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

SoulandForm · 05-10-2013 02:03AM

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.

Manassas61 · 05-10-2013 02:11AM

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.

SoulandForm · 05-10-2013 02:24AM

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 · 05-10-2013 02:31AM

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.

Karl Stein · 05-10-2013 02:49AM

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.

Firewalkwithme · 05-10-2013 03:12AM

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

Iwasfrozen · 05-10-2013 03:20AM

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.

Painted Pony · 05-10-2013 08:29AM

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.

Manassas61 · 05-10-2013 05:01PM

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.

SoulandForm · 05-10-2013 05:19PM

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.

Crooked Jack · 05-10-2013 05:25PM

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 · 05-10-2013 05:32PM

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.

SoulandForm · 05-10-2013 05:42PM

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 · 05-10-2013 05:52PM

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.

Here is a Unionist making the same argument that the idea that there are two different nationalities in northern Ireland that are radically different is nonsense- http://amgobsmacked.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/culturally-british-vs-culturally-irish.html

Manassas61 · 05-10-2013 06:20PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

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.

Ulster Scots is not a language.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2013 08:22PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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

Aah, Jack, you're back.

Prepared to answer my question yet, or will you dodge it on this thread as well.

SoulandForm · 05-10-2013 08:23PM

Manassas61 wrote: »

Ulster Scots is not a language.

What is it than?

Crooked Jack · 05-10-2013 11:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah, Jack, you're back.

Prepared to answer my question yet, or will you dodge it on this thread as well.

Answer what?

Ps-thats hilarious, you of all people talking about dodging questions

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 08:59AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Answer what?

Ps-thats hilarious, you of all people talking about dodging questions

Sod it, May as well push this one last time, hopefully it will help take the blinkers off.

Le Mon restaurant, Warrington and pubs in Birmingham were all bombed at peak times, when those place were packed full of people.

You claim this was to cause the maximum disruption, but to whom?

If they were economic targets, bombing them at 5am would have closed those businesses and minimised the loss of life.

So, who were they trying to disrupt, if the goal was to cause maximum disruption?

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 09:29AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sod it, May as well push this one last time, hopefully it will help take the blinkers off.

Le Mon restaurant, Warrington and pubs in Birmingham were all bombed at peak times, when those place were packed full of people.

You claim this was to cause the maximum disruption, but to whom?

If they were economic targets, bombing them at 5am would have closed those businesses and minimised the loss of life.

So, who were they trying to disrupt, if the goal was to cause maximum disruption?

I've answered this a dozen times in a dozen different threads. Now I cant speak for the IRA, but clearly, a bomb at peak business time is going to cause far more disruption across an entire area, with closed roads and streets on top of everything else. If you actually look into what happened in any of these incidents, instead of just reading the roaring Daily Mail headlines of the day, you'll gain a better understanding not just into these events, but into the Troubles as a whole.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, which you seem quite happy to ignore, if the aim is the spread terror and kill as many people as possible, why give warnings, why issue apologies when civilians are killed, why stand down units that took risks with civilian casualties and why, for the amount of IRA attacks carried out over 30 years, were civilian casualties so relatively low?

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 09:40AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've answered this a dozen times in a dozen different threads. Now I cant speak for the IRA, but clearly, a bomb at peak business time is going to cause far more disruption across an entire area, with closed roads and streets on top of everything else. If you actually look into what happened in any of these incidents, instead of just reading the roaring Daily Mail headlines of the day, you'll gain a better understanding not just into these events, but into the Troubles as a whole.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, which you seem quite happy to ignore, if the aim is the spread terror and kill as many people as possible, why give warnings, why issue apologies when civilians are killed, why stand down units that took risks with civilian casualties and why, for the amount of IRA attacks carried out over 30 years, were civilian casualties so relatively low?

Disruption to who?

Godge · 07-10-2013 10:03AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've answered this a dozen times in a dozen different threads. Now I cant speak for the IRA, but clearly, a bomb at peak business time is going to cause far more disruption across an entire area, with closed roads and streets on top of everything else. If you actually look into what happened in any of these incidents, instead of just reading the roaring Daily Mail headlines of the day, you'll gain a better understanding not just into these events, but into the Troubles as a whole.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, which you seem quite happy to ignore, if the aim is the spread terror and kill as many people as possible, why give warnings, why issue apologies when civilians are killed, why stand down units that took risks with civilian casualties and why, for the amount of IRA attacks carried out over 30 years, were civilian casualties so relatively low?

(1) The timing led to more deaths
(2) Many of the warnings were inadequate at best
(3) What apologies? I don't accept an apology from a child without a promise of better behaviour in future - and better warnings for the next bomb is not a promise of better behaviour.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 10:12AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Disruption to who?

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

Godge · 07-10-2013 10:20AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

Mass killings of citizens through massive no-warning bombs would have ended popular support in Northern Ireland for the IRA. That is the reality of the strategic decision that the IRA took.

Much better to plant lesser bombs with inadequate warnings. Then they could point to the police as being as fault and avoid blame from their own supporters with the added advantage of terrorising the mainland UK population.

A cynical approach with little regard for human life.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 10:24AM

Godge wrote: »

(1) The timing led to more deaths

Blatant lies. Are you actually insinuating that less people would have been killed if the IRA hadn't given warnings.

Godge wrote: »

(2) Many of the warnings were inadequate at best

True. These incidents were largely down to either the IRA being inexperienced in the early years of the conflict, or inexperienced volunteers carrying out attacks later in the conflict when others were dead or in jail. Neither of these reasons are an excuse, as civilian safety should have been to the forefront of their minds, but they are a reason and at the very least show that civilians were not the target.
I'd also question your use of the word "many." Obviously, it's not a word with a fixed quantity but given the number of civilian casualties over the years, measured against the number of explosive devices detonated, I'd say it would be more accurate to say that "some" warnings were inadequate at best.

Godge wrote: »

(3) What apologies?

Several attacks that led to civilian deaths were followed up with statements of apology or regret. The IRA also issued an unreserved apology to the families of all non-combatants killed following its ceasefire.

Godge wrote: »

I don't accept an apology from a child without a promise of better behaviour in future - and better warnings for the next bomb is not a promise of better behaviour.

So what are you suggesting then, that the IRA just roll over and let loyalists and the state have their merry way? Need I remind you that the provos were the last to get involved in offensive action during the conflict and the first to put an end to the violence.

Fratton Fred · 07-10-2013 10:28AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Commerce, traffic, business, the wider economy as part of a concerted campaign. You can try and twist this any way you want but the fact remains if the IRA just wanted to kill loads of English people, why not just place massive no-warning bombs in densely populated areas? Every historian of note looking at the conflict agrees that the IRA had no interest in killing civilians, Tim Pat Coogan goes so far as to note that one of the reasons it took people in England so long to cop on to what was happening in Ireland was because when attacking England the IRA resisted "going for the jugular."

For a man who was complaining that someone ignored his questions you sure went silent on the points I raised.

I'm no expert on bombings, but incidents I have been affected by have shown me that when a bomb is detonated, commerce, business and traffic were affected for days, if not weeks after. You should have seen the bedlam around Hammersmith when staples corner was bombed.

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

Warnings we're given, but often wrong, misleading or at too short notice. Partly because they wanted to keep casualties to an acceptable level, partly so they could give an excuse of "oh, sorry, we tried our best"

Often though, no warning was given at all.

And who has apologised?

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 10:29AM

Godge wrote: »

Mass killings of citizens through massive no-warning bombs would have ended popular support in Northern Ireland for the IRA. That is the reality of the strategic decision that the IRA took.

Much better to plant lesser bombs with inadequate warnings. Then they could point to the police as being as fault and avoid blame from their own supporters with the added advantage of terrorising the mainland UK population.

A cynical approach with little regard for human life.

Baseless waffle. So the IRA terrorised people by not terrorising them, except for a little bit the odd time.

I also heard that the IRA was this scary monster that crawled out of the sea one day and just started killing people for no reason.

Crooked Jack · 07-10-2013 10:32AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm no expert on bombings, but incidents I have been affected by have shown me that when a bomb is detonated, commerce, business and traffic were affected for days, if not weeks after. You should have seen the bedlam around Hammersmith when staples corner was bombed.

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

Warnings we're given, but often wrong, misleading or at too short notice. Partly because they wanted to keep casualties to an acceptable level, partly so they could give an excuse of "oh, sorry, we tried our best"

Often though, no warning was given at all.

And who has apologised?

Same as I said to Godge, utterly baseless waffle. A little research will show you what the IRA actually wanted.

And, again, same as I said to Godge, the IRA apologised.

FTA69 · 07-10-2013 10:41AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

What is it than?

A Ballymena accent.

SoulandForm · 07-10-2013 10:46AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The reality is, the IRA wanted to terrorise people. OK, I'll agree they avoided the Al Qeada style spectacular because they didn't want to create too many headlines in the US, where their funding was coming from. But they had to kill people, they had to show they meant what they said.

I think it was more to do with headlines in Ireland than with headlines in the USA; at the start of the troubles they had massive sympathy in the 26 counties but that level dwindled partly indeed to due the media in line with the elite taking a much more hostile approach but also due their own brutality (Bloody Friday, the Braydo bar massacre, etc). Before the Enniskillen massacre Provisional Sinn Fein had been making very strong gains in the north but those gains were halted and indeed set back by that bombing. I would agree with you though that the Birmingham and Warrington bombings were pure acts of terrorism.

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

Comments