Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Erin Go Brath

Pathfinder wrote: »

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.

I never heard such rubbish in all my life. The proclamation of 1916 states: "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

Its only yourself, Eoghan Harris and a few other deluded polemics that go on with this Protestant ethnic cleansing crap. Theres absolutely no basis for it. Our first and fourth Presidents were Protestants. That equals 25% of our total Presidents, which certainly rubbishes your claims that Ireland is a cold house for Protestants.

jank

Its only yourself, Eoghan Harris and a few other deluded polemics that go on with this Protestant ethnic cleansing crap. Theres absolutely no basis for it. Our first and fourth Presidents were Protestants. That equals 25% of our total Presidents, which certainly rubbishes your claims that Ireland is a cold house for Protestants

Shhh.. if you tell them that it wont be as entertaining if these "revisionist" historians stop posting their....eh...theories.:D

A Dub in Glasgo

blorg wrote: »

BostonFenian, you honestly are an example of why I am very glad we don't give Irish abroad the vote. .

Because you do not like the way they may vote? You think they are too misinformed to vote? Extend that logic to plenty who can currently vote then

It wasn't me!

Riddle101 wrote: »

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





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

The examples were not terrorism. Torture, yes, but far from terrorism. The second example couldn't even vaguely be construed as terrorism, so I'd re-evaluate my approach if I were you.

So, it was better to divide the island, the same thing you're blethering about now, rather than wait a few years?

murphaph

BostonFenian wrote: »

Why can't they be Irish?

Because they're british.

BostonFenian wrote: »

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).

It's easy to bash the north today but remember...the RoI is still heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. Our schools and hospitals for the most part are owned/run by them. Catholic children get priority in most schools and this has now led to an "all black" school in north Dublin, where the children are mostly protestants from africa. The state is and has always been reluctant to take education away from the catholic church for financial reasons and so even today, if you want your jewish/muslim/etc child to be educated locally they will be staring up at a crucifix in every classroom. Pluralistic you say?

BostonFenian wrote: »

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..

You completely either missed or glossed over my point. Protestants were treated badly by the newly independent free state and many fled. Words are easy. Actions speak louder.

Pathfinder

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I never heard such rubbish in all my life. The proclamation of 1916 states: "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

Its only yourself, Eoghan Harris and a few other deluded polemics that go on with this Protestant ethnic cleansing crap. Theres absolutely no basis for it. Our first and fourth Presidents were Protestants. That equals 25% of our total Presidents, which certainly rubbishes your claims that Ireland is a cold house for Protestants.

The Protestant population went from around 20% to 3 %. Protestants in some areas were actively driven out by the IRA, especially in places like Munster.

As I said it was as Dev stated a Catholic country for a Catholic people.

This was reflected in the constitution as well as new laws forbidding divorce etc. There were also capaigns to boycott Protestant business.

As late as the early 90s the Garda had 8 Protestants in the whole force.

This is history the RC owned and controlled schools in the republic ignores.



* The relative Protestant population was more or less constant in the period 1891 to 1911.
* The relative Protestant population fell sharply (by over 30%) between 1911 to 1926.
* The relative Protestant population has been declining at a more or less constant rate since 1926.


In the border counties (Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth), there were instances of Protestants being intimidated by more extreme neighbours and groups, most notably the IRA. There are records of Protestant farmers in these areas being attacked. Many of these Protestants responded by leaving their homes and moving across the border into Northern Ireland. This also contributed to the Protestant decline between 1911 and 1926.


Until recently, there was discrimination against Protestants in the labour market of the Republic of Ireland. For example, Trinity College, although a Dublin University, was mainly attended by Protestants. (Even today it is a stronghold of Irish Unionism.) In many jobs, Trinity College was not accepted as a source of education, so applicants who had attended Trinity were automatically rejected. This had the effect of preventing most Protestants from applying for the jobs. There are other, more specific, cases of discrimination. For example county Clare library service was told by the Irish President, Eamonn de Valera, that it should employ a Catholic chief librarian. This discrimination meant that many Irish Protestants had to migrate to Northern Ireland or Britain to seek employment. This also contributed to the trend between 1926 and 1991.


http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

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?

I keep trying to get it back. But when I die I stop. Again the people who lost their lands 400 years ago are dead.

My great-grand parents lived in a house in Terenue. They lost the house due to some rather dodgy dealings of a lawyer they trusted. This story is told every once in a while in my family.

If the house hadn't been stolen (not legally but ethically) it would have been a valuable asset in my family that probably would have been passed down in some form eventually getting to me

Now, am I, the great grand child, going to go to the great grand children of this lawyer and demand that they owe me a house? No, of course not!

They don't owe me a house. They don't owe me the value of a house. They don't even owe my great grand parents a house. Children are not responsible for their parents debt. Grand children are not responsible for their parents debt.

The lawyer owed my great-grand parents a house. But he is dead.

My great grand parents are owed a house. But they are dead.

Everyone involved is dead. I'm not owed anything, nor are his great grand kids responsible for giving me anything.

Zombrex

Pathfinder wrote: »

The Protestant population went from around 20% to 3 %. Protestants in some areas were actively driven out by the IRA, especially in places like Munster.

As I said it was as Dev stated a Catholic country for a Catholic people.

This was reflected in the constitution as well as new laws forbidding divorce etc.

That is a good point. In all the "evil-Brits" propaganda nonsense people forget that the Protestant populations through Ireland but particularly in the North had very real fears about being ruled from a Catholic government in Dublin.

Zombrex

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I never heard such rubbish in all my life. The proclamation of 1916 states: "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."

LOL :rolleyes:

yes that that obviously worked brilliantly in Ireland over the last 100 years.

The Republic wasn't a very nice place for liberal Catholics, let alone Protestants. "Religious and civil liberty" went out the window pretty sharply.

oscarBravo

This discussion is meandering far and wide, so I'd like to bring it back to the original point of discussion: the use of violence to further political aims.

The view has been expressed by many that violence isn't the right tactic to use at this time. I'd like to put the question to BostonFenian: you've tacitly accepted that the Native Americans were hard done by when Europeans came and took their lands. Do you think they have a case for a terrorist campaign to get them back?

nacho libre

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The examples were not terrorism. Torture, yes, but far from terrorism. The second example couldn't even vaguely be construed as terrorism, so I'd re-evaluate my approach if I were you.


I wonder what was the possible motive behind the public torture of the sepoys? given the definitions i've seen written in this thread such action constitues an act of terrorism by the British. I'm curious as to whether you agree with, Wicknight, that even if state armies don't technically engage in terrorism, that this does not somehow legitimize all their military actions- making them better than those he/she views as terrorists. Speaking of military tactics, i'm sure the civilians on the receiving end of them, are appreciative of the important distinction that needs to be drawn between their emotional reactions arising from terrorism and acceptable military tactics like shock and awe. The latter, afterall, does not involve inflicting fear and trauma on civilians for a political objective.

TOMASJ

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The examples were not terrorism. Torture, yes, but far from terrorism. The second example couldn't even vaguely be construed as terrorism, so I'd re-evaluate my approach if I were you.

So, it was better to divide the island, the same thing you're blethering about now, rather than wait a few years?

I will give you an example of british terrorism Bloody Sunday if you want a few more just ask

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

This discussion is meandering far and wide, so I'd like to bring it back to the original point of discussion: the use of violence to further political aims.

The view has been expressed by many that violence isn't the right tactic to use at this time. I'd like to put the question to BostonFenian: you've tacitly accepted that the Native Americans were hard done by when Europeans came and took their lands. Do you think they have a case for a terrorist campaign to get them back?

I have to admit, that's an excellent question, and obviously a bit difficult to answer. I could really take a long time to think about it, and come up with an answer that I feel is internally consistent with my values.. I'd almost have to, because it's such a tricky situation.

First of all, it's literally impossible to displace 300 million people, even if that's what the Native Americans would actually want to see happen, so it's really not on the table. It's not the same situation at all as in Ireland, where it's many fewer people, and those that would not be interested in a United Ireland, could go elsewhere in the UK and still feel at home.

I would advise the Native Americans to first of all come up with an objective that they believe they can achieve, and probably set about it incrementally. I'm not sure what the state of cohesion is in the Native American population, in terms of identifying with their tribe, or with Natie Americans as a whole. They would certainly have to be able to present a unified front.

If they could unify, I think their best bet would be to seek to consolidate their reservation lands, and perhaps sue for better quality land; we certainly have enough arable land in the midwest, for instance. They don't have the numbers to fill the whole country, but I think the space could easily be spared, to give them a huge spot of land somewhere in the country that's a quality place to live, with resources. They're already considered sovereign, so that's a big fight that doesn't need to be had.

I just sort of spewed that off the top of my head, but I think if I was advising them, that would be my suggestion for a starting point.

After that, their methods and strategies would be determined by what happened on the ground, but I think they certainly are entitled to a better deal, and the US government is the same organization, even if it's not the same people. One of the sticky things about having such an organization is you have to answer for things that you didn't personally do, much like the captain of a ship taking responsibility for what some drunk ensign did in our Navy.

oscarBravo

That's a well-reasoned response, but it still skims away from the main point. Are there any circumstances in which they would be entitled to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in order to further their political objectives?

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a well-reasoned response, but it still skims away from the main point. Are there any circumstances in which they would be entitled to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in order to further their political objectives?

I don't view legitimate resistance as indiscriminate murder, just as I don't consider George Washington, or Michael Collins a terrorist.

For the Native Americans to begin a campagin of violence would be suicide for them. The American government would crush them. But if they tried their strategy politically, and met unreasoned resistance, I would think they'd have a right to unilaterally take the land they need. Of course the army would respond, and then they would be justified in reacting in a guerilla fashion.

That being said, I think it would be suicide, and smart people in their community would hopefully advise against that.

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

I will give you an example of british terrorism Bloody Sunday if you want a few more just ask

It is debatable whether that was terrorism or just acts of pointless murder. To demonstrate terrorism you would have to show that the British Army was attempting to alter political climate through terrorist means.

For example did the British Army ever issue a specific demand before or after Bloody Sunday related to those actions threatening future such actions if the demand was not met?

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

It is debatable whether that was terrorism or just acts of pointless murder. To demonstrate terrorism you would have to show that the British Army was attempting to alter political climate through terrorist means.

For example did the British Army ever issue a specific demand before or after Bloody Sunday related to those actions threatening future such actions if the demand was not met?

Who cares if it was terrorism, really? I understand you guys are debating that very point, but it was awful and barbaric, and I think splitting hairs about whether or not it was terrorism just trivializes the whole thing, as if to absolve it of its horrid nature.

Intelligent people can disagree about what terrorism is, but I hope we can all agree that events like that are just plain wrong, and the very things that legitimize resistance organizations.

Zombrex

nacho libre wrote: »

I wonder what was the possible motive behind the public torture of the sepoys?

Well if you are left wondering about it then is almost definitely wasn't terrorism (or if it was it was terrorism by idiots)

Terrorism is pointless unless it is clear what exactly the people who are being terrorized are supposed to do to make the terrorism stop. If you don't know what that is then terrorism is even less effective than if you do.

Think of it like a hostage taker ringing you up and saying "I've got your children, and you better do exactly what I want you to do". You go "Yes yes, anything! What do you want me to do?? Tell me!" and the hostage taker goes "Erm ... you figure it out" and hangs up.

He wouldn't be a very good hostage taker would he, you are left with no clue what he wants and as such he is left with very little possibility of actually getting what he wants. If that ever did happen I would seriously doubt the hostage taker was actually a hostage taker (ie someone looking for something in return for what he has held hostage) and much more likely just a nut job.

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm curious as to whether you agree with, Wicknight, that even if state armies don't technically engage in terrorism, that this does not somehow legitimize all their military actions

Why are you curious about that?!?

When did I ever give the impression that because an army doesn't engage in terrorism that some how legitimizes all the military tactics they do use?

Not only do I think such a position is utterly stupid, I've said so numerous times including on this thread in an attempt to clarify this, because for some reason people keep saying this. Which speaks more about how they view things than how I do, TBH.

The only way I can see anyone reaching that conclusion out what I'm saying is if they themselves have this idea that "terrorism" somehow is a catch-all that simply means "immoral military action". They then conclude that if I say someone doesn't use terrorism I'm saying that don't use "immoral military actions". Which is nonsense. When I say someone doesn't use terrorism I mean someone doesn't use terrorism, which is a specific military tactic.

It is rather silly to judge the morality of an army on the tactics they don't use

For example, the US Army don't use children as human shields. That has little bearing on how someone assesses the morality of the tactics the US Army does use. The US uses torture techniques such as water boarding, which is in my view highly immoral. One can't say that water boarding is some how more legitimized because the US Army doesn't use children human shields. The two are not connected at all.

Such as way of viewing things is utterly ridiculous in my view, and I'm really getting tired of it.

nacho libre wrote: »

Speaking of military tactics, i'm sure the civilians on the receiving end of them, are appreciative of the important distinction that needs to be drawn between their emotional reactions arising from terrorism and acceptable military tactics like shock and awe.

Who said shock and awe was an acceptable military tactic?

Shock and Awe (technically know as "rapid dominance") has nothing to do with terrorism. They are two very different military tactics. That fact, though, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not rapid dominance is a legitimate or moral military tactic.

I would be happy to discuss the morality of rapid dominance with you, but a different thread is probably in order as the IRA don't even use rapid dominance in the first place, nor have the British Army ever used it in Northern Ireland.

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

That being said, I think it would be suicide, and smart people in their community would hopefully advise against that.

Once again you're evading the question, you're not being asked whether it would be a successful tactic, you're being asked whether it would be morally acceptable to you for the Native Americans to engage in a terrorist campaign to get their land back.

Well is it?

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Intelligent people can disagree about what terrorism is, but I hope we can all agree that events like that are just plain wrong, and the very things that legitimize resistance organizations.

I agree its very wrong, I don't agree it legitimizes resistance organisations if you are talking about organisations like the IRA. Nothing legitimizes the IRA as they were (ie terrorists who murder civilians and non-legitimate military targets)

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

It is debatable whether that was terrorism or just acts of pointless murder. To demonstrate terrorism you would have to show that the British Army was attempting to alter political climate through terrorist means.

For example did the British Army ever issue a specific demand before or after Bloody Sunday related to those actions threatening future such actions if the demand was not met?

Yes one week before Bloody Sunday the british army prevented a group of civil rights people from walking on a beach at magilligan strand as the Irish in the north were not premitted to use towns or citys to demonstrate against there conditions and beat the crap out of them so you could say they were attempting to alter political climate before Bloody Sunday

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

I don't view legitimate resistance as indiscriminate murder

What do you view it as, indiscriminate lawful execution?

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

I don't view legitimate resistance as indiscriminate murder, just as I don't consider George Washington, or Michael Collins a terrorist.

Do you view the Omagh bomb as "legitimate resistance"?

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

Yes one week before Bloody Sunday the british army prevented a group of civil rights people from walking on a beach at magilligan strand as the Irish in the north were not premitted to use towns or citys to demonstrate against there conditions and beat the crap out of them so you could say they were attempting to alter political climate before Bloody Sunday

And ... ?

If the British had the ability of numbers to forcefully stop civil rights groups demonstrating why would they even use terrorism in the first place? That is like saying we will leave the door of the office open but we will shoot the children of anyone who walks into the office at night. A sensible person would ask why not just lock and guard the door to the office.

You don't seem to be really following why groups such as the IRA use terrorism in the first place. Its because they can't use anything else, they are too small a military organisation.

BTW can I ask what is this desire people have to try and make Bloody Sunday an act of terrorism. Do you think that by labeling it terrorism you some how make it more immoral than it already was?

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree its very wrong, I don't agree it legitimizes resistance organisations if you are talking about organisations like the IRA. Nothing legitimizes the IRA as they were (ie terrorists who murder civilians and non-legitimate military targets)

who legitimized the B men who run the north by terror an murdered Irish civillians who dared to raise there head from partition to 69

guinnessdrinker

TOMASJ wrote: »

Yes one week before Bloody Sunday the british army prevented a group of civil rights people from walking on a beach at magilligan strand as the Irish in the north were not premitted to use towns or citys to demonstrate against there conditions and beat the crap out of them so you could say they were attempting to alter political climate before Bloody Sunday

John Hume attended this march, he gives a description of events of this during his evidence in the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

And ... ?

If the British had the ability of numbers to forcefully stop civil rights groups demonstrating why would they even use terrorism in the first place? That is like saying we will leave the door of the office open but we will shoot the children of anyone who walks into the office at night. A sensible person would ask why not just lock and guard the door to the office.

You don't seem to be really following why groups such as the IRA use terrorism in the first place. Its because they can't use anything else, they are too small a military organisation.

BTW can I ask what is this desire people have to try and make Bloody Sunday an act of terrorism. Do you think that by labeling it terrorism you some how make it more immoral than it already was?

Seems you dont undestand or dont want to know how the british worked in the north why did they use the sas if not for terror

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

who legitimized the B men who run the north by terror an murdered Irish civillians who dared to raise there head from partition to 69

No one. The Ulster Special Constabulary B Group were widely regarded as nothing more that a Protestant vigilantly group, which acted in an almost barbaric manner with little internal structure or any accountability.

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

Once again you're evading the question, you're not being asked whether it would be a successful tactic, you're being asked whether it would be morally acceptable to you for the Native Americans to engage in a terrorist campaign to get their land back.

Well is it?

I most certainly did not avoid the question. Please re read my post more carefully, as it's not very long.

guinnessdrinker

Wicknight wrote: »

It is debatable whether that was terrorism or just acts of pointless murder. To demonstrate terrorism you would have to show that the British Army was attempting to alter political climate through terrorist means.

It could be argued that collusion by the British forces equates to terriorism.