Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Options
1…1516182021…33

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Two states claim sovereignty over a place. One of those states, having consulted the people in a plebiscite, formally relinquishes its claim of sovereignty.

    Leaving aside that the other state's claim of sovereignty was already internationally recognised as the valid one, the relinquishing of a claim of sovereignty does, indeed, confer the right to be there.

    It doesn't change the fact that 2/3 of a province was stolen, and no vote ever can.


  • Options
    #513
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    You are aware the British army was deployed to stop mostly the ethic cleansing of Catholics ? Which it did and got no thanks. Rather after regrouping it was attacked by the PIRA, in an orgy of psychopathic and mindless bombings and shootings, which also killed hundreds of Catholics.


    Also in places like Londonderry, 13,000 Protestants were ethnically cleansed.

    There was/is sectarianism on both sides, its not as black and white as you believe over there in Boston :rolleyes:

    Sure, the presence in the north has nothing to do with Kinsale and the power vaccum left by the Flight of the Wild Geese.


  • Options
    #514
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    It doesn't change the fact that 2/3 of a province was stolen, and no vote ever can.
    Not a believer in democracy, then?


  • Options
    #515
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I said that you might as well ask what a valid target for a British jet is, because that's the same sort of thinking that should go into choosing a target for any resistance organization.

    Ok, what is a valid target for a resistance organization, IRA or British Fighter Jet?

    Or to make it easier for you, you don't need to explain in general, just answer was Omagh Main Street a legitimate target?
    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Are you resorting to ad homonym attacks because you're out of arguments, or do you really think I don't know what the word legitimate means?

    I think you know exactly what legitimate means, and I think you know that Omagh, and most of the IRA bombs, were not in anyway legitimate targets.

    But you appear to really not want to state that, I imagine because you hold on to the romantic idea that the IRA fought a legitimate, moral, war.


  • Options
    #516
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I, unfortunately, did read the post.

    I asked how Omagh was a legitimate target for a R-IRA bomb, and you (rather shockingly) replied saying that it would be legitimate if the R-IRA had manage to not get caught, stating that Dublin and Monanagh were legitimate targets for the Loyalists because they got away with it

    Which I find horrific and offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself. :mad:
    I SAID THAT THE BRITISH UNDER THE PRETENCE OF LOYALIST BOMBED DUBLIN AND THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT
    you are taking what you want it to mean that is the problem with pro brits


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I most certainly did not avoid the question. Please re read my post more carefully, as it's not very long.
    No you did, and announcing you're not avoiding the question, is well, still avoiding the question


  • Options
    #518
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, what is a valid target for a resistance organization, IRA or British Fighter Jet?

    Or to make it easier for you, you don't need to explain in general, just answer was Omagh Main Street a legitimate target?



    I think you know exactly what legitimate means, and I think you know that Omagh, and most of the IRA bombs, were not in anyway legitimate targets.

    But you appear to really not want to state that, I imagine because you hold on to the romantic idea that the IRA fought a legitimate, moral, war.

    I am sorry I didn't spell it out clearly for you: I don't think it was a legitimate target. I feel as if you're trying to paint me into a corner, rather than reading what I type.


  • Options
    #519
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Diogenes wrote: »
    No you did, and announcing you're not avoiding the question, is well, still avoiding the question

    I asked you nicely to go and read the post more carefully, so I wouldn't have to cut and paste it here for you. Oh, well, here you go:
    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.


  • Options
    #520
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    If any of the actions in the past 800 years that have led to the presence of brits in the North was legitimate, than the Unionists would be entitled to their opinion.

    As it is, they are trying to confer legitimacy on a string of illegitimate actions, and suggesting that we should not look on the entire period of violence, aggression, and occupation, but rather look only at the people who resisted it, as somehow justyifying occupation! that's circular logic, and unnaceptable.

    shall we go back a bit further, to the time when the Irish were attacking Wales and England and carting off slaves (Ever heard of a guy called St Patrick). You could argue the Irish started it.

    The situation has needed resolving for a long time and Ireland is the closest it has been to peaceful unity for 2000 years, the people of Ireland voted and for now that is the way it should stay.

    Britain, as much as Ireland wants a united Ireland. The people in NI who call themselves British are different to pretty much any other British person you will meet. Don't, for one minute, think that Britain wants to keep holf of NI because you would be mistaken.


  • Options
    #521
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    I SAID THAT THE BRITISH UNDER THE PRETENCE OF LOYALIST BOMBED DUBLIN AND THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT
    you are taking what you want it to mean that is the problem with pro brits

    Proof?

    Reason?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    I SAID THAT THE BRITISH UNDER THE PRETENCE OF LOYALIST BOMBED DUBLIN AND THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT

    You certainly did.

    And you said that in response to me asking how was Omagh legitimate.

    I asked how is Omagh legitimate and you said ask the British/Loyalists who bombed Dublin. There is only one way to take that statement, otherwise why mention Dublin at all? You are saying that Omagh was legitimate because Dublin was legitimate. Which is disgusting. :mad:


  • Options
    #523
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Fact is that the majority of right minded people dont give a bolocks about a united Ireland.

    Its 2008. Its over. Move on.

    We've begun some very beneficial cross border links and that is the way forward.


  • Options
    #524
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    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?

    Do you agree that the native Americans have the moral right to aterrorist campaign to get their land back


  • Options
    #525
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    shall we go back a bit further, to the time when the Irish were attacking Wales and England and carting off slaves (Ever heard of a guy called St Patrick). You could argue the Irish started it.

    The situation has needed resolving for a long time and Ireland is the closest it has been to peaceful unity for 2000 years, the people of Ireland voted and for now that is the way it should stay.

    Britain, as much as Ireland wants a united Ireland. The people in NI who call themselves British are different to pretty much any other British person you will meet. Don't, for one minute, think that Britain wants to keep holf of NI because you would be mistaken.

    You could argue carting off Patrick was its own punishment for the current establishment. The difference is there's no lasting, persistent vestige of those crimes, and crimse they were. There is a persistent and illegal remainder of the war crimes committed by the British in the form of an illegal statelet on Ireland's soil.

    If the reverse were true, I would support Britain's claim that it should be abolished.


  • Options
    #526
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The concept of a moral right to commit terrorism is almost comical. Terrorism is morally wrong.


  • Options
    #527
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    From which power was this undeniable right derived?

    other than the fact their families have lived in Ireland for 300 years, there is also the small matter of the EU.

    If nothing else they are citizens of the European Union and therefore have a right to live wherever they like.


  • Options
    #528
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    There is a persistent and illegal remainder of the war crimes committed by the British in the form of an illegal statelet on Ireland's soil.
    "Illegal"? What law is being broken?


  • Options
    #529
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    other than the fact their families have lived in Ireland for 300 years, there is also the small matter of the EU.

    If nothing else they are citizens of the European Union and therefore have a right to live wherever they like.

    The EU is irrelevant, because it did not exist when the right was first asserted. If the first people to live there had no right, why do people now? It's a simple, common sense concept.


  • Options
    #530
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    You could argue carting off Patrick was its own punishment for the current establishment. The difference is there's no lasting, persistent vestige of those crimes, and crimse they were. There is a persistent and illegal remainder of the war crimes committed by the British in the form of an illegal statelet on Ireland's soil.

    If the reverse were true, I would support Britain's claim that it should be abolished.

    Illegal? says who? No more illegal than the US and a lot less illegal than Gitmo.

    Where is this persistant crime you talk of?


  • Options
    #531
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Illegal"? What law is being broken?

    Ireland has a right to its territorial integrity. I view the violation of that right as a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Illegal? says who? No more illegal than the US and a lot less illegal than Gitmo.

    Where is this persistant crime you talk of?

    Why do you insist on veering back to America, all the time. I think I've made my feelings clear on that, so you'll score no points attacking Gitmo, unless you think I somehow support it?


  • Options
    #533
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    The EU is irrelevant, because it did not exist when the right was first asserted. If the first people to live there had no right, why do people now? It's a simple, common sense concept.

    who says they had no right? was Ireland the first country to have immigration control?

    The same can be applied to the US.


  • Options
    #534
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    I am sorry I didn't spell it out clearly for you: I don't think it was a legitimate target. I feel as if you're trying to paint me into a corner, rather than reading what I type.
    No one is trying to paint you into a corner we are trying to get you to stand behind what you claim.

    You where asked if Omagh was a legitimate target and you said it was a "botched" bombing, which is rather irrelevant because even if it wasn't a botched Omagh still wouldn't have been a legitimate target.

    It is this kind of double-speak from Republicans that people find so frustrating.


  • Options
    #535
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    who says they had no right? was Ireland the first country to have immigration control?

    The same can be applied to the US.

    Again with America.. What aren't you getting?

    Who said they had no right? How about the Irish who resisted them tooth and nail with whatever strength they had.


  • Options
    #536
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Ireland has a right to its territorial integrity. I view the violation of that right as a crime.
    Insofar as Ireland ever had such a right, we (the people of Ireland) explicitly relinquished it.

    If we, the people of Ireland, don't have a right to decide the extent of our territory, who does?


  • Options
    #537
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You certainly did.

    And you said that in response to me asking how was Omagh legitimate.

    I asked how is Omagh legitimate and you said ask the British/Loyalists who bombed Dublin. There is only one way to take that statement, otherwise why mention Dublin at all? You are saying that Omagh was legitimate because Dublin was legitimate. Which is disgusting. :mad:
    You take it your way I know what I mean when I said the Brits bombed Dublin by proxy as they did in Omagh check out the facts of both terrorist acts


  • Options
    #538
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No one is trying to paint you into a corner we are trying to get you to stand behind what you claim.

    You where asked if Omagh was a legitimate target and you said it was a "botched" bombing, which is rather irrelevant because even if it wasn't a botched Omagh still wouldn't have been a legitimate target.

    It is this kind of double-speak from Republicans that people find so frustrating.

    It was botched, because they attacked an illegitmate target. I don't understand what's not clear to you. I spelled it out.


  • Options
    #539
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    Ireland has a right to its territorial integrity. I view the violation of that right as a crime.

    The Republic of Ireland has a right to its territorial integrity. "Ireland" as you state, has never existed, at least not in the modern sense of nations and countries.

    This would be so much easier if we weren't an island. No one would think that all of Europe was one country, or even all of Britain.

    But for some reason Republicans all think the island of Ireland = "Ireland", when in fact that is never been the case. It wasn't the case 800 years ago and it isn't the case now. The island was initially a set of independent kingdoms (that spend an awful lot of time fighting each other), then it was part of the Norman empire. Then it was part of the British Empire. Then the South was a Republic, and now the North is a semi-autonomous body.

    "Ireland" as a nation has never existed.


  • Options
    #540
    BostonFenian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 158 ✭✭BostonFenian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Insofar as Ireland ever had such a right, we (the people of Ireland) explicitly relinquished it.

    If we, the people of Ireland, don't have a right to decide the extent of our territory, who does?

    Well for instance, states in America are not entitled to secede, and no amount of voting in that state will make the federal government view that as legitimate. They will always act to maintain territorial integrity, and soveriegnty no matter what any group of people says.

    I believe most countries protect their soverignty in similar fashions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BostonFenian wrote: »
    It was botched, because they attacked an illegitmate target. I don't understand what's not clear to you. I spelled it out.

    How is that "botched" .. botched means to make a mistake, to f**k up. The R-IRA picked that target, it wasn't an accident. It wasn't like they meant to blow up an RAF base and mistakenly blew up Omagh main street instead.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement