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

Republican Mandate

135678

Comments

  • #62
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    junder wrote: »
    Scotland is very pertinent to this conversation, I find that most republicans support Scottish independence which in actual terms means the creation of two different economic entity's on a small island, and yet turn around and tell us in the context of Northern Ireland that the existence of two sepperate economic entity's on a small island makes no sence.

    Most republicans are pro-letting the scottish people decide their own fate, a courtesy that was never extended to Ireland. Scotland has nothing to do with the discussion, it's a diversionary tactic. We could all drag in the stories of other countries to suit our own ends. This is Ireland, if you want to debate the subject ,deal with Ireland


  • #63
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Leftist wrote: »
    excusing a terrorist attack that killed civilians.

    You'll be doing omagh next. ''they parked in the wrong place''

    Clearly, blatantly, obviously not what i was doing. Your arguments are pathetic.


  • #64
    Leftist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Clearly, blatantly, obviously not what i was doing. Your arguments are pathetic.

    No of course, you weren't excusing it, you were just providing excuses for it.

    ''They didn't mean it''

    If there's anything more pathetic than an IRA sympathiser, it's one who doesn't have the balls to come out and admit it.

    And aren't you the guy who claimed the british army brought over foot and mouth to south armagh on purpose? :D

    I feel sorry for the decent northerners tbh.


  • #65
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Leftist wrote: »
    No of course, you weren't excusing it, you were just providing excuses for it.

    You said they deliberately targeted civilians, I presented evidence, including a quote from a victim, proving otherwise.

    Leftist wrote: »
    If there's anything more pathetic than an IRA sympathiser, it's one who doesn't have the balls to come out and admit it.

    I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA. They were a sadly necessary product of the time. That doesnt mean I wont criticise actions that were wrong and it certainly doesnt mean I wish to celebrate the deaths of others. Equally, if somebody makes a deliberately false statement, I will correct them.
    Leftist wrote: »
    And aren't you the guy who claimed the british army brought over foot and mouth to south armagh on purpose? :D

    Nope, more lies from your good self. I see a pattern here. I said they way the tramped from farm to farm, breaking down hedges and fences allowing different herds to mix and showing no regard for the decontamination mats set up contributed greatly to the spread of diseases like Foot and Mouth and TB. But you feel free to spread whatever lies you like, I dont think anyone takes you seriously at this stage.
    Leftist wrote: »
    I feel sorry for the decent northerners tbh.

    I know, having to listen to the likes of you, but we persevere, secure in the knowledge that most of our fellow countrymen in the south, west, east and midlands dont have the same dysfunctional mindset as yourself.


  • #66
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA. They were a sadly necessary product of the time. That doesnt mean I wont criticise actions that were wrong and it certainly doesnt mean I wish to celebrate the deaths of others. Equally, if somebody makes a deliberately false statement, I will correct them.
    Why do you support murderers?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    An Coilean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭An Coilean


    Leftist wrote: »
    Did those people plant a bomb in a take away specifically to kill a bunch of civilians? The fact that you even suggest a comparison is enough to show that you agree with this plaque. Absolutely disgusting.


    Well, there was the croud who dropped tonnes and tonnes of bombs on German cities, specifically to kill a bunch of civilians.

    The RAF I think they were called. Is commerating them also 'Absolutely Disgusting'?


  • #68
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Why do you support murderers?

    Ok well put it like this.

    Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?

    Or are you going to tell me if Britain was invaded tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and accept it's fate, all because if they fight back innocent people will die?

    No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

    Did Britain care much then?


  • #69
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Ok well put it like this.

    Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?

    Or are you going to tell me if Britain was invaded tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and accept it's fate, all because if they fight back innocent people will die?

    No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

    Did Britain care much then?
    So you have no problem with Protestants fighting then? As that is the way it would be seen from non Republicans going by that logic.


  • #70
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    So you have no problem with Protestants fighting then? As that is the way it would be seen from non Republicans going by that logic.

    So the republican Irish people were the invaders?

    I see.


  • #71
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    So the republican Irish people were the invaders?

    I see.
    To Protestants/Unionists, yes. To them it is sacred land.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    To Protestants/Unionists, yes. To them it is sacred land.

    How can you invade a country you have lived in all your life?

    Surely if this is the case then unionists should have sympathy with republicans?

    You must be on a wind up at this stage.


  • #73
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    How can you invade a country you have lived in all your life?

    You're must be on a wind up at this stage.
    Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.


  • #74
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.

    Yes and so have republicans, but they seen the British army arrive and shoot innocent human right marchers dead.

    So once again how is this the same as unionists been invaded?


  • #75
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Yes and so have republicans, but they seen the British army arrive and shoot innocent human right marchers dead.

    So once again how is this the same as unionists been invaded?
    One of the first killed by the British Army was a Loyalist. Two different peoples with different ideologies.


  • #76
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    One of the first killed by the British Army was a Loyalist. Two different peoples with different ideologies.

    Oh so now the British army were invading unionists?

    I really have no idea what you're trying to claim, and for that reason i'm out.


  • #77
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »

    No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

    Did Britain care much then?

    Claim back?

    Lol.


  • #78
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Oh so now the British army were invading unionists?

    I really have no idea what you're trying to claim, and for that reason i'm out.
    They got sent in to protect Nationalists at that time. It didn't turn out well but that is what happened.


  • #79
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Claim back?

    Lol.

    Yes.

    Lol.


  • #80
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    jacksparrow, you're wasting your time, you're as well try to explain quantum mechanics to a goat. Or me, for that matter.


  • #81
    Leftist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    Crooked Jack wrote: »




    I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA.

    and there we go. Good, night.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Ok well put it like this.

    Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?


    Oh, the country does but self-appointed vigilantes acting in direct defiance of that country's constitution most certainly do not.

    Anyone so acting is displaying less loyalty to the country they claim to act for than most non-citizens of that country as they usually don't actively act in defiance of another countries constitution.


  • #83
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    View wrote: »
    Oh, the country does but self-appointed vigilantes acting in direct defiance of that country's constitution most certainly do not.

    Anyone so acting so is displaying less loyalty to the country they claim to act for than most non-citizens of that country as they usually don't actively act in defiance of another countries constitution.

    Well why is there a commemoration every year for the 1916 leaders who had no mandate and acted as you suggest?

    And our president and Taoiseach turn up every year to remember the leaders?

    And if the pira didn't fight back, who was coming to help them?


  • #84
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Well why is there a commemoration every year for the 1916 leaders who had no mandate and acted as you suggest?

    And our leaders turn up every year to remember the leaders?

    It is a commeration nothing more. There's one held for all men from Ireland who died in WWI at Islandbridge every year also.

    Are you going to claim it is so we can show we agree with the opinions held by the more ardent Unionist members of the Ulster brigade at the time they fell?


  • #85
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    View wrote: »
    It is a commeration nothing more. There's one held for all men from Ireland who died in WWI at Islandbridge every year also.

    Are you going to claim it is so we can show we agree with the opinions held by the more ardent Unionist members of the Ulster brigade at the time they fell?


    Nope just pointing out we must be all wrong including the leaders of this country in commemorating the 1916 leaders and even though this state was founded on violence, it should not exist so because it didn't have the backing of the people of the island.


  • #86
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    The vast majority of Irishmen and women would support unification, in principle, done correctly, under the right conditions, at some point in the future.

    Note the caveats.


  • #87
    first doyle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 42 ✭first doyle


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.

    The 6 counties aren't exclusively Protestant Unionist, it's the great myth that goes with the territory.


  • #88
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    Once again a thread on NI has deteriorated into the usual tit for tat sniping. I'm calling it a day at this stage.


  • #89
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Nope just pointing out we must be all wrong including the leaders of this country in commemorating the 1916 leaders and even though this state was founded on violence, it should not exist so because it didn't have the backing of the people of the island.

    This state wasn't founded on violence.

    Today's (Republic of) Ireland is a direct successors to the Irish Free State - which as the treaty of the time made clear - was a Dominion within the then British Empire with the same status as Canada etc. as a result of a decision of the then UK of GB&I parliament (Read the treaty if you dispute that).

    You can agree with that decision or not but ultimately though, so what?

    It is practically ancient history at this stage. Half the countries in Europe have been born, eliminated and re-born in the intervening time.

    Today, we have a State to which all Irish citizens owe fealty and that means respecting its laws not those of self-appointed people who have as much respect for our constitution as Unionists have.

    The path is open for anyone to bring about peaceful unification. That involves building a realistic credible case for a peaceful future and PERSUADING people (especially Unionists) of the merits of that case. All the rights and wrongs of the past won't build one iota of that case but they CAN hinder it by being a distraction to that case.


  • #90
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Why would you presume that, the two issues are hardly comparable. A united Ireland makes sense, a united one-nation Europe would be unwieldy and probably impossible to govern given the differences between dozens of countries.
    That's precisely the response I was expecting. There are incredibly enormous economies of scale to be achieved in a country precisely the size of this island, but any attempt to achieve any such economies of scale on a larger level couldn't possibly work, because any country bigger than this island would be unwieldy and ungovernable. I guess that's why there are no existing countries bigger than this island, right?
    This post and a previous one also highlights one of the dafter tactics of the anti-Republican crowd. Unable to base your argument or challenge an opposing argument on the actual issues at hand you start waffling about Scotland or Europe. It's a distraction tactic and nothing else.
    On the contrary, it was designed to elicit exactly the sort of magical thinking you've just perfectly espoused.

    The "economies of scale" claim is an even more compelling argument for rejoining the UK than it is for uniting the island, but - for some reason - that idea probably doesn't appeal to you. Why not come right out and admit that you'll believe any argument (however flimsy) that leads to your desired outcome, while dismissing without a second thought any argument (however compelling) that doesn't?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    View wrote: »
    The path is open for anyone to bring about peaceful unification. That involves building a realistic credible case for a peaceful future and PERSUADING people (especially Unionists) of the merits of that case. All the rights and wrongs of the past won't build one iota of that case but they CAN hinder it by being a distraction to that case.
    Hush, you. You're either with them or you're against them.


Advertisement