nazi's and ira were to invade northern ireland

Elmo

We were nutral during the war as we would have been able to afford to go into it, plus the whole thing about fight a war againist the British who we had just fought a war with. After all the 2nd world war was an economic war.

Ireland's Government was not the IRA at that time.

I am sure that more the 60 jews were sent to Ireland. (God I hope so). Also most of europe did not know the full effects of WWII on the jewish in europe.

Ireland did not intern the Americans or the British (They were sent to NI), Ireland did intern Germans.

Meh is making a distinction between the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA. I just call them both the IRA. And I agree 100% with the rest of your point - it was an absolute disgrace and a shameful episode in the history of our country. And we hid behind the cloak of "neutrality" to do it.

I would have though that it was a more shameful and disgraceful episode in Germany History and they did it under the cloak of "Taking over the World".

Victor

the-raptor, I think you are over-reacting a little and might need to chill.

Originally posted by the-raptor
are you trying to stir **** or something you ignorant mother****er did I not say that I USED to be a Shinner but NOT ANYMORE

He only said supporters, not members.

Originally posted by the-raptor
No matter what someone does and tries to change their it's assholes like you who continually tar people / orgs with the same brush.

like you tar all things English?

Pot? Kettle?

jesus_thats_gre

You really are taking an overly simplistic view of the involvement the British et all and the IRA had during the troubles. It was a case of each side doing something ridiculous and other side responding to that. Secondly, the period of time it occurred, the standard of living and what was considered to be socially acceptable is totally different to that of the present day...

It serves no purpose to begin insulting the British of the time as they saw the actions of the IRA as a threat to their security, and rightly so. The IRA on the other hand saw the British as the enemy and occupiers of their country. The British saw the IRA as scum and the IRA saw the British as scum. I know the points I made are very simple, but ye should really take a step back and look at the overall picture of what was going on.

As for reading Gerry Adams new book to experience an unbiassed view of the whole thing, BOLLOX! You are brainwashed my friend.

Elmo

It serves no purpose to begin insulting the British of the time as they saw the actions of the IRA as a threat to their security, and rightly so.

How come this is rightly so and this is not?

The IRA on the other hand saw the British as the enemy and occupiers of their country.

In their own minds they were both right.

The british were wrong during the troubles, and much of the blame can be put on the british governments handling of the situation.

The rise of the IRA can be attributed to the lack of civil rights give to Catholics and Nationalist in Northern Ireland by the Protestant and Unionist Government.

If fear and hate had not been brainwashed into the Protestant/Unionist community and civil rights given to Catholics/Nationalist, there would never have been such a thing as the Troubles.

Fine I realise there will always be Extremists on both sides but if those extream views had not been apparent then we would have had peace.

miju

Originally posted by Victor
the-raptor, I think you are over-reacting a little and might need to chill. He only said supporters, not members. like you tar all things English?

Pot? Kettle?

No Im not cos that comment was specifcally directed at me (.. the probelm with Shiiners like you....)

Oh and I'm still waiting for an explaination as to why my post about the book was stupid.

Originally posted by JesusThatsGreat
[As for reading Gerry Adams new book to experience an unbiassed view of the whole thing, BOLLOX! You are brainwashed my friend. [/B]

Have you read the book? can you comment on the in's and outs of it sure do you even know whats it's called.

How dare you call me brainwashed simply because I am of the opinion that a book is unbiased, informative and honest. Cop the **** on man your accusation that I'm brainwashed is both highly insulting and without merit.

Elmo

book is unbiased, informative and honest.

I am sure the book is Informative and Honest. However I don't know how unbias it can be, I am sure there is some bias coming from the book (Like most if not all books).

But then I would have to read the book to find this out.

Elmo.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Daithi1
The present IRA are really an armed Marxist group and if their compatriots in Sein Fein are now anything to go by Nationalism now seems to take second place to socialism

I have never heard such ill informed rubbish!

Sinn Féin while they like to play the socialist card to gain support in certain areas are FAR FROM SOCIALIST, preferring to approve neo-liberal reforms and health reforms resulting in less ambulances for rural populations in the North; Sinn Féin are a neo-liberal nationalist party and anyone that says otherwise needs to look up the definition of socialism.

ReefBreak

are you trying to stir **** or something you ignorant mother****er did I not say that I USED to be a Shinner but NOT ANYMORE

From my experience, this is also typical Sinn Féin behaviour: Hurl abuse at a person when they don't agree with you.

miju

Originally posted by ReefBreak
From my experience, this is also typical Sinn Féin behaviour: Hurl abuse at a person when they don't agree with you.

well then your obviously not very experienced because Ionly ever met about 1 or 2 people like that when I used to be a member of R.S.F

And what didn't I agree to?

Maybe the phrase "Shinners like you.."

Point being your either trying to stir the **** or are stupid personally I'm leaning towards stupid but I'm gonna give you the benefit of doubt and say your just stirring **** ergo I'll refuse to rise to any of your future comments about me regarding this topic.

Now away you go ReefBreak abd bother me no more

Éomer of Rohan

Not that I am trying to act in place of JC, Gandalf or Swiss but comments like those will get this thread locked so please desist for the sake of the rest of us.

As for ReefBreaks comments about listening to both sides of the 'argument', I think it fundamentally misses the point; the point being that the 'argument' is being perpetuated by well paid, well fed buggers in plush offices who see financial benefit in the only real division that matters for them; the sectarian devision they each try to force down the throats of those who see no division. The Unionists and the Nationalists are both very guilty of this, and it is in the interests of the working class that they decide to make history irrelevent to such an extent that their culture is protected while their gripes can be dealt with in a modern context to ensure such things do not happen again - they can best do this by shutting up the politicos who continually try to stir the situation, regardless of whether they fly a red and blue flag or a green and orange one.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Elmo
Ireland's Government was not the IRA at that time.

Yes but De Valera had of course been in the IRA, split from them in the civil war and then had to deal with another split when he became Taoiseach. Reefbreak seems to be claiming that the IRA/Sinn Fein has always been a national socialist/nazi organisation but that's just incorrect.

I am sure that more the 60 jews were sent to Ireland. (God I hope so). Also most of europe did not know the full effects of WWII on the jewish in europe.

I read it in John Cooney's excellent book John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland. I will double check. Isaac Herzog wrote letters to De Valera pleading for jews to be allowed to enter the country but the church didn't want 'em. I think the official excuse was that their presence would lead to a rise in anti-semitism.

rcunning03

does anyone believe that the brits would of given us home rule after the first world war as they promised, if we hadnt of gone to war with them, or would they have gone back on their promise, just like they did with the arabs about creating an arab state(and creating the middle east as it is now)/

miju

well seeing as they now still from time to time go back on deals you coudl nearlly count on it that they would have reneged on the deal what was that phrase someone coined "Killing home rule with kindness" explains it all really

ReefBreak

Originally posted by the-raptor
well then your obviously not very experienced because Ionly ever met about 1 or 2 people like that when I used to be a member of R.S.F

Aren't Republican Sinn Féin the splinter group from Gerry Adam's Sinn Féin? And do they not have connections to the CIRA and RIRA? The same CIRA that planted the Omagh bomb? I hope you knew that when you were a member. And most 'RA-heads I've ever met generally get very angry when you start to needle their reasoning for supporting the 'RA. For example...

Originally posted by the-raptor
And what didn't I agree to?

Maybe the phrase "Shinners like you.."

Point being your either trying to stir the **** or are stupid personally I'm leaning towards stupid but I'm gonna give you the benefit of doubt and say your just stirring **** ergo I'll refuse to rise to any of your future comments about me regarding this topic.

Now away you go ReefBreak abd bother me no more [/B]

I'm not trying to stir shít, but when you defend IRA scumbags by saying thay "had to stand up for the people of Ireland" you should be prepared to argue your case. The IRA never did much defending. Intentionally bombing, murdering & maiming innocent civilians, yes. Defending, no.

miju

ah come on can one of the Mods do something about ReefBreak obvious **** stirring

ReefBreak

Originally posted by the-raptor
ah come on can one of the Mods do something about ReefBreak obvious **** stirring

I am genuinely not trying to stir it up. I am simply arguing my case against the IRA. I'll ask you again: when you were a member of RSF, did you know that they had connections to those responsible for the Omagh bombing: the RIRA and the CIRA?

rcunning03

reefbreak

i'm not having a go or anything, i am geniunely interested in your answer, do you think we could of gained independence through totally peaceful means with no violence ?

ReefBreak

Yes I do. Take India for example. But that's not my issue. The problem is that the IRA intentionally murdered innoncent civilians and then used history or "defending Ireland" as a way to excuse their actions. In fact the IRA have always used atrocities by so-called Irish martyrs as a way to excuse their own actions, and it makes me sick. "The Old IRA murdered/ethnically cleansed prodestant families living in the 26 counties in the name of Irish Freedom, so don't give out to us when we do it today."

rcunning03

but the best we would of got peacefully would of been home rule, we still would be british subjects and not a republic, or do you think that still being british is better than all the loss of life?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by rcunning03
but the best we would of got peacefully would of been home rule, we still would be british subjects and not a republic, or do you think that still being british is better than all the loss of life?

Again, that's the typical reasoning of the typical IRA apologist: "Without the loss of innocent civilian blood, we would still be brits". First of all, you simply don't know if that's the case. In fact, we were still technically Brits up to the 1930s, when Ireland declared itself a Republic and left the Commonwealth. I believe we'd probably have still gained independence in Ireland even with peaceful means, only it would have been later in the century - mainly because the population of Southerm Ireland was mainly Catholic and Nationalist and that was what the people wanted. The IRA, however, seem to forget that the majority of the North was (and still is) Prodestant and supported the Union with Britain, but still pressed on with murdering their point of view home.

miju

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ReefBreak will you look at the bigger picture FFS both sides are wrong both sides committed terrible atrocities and it has simple as that it's the nature of war

and I refuse to answer your ridiculous question regarding my knowledge of the Omagh bombing as it has absolutely no relevance to the conversation

ReefBreak

Originally posted by the-raptor
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ReefBreak will you look at the bigger picture FFS both sides are wrong both sides committed terrible atrocities and it has simple as that it's the nature of war

You call it war, I call it a murderous Terrorist Campaign.

Originally posted by the-raptor and I refuse to answer your ridiculous question regarding my knowledge of the Omagh bombing as it has absolutely no relevance to the conversation

I'll assume then you are a former member of Republican Sinn Féin, who are linked to groups that murdered 29 innocent men, women and children (and butchered 200 more) in Omagh in August, 1998.

rcunning03

wheter you agree with it or not, violence does achieve results, e.g i dont think hitler would of stop the war under peaceful negotiation, social revolution in russia wouldnt of happened without violence etc. ireland is strategically located in europe so you have to ask yourself would britain give it up that easily, espeically during the second world war.

Ireland is more important to the brits than we realise, originally it was the united kingdom of britain and ireland, we were one of the 4 nations that made up the union, most brits dont comprehend that we are not british they know were not part of britain, but they still think we're in the uk. the irish guards(or the royal irish) carried the coffin of the queen mother as per her request. Thats why they call britain the mainland when they are over here, and the two islands are shown in the introduction to the bbc news.

They would of given us home rule, we would of had a united ireland but still under british rule (dont forget when the rising happened in 1916 no one in dublin supported it till they were excuted) and we would of had a motorway network and no once off rural housing destroying and polluting the landscape, and probably less brown paper envelopes (doesnt seem as big a problem in the uk) but we still would of been subjects of her majesty.

the way i see it you can either argue that we would of been better off with home rule and the violence was unnecessary, or that violence was neccesary to become citizens of an independent republic to rule ourselves as we see fit and if the population prefers to live in once off rural housing that is their right. there is no way the british would of given us a republic peacefully, we are part of what makes up britain, we are part of their flag and royal symbols there would be no united kingdom without at least northern ireland, there would be just britain.

swiss

I am genuinely surprised I haven't received any reported post notifications, given that some of these posts are saturated with contempt.

the-raptor, read the charter before posting. If you had done so, you would realise that personal attacks are not permitted. Using the excuse "he started it first" doesn't count - I do not care who started it.

are you trying to stir **** or something you ignorant mother****er did I not say that I USED to be a Shinner but NOT ANYMORE

A few points.

1) If you feel someone is trying to "stir shit", bring it to our attention, and if applicable, we will deal with it. I've only had time to read this thread now, due to real-life™ committments.

2) Calling someone an "ignorant mother****er" is a sure fire way to firstly make everyone believe you're a muppet, and secondly get yourself banned. If I see any more comments like this, no matter how warranted you think those comments might be, you will receive a weeks ban.

Reefbreak, the-raptor is correct insofar as this thread is not about the Omagh bombing, it is about alleged IRA collaboration with the Nazi's during the second world war. Interestingly, this issue has been raised in the latest edition of http://www.portadownnews.com - a fine satirical site. Also, while we should not ignore the lessons of history, using history to propogate our hatred of any group only leads to repeats of that history. As the old adage goes "if history has taught us anything it is that history has taught us nothing".

For the record, I have a deep rooted suspicion of Sinn Féin, but that is an argument for another thread. Given Irelands strategic importance during the second world war, I am still a little confused as to why nobody tried to take us over. Perhaps somone can venture an explanation?

star gazer

originally posted by swiss
Given Irelands strategic importance during the second world war, I am still a little confused as to why nobody tried to take us over. Perhaps somone can venture an explanation?

Firstly IMO the germans didn't have control of the seas for surface ships and the bomber screen on the brittish side would have made any naval landing very costly.
secondly IMO Ireland had brought the brittish to their knees in ireland twenty years earlier and Dev really was nuetral and would have become the enemy of either side had they invaded part of our territory and irelnad had experience of guerila warfare, no submissive people here!

ssh

I think part of the problem here is that people are confusing the IRA of old with the IRA of the last 35 years. One was a group of freedom fighters. The other was a terrorist organisation which I see as having 3 seperate agendas in reality:

1) Civil rights for Catholics
2) A United Ireland
3) The infliction of punishment on innocent people for the mistakes of their previous generations.

I believe terrorism was justified in the first case. Recognition would never have been given to the problem otherwise. Attacking the forces of oppression (soldiers, RUC, infrastructure) is sometimes required.

The second agenda I don't particularly care about. I'm not too into the notions of nationalism. Assuming agenda 1 is properly redressed (which requires enourmous social change, the political changes have effectively already happened), I don't care if I'm being ruled by a corrupt shower of pricks from Leinster House or a corrupt shower of pricks from Westminster.

The final agenda is the reason I will leave this country the day Gerry Adams becomes president.

Redleslie

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Yes I do. Take India for example.

Not a very good comparison. The Indian Mutiny was a fairly bloody affair. The British had an amusing way of dealing with the troublemakers, blasting them from cannons - pic here. If you're referring to Ghandi, then it's worth remembering that he and his supporters weren't obstructed or attacked by loyalist mobs and police as catholic civil rights marches were, like at Burntollet for example. There were serious riots when he was arrested though.

mike65

Originally posted by swiss
I am genuinely surprised I haven't received any reported post notifications, given that some of these posts are saturated with contempt.

Trust me Swiss If I'd known of this thread earlier (some of us actually go out to work!) I'd have PM'ed one of the mods. I'm amazed the raptor had'nt had his card marked alot earlier.

Mike.

gandalf

Well I did get a PM from the-raptor complaining about Reefbreak's so called "**** Stirring". However he negated the whole thing with his blatent personal abuse of Reefbreak.

This is your warning the-raptor I see that from you again and I will ban you outright from here.

I looked thru this thread briefly and unless you consider being called a shinner an insult the only insults I saw were coming from you. Now either put forward your point of view politely or get out of this forum.

Gandalf.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.