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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The story of what led bobby sands to join the IRA

245

Comments

  • #52
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Zaph wrote: »
    You do realise to most normal, decent people it doesn't matter a damn whether it was the IRA or the INLA or whoever the hell else was at it that were responsible for any given act of violence. Murder is murder, everything else is just details.

    It certainly did matter at the time in the recent iraq war would it matter if the United States was slaughtering innocent civilians on purpose? Or would it not matter who it was.


  • #53
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,336 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    jack923 wrote: »
    It was a reply to someone who mentioned it.

    So? Whether it was a reply or not is irrelevant, it was still a stupid statement.


  • #54
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Sure it is. That great philosopher Baroness Thatcher expounded that one.

    The Queen of Britain certainly didn’t think that, otherwise she wouldn't have put medals around the necks of the murderes of bloody sunday.


  • #55
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I've never before heard such claptrap. Pacifism is actually quite a sick ideology.

    Agreed. That's a moronic statement.


  • #56
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Zaph wrote: »
    So? Whether it was a reply or not is irrelevant, it was still a stupid statement.

    It was just stating a fact he said how many would be killed if they were careless and I replied.


  • #57
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Look OP, I feel a sorry for you here. It might seem tempting to look at people from the past who found themselves in desperate situations* and be impressed by how they took action and had the courage of their convictions.

    But step back and look at it. People resorted to murder to try and obtain their rights and others resorted to murder to protect what they feared others world take from them. How does this make any sense? How do you protect human rights by taking life itself?

    Acting with conviction doesn't make you right.

    Now look at the result of their actions? What would have have happened if there had been no armed violence? - probably about 15-20 years of things being crap for Catholics but with gradual change in the right direction and eventually parity without the animosity or polarisation.

    Instead violence lead to decades of death, polarised and divided communities and hatred, further shaping people into thinking that violence and hatred are the only options. This is still going on today and is still the dominant force in northern Ireland.

    OP, you have the benefit of being in a much less shìtty position than the people who made those mistakes¤. Please don't think of this as looking at two sides and picking the right one. They were both idiots. But it's everyone else - the people who didn't believe in violence but had it forced on them, the people who are caught in the world misshapen by others, and the people who haven't been born yet who are forced to pay the price for their mistakes.



    *And I agree that they were horrible times for Catholics. No doubt that many were treated with a lot less than their civil rights or Hunan dignity.
    ¤unless you're writing this from Syria, in which case you have my sympathy.


  • #58
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I've never before heard such claptrap. Pacifism is actually quite a sick ideology.

    ...you came across somewhat differently in your book...


  • #59
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Look OP, I feel a sorry for you here. It might seem tempting to look at people from the past who found themselves in desperate situations* and be impressed by how they took action and had the courage of their convictions.

    But step back and look at it. People resorted to murder to try and obtain their rights and others resorted to murder to protect what they feared others world take from them. How does this make any sense? How do you protect human rights by taking life itself?

    Acting with conviction doesn't make you right.

    Now look at the result of their actions? What would have have happened if there had been no armed violence? - probably about 15-20 years of things being crap for Catholics but with gradual change in the right direction and eventually parity without the animosity or polarisation.

    Instead violence lead to decades of death, polarised and divided communities and hatred, further shaping people into thinking that violence and hatred are the only options. This is still going on today and is still the dominant force in northern Ireland.

    OP, you have the benefit of being in a much less shìtty position than the people who made those mistakes¤. Please don't think of this as looking at two sides and picking the right one. They were both idiots. But it's everyone else - the people who didn't believe in violence but had it forced on them, the people who are caught in the world misshapen by others, and the people who haven't been born yet who are forced to pay the price for their mistakes.



    *And I agree that they were horrible times for Catholics. No doubt that many were treated with a lot less than their civil rights or Hunan dignity.
    ¤unless you're writing this from Syria, in which case you have my sympathy.

    I do agree with you to an extent but the people couldn't see into the future at that time, the people at that time thought that the only way to make things better in the long run was to resort to violence to achieve appropriate protection to their communities and for a better future for their children and to fight back and achieve a United Ireland in which their communities would be protected by the likes of the gardai and the Irish army if necessary and then to work on peace from there.

    The people at that time thought their children were going to have no future, they thought the only future their children would have was discrimination and hatred and that fighting back was the only way to achieve a good future for their children.

    I don't consider these people monsters like some people do I consider them people who fought for what they believed was not only right but necessary and many of them gave their lives to try and achieve it, I consider them heroes to be completely honest.


  • #60
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Look OP, I feel a sorry for you here. It might seem tempting to look at people from the past who found themselves in desperate situations* and be impressed by how they took action and had the courage of their convictions.

    But step back and look at it. People resorted to murder to try and obtain their rights and others resorted to murder to protect what they feared others world take from them. How does this make any sense? How do you protect human rights by taking life itself?

    Acting with conviction doesn't make you right.

    Now look at the result of their actions? What would have have happened if there had been no armed violence? - probably about 15-20 years of things being crap for Catholics but with gradual change in the right direction and eventually parity without the animosity or polarisation.

    Instead violence lead to decades of death, polarised and divided communities and hatred, further shaping people into thinking that violence and hatred are the only options. This is still going on today and is still the dominant force in northern Ireland.

    OP, you have the benefit of being in a much less shìtty position than the people who made those mistakes¤. Please don't think of this as looking at two sides and picking the right one. They were both idiots. But it's everyone else - the people who didn't believe in violence but had it forced on them, the people who are caught in the world misshapen by others, and the people who haven't been born yet who are forced to pay the price for their mistakes.



    *And I agree that they were horrible times for Catholics. No doubt that many were treated with a lot less than their civil rights or Hunan dignity.
    ¤unless you're writing this from Syria, in which case you have my sympathy.

    As I said it's quite easy to look at history and say this is what should have happened but the people at that time don't know that and don't forget 1916 was very recent history there is no doubt they were inspired by that.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Look OP, I feel a sorry for you here. It might seem tempting to look at people from the past who found themselves in desperate situations* and be impressed by how they took action and had the courage of their convictions.

    But step back and look at it. People resorted to murder to try and obtain their rights and others resorted to murder to protect what they feared others world take from them. How does this make any sense? How do you protect human rights by taking life itself?

    Acting with conviction doesn't make you right.

    Now look at the result of their actions? What would have have happened if there had been no armed violence? - probably about 15-20 years of things being crap for Catholics but with gradual change in the right direction and eventually parity without the animosity or polarisation.

    Instead violence lead to decades of death, polarised and divided communities and hatred, further shaping people into thinking that violence and hatred are the only options. This is still going on today and is still the dominant force in northern Ireland.

    OP, you have the benefit of being in a much less shìtty position than the people who made those mistakes¤. Please don't think of this as looking at two sides and picking the right one. They were both idiots. But it's everyone else - the people who didn't believe in violence but had it forced on them, the people who are caught in the world misshapen by others, and the people who haven't been born yet who are forced to pay the price for their mistakes.



    *And I agree that they were horrible times for Catholics. No doubt that many were treated with a lot less than their civil rights or Hunan dignity.
    ¤unless you're writing this from Syria, in which case you have my sympathy.

    And also please don't forget that peaceful means were attempted first, civil rights marches and such were attempted but we're beaten off the streets by police and loyalists. The IRA decided that peaceful means would be best but when that didn't work they brought back their military campaign but was strictly defensive I believe they started their offensive campaign in 1972.


  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jack923 wrote: »
    And also please don't forget that peaceful means were attempted first, civil rights marches and such were attempted but we're beaten off the streets by police and loyalists. The IRA decided that peaceful means would be best but when that didn't work they brought back their military campaign but was strictly defensive I believe they started their offensive campaign in 1972.

    And what was the result of their military campaign?


  • #63
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    bubblypop wrote: »
    And what was the result of their military campaign?

    Too hard to say


  • #64
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    jack923 wrote: »
    Too hard to say

    Same as previous IRA campaigns, for example the 1956-1962 IRA campaign.

    Interesting to note that in the 1940's, and during the 1956-1962 campaign, hundreds of extremist Republicans were interned on both sides of the border, by both governments. Some IRA men even went on hunger strike in the 1940's here in prison in the Republic and died.
    jack923 wrote: »
    As I said it's quite easy to look at history and say this is what should have happened but the people at that time don't know that and don't forget 1916 was very recent history there is no doubt they were inspired by that.
    I bet you were also inspired by one side of the story and never heard the other side.


  • #65
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    maryishere wrote: »
    I bet you were also inspired by one side of the story and never heard the other side.

    I bet you, like I, was lucky enough not to be born into the Troubles on either side in Northern Ireland?


  • #66
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    jack923 wrote: »
    Of course not, you know.... in a war you usually don't give the enemy a choice in the matter

    kids out shopping with their mothers ? big brave men all right.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zaph wrote: »
    You do realise to most normal, decent people it doesn't matter a damn whether it was the IRA or the INLA or whoever the hell else was at it that were responsible for any given act of violence. Murder is murder, everything else is just details.

    Its easy to ride the high horse of moral sensibility growing up in your safe house in Dublin, having never faced discrimination on a daily basis by a state who's sole purpose was to look after one section of society only and to diminish the rights of the other side. Never had family members harassed and assaulted at the hands of what were supposed to be the police force of fair law and never were burned out of their homes by loyalist mobs who wanted to banish Irish Catholics, Nationalists and Republicans from the face of the planet.

    Most men of violence were a product of their environment and if a state treats sections of a society with utter contempt then why is any body with a rational brain surprised that the result is violence and misery?


  • #68
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Its easy to ride the high horse of moral sensibility growing up in your safe house in Dublin, having never faced discrimination on a daily basis by a state who's sole purpose was to look after one section of society only and to diminish the rights of the other side. Never had family members harassed and assaulted at the hands of what were supposed to be the police force of fair law and never were burned out of their homes by loyalist mobs who wanted to banish Irish Catholics, Nationalists and Republicans from the face of the planet.

    Most men of violence were a product of their environment and if a state treats sections of a society with utter contempt then why is any body with a rational brain surprised that the result is violence and misery?

    Plenty of Catholics up north experienced exactly that and far worse, they still didn't join the cowardly terrorist scum that is the 'IRA' and get their rocks off murdering and terrorising women and kids.


  • #69
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Plenty of Catholics up north experienced exactly that and far worse.

    And they did nothing


  • #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Plenty of Catholics up north experienced exactly that and far worse, they still didn't join the cowardly terrorist scum that is the 'IRA' and get their rocks off murdering and terrorising women and kids.

    They started Civil Rights movement to address the inequality when it came to jobs, inability to vote, social housing, gerrymandering where voting was possible, but the civil rights movement was ignored and derided by the unionist state, and literally resulted in a loss of rights (right to peaceful protest etc)

    A state which cannot facilitate peaceful protest has to expect violent resistance.


  • #71
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They started Civil Rights movement to address the inequality when it came to jobs, inability to vote, social housing, gerrymandering where voting was possible, but the civil rights movement was ignored and derided by the unionist state, and literally resulted in a loss of rights (right to peaceful protest etc)

    And plenty of people on those marches did not turn to killing women and kids.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Jesus. wrote: »
    And they did nothing

    The people who actually brought peace to NI were those who did not resort to violence.


  • #73
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Sure it is. That great philosopher Baroness Thatcher expounded that one.

    Thatcher you say.

    Isn't she the one who let a fellow MP starve to death rather than let him wear his own clothes?


  • #74
    FrKurtFahrt
    Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭FrKurtFahrt


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    The people who actually brought peace to NI were those who did not resort to violence.

    Nonsense! There were many people who had served time for violence (on both sides) and haved subsequently been involved in the peace talks, and indeed many are still sitting in Stormont.


  • #75
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    FrKurtFahrt wrote: »
    Nonsense! There were many people who had served time for violence (on both sides) and haved subsequently been involved in the peace talks, and indeed many are still sitting in Stormont.

    Peace, not killing women and kids like they used to you mean ?


  • #76
    FrKurtFahrt
    Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭FrKurtFahrt


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Peace, not killing women and kids like they used to you mean ?

    You've lost me


  • #77
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Thatcher you say.

    Isn't she the one who let a fellow MP starve to death rather than let him wear his own clothes?

    Bit more to it than that.

    Sands and the other prisoners wanted to be treated like prisoners of war instead of the criminals they were.


  • #78
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    The people who actually brought peace to NI were those who did not resort to violence.

    So how much would you be willing to take? If they came in and gang-raped your mother in front of you when you were a kid, would you stand up for yourself? I'm just trying to find out where your line is. How far would you have to be demeaned before you hit back at your tormentors?


  • #79
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    And plenty of people on those marches did not turn to killing women and kids.
    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    Peace, not killing women and kids like they used to you mean ?

    You have a thing about women and children.


  • #80
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Yet another thread from the OP that would better belong in the AH forum or, better still, being closed.

    ****



  • #81
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Jesus. wrote: »
    There is..............................in Iran
    It's actually in Northern Iran. Geddit?! ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Sands and the other prisoners wanted to be treated like prisoners of war instead of the criminals they were.

    They had the choice to eat or not. They had the choice to live or not. A choice that was not given to the victims of the IRA.

    Some IRA men went on hunger strike in southern prisons here in the 1940's and Dev let them starve to death. This state has no great record of treating minorities either. The Jews were not treated well here. There were only three protestants in the whole of the Gardai in the 1970's. The Roman Catholic Church abused its powers, covered up child abuse in its ranks, the magdalene laundries scandals and called from the pulpit for the boycott of protestant businesses in Fethard on sea, Co. Wexford. It was a cold house for minorities south of the border as it was north of the border. Still no reason or excuse to resort to terrorism...that only makes things worse and in time gets a response.


  • #83
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Jesus. wrote: »
    So how much would you be willing to take? If they came in and gang-raped your mother in front of you when you were a kid, would you stand up for yourself? I'm just trying to find out where your line is. How far would you have to be demeaned before you hit back at your tormentors?

    It's understandable...that didn't make it right, far from it.

    Their actions were still mistakes, very predictable mistakes. It was selfish to act as they did and cause others to pay for their own sense of self-satisfaction.


  • #84
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    kids out shopping with their mothers ? big brave men all right.

    You can't use that old chest nut, you can say the same for the British army, US army, Russian Army, French army pretty much every army so....


  • #85
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    It's understandable...that didn't make it right, far from it.

    Their actions were still mistakes, very predictable mistakes. It was selfish to act as they did and cause others to pay for their own sense of self-satisfaction.

    What mistakes are you talking about? In general or certain incidents? It's easy to take the gandhi route now with a perfect life in dublin.


  • #86
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    jack923 wrote: »
    You can't use that old chest nut, you can say the same for the British army, US army, Russian Army, French army pretty much every army so....
    The British army, US army, Russian Army, French army etc are and were the armies of a state. In the case of the British army, US army, French army etc a state which had free elections, democracy etc. The British army actually is well respected, even by its enemies, as having a sense of fairness second to none, and did not rape / commit atrocities or human rights violations to any great extent during ww2 on anything unlike the Russians, Germans or Japanese.
    The PIRA was a terrorist organisation, not an army or armed forces of a state.
    In fact the PIRA murdered people in this state, inc Gardai, a soldier and a politician, and committed many other crimes inc robberies.
    jack923 wrote: »
    What mistakes are you talking about?

    All of the IRA campaigns.


  • #87
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Bit more to it than that.

    Sands and the other prisoners wanted to be treated like prisoners of war instead of the criminals they were.

    Well they got their wish in the end, didn't they? They eventually were treated like the POWs that they were.


  • #88
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Even before they went on hunger strike they got better treatment that most prisoners of war ever did. Certainly they got better treatment than their victims, many of who got blown up, maimed etc.


  • #89
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    maryishere wrote: »
    The British army, US army, Russian Army, French army etc are and were the armies of a state. In the case of the British army, US army, French army etc a state which had free elections, democracy etc. The British army actually is well respected, even by its enemies, as having a sense of fairness second to none, and did not rape / commit atrocities or human rights violations to any great extent during ww2 on anything unlike the Russians, Germans or Japanese.
    The PIRA was a terrorist organisation, not an army or armed forces of a state.
    In fact the PIRA murdered people in this state, inc Gardai, a soldier and a politician, and committed many other crimes inc robberies.



    All of the IRA campaigns.

    The IRA were a organisation which tried to free northern Ireland from foreign occupation and oppression, catholics in northern Ireland were denied equal rights by the state.

    The IRA were at war with the state of course they weren't able to vote on it. There is no difference between state terrorism and IRA terrorism, 1916 also falls into the category you mentioned it doesn't make it wrong.

    We are talking about wether in this case that fighting against the state was justified or not, 6 counties were being held in this country against the will of the people of Ireland.


  • #90
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    jack923 wrote: »
    The IRA were a organisation which tried to free northern Ireland from foreign occupation and oppression.
    Well it obviously failed, because despite murdering thousands, injuring tens of thousands, being responsible (along with the INLA) for 99% of the bombings / property destroyed, its leaders are in government helping administer the same foreign occupation and oppression. Terrible thing that foreign occupation and oppression. Did you know that despite being allowed a choice of passports, as many Northern Catholics have chosen to have a UK one as an Irish one?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    Jesus. wrote: »
    You have a thing about women and children.

    No, the IRA had a thing about murdering them


  • #92
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    maryishere wrote: »
    Well it obviously failed, because despite murdering thousands, injuring tens of thousands, being responsible (along with the INLA) for 99% of the bombings / property destroyed, its leaders are in government helping administer the same foreign occupation and oppression. Terrible thing that foreign occupation and oppression. Did you know that despite being allowed a choice of passports, as many Northern Catholics have chosen to have a UK one as an Irish one?

    I'm not discussing now I'm talking about back then most people don't care about where their from they just want to be treated fairly which they weren't which is why in the 70s catholics overwhelmingly wanted to be irish and not British.

    I wouldn't say they failed since fighting for a United Ireland at the time the offensive campaign began was seen as the only way to achieve equality for their people.

    As I said you can't see into the future there comes a time where you either accept your situation or fight.


  • #93
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    jack923 wrote: »
    The IRA were a organisation which tried to free northern Ireland from foreign occupation and oppression, catholics in northern Ireland were denied equal rights by the state.

    The IRA were at war with the state of course they weren't able to vote on it. There is no difference between state terrorism and IRA terrorism, 1916 also falls into the category you mentioned it doesn't make it wrong.

    We are talking about wether in this case that fighting against the state was justified or not, 6 counties were being held in this country against the will of the people of Ireland.

    Northern ireland is very much a separate country to Ireland. The gulf is massive.

    Also, yes - 1916 is another example of stupid decisions leading to slaughter, strife and the future generations being saddled with the consequences.


  • #94
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »
    No, the IRA had a thing about murdering them

    How do you figure that? The IRA along with the British army took measures to avoid killing civilians but of course in a war that can only bring you so far.

    The British army are accused of intentionally killing children like Margaret Gargaran a 13 year old girl who was shot in the head by a sniper alongside the priest who ran to try and help her waving a white towel.


  • #95
    corner of hells
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,409 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    jack923 wrote: »
    The IRA were a organisation which tried to free northern Ireland from foreign occupation and oppression, catholics in northern Ireland were denied equal rights by the state.

    The IRA were at war with the state of course they weren't able to vote on it. There is no difference between state terrorism and IRA terrorism, 1916 also falls into the category you mentioned it doesn't make it wrong.

    We are talking about wether in this case that fighting against the state was justified or not, 6 counties were being held in this country against the will of the people of Ireland.

    You've just deviated off your line there by using the "IRA terrorism ".


  • #96
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    NiallBoo wrote: »
    Northern ireland is very much a separate country to Ireland. The gulf is massive.

    Also, yes - 1916 is another example of stupid decisions leading to slaughter, strife and the future generations being saddled with the consequences.

    Yes the celtic tiger is a terrible consequence of 1916 isn't it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    corner of hells wrote: »
    You've just deviated off your line there by using the "IRA terrorism ".

    By definition it was terrorism.

    Same as 1916, the American war of independence etc. Fighting against the state is terrorism.


  • #98
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    jack923 wrote: »
    The IRA were a organisation which tried to free northern Ireland from foreign occupation and oppression, catholics in northern Ireland were denied equal rights by the state.

    The IRA were at war with the state of course they weren't able to vote on it. There is no difference between state terrorism and IRA terrorism, 1916 also falls into the category you mentioned it doesn't make it wrong.

    We are talking about wether in this case that fighting against the state was justified or not, 6 counties were being held in this country against the will of the people of Ireland.

    Against the will of the people of Ireland??? The Republic of Ireland voted to give up any claim on the 6 counties, that was the level of concern for them and the desire to reclaim them.

    The IRA were/are nothing more cowardly, murdering scum who claimed wrongly to represent the wishes of the majority of the people of this island.


  • #99
    jack923
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭jack923


    Owryan wrote: »
    Against the will of the people of Ireland??? The Republic of Ireland voted to give up any claim on the 6 counties, that was the level of concern for them and the desire to reclaim them.

    The IRA were/are nothing more cowardly, murdering scum who claimed wrongly to represent the wishes of the majority of the people of this island.

    Why do people call them cowards? I don't think storming army barracks with machine guns is very cowardly do you?


  • #100
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    jack923 wrote: »
    I'm not discussing now I'm talking about back then most people don't care about where their from they just want to be treated fairly which they weren't which is why in the 70s catholics overwhelmingly wanted to be irish and not British.

    lol. I bet you were not even around in the 1970's on in N.I. in the 1970's, were you?

    By the way, even Ian Paisley said "I would never deny I was an Irishman"
    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/ian-paisley-i-d-never-deny-i-m-irish-1-6307792


  • #101
    Giacomo McGubbin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Giacomo McGubbin


    jack923 wrote: »
    How do you figure that? The IRA along with the British army took measures to avoid killing civilians but of course in a war that can only bring you so far.

    The British army are accused of intentionally killing children like Margaret Gargaran a 13 year old girl who was shot in the head by a sniper alongside the priest who ran to try and help her waving a white towel.

    And the IRA were no better.
    The IRA were cowardly terrorists who deliberately targeted civilians just as ISIS do, and murdered far more civilians than they ever did soldiers, and far more civilians than the British army did. They didn't like taking on anyone who could fight back, much better to blow up kids out shopping with the mums with litter bin bombs etc, or sneak up to farm houses at night time and shoot people in the back or as they slept. Absolute scum of the highest order.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement