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
Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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.Charlie Rock wrote: »The PIRA's aim was to remove the British from the north by force. That's a military objective not a political one.
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.Charlie Rock wrote: »I'm not sure why you're trying to compare the PIRA campaign with the US invasion of Iraq. You'll remember too, I'm sure, that Iraq didn't attack the US and that there was a conspiracy to fool the public into thinking that Saddam had a 45 minute WMD strike capability.
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!Charlie Rock wrote: »Yeah but how does the union with Britain serve this? Do you think the lads in Westminster really give a shit whether a bunch of lads with drums and flutes get to march past the Ardoyne shops or not?
)
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!
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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. 0 -
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?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
We are a unique people. Just different to other groups on the Island. Including the Native Irish.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!0 -
-
-
Yeah well, sorry but I have no real interest in forging a state, or even a nation, with you.Manassas61 wrote: »We are a unique people. Just different to other groups on the Island. Including the Native Irish.
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.0 -
-
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?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement