force is being used then that it absolutely and automatically is wrong.

It is rarely possible to do this but it was possible in Ireland because in any election during the troubles (when SF did contest them) we could tally the support of the constitutional nationalists parties and the total did, and still does, massively exceed the vote given to those who favoured physical force.

The people of Ireland quite clearly favoured peaceful means to bring about any change in out territory (Sinn Fein have belatedly boarded this train) and did so throughout the troubles. But they were ignored by PIRA.

And even with our goldfish-like political memories, some people still remember this, almost 20 years after they were active (We seem to be already willing to forgive FF after only 2 years!). That must surely tell you something about how much the arrogance of PIRA rankled many people.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When the IRA bombed those places at peak times, you claimed it was to cause maximum disruption.

I asked, disruption to who?

Wrong dude bro.

Fratton Fred

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Which one?

When the IRA bombed those places at peak times, you claimed it was to cause maximum disruption.

I asked, disruption to who?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When are you going to answer my question Charlie?

Which one?

I've told you before I'm not interested in going on a date with you.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Fratton Fred

When are you going to answer my question Charlie?

Painted Pony wrote: »

But in the aftermath of a British removal their plan was to (re)establish the Irish republic proclaimed in 1916. And that clearly was political.

Isn't that just a political aspiration though? I mean it's only an aspiration at the end of the day. I could aspire to having a anarcho-syndicalist workers federation in control of the means of production in Ireland but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

The bottom line is that the US did not get the necessary mandate from the UN to go in to Iraq in ’03 but did so regardless and this is the basis on which many Irish republicans (reasonably enough) criticise them. That Iraq didn’t attack the US is irrelevant. That was also the case for the first Gulf war where the US were justified in going in. Why? Because then they did have a mandate.

You're attributing too much virtue to a mandate. Having a mandate doesn't mean going to war is a just thing to do. Not having a mandate doesn't mean that engaging in conflict is automatically wrong.

But somehow, the same republicans who see the flagrant disregard for democracy by the US see no issue with their own, pursuing an all Ireland political project whilst totally disregarding the wishes of the people of Ireland.

Hmmm... It was the subversion of democracy by Unionists and eventually the massacre of civil rights protesters that energized physical force Republicanism. Democracy and civil rights were attempted and brutally crushed by Unionists and their sectarian militias.

In the video that S&F posted, Martin McGuinness freely admits that they had failed to persuade the people of the 26 counties, as he likes to call it

Haven't watched it yet.

I’d tolerate sharing an island with them but draw the line at sharing a state with them! )

You shouldn't mistake fleggers for the average Unionist. They're not all that different to the rest of us tbh.

So their choice is not between who doesn’t want them and who does. It is between who doesn’t want them and who really, really doesn’t want them!

I honestly think Ireland would have had a less dysfunctional 'youth' if there'd been (former) Unionists sitting in the Dail. I don't think the RCC would have had half the stranglehold over the institutions of the state had this been the case.

Painted Pony wrote: »

You’re right. The British don’t give a toss about them. But neither do we here in the South (nor do nationalists in the North for that matter). Indeed many of us are pretty hostile to them. (I’d tolerate sharing an island with them but draw the line at sharing a state with them! )

So their choice is not between who doesn’t want them and who does. It is between who doesn’t want them and who really, really doesn’t want them!

Depends on how you view giving a toss- the UK establishment wants to maintain a foothold in Ireland as they see it as a back door, historically the UUP (much less so the DUP) have been very useful to the Tories in Westminster. Jack Straw outlined clearly a few reasons why from their point of view Northern Ireland is best for them in the Union. Also say what you want about the Ulster Scots but we have tremendous energy and a certain quirkiness and unpredictability which is just what the south needs. I accept that this is horribly misdirected at the moment.