Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Israel frequently uses carbombs and assassination to take out troublesome resistance figures when they think a military incursion would be too obvious, or costly.

I've never heard of the Israel Army using a car bomb to kill people. They normally use rockets which are a lot easier and effective.

But again assassination by itself is not terrorism.

BostonFenian wrote: »

I think the shock and awe strategy was designed to scare the crap out of the Iraqi power structure, convince them there was no use in fighting and make them surrender.

It wasn't.

BostonFenian wrote: »

That sounds like violence for a political objective, which is how I view terrorism.

Violence for a political object pretty much covers any form of war or military action. If that is the definition of terrorism everything is terrorism.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Given your definition, it sounds as if you equate guerilla war with terrorism.

I equate terrorism with terrorism. It is possible to stage a guerilla war without using terrorism. If a guerilla army uses terrorism then they are using terrorism. If they don't they aren't.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

What happened 400 years ago was wrong. Very wrong in fact. But the key point is the 400 year ago bit

All the people involved in the plantations, the bad guys and good guys, are dead. Long dead. The opportunity to punish them is gone.

The problem is you are connecting the people of today with the people 400 years ago, and saying that the ancestors of the bad guys should give their land to the ancestors of the good guys.

Which is equally immoral.

You don't punish children for what their parents did. You don't punish grand children for what their grand parents did.

If my dad beats up your dead you don't get to beat me up 10 years after both are dads have died.

The Unionists are here. Punishing them for something that happened 400 years before they were born is immoral.

I think you misunderstood me. I think the descendents of the original planters have as much right as anyone to be there, at this point, only that it be recognized that where they are is Ireland, and if they are content to be Irish they can live in a pluralistic, inclusive society.

The fact that for the past 400 years until the 90s the fight has gone on uninterrupted means that it's not a 400 year old fight. I mean if someone takes something from you, and you can't take it back in the first five minutes, do you have to give up, or can you keep trying til you get it back?

Red-Devil

I must say I dislike the west-briton attitude.

Lets face it we got a rough old deal, and we always have been politically shat on by imperialist Britain. I think there should be some kind of punishment for the UDA and the other loyalist terrorist groups. So far the light has been shone on our own nationalist groups who in fareness have acted cooperatively with all the games the loyalists have been playing. We all know that tensions between Irish and English people are dissapearing bit by bit slowly now and I think that reacting to how badly the Irish nationalist community has been treated in the north would not provoke much dissatisfaction in Britain.

I always have and always will strongly believe in a united Ireland and am saying this as a Dubliner with many relatives up north for we have been allowing things slip under our noses.

Red-Devil

And jesus christ **** Israel! Palistine arabs have always been our allies. I feel pro-American/Israel attitudes in this country sicken me! They are all fascist thocracies and Britain is their bitch. What happened to the people of this country? It seems this recent wealth in Ireland has biggotted people and people are becomming less and less nationalist... which is a dangerous thing.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

Ireland was as much of a united country as most of the european states where at the time of, say the Norman invasion. Are you going to argue that Greece was not a country at say, the time of the Persian war? Because of the long history of violence, Ireland was essentially denied the opportunity to develop properly.

This insistence that Ireland was never a united country seems to miss the whole point.

Rubbish most European states only became nations in the 19th century.

Ireland was divided into 5 provinces at the time of the Norman arrival, the Vikings ruled the SE and Dublin, it certainly was not one nation.

Anyway the Normans were invited in, with the treaty of Windsor, they were welcomed because they were able to side with the Gael against the Vikings.



I always find it ironic when Irish-Americans go on about planters and Catholics being culturally displaced, they obviously don't do irony.

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

Rubbish most European states only became nations in the 19th century.

Ireland was divided into 5 provinces at the time of the Norman arrival, the Vikings ruled the SE and Dublin, it certainly was not one nation.

Anyway the Normans were invited in, with the treaty of Windsor, they were welcomed because they were able to side with the Gael against the Vikings.

The normans were invited if you count Diarmaid MacMurchada's actions as an invitation instead of a terrible act of treason.

But my point was that no country was a cohesive whole at the time, and that saying that Ireland is somehow less of a nation is silly, since it existed in parity to all the other nations of the time.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

The normans were invited if you count Diarmaid MacMurchada's actions as an invitation instead of a terrible act of treason.

But my point was that no country was a cohesive whole at the time, and that saying that Ireland is somehow less of a nation is silly, since it existed in parity to all the other nations of the time.

England became a nation in the 9th century possibly the first, with one monarch and language, after the defeat of the Vikings/Danes,

Similar to the process in Ireland which the Normans started.

Under the Gaels Ireland had many kings, codes and provinces as well as the Vikings ruling in the SE and Dublin.

The first thing the Normans did was smash the power of the Vikings (they had crossbows).

Btw Henry II was French, England and later Ireland were simply part of his larger Kingdom.

Red-Devil

BostonFenian wrote: »

The normans were invited if you count Diarmaid MacMurchada's actions as an invitation instead of a terrible act of treason.

But my point was that no country was a cohesive whole at the time, and that saying that Ireland is somehow less of a nation is silly, since it existed in parity to all the other nations of the time.

No it did not exist as a group of nations infact I think you will find that Ireland (at that time) existed as a kingdom known as the kingdom of Ireland and was split between 5 self led provinces.

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

Rubbish most European states only became nations in the 19th century.

Ireland was divided into 5 provinces at the time of the Norman arrival, the Vikings ruled the SE and Dublin, it certainly was not one nation.

Anyway the Normans were invited in, with the treaty of Windsor, they were welcomed because they were able to side with the Gael against the Vikings.



I always find it ironic when Irish-Americans go on about planters and Catholics being culturally displaced, they obviously don't do irony.

A couple of points that I missed when first replying to your post:

Didn't Brian Boru oust the Danes in 1014, and the Norman invasion wasn't until the 12th century? I'm confused how he needed Norman help..

I suppose you assume that because I'm American that I don't appreciate the irony of those who were displaced here. I assure you I do, which is one of the reasons I'm leaving the country (I'm in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship through descent). I assure you that my ethics in this matter are consistent.

BostonFenian

Red-Devil wrote: »

No it did not exist as a group of nations infact I think you will find that Ireland (at that time) existed as a kingdom known as the kingdom of Ireland and was split between 5 self led provinces.

Yeah, my understanding was that for the most part they were allied with the High King, and sometimes there was a recalcitrant that would have to be dealt with, or perhaps two parties vying for the title, but that in general, the High King ruled over a loose confederacy of kinglets, which could be almost like America under the articles of confederation.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

A couple of points that I missed when first replying to your post:

Didn't Brian Boru oust the Danes in 1014, and the Norman invasion wasn't until the 12th century? I'm confused how he needed Norman help..

I suppose you assume that because I'm American that I don't appreciate the irony of those who were displaced here. I assure you I do, which is one of the reasons I'm leaving the country (I'm in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship through descent). I assure you that my ethics in this matter are consistent.

No this is another lie of Irish history, the Normans smashed the Danes in Ireland.


On 23 August, 1170 Strongbow himself landed at the Viking port of Vadre-fjord [Waterford] on the south coast and quickly defeated the occupants. Encouraged by two successive gains, the Normans decided to go further and attack the Viking city-state of Dubh Linn [Dublin] itself. Fearful of the power of the Norman army, the Viking King of Dubh Linn formed an alliance with High King O'Connor and the 2 men's armies waited near the city.

More :

In 1170, the arrival of the Anglo-Normans at the gates of Dublin changed everything.

The Vikings were expelled to the far side of the river to live in their own town called Ostmantown (literally the Town of the Men from the East) and the native Irish were chased off to their own settlements.

Within a couple of years the Anglo-Normans were followed by English settlers(actually Normans from England..[not English[Saxons) and from that point onwards, for the best part of 750 years, Dublin, and ultimately the whole of Ireland would be ruled by the throne or parliament of England.(not true either, Ireland and England was part of Henry IIs larger Kingdom) From time to time Irish chieftains challenged the Viking and Norman rulers of Dublin but never very effectively and almost never as a united force.

I assume your American because of your user name.

I was just mentioning the irony of Irish Americans holding St Pats day parades etc in NY and going on about how Catholics were displaced in the north.

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

No this is another lie of Irish history, the Normans smashed the Danes in Ireland.


On 23 August, 1170 Strongbow himself landed at the Viking port of Vadre-fjord [Waterford] on the south coast and quickly defeated the occupants. Encouraged by two successive gains, the Normans decided to go further and attack the Viking city-state of Dubh Linn [Dublin] itself. Fearful of the power of the Norman army, the Viking King of Dubh Linn formed an alliance with High King O'Connor and the 2 men's armies waited near the city.

I assume your American because of your user name.

I was just mentioning the irony of Irish Americans holding St Pats day parades etc in NY and going on about how Catholics were displaced in the north.

I concede the point about the Danes; I had thought they were finished after Clontarf. Still, just because another foreign power was there, does not, to my mind, diminish the overriding cultural identity, and thus nationhood of the island at the time.

I selected the username so that people would know I was American, so that when I expressed an opinion, that could be taken into account, so I have no problem with your inference. What I was referring to was my apparrently mistaken belief that you were suggesting because I lived in America where the natives and the blacks and the mexicans, etc had been treated so horribly, that I wasn't appreciating the irony of being supportive of native rights in Ireland.

But it seems you meant something different.. are you suggesting that it's ironic for me to care, since my own people were displaced? I'm not sure I'm following you.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

I concede the point about the Danes; I had thought they were finished after Clontarf. Still, just because another foreign power was there, does not, to my mind, diminish the overriding cultural identity, and thus nationhood of the island at the time.

I selected the username so that people would know I was American, so that when I expressed an opinion, that could be taken into account, so I have no problem with your inference. What I was referring to was my apparrently mistaken belief that you were suggesting because I lived in America where the natives and the blacks and the mexicans, etc had been treated so horribly, that I wasn't appreciating the irony of being supportive of native rights in Ireland.

But it seems you meant something different.. are you suggesting that it's ironic for me to care, since my own people were displaced? I'm not sure I'm following you.

How can a country have a mono-cultural identity or exist as one nation if some provinces were ruled by Danes who had their own religion, language etc and there were many Kingdoms ?

The same applied in England before the 9th century.


Irish history is often written by those with a political axe to grind, to get a full picture read varied sources.

Heres an example, Cromwell did not do half the things he is accused of.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055245451

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

How can a country have a mono-cultural identity or exist as one nation if some provinces were ruled by Danes who had their own religion, language etc and there were many Kingdoms ?

The same applied in England before the 9th century.


Irish history is often written by those with a political axe to grind, to get a full picture read varied sources.

Heres an example.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055245451

Well, I'm very interested in history, and try to read as much as I can, so I'll follow the link, but the Danes were hardly a permanent presence on the island, despite all the place names they left behind. They came and went, and even if it did require some help from the Normans, you can't say that they weren't a nation because they were invaded. That logic doesn't make sense to me. There were invaders, and there was a cultural identity that had existed at that time for what, 1500 years?

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well, I'm very interested in history, and try to read as much as I can, so I'll follow the link, but the Danes were hardly a permanent presence on the island, despite all the place names they left behind. They came and went, and even if it did require some help from the Normans, you can't say that they weren't a nation because they were invaded. That logic doesn't make sense to me. There were invaders, and there was a cultural identity that had existed at that time for what, 1500 years?

The Danes had been in Ireland for 300 years they founded Irelands cities.

To be a nation a country must have one govt or Kingdom, legal code and a unified people. Ireland even before the Danes had none of these.

Ireland was a collection of Gael Kingdoms and later also Viking Kingdoms.

Even the name Ireland is a Norman creation.


na·tion (nshn)n.1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

The Danes had been in Ireland for 300 years they founded Irelands cities.

To be a nation a country must have one govt or Kingdom, legal code and a unified people. Ireland even before the Danes had none of these.

Ireland was a collection of Gael Kingdoms and later also Viking Kingdoms.


na·tion (nshn)n.1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people

You don't consider the High Kingship to be a government, or Brehon law to be a legal code? And as I said, 300 years is not that long in the history of Ireland, and even after that time, they still ousted them, suggesting a persistence of motivation. As we already said before, these people often fought amongst each other, but all of the countries of the time were doing it, and we still refer to them as countries. We speak of Greece, even though Athens and Sparta constantly fought each other. We don't say it wasn't a country, just that it was composed of city-states.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

You don't consider the High Kingship to be a government, or Brehon law to be a legal code? And as I said, 300 years is not that long in the history of Ireland, and even after that time, they still ousted them, suggesting a persistence of motivation. As we already said before, these people often fought amongst each other, but all of the countries of the time were doing it, and we still refer to them as countries. We speak of Greece, even though Athens and Sparta constantly fought each other. We don't say it wasn't a country, just that it was composed of city-states.

Medieval Irish historical tradition held that Ireland had been ruled by an Ard Rí or High King since ancient times, and compilations like the Lebor Gabála Érenn, followed by early modern works like the Annals of the Four Masters and Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, purported to trace the line of High Kings. The corpus of early Irish law does not support the existence of such an institution, and scholars now believe it is a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid in the ninth century. The traditional list of High Kings of Ireland is thus a mixture of fact, legend, fiction and propaganda.


At this time there were no nations.

Nations came later, for many including Italy and Germany as late as the 19th century.


The concept of nationalism is a modern one.

In Ireland society was of many tribes and KIngdoms/Chiefdoms.

People never saw themselves as one united country. For most of the time they were at war with each other.

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

Medieval Irish historical tradition held that Ireland had been ruled by an Ard Rí or High King since ancient times, and compilations like the Lebor Gabála Érenn, followed by early modern works like the Annals of the Four Masters and Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, purported to trace the line of High Kings. The corpus of early Irish law does not support the existence of such an institution, and scholars now believe it is a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid in the ninth century. The traditional list of High Kings of Ireland is thus a mixture of fact, legend, fiction and propaganda.


At this time there were no nations.

Nations came later, for many including Italy and Germany as late as the 19th century.


The concept of nationalism is a modern one.

In Ireland society was of many tribes and KIngdoms/Chiefdoms.

People never saw themselves as one united country. For most of the time they were at war with each other.

All I'm trying to say is that Ireland has as much claim to the title of nation, at almost any point in her history as any other european nation at the same time.

The reason that this is such an important sticking point to me is that some have used the fact that Ireland was supposedly not a nation to somehow justify a foreign power transplanting an entire group of people, and running the original inhabitants off their own land. I don't follow this logic at all.

I know that Ireland was never strictly speaking, united, but I also feel that it would have been, had England not consistently meddled manipulatively in her internal affairs. I don't feel it's relevant to the nationalist debate today, to be honest.

To me the common culture, language, and identity provides more than enough rationale for why the island should be one.

TOMASJ

While were reading rubbish by Tom Reilly about how wonderful cromwell was heres more rubbish writings about another Hero Hiliter by another smart fella
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Pathfinder wrote: »

How can a country have a mono-cultural identity or exist as one nation if some provinces were ruled by Danes who had their own religion, language etc and there were many Kingdoms ?

The same applied in England before the 9th century.


Irish history is often written by those with a political axe to grind, to get a full picture read varied sources.

Heres an example, Cromwell did not do half the things he is accused of.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055245451

murphaph

BostonFenian wrote: »

I would find it very difficult to argue against a Native American making that point. In fact, I'm so upset about it, as well as Iraq, and other things, that I've started the process of claiming Irish citizenship through descent, and expect to move to Cork before too much longer.

Well you can hand your house over to a native american soon then! Seriously, the history of Britain and Ireland is far more complex than even most British Islanders realise. Britain didn't "invade" like Germany invaded Poland, despite the republicans on here repeatedly using the word.

Anglo-Norman barons also settled in Ireland from the 12th century, initially to support Irish regional kings such as Diarmuid MacMorrough whose name has arrived in modern English as Dermot MacMurrough. Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, known as "Strongbow", was the leader of the Anglo-Norman Knights whom MacMurrough had requested of Henry II of England to help him to re-establish himself as King of Leinster. Strongbow died a very short time after invading Ireland but the men he brought with him remained to support Henry II of England and his son John as Lord of Ireland. Chief among the early Anglo-Norman settlers was Theobald Walter (surname Butler) appointed hereditary chief Butler of Ireland in 1177 by King Henry II [1] and founder of one of the oldest remaining British dignities. Most of these Normans came from Wales, not England, and thus the epithet 'Cambro-Normans' is used to describe them by leading late medievalists such as Seán Duffy.

So it all started off when an irish king sought military assistance from a welsh lord descended from a french one descended from a scandinavian one.

The IRA would have run out of money a long time ago if americans didn't hand over money to Noraid. This money directly funded the killing of people.

BostonFenian

murphaph wrote: »

Well you can hand your house over to a native american soon then! Seriously, the history of Britain and Ireland is far more complex than even most British Islanders realise. Britain didn't "invade" like Germany invaded Poland, despite the republicans on here repeatedly using the word.



So it all started off when an irish king sought military assistance from a welsh lord descended from a french one descended from a scandinavian one.

The IRA would have run out of money a long time ago if americans didn't hand over money to Noraid. This money directly funded the killing of people.

Sure, and Henry II was a benevolent friend to the Irish people.. come on..

So you're saying because guile and manipulation were involved that it doesn't amount to an invasion. Whatever.

And as far as the native american thing, I've already said, I plan on moving away from America anyway, so you can stop hitting me on that; it's not relevant, and I've already determined how I'm going to deal with that internal conflict. I'm sure it pleases you to score rhetorical points, but the one side of my family left Cavan in 1921, and the other side left Cork in 1948, so I have no stake. In general, you'll find me a consistent supporter of the rights of any group of people that has been abused by a stronger group, whenver it was.

Of course, my landlord might have something to say about handing over her house. Do we have anything more to say about the American sins as they relate to Ireland?

murphaph

BostonFenian wrote: »

Sure, and Henry II was a benevolent friend to the Irish people.. come on..

What are the "irish people"? McMurrough was a king at war with other kings. Ireland was a fractured island of many kingdoms. Of course Henry II was looking out for himself-as were the irish kings.

BostonFenian wrote: »

So you're saying because guile and manipulation were involved that it doesn't amount to an invasion. Whatever.

But we are an immigrant island. People have come here in wave upon wave and to single out the normans in the 11th century and call them "british invaders" is a gross over simplification of irish and british history.

BostonFenian wrote: »

In general, you'll find me a consistent supporter of the rights of any group of people that has been abused by a stronger group, whenver it was.

Including minority protestant populations who suffered greatly at the hands 0f republicans following independence? Would you accept that in 2008 the british government treats the large minority of catholics about as well as is possible?

BostonFenian

murphaph wrote: »

What are the "irish people"? McMurrough was a king at war with other kings. Ireland was a fractured island of many kingdoms. Of course Henry II was looking out for himself-as were the irish kings.

um, the Irish speaking people who lived in Ireland?

But we are an immigrant island. People have come here in wave upon wave and to single out the normans in the 11th century and call them "british invaders" is a gross over simplification of irish and british history.

The Normans definitely belong to a different group, and I think they're a great example, because of the "more Irish than the Irish" thing that so vexed the English rulers.

That's why I don't understand why the Irish can't absorb those descended from the planters in the North. I mean where's the conflict, really? They've lived in Ireland for 400 years. Why can't they be Irish? I think the Republic has demonstrated that for the most part it's capable of being a respectful pluralistic society, respectful of differences (as opposed to society in the North). I think someday, they, too could become at least as Irish as the Irish.

Including minority protestant populations who suffered greatly at the hands 0f republicans following independence? Would you accept that in 2008 the british government treats the large minority of catholics about as well as is possible?

But the Protestants aren't a minority in the North, and the only reason the Catholics are a minority is because Britian deliberately excluded the counties that would prevent them from having a majority. It's patently artificial.

As far as the Protestants in the South, they have places of honor in history, and are respected, are they not? Like Parnell? I mean even the Tones have a song praising all the brave Protestant men..

blorg

BostonFenian, you honestly are an example of why I am very glad we don't give Irish abroad the vote. However I am 110% in favour of our open citizenship through descent laws and if you actually come and live here you will be most welcome.

Personally I would welcome a united Ireland, and am thankful every day we are not part of Britain (I am employed by a UK company- this reminds me ;-) However I also recognise that the unionists in the north have a right to wish to remain both Irish and British (as indeed all Irish were between 1801 and 1922.) Frankly right now union would be a disaster for the south, both from an economic and a potential terrorist point of view. In 20 years, who knows. But the only way it will work is if it is entirely peaceful and chosen by those in the north.

Fratton Fred

we'll all be ruled by Brussels soon anyway so it will make no difference

TOMASJ

blorg wrote: »

BostonFenian, you honestly are an example of why I am very glad we don't give Irish abroad the vote. However I am 110% in favour of our open citizenship through descent laws and if you actually come and live here you will be most welcome.

Personally I would welcome a united Ireland, and am thankful every day we are not part of Britain (I am employed by a UK company- this reminds me ;-) However I also recognise that the unionists in the north have a right to wish to remain both Irish and British (as indeed all Irish were between 1801 and 1922.) Frankly right now union would be a disaster for the south, both from an economic and a potential terrorist point of view. In 20 years, who knows. But the only way it will work is if it is entirely peaceful and chosen by those in the north.

What about the Irish in the north ignored by the old west brit Jackeens as usual

Riddle101

Prove it. Give me cut and dry examples of the British using seditious terrorist tactics, without referring to northern Irish collusion or some watery tale.

The british used to tie Indian soldiers(sepoys)to cannons and line them up in front of forced crowd of regular people to blow them up in pieces. Is that worse than sucide bombing? or even worse? Its worse tha anything else in this world as these attrocities happened for 100s of years all over the world. The British makes Hitler look like the cutest baby of all, thanks to the woman they call queen and the damn monarchy... disgusting

This was taken from historical investigation of British Atrocities Here's another

The British have smashed up my country, stole our gold, and diamonds because of Edomitic greed, who used the English as canon fodder. When they could not overcome our heroic men who had to fight guerilla tacticks, the british resorted to cowardly measures eg. scorthed earth, killing of 6 million horses and cattle and 60 million sheep belonging to Boers, their, drives, blockhouses, sweeping all women and children to starvation camps where they were subjected to molestation, starvation, rape, poisoning by arsenic (YES, I saw the hair of the victims, all preserved after 105 years), arming of black savages and let loose on the civilian population. Yes, the people at large do not know these atrocities, the British press kep it away from them, but we in South africa who had relations who fought these barbarians know, we have had it first hand from our parents and grand parents. The British and their Edomitic pals owe us and one day we are coming to get you British and Edomites to even the score. The victims are crying out aloud for revenge!!!!!!

SO do you think Home Rule was a bad thing? Do you not think it would be better to have kept the island as one country and possibly waited slightly longer to be a whole free state? Or do you think it was better to fight, split the country (yes, violent republicanism is responsible for the divide, bitter pill though it might be to swallow) and deal with it afterwards? Damn immature attitude to international politics I would think, particularly historically. All the whole bloody affair, the Troubles and IRA whinging and Unionist aggression and all that could so easily avoidable had Pearse, who I think we're all agreed was a deranged lunatic, had kept his shít together rather than satisying a personal blood-lust in 1916, so, would you rather a peaceful solution to haev happened long, long before you were ever born, or are you glad we had a civil war, the partition of a country and damn near forty years of crap ever since

To be honest Home Rule was bulls**t. I only support the idea because it was the only thing we could get at the time. But to choose Home Rule over the War for Independence that established the free state, yes i think it was a bad thing because if we had taken Home Rule, we could be like Scotland and Wales right now

Fratton Fred

Riddle101 wrote: »

This was taken from historical investigation of British Atrocities Here's another

by who an phoblacht?

you might want to find better sources, give mcarmalite a shout, he has loads:rolleyes:

but obviously we all understand that because the British fought the Boars (Plenty of irish there btw, on both sides) that is perfect justification to blow up a child in a shopping centre.:rolleyes:

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

um, the Irish speaking people who lived in Ireland?



The Normans definitely belong to a different group, and I think they're a great example, because of the "more Irish than the Irish" thing that so vexed the English rulers.

That's why I don't understand why the Irish can't absorb those descended from the planters in the North. I mean where's the conflict, really? They've lived in Ireland for 400 years. Why can't they be Irish? I think the Republic has demonstrated that for the most part it's capable of being a respectful pluralistic society, respectful of differences (as opposed to society in the North). I think someday, they, too could become at least as Irish as the Irish.



But the Protestants aren't a minority in the North, and the only reason the Catholics are a minority is because Britian deliberately excluded the counties that would prevent them from having a majority. It's patently artificial.

As far as the Protestants in the South, they have places of honor in history, and are respected, are they not? Like Parnell? I mean even the Tones have a song praising all the brave Protestant men..

Boston Fenian you are obviously unaware ordinary Protestants were not welcome in the south, Dev even stated it was a Catholic country for a Catholic people.

Protestants do view themselves as Irish but also as British, you have to understand there has been a bombing campaign to drive them from the island of Ireland, which has put back unity by decades.

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

you have to understand there has been a bombing campaign to drive them from the island of Ireland, which has put back unity by decades.

Who tried to bomb these Irish Protestants them from the Island of Ireland the last time I heard it was the British army that the IRA were trying to get out of the illegal statlet