Protestors disrupting World War 1 commemoration at Glasnevin

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I doubt that.
You should loom to your own credibility. The sad part is that every excuse is wheeled out - not least the Southern partition one to excuse your hate and angst ridden mindset.
The real pity here is that as you apout so the soft if head will listen and thus the bitter harvest continues theough the years...

You do know that the conflict from 69 ws a direct result of the South tacitly accepting partition and leaving Irish men and women at the mercy of a sectarian statelet and that those who ran that statelet are still vehemently and sometimes violently opposed to the normalisation of that statelet?
There is still work to be done, work that the south reneged on.

Wash your hands all you want, it doesn't absolve any Irish person who stands by and lets that happen just so they can sleep safe at night.

RollieFingers wrote: »

So you have moved on. but you will continue to bring the past up? That's not really moving on then is it?

Why bring the past up commemorating the past deeds of the British Army? Move on you say and forget their past yet we have glorification ceremonies!!

Strazdas wrote: »

True, although they would have been regarded as "Irishmen" at the time....there were just the four nationalities as part of the UK : English, Irish (covering the entire island), Scottish and Welsh.

You're being technical now

Any Unionist back then and now still classify themselves as British flying the UK flag proudly from their back gardens and parading etc. It about perspective, some of those 50,000 were British from NI and not Irish by their own choice.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Okay I'll make this very simple because you are difficult to understand or are deliberately being obtuse.

Do you think the relatives of those killed by the British Army in the north should be entitled to have the soldiers investigated/prosecuted for murder?

No. I don't agree that seeing low ranking individuals put before the courts would serve asjustice.
The blame lies with the State.

RollieFingers

moxin wrote: »

Why bring the past up commemorating the past deeds of the British Army? Move on you say and forget their past yet we have glorification ceremonies!!

As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do know that the conflict from 69...

You mean lawless criminality here yes?

LordSutch

moxin wrote: »

Some of those 50,000 from modern day NI were not Irish in their own definition of being British and Unionist.

I guess that also applied to many from the South too who (at that time) would have been british as well as being Irish, (this would have been the norm at that time). Then the surge in Irish Nationalism post WWI resulted in the switch from being british (with a small b) to being Irish with a capital I.

So what if many of the Irish soldiers were Irish/British/Unionist men? We must try and look at the events of that time through their eyes and their allegiances, which meant that there was one army "The British Army", which was the army of Britain & Ireland at the time.

Quarter of a million Irish men joined up during the Great War, and fifty thousand of them died.

Hence the Glasnevin commemoration.

RollieFingers wrote: »

As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.

What you are really saying is

'why can't you forget all the things I don't want to accept happened or deal with'

Sure tell the Americans that 9-11 is 'in the past' get over it or tell the Jews, that the Holocaust is history now, get on with it.*

*(awaits the idiots coming on thread waving their Godwin theories as if it was original)

end of the road

Hunterbiker wrote: »

No. I don't agree that seeing low ranking individuals put before the courts would serve asjustice.
The blame lies with the State.

why not, the low ranking knew exactly what they were doing, they are to blame as well as the state

Hunterbiker wrote: »

You mean lawless criminality here yes?

Sleep tight...your clarity of thought won't be keeping you awake anyway.

Hunterbiker wrote: »

No.

There you have it folks. A person who believes murderers should be immune from prosecution because they were wearing British Army uniforms.

Lovely.

Karl Stein wrote: »

There you have it folks. A person who believes murdered should be immune from prosecution.

Lovely.

You couldn't invent them, could you?

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess that also applied to many from the South too who (at that time) would have been british as well as being Irish, (this would have been the norm at that time). Then the surge in Irish Nationalism post WWI resulted in the switch from being british (with a small b) to being Irish with a capital I.

So what if many of the Irish soldiers were Irish/British/Unionist men? We must try and look at the events of that time through their eyes and their allegiances, which meant that there was one army "The British Army", which was the army of Britain & Ireland at the time.

Quarter of a million Irish men joined up during the Great War, and fifty thousand of them died.

Hence the Glasnevin commemoration.

So what you say. As some of them(was it 20,000?) were British/Unionist in their own eyes, perhaps respect their view? They did not belong to this state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I

The number of Irish deaths in the British Army recorded by the registrar general was 27,405, a casualty rate of 14 percent, roughly in line with the rest of the British forces.[53] By contrast, the National War Memorial at Islandbridge, Dublin is dedicated "to the memory of the 49,400 Irish soldiers who gave their lives in the Great War, 1914–1918".[68] This figure is often questioned. Recent estimates for Northern Ireland are given at up to 20,000 casualties, and between 30,000 to 35,000 for the whole of Ireland. It has been suggested that the often-cited death toll of 40–50,000 refers to all the fatalities in the Irish Divisions. In fact, only 71 percent of the casualties in these Divisions were natives of Ireland.[25] According to the Irish National War Memorial, the figure of 49,400 is inclusive of recent Irish immigrants living in America.

Madam

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Come on its been at least 24 hrs for you to get your facts right on this.

Eh?

RollieFingers wrote: »

As a mark of respect to the dead, similarly to how nobody would have a problem with remembering the Republican dead in N.I!

But moving on does not include plans to always bring up the past and constantly referring to the British Army as the "enemy", when, in this day and age, they clearly aren't.

You'll find many objections to remembrance of Republican dead in NI, the latest a while back being that parade in Castlederg. Upcoming is a similar parade being objected to by Unionists in Fermanagh. The same people who have no objections to remembering Loyalist killers.

But anyway as we're moving on, its quite odd that prosecutions are rigourously sought against past crimes by Republicans yet no prosecutions are sought against British Army crimes in NI(we know of Bloody Sunday, there is Ballymurphy also to name a few). If there is a moving on, do a clean slate for all.

RollieFingers

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are really saying is

'why can't you forget all the things I don't want to accept happened or deal with'

Sure tell the Americans that 9-11 is 'in the past' get over it or tell the Jews, that the Holocaust is history now, get on with it.*

*(awaits the idiots coming on thread waving their Godwin theories as if it was original)

That's not what I'm saying at all!
The British Army are not our enemy in this day and age, so why refer to them as such?

Mosby61

RollieFingers wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying at all!
The British Army are not our enemy in this day and age, so why refer to them as such?

Delusions of grandeur. No other reason for it.

Now who's twisting things...

Having lived through years of bloody violence I honestly do not see the point in processing these crimes through the Courts. No matter what side a person was on it serves no real purpose. In my view.
As I am sure those who support the shouters at Glasnevin will agree a different opinion is allowed.

moxin wrote: »

But anyway as we're moving on, its quite odd that prosecutions are rigourously sought against past crimes by Republicans...r all.

I agree with this. I see little point in taking people to Court when the liklihood of a realistic sentence is nil.
A line needs to be drawn and it might as well be up to the GFA

Madam

Madam wrote: »

Eh?

Oh and by the way perhaps if I wasn't clear - what I said about my dad and his brother I did mean the second world war not the first:o

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Now who's twisting things...

Own your words.

I honestly do not see the point in processing these crimes through the Courts.

I don't care what you think. I care what the families of the murdered think.

No matter what side a person was on it serves no real purpose.

Leaving collusion aside the BA killed 150 innocent men, women, and children. Explain to me what 'side' these civilians were on? Actually don't bother.

As I am sure those who support the shouters at Glasnevin will agree a different opinion is allowed.

'If you're not with us you're with the terrorists'. I remember when George Bush used that pathetic false dilemma to destroy Iraq. Now you're using it in a failed attempt to discredit me for highlighting your moral bankruptcy.

Keep digging.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Own your words.

I don't care what you think. I care what the families of the murdered think.

Leaving collusion aside the BA killed 150 innocent men, women, and children. Explain to me what 'side' these civilians were on? Actually don't bother.

'If you're not with us you're with the terrorists'. I remember when George Bush used that pathetic false dilemma to destroy Iraq. Now you're using it in a failed attempt to discredit me for highlighting your moral bankruptcy.

Keep digging.

I seriously doubt seeing oldmen handed down 2 years and likely get off on appeal will appease the families.

PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
why not add Tony Blair?

Hunterbiker wrote: »

PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
why not add Tony Blair?

Eh, the BA were not supposed to be terrorists and they represent a sovereign law abiding nation.

Along with the 150 or so unarmed Irish men women and kids(yes there were kids shot dead by the BA), there were another 120 civilians murdered by the Glenane Gang. God knows how many more killings were outsourced to Loyalists.

And this is insignificant to you??

Hunterbiker wrote: »

I seriously doubt seeing oldmen handed down 2 years and likely get off on appeal will appease the families.

You've spoken to them have you? You've carried out interviews to see how they feel? Or are you just pulling this out of your butt? The latter question is rhetorical.

PIRA certainly balanced up those 150 through events like Omagh and other atrocities...I will try but your hard headed dislike of balance will deafen your ears.

Whataboutery.

George Bush / Iraq? We are jumping a bit aren't we. Northern Ireland isn't Iraq.
why not add Tony Blair?

It was your false dilemma. Own your words.

We're going to need a ladder to get you out of that hole you've dug yourself into.