Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

but that is the point they looked hard and came to a conclusion violence needed to occur.

LOL .. they "looked hard" did they ... oh mercy. Where were they looking exactly?

duggie-89 wrote: »

all you have to do is to look at appeasement in pre ww2 europe and even in pre 1920 ireland.

Or, oh I don't know, India under Gandhi. Or the USA under Martin Luther King.

Funny how they both managed to find a way to not blow up children

duggie-89 wrote: »

violence has an import role in society. its not pretty and its not the best option but if it has to be done then so be it.

What? If it is not the best option then why does it have to be done?

Rossibaby

i find it very strange that people can label the ira a ''gang of murderous criminals''.i mean it's one thing disagreeing with what they do/did but do people not realise they actually believe in what they are doing.what criminal has the honour to endure torture to save his comrade from harassment.we're talking martyrs in the past who would rather have died than betray the cause,would rather have died than betray an operation,or have a weapons stash found.surely people can realise that these ordinary people,farmers,rpublicans,middle-class...from all walks of life,all backgrounds and different parts of the country were not a criminal gang,but a group of people bound together by a common goal.
if the country was returned to a 32 county nation before the troubles none of thsi would have happened...but people here don't want to believe this...they wan't to argue that the ira would have bombed and shot people anyway...
war is not ideal,there is going to be innocent people killed and i don't condone that in the least,no decent human being would. but why aren't people up in arms over israel,america etc and the civilians they have killed.
in an ideal world politics would achieve the ira's goals but sometimes use of arms is necessary imo,not necessarily bombings etc but attacks on economic targets and the like in england with no risk of casualties

Fratton Fred

Rossibaby wrote: »

i find it very strange that people can label the ira a ''gang of murderous criminals''.i mean it's one thing disagreeing with what they do/did but do people not realise they actually believe in what they are doing.what criminal has the honour to endure torture to save his comrade from harassment.we're talking martyrs in the past who would rather have died than betray the cause,would rather have died than betray an operation,or have a weapons stash found.surely people can realise that these ordinary people,farmers,rpublicans,middle-class...from all walks of life,all backgrounds and different parts of the country were not a criminal gang,but a group of people bound together by a common goal.
if the country was returned to a 32 county nation before the troubles none of thsi would have happened...but people here don't want to believe this...they wan't to argue that the ira would have bombed and shot people anyway...
war is not ideal,there is going to be innocent people killed and i don't condone that in the least,no decent human being would. but why aren't people up in arms over israel,america etc and the civilians they have killed.
in an ideal world politics would achieve the ira's goals but sometimes use of arms is necessary imo,not necessarily bombings etc but attacks on economic targets and the like in england with no risk of casualties

People are up in arms about the US and Israel, have you missed all the anti American stuff on these boards?

Al Qeada are dedicated, should we admire them as well? no one is more dedicated than someone who is willing to personally carry a bomb on to a tube train and detonate it, but they are still murdering scum.

What cause, what goal warrants the murder of a three year old boy on a shopping trip with his au pair, or the murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn twins? if that is the price you are willing to pay for a united Ireland then you are no better than the people who set sail for Ireland from Britain and took control in the first place.

Zombrex

Rossibaby wrote: »

what criminal has the honour to endure torture to save his comrade from harassment.

Well IRA members for a start.

But then that has nothing to do with whether or not they are a criminal. The IRA are criminals because they illegally and immorally kill people. Because they claim to have a cause that they think justifies that has really little to do with it. I could claim to be opposed to the FF government. You probably wouldn't care to much about my cause though if I blew up your children. You would probably focus on the act of me blowing up your children, not the crazy excuse I came up with to explain to myself and my supporters why blowing up your children was in fact necessary to changing the FF government.

Rossibaby wrote: »

from all walks of life,all backgrounds and different parts of the country were not a criminal gang,but a group of people bound together by a common goal.

Pretty sure criminal gangs are bound together for a common goal. The things that make them criminal gangs are that they are gangs made up of criminals. That pretty much sums up the IRA.

Rossibaby wrote: »

war is not ideal,there is going to be innocent people killed and i don't condone that in the least,no decent human being would. but why aren't people up in arms over israel,america etc and the civilians they have killed.

I think you will find they are.

What I find highly ironic though is people who get worked up over what America or Britain do but some how think what the IRA do is grand because they are a small band of "freedom fighters" as if that excuses the most ridiculously immoral actions such as the attack of civilians targets.

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

...you dont care about irealnd and its people.

I never said that.

duggie-89 wrote: »

would you leave our home if your didn't like the state you were living in even though you and your family and ommunity have lived teir for years and years????

Of course I would; people move all the time because they don't like the area they live in. I've done it before and I'll probably do it again. Stupid question.

duggie-89 wrote: »

not all catholics want to live in a UI but that is a task we republican must address and convice those people that their better future lies in a UI.

I presume that when you say Catholics, you mean nationalists? As yet, nobody has demonstrated how people in Northern Ireland would be better off under Irish rule.

duggie-89 wrote: »

ok if i was to say to you i was an IRA member, does that make me sub-human???

I'll make this real simple.

Member of IRA = SUB-HUMAN SCUM

That clear enough for you?

duggie-89 wrote: »

but that is the point they looked hard and came to a conclusion violence needed to occur.

What were they looking at exactly?

duggie-89 wrote: »

violence has an import role in society. its not pretty and its not the best option but if it has to be done then so be it.

So what is the best option? An alternative to violence perhaps?

Rossibaby wrote: »

i find it very strange that people can label the ira a ''gang of murderous criminals''.

I don't see why that's strange - that's exactly what they are.

Rossibaby wrote: »

i mean it's one thing disagreeing with what they do/did but do people not realise they actually believe in what they are doing.

What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Is it perfectly ok for me to torch an orphanage if I BELIEVE in what I'm doing? :rolleyes:

Rossibaby wrote: »

we're talking martyrs in the past who would rather have died than betray the cause

I thinking "****ing idiots" is a more accurate description than "martyrs".

Rossibaby wrote: »

surely people can realise that these ordinary people,farmers,rpublicans,middle-class...from all walks of life,all backgrounds and different parts of the country were not a criminal gang,but a group of people bound together by a common goal.

So if a bunch of criminals all agree on a common goal, that means they're no longer criminals? Horse****.

Rossibaby wrote: »

if the country was returned to a 32 county nation before the troubles none of thsi would have happened

When has the island of Ireland ever existed as a 32-county nation?

Rossibaby wrote: »

they wan't to argue that the ira would have bombed and shot people anyway

Eh, the IRA DID bomb and shoot people. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

Rossibaby wrote: »

there is going to be innocent people killed and i don't condone that in the least

You could have fooled me.

Rossibaby wrote: »

but why aren't people up in arms over israel,america etc and the civilians they have killed

I think you'll find that they are - have a browse around the politics forum.

Are people not allowed to be opposed to more than one organisation at a time?

Rossibaby wrote: »

in an ideal world politics would achieve the ira's goals but sometimes use of arms is necessary imo

So basically what you're saying there is, the people of Northern Ireland couldn't be convinced to unite with the Republic by political means, so a whole bunch of people had to be blown up?

Rossibaby wrote: »

...not necessarily bombings etc but attacks on economic targets and the like in england with no risk of casualties

FFS. Where to start? :rolleyes:

Rossibaby

is there any point dicscussing this you don't listen and aren't open to debate...just trying to force your opinions on people when you weren't involved in and have no idea of how republican organisations work apart from google and the media

so....is ché guevara a terrorist is NELSON MANDELA A TERRORIST

djpbarry

Rossibaby wrote: »

is ché guevara a terrorist is NELSON MANDELA A TERRORIST

Che Guevara most definitely was, yes. As for Nelson Mandela, he actually admitted the ANC violated human rights.

murphaph

Rossibaby wrote: »

is there any point dicscussing this you don't listen and aren't open to debate...just trying to force your opinions on people when you weren't involved in and have no idea of how republican organisations work apart from google and the media

so....is ché guevara a terrorist is NELSON MANDELA A TERRORIST

Were the UVF/UFF/LVF terrorists?

dav32cs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA were not ruthless enough to go to the lengths Al Qeada do, I'll agree that, but why attack Harrods in the run up to Christmas, why attack an army band, why attack Warrington? The IRA bombing campaigns became as synonymous with Christmas as the wizard of oz.

The IRA deliberately targetted civilians and created an environment where the majority or people in England did not care what cause they were fighting for, they did not want them get it. If the people of NI followed the same policies as the people of Poland, there would probably be a united Ireland today, but instead they created the same spirit in London as Hitler did and there was no way people would be defeated by them.

In fact, I would go as far to say if Sinn Fein changed their name and got rid of the old guard, they would make even more ground as people see McGuinness and Adams as murderers. Get rid of them and remoce once and for all the link with the IRA and their support would increase. Trouble is, do Adams and McGuinnes want a united Ireland or do they want power?

I know what I think.

On the first paragraph, this has been stated numerous times already!!
You outline it yourself

1.Harrods = Shopping in financial centre
Xmas time = busiest shopping time for the whole year

Bombs were planned to disrupt the british economy as much as possible

Believe me if civilians were deliberatly targetted in every bomb attack by the IRA there would be alot higher death toll.

But they WERE NOT. (as stated before)

Because......

What does it do to further support??

Nothing!It decreases support and props up the British portrayed view of events


2.British Army Band - the title speaks for itself

3.Warrington

I'll presume you mean the second attack
Where was this bomb??

'At 11:58am on (20 March 1993), the telephone help charity The Samaritans received a coded message that a bomb was going to be detonated outside the Boots shop in Liverpool, '

Note the similaraties to all other bombs and in relation to the first point.

In a CBD centre, the financial district, the one most valuable to the UK.
A warning was given to give people time to get out of the are thus minimising any potential casualties.

murphaph wrote: »

murphaph Do the two republicans believe Al Qaida to be an army like the 'RA?

I've been warned by a biased moderator already for this but I will have to say it again.
Don't act stupid if you don't want to be talked to stupid.
You know fine well what the situation is (and if you don't I'm getting slightly worried) in regards to this.
When was support ever uttered??
I think a COMPARISON was made against them in regards to the bombing techniques.
If the IRA wanted to kill as much civilians as possible as you like to believe, why weren't buses,trains,taxis, aeroplanes blown up full of people??
This is the second time it has been put to you.

murphaph wrote: »

Can you produce evidence that they don't? You're the one who said that "the majority of the complete island of Ireland wish for reunification".

Why are you now putting the onus on me to come up with the statistics now??It was first a point in your argument that the majoirty of the Northern Ireland statelet wish to remain unified, and you show this with a study of 1200 people done by a UK backed agency??
'Can you provide evidence that they do first'

murphaph wrote: »

Not in my life-time it hasn't.

So your life is all that matters?
At least it confirms the sort of self centerdness that you have shown throughout the thread.

murphaph wrote: »

So as long as someone believes that their actions are justified, they can blow up anything they want? Or do they have to justify their actions to you to?

Is there a sigh smily on here??
It is not just the fact that people believe their actions are justifiable but the reason must be a justifiable one too.
Can you intake this before contiuing to try and put your own agenda spin to it???

murphaph wrote: »

Please explain how the 1916 rising made me "free"?

I'm not your history teacher,sorry. I'm not sure you've ever had one with the grasp you have on the 1916 situation if you are so un educated about it that you have to ask how these actions gained freedom.

Unless you trying to insinuate that, without all the conflict, the Brits would have turned around regardless in 1920's and said 'oh by the way here's 26 counties back we don't need them anymore':rolleyes:

If warnings are being given out for such minute phrasings as 'stupid' maybe they should also be given for people not reading over points that have already been made, and asking again on the same issue whilst just rephrasing the question:rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

But Home Rule was already written in law, it just hadn't been enacted yet due to the first world war. But of course, throwing the toys out of the pram was more important than a peaceful political process, wasn't it?

dav32cs

Home Rule??Do you know what 'Home Rule' was???

The Home Rule Act of 1914, also known as the (Irish) Third Home Rule Act (or Bill), and formally known as the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 90), was a British Act of Parliament intended to provide self-government ("home rule") for Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

.....

Instead of home rule as envisioned in the act, most of Ireland was to achieve independence in 1922 as the Irish Free State;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_Act_1914
Read up on it :-)

LordSutch

We can only hypothesise as to how 'Home Rule' might have worked-out, but there is a logical train of thought that says we would have done very well indeed economically & avoided partition in the process!

We would also have maintained good & healthy relations with our neighbours (the North inc) instead of which, we violently left the UK (in the most destructive way possible), refused to help out in WWII, then we left the Commonwealth, & now we have even left the british isles (according to Dermot Ahearn & Folens) :rolleyes:

But never forget that, although we now enjoy a very healthy & prosperous economy, the first 80 years of this State were an economic disaster right up until the mid-late 90s ....................

If we hadnt thrown the baby out with the bathwater (1922-1949) then Home Rule might indeed have been very, very good for us during those sad & lonely decades (so dont knock the concept).

oscarBravo

dav32cs wrote: »

I've been warned by a biased moderator already for this but I will have to say it again.
Don't act stupid if you don't want to be talked to stupid.

...

If warnings are being given out for such minute phrasings as 'stupid' maybe they should also be given for people not reading over points that have already been made, and asking again on the same issue whilst just rephrasing the question:rolleyes:

The infraction has now been upgraded to a ban.

I'm sure it will make dav32cs feel better to assume that I'm banning him because I disagree with his views. That's just the kind of intellectual laziness he's demonstrated throughout this thread.

Fratton Fred

dav32cs wrote: »

On the first paragraph, this has been stated numerous times already!!
You outline it yourself

1.Harrods = Shopping in financial centre
Xmas time = busiest shopping time for the whole year

Bombs were planned to disrupt the british economy as much as possible

Believe me if civilians were deliberatly targetted in every bomb attack by the IRA there would be alot higher death toll.

But they WERE NOT. (as stated before)

Because......

What does it do to further support??

Nothing!It decreases support and props up the British portrayed view of events


2.British Army Band - the title speaks for itself

3.Warrington

I'll presume you mean the second attack
Where was this bomb??

'At 11:58am on (20 March 1993), the telephone help charity The Samaritans received a coded message that a bomb was going to be detonated outside the Boots shop in Liverpool, '

Note the similaraties to all other bombs and in relation to the first point.

In a CBD centre, the financial district, the one most valuable to the UK.
A warning was given to give people time to get out of the are thus minimising any potential casualties.

Harrods is a financial centre? it's a shop. The attacks were designed to create terror by killing innocent people. where is the debate. Harrods was, I would suggest, targetted because it is high profile not because it was going to bring the British economy to it's knees.

The reason the IRA did not target more civilians, on an aeroplane for example, is because then the US would finally see them as murdering scum as opposed to a lovely bunch of romantic freedom fighters as they were portrayed in the US press. It's ironic that people are happy to criticise the US for suppoting Israel to gain the jewsih vote, but the US also turned a blind eye to the IRA to try and win the Irish vote. What's the difference. Bringing down an aeroplane is a huge event that would have given them negative publicity and seriously affected Noraid's ability to get donations.

They were clever how they went about things, but they still targeted civilians in a cold blooded and ruthless manner.

Zombrex

Rossibaby wrote: »

so....is ché guevara a terrorist is NELSON MANDELA A TERRORIST

Do you even know what a terrorist is?

Zombrex

dav32cs wrote: »

Bombs were planned to disrupt the british economy as much as possible

So they targetted Harrods and Argos?? That is ridiculous. Since when would closing Harrods for a week disrupt the British economy enough that the British would abandon N.I?

They targeted these places because people shop there. The purpose was to either kill people or demonstrate to the British public that they can kill people, both acts heightening the feeling of terror in the public, hence "terrorism"

When the IRA did actually attack places that actually would damage the economy, such as the Stock Exchange, they managed to do so without killing or injuring anyone. And even then they planted the bomb under the visitor section often occupied by school children on tours. The message was clear.

Tea drinker

Wicknight wrote: »

So they targetted Harrods and Argos?? That is ridiculous. Since when would closing Harrods for a week disrupt the British economy enough that the British would abandon N.I?

They targeted these places because people shop there. The purpose was to either kill people or demonstrate to the British public that they can kill people, both acts heightening the feeling of terror in the public, hence "terrorism"

No, I think, somewhat ironically as it happens, they were attacking a symbol of Britain. I agree with what you say regarding getting it on the minds of the public.

duggie-89

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL .. they "looked hard" did they ... oh mercy. Where were they looking exactly?

Or, oh I don't know, India under Gandhi. Or the USA under Martin Luther King.

Funny how they both managed to find a way to not blow up children

What? If it is not the best option then why does it have to be done?

lol i just realised you may not have looked at history much. firstly have you heard of the civil rights movement in the north and how that was beaten down??

and most catholics didn't have the vote in some area's and with a unionist dominated stormont how could equality every be achieved??? the armed struggle was nessecary to get us to this point but saying that certain acts of the armed struggle were not nessecary but the war was needed.

lol oh yes Dr king the man who got shot and lead an great movement but look at the continue plight of the black people in american. Dr king was a great man but his movement didn't achieve all its aims. while the armed struggle has given us a chance to improve our lives further.

and india...... how could you compare india to ireland???? o and also great choice of characters gandhi once said "

the uk wanted out from india right away after ww2, they couldn't keep on to it once a popular movement was started. they didn't have the manpower or the will. also there was a major lack of a high precentage of population who were loyal to he uk. ie they had no major "unionist" groupings

they only had one community to play off each other who both wanted a seperate state. look at how quick mountbatten drew up their exit plan.

well if its not the best option its simple you dont choose it.

the armed struggle was the right option but not its not. its that simple.

duggie-89

** sori forgot to include the quotes of gandhi

"i do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed"

also he said

"I appeal for cessation of hostilities ... because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans ... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or ... with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them ... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, should they consider them of any practical use in advancing the object of my appeal."

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol i just realised you may not have looked at history much. firstly have you heard of the civil rights movement in the north and how that was beaten down??

Are you seriously claiming civil rights in the North were achieved as a direct result of murder and carnage?

duggie-89 wrote: »

and most catholics didn't have the vote in some area's and with a unionist dominated stormont how could equality every be achieved??? the armed struggle was nessecary to get us to this point but saying that certain acts of the armed struggle were not nessecary but the war was needed.

See above.

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol oh yes Dr king the man who got shot and lead an great movement but look at the continue plight of the black people in american. Dr king was a great man but his movement didn't achieve all its aims. while the armed struggle has given us a chance to improve our lives further.

See above. Are you suggesting that terrorism is the way forward for American blacks?

duggie-89 wrote: »

well if its not the best option its simple you dont choose it.

the armed struggle was the right option but not its not. its that simple.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

As for not choosing the best option: your faith in the infallibility of terrorists is touching. The fact that they chose murder as their way of achieving their goals doesn't make it the best option.

duggie-89

djpbarry wrote: »

I never said that.

Of course I would; people move all the time because they don't like the area they live in. I've done it before and I'll probably do it again. Stupid question.

I'll make this real simple.

Member of IRA = SUB-HUMAN SCUM

That clear enough for you?
What were they looking at exactly?
So what is the best option? An alternative to violence perhaps?
I don't see why that's strange - that's exactly what they are.
What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Is it perfectly ok for me to torch an orphanage if I BELIEVE in what I'm doing? :rolleyes:
I thinking "****ing idiots" is a more accurate description than "martyrs".
So if a bunch of criminals all agree on a common goal, that means they're no longer criminals? Horse****.
When has the island of Ireland ever existed as a 32-county nation?
Eh, the IRA DID bomb and shoot people. It's not an argument, it's a fact.
You could have fooled me.

but that was what you were implying because its the only logical explanimation.

no its not a stupid question but its a question which gives me an insight to your mentality and that is someone who runs away from problems.

lol wel you have made it simply because your have just insulted a member of this fourm, and going by previous movements any insult agaisnt a member of this fourm is suspened i wonder if that will happen to you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

yes the best option is of course an alternative to violence but there was no viable option during the troubles. can you explain to me other options that could work????

lol why would you torch an orpahnge???? the klast time i checked the IRA never did that so your comparrsion doesn't make sense. also if what you believed in and not a movement then well i think you may have to by your own standards call yourself an "ira member"

well if their goal is a political goal then yes it does. but it doesn't do well with their background. also again its open to interpetation to who is a criminal. esp if political motives are involved.

well ireland hasn't existed as a 32 county nation is every right ie( have a national government and people) also considering because the idea of a nation only really appeared in the early 1800's

duggie-89

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming civil rights in the North were achieved as a direct result of murder and carnage? See above. See above. Are you suggesting that terrorism is the way forward for American blacks? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

As for not choosing the best option: your faith in the infallibility of terrorists is touching. The fact that they chose murder as their way of achieving their goals doesn't make it the best option.

yes i believe that the armed struggle helped seal the equality, as no body wants to go back to the bad days so equality is very important. to ensuring that.

so see above lol

no lol its simple because their looking for civil rights while the ira were looking fro national unity.

sori i meant to say the armed struggle was the right option but now its not.

and your correct it doesn't make it the best option but it doesn't make it the worst option. it all depands on the situration on the ground.

duggie-89

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you even know what a terrorist is?

DO you?????????

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol oh yes Dr king the man who got shot and lead an great movement but look at the continue plight of the black people in american. Dr king was a great man but his movement didn't achieve all its aims.

He achieved a hell of a lot.

duggie-89 wrote: »

the uk wanted out from india right away after ww2, they couldn't keep on to it once a popular movement was started. they didn't have the manpower or the will.

The UK wanted out of Ireland right away after WWI. They couldn't keep hold of it once a popular movement was started; they didn't have the manpower or the will.

See what I did there?

duggie-89 wrote: »

the armed struggle was the right option but not its not. its that simple.

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol wel you have made it simply because your have just insulted a member of this fourm, and going by previous movements any insult agaisnt a member of this fourm is suspened i wonder if that will happen to you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Who has he insulted?

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol i just realised you may not have looked at history much. firstly have you heard of the civil rights movement in the north and how that was beaten down??

It certainly was "beaten down", as nearly every civil rights movement is. It wouldn't be much of a civil rights movement if it didn't encounter strong resistance.

Are you honestly suggesting though that the civil rights movement in N.I received much worse resistance than the movements in the US or India that managed to carry out non-violent protests.

The IRA in fact put back the civil rights movement for decades because it gave the British an excuse to refuse to recognize the rights of Catholics on the grounds that they would be giving into terrorism, and it gave the British public the image of the Catholic civil rights movement as being a group of murdering thugs.

The plight of the Catholics gained wide spread support in England until the IRA appeared and started turning the civil rights struggle into a push for independence and the removal of Britain, and viewing all British people as the enemy. And by God that wasn't very long. Its not like the civil rights movement struggle for decades before the IRA eventually had enough. The IRA took very first opportunity to start attacking the British

The worst thing that ever happened to the Catholic civil rights movement was the IRA. Being associated with that (not be choice, but by the IRA proclaiming it their cause) pretty much killed any popular support the movement gained and meant the Catholics in N.I continued to face oppression and abuse for decades.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and most catholics didn't have the vote in some area's and with a unionist dominated stormont how could equality every be achieved???

And the IRA fixed this how exactly?

duggie-89 wrote: »

the armed struggle was nessecary to get us to this point

The armed struggle certain did get us to this point. The problem is that we would have been at this point 20 years ago if it hadn't have been for the arms struggle. Instead the IRA turned the Catholic civil rights movement into one of the longest most drawn out civil rights struggles in recent memory, turning public opinion away from the plight of the Catholics and giving the British government the perfect excuse to stone wall for years.

duggie-89 wrote: »

Dr king was a great man but his movement didn't achieve all its aims. while the armed struggle has given us a chance to improve our lives further.

LOL. The IRA haven't achieved their aims!! Are you living in a united Ireland :rolleyes:

What you have "won" is what you probably would have gotten 20 years ago if the civil rights movement had just been allowed by the IRA to get on with focusing on Catholic civil rights instead of turning that movement into a call for a united Ireland and blowing up women and children.

The IRA war didn't achieve anything except extending the stone walling of the Unionists and British in relation to Catholic civil rights from years to decades.

The IRA gave them the excuse they needed to claim that the Catholics were violent dangerous and immoral, the perfect excuse to not give them civil rights.

Riddle101

They "looked hard" did they ... oh mercy. Where were they looking exactly?

Where were they looking? proberly at the RUC turning a blind eye and Loyalist attacks on Catholics. Or maybe the unemployment level oc Catholics because jobs were mostly given to Protestants.

Or, oh I don't know, India under Gandhi. Or the USA under Martin Luther King.

Yeah two men who were both killed for their protests. even they tried peaceful democratic means and they still came short of the barrel

What? If it is not the best option then why does it have to be done

Maybe because it's the only way people will listen. You look at WW2 and where they not done with violence, do you think they could have settled Hitler invading Euorpe through peaceful means, i think they did and they saw that it had no affect on him what so ever.

djpbarry

Riddle101 wrote: »

Yeah two men who were both killed for their protests. even they tried peaceful democratic means and they still came short of the barrel

Last time I checked, India was an independent republic and black people in the US have far more rights than they did in the 50's - look who's running for president FFS. :rolleyes:

Riddle101

Last time I checked, India was an independent republic and black people in the US have far more rights than they did in the 50's - look who's running for president FFS.

Maybe but that wasn't my point. You seem to think that peaceful means can stop killing but these two tried it and they were both killed. Also Daniel O Connel tried peaceful means and so did most Home Rule leader yet they got no where.

By the way, Black people got more right then they did in the 50's Well Catholics also got more rights since the 50's in Northern Ireland

djpbarry

Riddle101 wrote: »

Also Daniel O Connel tried peaceful means and so did most Home Rule leader yet they got no where.

Really? The Third Irish Home Rule Act was passed in 1914 but didn't come into force due to WWI and the Easter Rising. Had the Rising not happened (along with subsequent events), it is quite possible that Ireland would have obtained Home Rule after WWI and partition may never have occurred, which in turn could have lead to independence.

Riddle101 wrote: »

...Catholics also got more rights since the 50's in Northern Ireland

This occurred largely after the cessation of hostilities by the IRA and other paramilitaries.