Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

So I suppose that claim is the basis for legitimizing British occupation through the centuries?

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

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

More double speak nonsense.

It is a simple question Tomas :rolleyes:

How is Omagh a legitimate target?

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Did they pick that target? I thought they picked the courthouse, and because there was no parking spot, another target was chosen ad hoc by the man on the scene.

Fratton Fred

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

interesting comparison. Is the UK not allowed to do the same?

BostonFenian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

interesting comparison. Is the UK not allowed to do the same?

I think the UK does allow for that, as Scotland seems to be moving in that direction in some ways, with devolution and all that, but you would probably know better than I.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

So I suppose that claim is the basis for legitimizing British occupation through the centuries?

No.

It is a claim for legitimizing the right of the people in Northern Ireland to determine their own future without the wishes of the people in the South over riding that.

At the end of the day the Republican claim is that the island of Ireland is a unified population and the majority, mostly made up of people in the South, over rules the minority in the North that wish to remain British subjects.

That of course only works if "Ireland" as actually a single democratic entity, a single democratic unit, made up of the entire island.

Which I see no reason to accept that this is the democratic unit that should decide things now. The only time it could be argued that the entire island was a single democratic unit was in the 1918 elections that lead to the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

I think the UK does allow for that, as Scotland seems to be moving in that direction in some ways, with devolution and all that, but you would probably know better than I.

Well by your logic Scotland has no right to determine its own future because Scotland is part of the island of Britain, and most British people living in England. So surely the wishes of the majority overrule the wishes of the minority in Scotland.

If Northern Ireland must bend to the wishes of the majority on the whole island, why does Scotland not have bend to the wishes of the majority on the whole island?

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

No.

It is a claim for legitimizing the right of the people in Northern Ireland to determine their own future without the wishes of the people in the South over riding that.

At the end of the day the Republican claim is that the island of Ireland is a unified population and the majority, mostly made up of people in the South, over rules the minority in the North that wish to remain British subjects.

That of course only works if "Ireland" as actually a single democratic entity, a single democratic unit, made up of the entire island.

Which I see no reason to accept that this is the democratic unit that should decide things now. The only time it could be argued that the entire island was a single democratic unit was in the 1918 elections that lead to the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and partition.

But that same right was not conferred on the people there who resisted the arrival of these new "citizens".

Fratton Fred

BostonFenian wrote: »

I think the UK does allow for that, as Scotland seems to be moving in that direction in some ways, with devolution and all that, but you would probably know better than I.

Ireland was and NI is still, part of the UK, every bit as much as Texas is part of the US.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote: »

Well by your logic Scotland has no right to determine its own future because Scotland is part of the island of Britain, and most British people living in England. So surely the wishes of the majority overrule the wishes of the minority in Scotland.

Except that most English people want Scotland to secede

BostonFenian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland was and NI is still, part of the UK, every bit as much as Texas is part of the US.

Right but the UK has no legitimate claim to sovereignty anywhere on the island, which I suppose is the heart of our disagreement. Continuously thier presence was an aggressive one, and never invited by the people they displaced. I don't understand how that would become legitimate because of the passage of time.

BostonFenian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Except that most English people want Scotland to secede

And my understanding is England would probably be happy to offload NI.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Did they pick that target? I thought they picked the courthouse, and because there was no parking spot, another target was chosen ad hoc by the man on the scene.

Well firstly the courthouse isn't any more a legitimate target than the main street.

Secondly if they picked another target on the spot then they picked the target.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

Well by your logic Scotland has no right to determine its own future because Scotland is part of the island of Britain, and most British people living in England. So surely the wishes of the majority overrule the wishes of the minority in Scotland.

If Northern Ireland must bend to the wishes of the majority on the whole island, why does Scotland not have bend to the wishes of the majority on the whole island?

Not so, as it's encoded in UK law, and UK law is the legitimate law of the land there, as opposed to Irish law in Ireland.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

Well firstly the courthouse isn't any more a legitimate target than the main street.

Secondly if they picked another target on the spot then they picked the target.

Some tool picked the target; it hardly seems well thought out. Target selection involves a lot of people over a period of time, of examining it and planning. This clearly was not intended by the leadership.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

More double speak nonsense.

It is a simple question Tomas :rolleyes:

How is Omagh a legitimate target?

you asked what was the correct the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh Answer again sorry if you cannot understand that you Bomb Omagh the same way as you bombed Dublin get the puppets to do it and (hope no one finds out) or maybe you DONT BELIVE the brits bombed Dublin

Pathfinder

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Apart from as part of Britain.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland was and NI is still, part of the UK, every bit as much as Texas is part of the US.

If Texas had a vote and the majority wanted independence
from the US like the North did in the 20s would that be ok

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

Right but the UK has no legitimate claim to sovereignty anywhere on the island, which I suppose is the heart of our disagreement. Continuously thier presence was an aggressive one, and never invited by the people they displaced. I don't understand how that would become legitimate because of the passage of time.

Legitimate = lawfull

Thus you are wrong given that international law eg the UN recognises British sovereignity in NI.
The people of Ireland voted for the GFA which recognises same.
The people of the 26 counties voted in a referendum by some percentage in the 90's to remove any claim to sovereignity there from our constitution.

Your claims are from the past just like support for slavery would be.

With respect,you should either get with the programme or at least recognise that your views are unlikely to reach fruition given modern thinking on the subject

TOMASJ wrote: »

you asked what was the correct the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh Answer again sorry if you cannot understand that you Bomb Omagh the same way as you bombed Dublin get the puppets to do it and (hope no one finds out) or maybe you DONT BELIVE the brits bombed Dublin

I'll rephrase the question for you.
You are being asked do you advocate Omagh bombings when you can't democratically get your wishes?

Yes or no?

LordSutch

The English would indeed be very happy to off-load Northern Ireland & Scotland too (probably)? but the 'problem' is that the North wants to remain part of the UK and this is the crux of the matter ...............

The mission for Republicans now is to convince the Unionist/ British & Nationalist people of the North that they should leave the UK and be part of a UI instead, therby giving-up their NHS, their Royal Mail, their BBC, their ITV, their everything, so they can become just like us :cool:

They must be convinced that they should be governed from Dublin instead of London, but will that wash? & will they give-up their Birthright & Nationality also? time will tell, but not at the behest of the 'Real IRA'.

England & the English have very little to do with it.

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

If Texas had a vote and the majority wanted independence
from the US like the North did in the 20s would that be ok

in my opinion yes, but unfortunately the boat was missed.

TOMASJ

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll rephrase the question for you.
You are being asked do you advocate Omagh bombings when you can't democratically get your wishes?

Yes or no?

I never on any of my posts (read them) said that I advocated any bombings Omagh or Dublin I was pointing out the hypocrites on the board in that it was ok for the brits to use force but not the Irish

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

you asked what was the correct the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh Answer again sorry if you cannot understand that you Bomb Omagh the same way as you bombed Dublin get the puppets to do it and (hope no one finds out) or maybe you DONT BELIVE the brits bombed Dublin

My Question - What is the legitimate way to bomb Omagh?

Your Answer - The way the British bombed Dublin.

So, once again, you are claiming that the legitimate way to bomb somewhere is the way the British bombed Dublin, a position I find deeply offensive. :mad: Dublin was not a legitimate target.

Or you don't understand what the word "legitimate" means, in which case I would probably need to question why I'm bothering to discuss this with you.

oscarBravo

TOMASJ wrote: »

I never on any of my posts (read them) said that I advocated any bombings Omagh or Dublin I was pointing out the hypocrites on the board in that it was ok for the brits to use force but not the Irish

Nobody said it was OK for anyone to bomb Dublin. Please leave the straw men out of it.

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

I never on any of my posts (read them) said that I advocated any bombings Omagh or Dublin I was pointing out the hypocrites on the board in that it was ok for the brits to use force but not the Irish

What??

The only person who said it was OK for the British to bomb places like Dublin is you when you said that Omagh was legitimate because Dublin was.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

Right but the UK has no legitimate claim to sovereignty anywhere on the island, which I suppose is the heart of our disagreement. Continuously thier presence was an aggressive one, and never invited by the people they displaced. I don't understand how that would become legitimate because of the passage of time.

Republican revisionist rubbish. Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Féin, envisaged an Ireland with its own parliament, which would swear allegiance to the king. Most Irish people have never wanted more than a fair deal. Violent Republicanism has always ignored the wishes of the people, preferring to pursue a bloody and idealistic vision, whatever the cost.

BostonFenian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in my opinion yes, but unfortunately the boat was missed.

Texas was an independent country that entered the union through treaty, so, actually, you'd have to look at the treaty to see if Texas has the right to secede according to the US.

That being said, the Federal government does not allow states to secede, as if the American Civil War doesn't adequately illustrate that.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

Texas was an independent country that entered the union through treaty, so, actually, you'd have to look at the treaty to see if Texas has the right to secede according to the US.

That being said, the Federal government does not allow states to secede, as if the American Civil War doesn't adequately illustrate that.

You're missing the point. We're not talking about whether a minority has the right to secede from a country; we're talking about a country's right to relinquish its claim on another country's territory.

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

Republican revisionist rubbish. Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Féin, envisaged an Ireland with its own parliament, which would swear allegiance to the king. Most Irish people have never wanted more than a fair deal. Violent Republicanism has always ignored the wishes of the people, preferring to pursue a bloody and idealistic vision, whatever the cost.

There were an awful lot of bloody uprisings where people continuously demonstrated their willingness to lay down their lives for thier national vision. If the people throughout the years were dreaming of an Ireland for the Irish, how can you say all they wanted was a fair deal?

I do believe that in many cases the fight was beaten out of them for years at a time, and in those times, they would take what they could get.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Not so, as it's encoded in UK law, and UK law is the legitimate law of the land there, as opposed to Irish law in Ireland.

What? Why is UK law the legitimate law of the land in Scotland but not Northern Ireland? Did the Scottish vote themselves into the U.K?

[EDIT] On second reading you seem to have just agreed with me that "Irish law" (the law of the Republic) has no legitimacy in Northern Ireland

The question is on what basis do you claim that the democractic voting unit that should decide the fate of those in N.I is the island of Ireland.
[/EDIT]