Do you fund the IRA?

guinnessdrinker

Dudess wrote: »

However there is indeed a link between British neo-nazi skinheads and loyalist paramilitaries.

True, and in 2000 a group of Combat 18 members from England traveled to Drumcree during the standoff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,338951,00.html#article_continue

While last year the BNP planned to recruit during the marching season.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6265020.stm

Dudess wrote: »

The only reason why loyalist yobs claim to support Israel (by hanging/painting Israeli flags on walls etc, not much else) is because there are catholic areas with Palestinian flags on display as a show of solidarity. It's just a childish dig - whatever one side does, the other will do the opposite. As some comedian said a few years ago, if there were posters of Britney Spears in a catholic area, the neighbouring loyalists would put up posters of Christina Aguilera

This may have been initially true but some have since tried to make stronger links to Isreal like, trying to link the lost tribes of Israel with Ulster. Incidently, the flag of the Northern Ireland state has a red hand which could be said is resting on top of the Star of David. Also Ireland which comes from Hibernia which could translate to: Land of the Hebrews.

Dudess

Ah I see. Interesting.

I love the way groups who are blatantly anti-semitic change tack when it suits their own agenda

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is a very scary post. Do you actually believe that crap?

What has all this stuff about Nazis, Loyalists and the KKK got to do with the OPs point, or is this because I made mention of the National front hijacking the English flag. If so, wtf have Rangers. red hand of ulster etc got to do with the English flag?

He's banned...

Fratton Fred

Dudess wrote: »

Ah I see. Interesting.

I love the way groups who are blatantly anti-semitic change tack when it suits their own agenda

anti semitic, anti catholic, anti Irish, anti black, anti asian etc etc etc. I have encountered this lot many times and they are just rent a thug who feed off hatred that's all.

Dudess wrote: »

He's banned...

He lasted a long time :rolleyes:

Dudess

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He lasted a long time :rolleyes:

A previously banned user. Other usernames of his included joebhoy1916 and Hoops1888. A particular type of Celtic fan I'd say

FTA69

murphaph wrote: »

.....but do loyalists support the Nazis/KKK etc?

The UVF, the UDA and other such organisations have long had relationships with right-wing groups; Combat 18 being one, although they later shifted to supporting the LVF. Loyalism (I'm distinguishing from Unionism) is generally a reactionary ideology and its adherents have much in common with members of fascist organisations abroad.

FTA69

snyper wrote: »

I am a proud Irishman and upport the men who died fo our Independance,

Why? The forerunners of the Provisional IRA were often engaged in extreme violence with zero political mandate. In fact, it is fair to say that the Provos had more support at the time of their campaign than the men of 1916 did.

However, its a different world today, there is a great emphasis on political discussion and powersharing.

There was plenty discussing and negotiating going on at the time of 1916; until a band of loonies (by your logic) started storming the GPO. Personally I am a Republican, and as such have no problem stating I believe that 1916 or 1867 were morally justifiable; likewise I have the consistancy to acknowledge the fact that there is little moral difference between the Provisional IRA campaign and that of the 1916 Rising.

I personally dispise the people that still harp on about a "brits out" "United Ireland" agenda, i fel they either lack an understanding of politics and reality of the consequences of such a senario, or they hold a deep rooted hate they cannot get over.

Believing in Irish unity or viewing it as an important issue does not equate with stupidity or bigotry. Most Republican activists support unity as it mirrors their generally left-wing views, not because they are knuckle-draggers living in the past.

AckwelFoley

FTA69 wrote: »

Why? The forerunners of the Provisional IRA were often engaged in extreme violence with zero political mandate. In fact, it is fair to say that the Provos had more support at the time of their campaign than the men of 1916 did.


Believing in Irish unity or viewing it as an important issue does not equate with stupidity or bigotry. Most Republican activists support unity as it mirrors their generally left-wing views, not because they are knuckle-draggers living in the past.

On your first point.. Perhaps i suffer from rose tinted glasses effect, and if that is the case, i would be less comfortable with my acceptance of their actions.


On the highlighted point, yes i fully agree that there is a abnoxiously left wing agenda there, however, it is in effect knuvkle dragging, because a united ireland is in todays world a utopia, so continueing to seek it is futile.

There are also those who consider themselves true republicans, that want to continue a armed campaign today. Surely you cannot support their views?

(side not: I appreciate your logical debate, whether i may agree with you or not.. i feared this thread would be higacked by ignorant name calling and flaim bait)

FTA69

Balls. Deleted my post by accident. Not to worry though, it was loaded with my usual wit and penetrating logic. Ye'll have the pleasure of reading it tomorrow. Oiche Mhaith.

FTA69

Perhaps i suffer from rose tinted glasses effect

Most southerners do. Apparently Michael Collins shooting a cop in his bed in 1921 was a glorious patriotic act while the same occurence in Fermanagh in 1984 was cowardly terrorism.

however, it is in effect knuvkle dragging, because a united ireland is in todays world a utopia, so continueing to seek it is futile.

Nonsense. Irish unity is a principle which is generally supported by the majority of Irish people, albeit it ranks lower than washing the car on the list of priorities. I can't see how Irish unity is also utopic, at least no more than a socialist Cuba or an independent Africa were ever futile pursuits. Political change is constant, and often it can be just a few individuals who effect that change. Perhaps Irish unity will never happen, personally I believe it won't happen in my lifetime, but neither would I describe anything as futile.

There are also those who consider themselves true republicans, that want to continue a armed campaign today. Surely you cannot support their views?

No I don't agree with them. I think that they are wasting their time and that their energies would be better spent rebuilding a Republican consensus amongst working people in Ireland ie political activism as opposed to shooting at the cops every once in a while.

However, while believing they are wasting their time I will never condemn those using force against the British presence in Ireland; and unlike some Republicans I won't be touting to a British police force on them either.

FTA69

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I have no pride in the IRA. I left Ireland ( returned 8 years ago I am glad to say) to find a career in England as Ireland, at the time had nothing to offer me or thousands of others. The IRA made it almost impossible to get by in the UK being Irish and automatically associated with terrorism. I am proud to be Irish but I will never thank the IRA for it.

Every nation of foreigners gets at least some stick in England, there is no point in blaming Republicans because some English people are racists.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Every nation of foreigners gets at least some stick in England, there is no point in blaming Republicans because some English people are racists.

True, but Irish people living and woking in London weren't exactly being helped by their fellow countrymen blowing up pubs and shopping centres. The right wingers of any country will use any excuse to stir up hatred.

purple'n'gold

“There is no point in blaming republicans because some English people are racists? “
Irish republicans were exploding bombs in their cities, killing innocent people going about their business, who did you expect them to blame, Siberian asylum seekers?
I am going to say no more about this as it is becoming a bit ridiculous.

Patrickisperfec

the reason you counldn't get a job in Ireland is beacuse the English exploited us

Fratton Fred

Patrickisperfec wrote: »

the reason you counldn't get a job in Ireland is beacuse the English exploited us

I may be wrong, but I think we are talking 1980 not 1880 :rolleyes:

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

Most southerners do. Apparently Michael Collins shooting a cop in his bed in 1921 was a glorious patriotic act while the same occurence in Fermanagh in 1984 was cowardly terrorism.

Nonsense. Irish unity is a principle which is generally supported by the majority of Irish people, albeit it ranks lower than washing the car on the list of priorities. I can't see how Irish unity is also utopic, at least no more than a socialist Cuba or an independent Africa were ever futile pursuits. Political change is constant, and often it can be just a few individuals who effect that change. Perhaps Irish unity will never happen, personally I believe it won't happen in my lifetime, but neither would I describe anything as futile.

But what is the definition of Irish Unity? and what is a United Ireland? was Ireland ever United in the first place? and if Ireland was 'United' where would the parliament sit? (Dublin or Belfast)? would one or other give-up their Assembly/ parliament to allow the other to govern them?

Personally I could never see a 'United Ireland' in an Irish Republican kind of way, unless of course there are concessions on both sides (Commonwealth etc), which would allow a United Ireland alright ~ but just not the narrow one some Nationalist/ Republicans envisage!

FTA69

purplengold wrote: »

Irish republicans were exploding bombs in their cities, killing innocent people going about their business, who did you expect them to blame, Siberian asylum seekers?

I expect them to blame the IRA, not Bridie working in a pub. By your logic there is slight justification for beating up English people in Ireland because of Bloody Sunday. Innocent people shouldn't be tarred because of the actions of a group over which they have no control.

Rossibaby

i'm a republican socialist, a supporter of the irsp.on the nazi links,yes indeed loyalists and neo-nazi's have notoriously been linked for years,many have the tatoos to show this,it is fact not myth.and yesa lot of republicans would idolise ché guevara and other left wing 'heros'.may i say to everyone the republican movement does not mean the provos!!they are their own,CIRA,RIRA and INLA are seperate entities.republicanism did not begin with the provos and will not end with it.

irish people today are ignorant and hypocitical.many will look back on 1916 as our greatest military event,where heroes were made.nowadays the very same actions are cast aside as terrorism?same with guevara,he is peopels idol but he was a staunch supporter of arms as a means to an end,if he was alive today he would shamefully no doubt be called a terrorist.brit and american media portrays what people think it seems.bobby sands one of our great ''heroes'' was arrested for possession of a firearm and was linked to a bomb plant that day,is he a terrorist.by todays standards yes.my final example,nelson mandela.20 years ago he was labelled a terrorist,his actions comparable to the stgruggle of modern day freedom fighters.now 20 years on stands a statue of mandela in london.terrorist??

a previous poster spoke of past incidents where civilians were hurt or killed.i defy you to name a war where mistakes werent made.i dont defend certain actions of the pira,the shooting of 13 innocent protestants on their way home from work was wrong,the omagh bombing a terrible accident,dessie o'hare the inla man who kidnapped a dentist and tortured him,this even was labelled totally wrong by the inla.

my family on my dads side is steeped in republican history,his uncle receiving a medal of bravery from the ira.aswell as others who fought the crown forces.to call teh ira terrorists insults the bravest of the brave and its easy for some sheep who's controlled by the media machine to label republicans terrorists.

remember recently in portlaoise jail a person got in behind the walls unnoticed.the news on tv and in papers described the jail as hosting the most dangerous people in ireland.john gilligan,martin meehan,murderers and druglords,druggies from limerick, nad ''terrorists'' or ''dissident terrorists''....not even called republicans and labelled dissidents because they dont support sinn fein and their acceptance of brit policing in the north

beir bua,saoirse go deo

arm saoirse naisunta na heireann

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

Most southerners do. Apparently Michael Collins shooting a cop in his bed in 1921 was a glorious patriotic act while the same occurence in Fermanagh in 1984 was cowardly terrorism.

You're spot on. Both acts were equally wrong.

FTA69 wrote: »

Nonsense. Irish unity is a principle which is generally supported by the majority of Irish people, albeit it ranks lower than washing the car on the list of priorities.

True I'd say.

FTA69 wrote: »

I can't see how Irish unity is also utopic, at least no more than a socialist Cuba or an independent Africa were ever futile pursuits.

Neither is hardly a shining light of success though.

FTA69 wrote: »

Political change is constant, and often it can be just a few individuals who effect that change. Perhaps Irish unity will never happen, personally I believe it won't happen in my lifetime, but neither would I describe anything as futile.

Very true. In fact, you might get your united Ireland within the UK for all we know in 100 years. People may tire of the slapdash political attitude that eminates from most every public office in this state. People may decide the UK isn't so bad afterall. Who knows what will happen.

FTA69 wrote: »

No I don't agree with them. I think that they are wasting their time and that their energies would be better spent rebuilding a Republican consensus amongst working people in Ireland ie political activism as opposed to shooting at the cops every once in a while.

However, while believing they are wasting their time I will never condemn those using force against the British presence in Ireland; and unlike some Republicans I won't be touting to a British police force on them either.

Would you believe a PSNI officer has a right to life?

murphaph

Patrickisperfec wrote: »

the reason you counldn't get a job in Ireland is beacuse the English exploited us

I thought we'd stopped blaming the brits for everything around 1990?

murphaph

Rossibaby wrote: »

i'm a republican socialist, a supporter of the irsp.on the nazi links,yes indeed loyalists and neo-nazi's have notoriously been linked for years,many have the tatoos to show this,it is fact not myth.and yesa lot of republicans would idolise ché guevara and other left wing 'heros'.may i say to everyone the republican movement does not mean the provos!!they are their own,CIRA,RIRA and INLA are seperate entities.republicanism did not begin with the provos and will not end with it.

irish people today are ignorant and hypocitical.many will look back on 1916 as our greatest military event,where heroes were made.nowadays the very same actions are cast aside as terrorism?same with guevara,he is peopels idol but he was a staunch supporter of arms as a means to an end,if he was alive today he would shamefully no doubt be called a terrorist.brit and american media portrays what people think it seems.bobby sands one of our great ''heroes'' was arrested for possession of a firearm and was linked to a bomb plant that day,is he a terrorist.by todays standards yes.my final example,nelson mandela.20 years ago he was labelled a terrorist,his actions comparable to the stgruggle of modern day freedom fighters.now 20 years on stands a statue of mandela in london.terrorist??

a previous poster spoke of past incidents where civilians were hurt or killed.i defy you to name a war where mistakes werent made.i dont defend certain actions of the pira,the shooting of 13 innocent protestants on their way home from work was wrong,the omagh bombing a terrible accident,dessie o'hare the inla man who kidnapped a dentist and tortured him,this even was labelled totally wrong by the inla.

my family on my dads side is steeped in republican history,his uncle receiving a medal of bravery from the ira.aswell as others who fought the crown forces.to call teh ira terrorists insults the bravest of the brave and its easy for some sheep who's controlled by the media machine to label republicans terrorists.

remember recently in portlaoise jail a person got in behind the walls unnoticed.the news on tv and in papers described the jail as hosting the most dangerous people in ireland.john gilligan,martin meehan,murderers and druglords,druggies from limerick, nad ''terrorists'' or ''dissident terrorists''....not even called republicans and labelled dissidents because they dont support sinn fein and their acceptance of brit policing in the north

beir bua,saoirse go deo

arm saoirse naisunta na heireann

It was no accident. It was a bomb, deliberately planted in a busy market town high street.

Rossibaby

they didnt mean to kill civilians??therefore an accident.plus the crown forces knew in advance of the bomb.it was planted you are correct,was the result the intention...no

Liam Byrne

Rossibaby wrote: »

they didnt mean to kill civilians??therefore an accident.plus the crown forces knew in advance of the bomb.it was planted you are correct,was the result the intention...no

That's ridiculous! They drove into a crowded city with a car containing a bomb and left it on the side of the street. What part of that does not signify an intent ? :mad:

FTA69

Would you believe a PSNI officer has a right to life?

Everyone has a right to life, that having been said when you join the British Army, the cops, the IRA or whatever other armed group you should also acknowledge the consequences of that decision.

LB,

That's ridiculous! They drove into a crowded city with a car containing a bomb and left it on the side of the street. What part of that does not signify an intent ?

The carnage was a result of a botched warning or a botched attempt to clear the area. It was a completely stupid and tactless operation, but I don't believe the RIRA wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. In fairness that isn't their style, and likewise that bomb finished them as an organisation.

Zirconia

Rossibaby wrote: »

they didnt mean to kill civilians??therefore an accident.plus the crown forces knew in advance of the bomb.it was planted you are correct,was the result the intention...no

FFS!! What a load of unbelieveable crap!! This guy's ranting is extremely offensive, and if I feel this way, I can't even begin to imagine how the families of the people killed by these terrorist scum feel.

I believe in free speech, but this really is appaling sh*t :mad:

bartholomewbinn

Rossibaby wrote: »

i'm a republican socialist, a supporter of the irsp.on the nazi links,yes indeed loyalists and neo-nazi's have notoriously been linked for years,many have the tatoos to show this,it is fact not myth.and yesa lot of republicans would idolise ché guevara and other left wing 'heros'.may i say to everyone the republican movement does not mean the provos!!they are their own,CIRA,RIRA and INLA are seperate entities.republicanism did not begin with the provos and will not end with it.

irish people today are ignorant and hypocitical.many will look back on 1916 as our greatest military event,where heroes were made.nowadays the very same actions are cast aside as terrorism?same with guevara,he is peopels idol but he was a staunch supporter of arms as a means to an end,if he was alive today he would shamefully no doubt be called a terrorist.brit and american media portrays what people think it seems.bobby sands one of our great ''heroes'' was arrested for possession of a firearm and was linked to a bomb plant that day,is he a terrorist.by todays standards yes.my final example,nelson mandela.20 years ago he was labelled a terrorist,his actions comparable to the stgruggle of modern day freedom fighters.now 20 years on stands a statue of mandela in london.terrorist??

a previous poster spoke of past incidents where civilians were hurt or killed.i defy you to name a war where mistakes werent made.i dont defend certain actions of the pira,the shooting of 13 innocent protestants on their way home from work was wrong,the omagh bombing a terrible accident,dessie o'hare the inla man who kidnapped a dentist and tortured him,this even was labelled totally wrong by the inla.

my family on my dads side is steeped in republican history,his uncle receiving a medal of bravery from the ira.aswell as others who fought the crown forces.to call teh ira terrorists insults the bravest of the brave and its easy for some sheep who's controlled by the media machine to label republicans terrorists.

remember recently in portlaoise jail a person got in behind the walls unnoticed.the news on tv and in papers described the jail as hosting the most dangerous people in ireland.john gilligan,martin meehan,murderers and druglords,druggies from limerick, nad ''terrorists'' or ''dissident terrorists''....not even called republicans and labelled dissidents because they dont support sinn fein and their acceptance of brit policing in the north

beir bua,saoirse go deo

arm saoirse naisunta na heireann

You must really hate the English, because you are doing your very best to murder their language.
vos es stultus

stovelid

FTA69 wrote: »

The carnage was a result of a botched warning or a botched attempt to clear the area. It was a completely stupid and tactless operation, but I don't believe the RIRA wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. In fairness that isn't their style, and likewise that bomb finished them as an organisation.

FTA - I usually respect your opinions, but that's incredible. Planting the bomb and expecting others to clear it is still a reckless endangerment to innocent life.

And you know what annoys me most?

The republican line (often true) is that the Brits and the cops are completely compromised in their dealings with republican paramilitaries. And yet, they are trusted to relay - often conflicting - bomb warnings to the public.

Face facts - the public are the last factor to be considered in the equation. If civilian casualties were genuinely anathema to the IRA (or Loyalists), there would have been no bombing campaigns.

As for rossibaby's cant: I'll not even dignify it with a reply.

FTA69

Planting the bomb and expecting others to clear it is still a reckless endangerment to innocent life.

Indeed, all bombs are dangerous; that's all too evident. But what is being discussed here is the intention behind the bomb, I don't personally believe that the RIRA meant to kill 29 people. I'm not saying they are absolved of responsibility or anything like that, or that they were justified in their actions.

Face facts - the public are the last factor to be considered in the equation. If civilian casualties were genuinely anathema to the IRA (or Loyalists), there would have been no bombing campaigns.

The average person always ends up the worst out of any war. However the fact an organisation is engaging in an armed campaign involving bombing doesn't automatically mean they seek the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Rossibaby

what fta said

dont talk about what ye know nothing about...cya sheep

stovelid

Rossibaby wrote: »

dont talk about what ye know nothing about...cya sheep

Should we take this as the definitive IRSP thesis on partition?

FTA69 wrote: »

The average person always ends up the worst out of any war. However the fact an organisation is engaging in an armed campaign involving bombing doesn't automatically mean they seek the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

So the IRA planting a bomb in a busy market town, and then trusting purely in circumstance (a compromised and biased police force wanting or being able to relay instruictions; the bomb not exploding early; a phone failure) posed no risk to civilians?

I would suggest that the chances of a 'wholesale slaughter of civilians' were intolerably high. We don't need to list the other occasions on which this has been the case.

FTA69

So the IRA planting a bomb in a busy market town, and then trusting purely in circumstance (a compromised and biased police force wanting or being able to relay instruictions; the bomb not exploding early; a phone failure) posed no risk to civilians?

I never said that IRA bombs posed no risk to civilians, I said they sought to minimise those risks. Every action posed risk to civilians, shooting at soldiers posed risks to civilians. Every bomb had the potential to cause untold damage to someone or other, but the majority of them didn't because of precautions taken beforehand. As I said, whether one agrees with those bombs is another argument, my only point was that the IRA bombing campaign was not comparable to the likes of Al Qaeda's bombing campaign.