Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

I believe the American Constitution would have to be amended to allow that.

For instance, did you know that Thomas Jefferson's approval of the Lousiana Purchase was actually an unconstitutional act, because the President was not granted that authority under the Constitution.

Similarly, I don't think there is any body under this Constitution that has the power to diminish the territory of the US. As I said above, a Constitutional Convention, or an ammendment could change that.

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

I see so it would be ok to place car bombs in public places to get slavery implimented would it?
Or to impliment some other such notion from years ago long since abandoned in favour of what the majority want?

Pointless arguing with people who think like that tbh,they usually should end up in jail and rightly so.
I'm posting an incovenient truth for that mindset though.
Talking to the wall in other words

BostonFenian wrote: »

I believe the American Constitution would have to be amended to allow that.

Lol.
You do realise that a referendum did exactly that here in favour of UK sovereignity in NI do you?

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Didn't they? I'm referring to the Act of Union.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Are you thick or what there IS NOT RIGHTFUL WAY TO BOMB OMAGH or DUBLIN my compartment's with the two was to highlight that the British were not lilly white in what went on in Ireland from partition and the republicans were the boogeymen and were responsible for everything as seems to be the thinking of a lot on this board

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

I see so it would be ok to place car bombs in public places to get slavery implimented would it?
Or to impliment some other such notion from years ago long since abandoned in favour of what the majority want?

Pointless arguing with people who think like that tbh,they usually should end up in jail and rightly so.
I'm posting an incovenient truth for that mindset though.
Talking to the wall in other words :)Lol.
You do realise that a referendum did exactly that in favour of UK sovereignity in NI do you?

I think you think you're talking to a wall, just because you like to have the same conversation over and over again to ensure your talking points are hit.

I've not advocated violence in the present situation at all. It's just that it's convenient for the Brit apologists to put me in that corner. I believe there are a lot of very constructive things that could be done that don't involve violence.

I also believe people by and large voted to end the violence, rather than grant NI soveriegnty. Obviously, this is speculation, but I think the case would be much different if people felt that a united Ireland could be obtained without the violence.

It's the Republican's job today to present a clear and compelling argument for that to the people.

If you want to demonize, go ahead, but I consider it an extremely prinicpled stand.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Didn't they? I'm referring to the Act of Union.

No more than we did. If you accept the Act of Union as legitimate then on what grounds do you say that Northern Ireland is illegal. Northern Ireland is the bit that didn't want to leave the Union. We are the bit that did. What the problem?

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Need you specks on what post no was the above on

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are you thick or what there IS NOT RIGHTFUL WAY TO BOMB OMAGH or DUBLIN

Let me explain this again.

"Legitimate" means rightful way. If I ask what is the legitimate way to bomb Omagh and you say the same way as Dublin you are saying that Dublin was legitimate, and that to be legitimate Omagh would have to be like the Dublin bombing. Or you are trying very badly to be ironic, which was a bit silly because I don't remember anyone ever claiming that the British bombing Dublin was legitimate.

If you now decide that isn't what you meant to say I don't really care. That is what you said. If you now decide that that was some how supposed to be taken as an expression of your distaste for the Dublin bombing (how the f**k you thought that claiming Dublin was legitimate would demonstrate your distaste for it I've no idea), again I don't care. That is what you said.

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

Need you specks on what post no was the above on

I recognize those words but I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to me. Can you try again

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

I also believe people by and large voted to end the violence, rather than grant NI soveriegnty. Obviously, this is speculation, but I think the case would be much different if people felt that a united Ireland could be obtained without the violence.

I find it amusing, and faintly patronizing that an American is presuming to tell me what I was thinking about when I went to the vote several years ago...

:rolleyes:

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

I find it amusing, and faintly patronizing that an American is presuming to tell me what I was thinking about when I went to the vote several years ago...

:rolleyes:

Well hey, at least you finally made it all the way through my five line post to find that I did actually answer the question..

And I'm sorry, when did I presume to tell you anything about what you were thinking? I happen to know from conversations what a lot of people were thinking when they voted. Of course, maybe it is all about you..

djpbarry

Does the land constituting the state of Israel rightfully belong to the Palestinian people? Yes or no?

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Does the land constituting the state of Israel rightfully belong to the Palestinian people? Yes or no?

I don't know about *all* of it, but a good chunk of it, for sure.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

I don't know about *all* of it, but a good chunk of it, for sure.

But historically, it belonged to the Israelites, no?

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

But historically, it belonged to the Israelites, no?

My history is a little weak in this regard, but my understanding is that it was essentially shared by various groups, no?

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well hey, at least you finally made it all the way through my five line post to find that I did actually answer the question..

Nope thats still not answering the question.

And I'm sorry, when did I presume to tell you anything about what you were thinking? I happen to know from conversations what a lot of people were thinking when they voted. Of course, maybe it is all about you..

So let me have this clear anecdotal evidence from you trumps the fact that the vast majority of people in this country made a clear and informed decision to renounce our claim on the six counties?

As you might say "WOW Neat!"

Boston Fenian you can kid yourself that secretly we all want a United Ireland all you want, the facts speak for themselves. The IRA never had a popular mandate down south. SF is a minority party in the republic who did poorly in the last elections, and look set to do badly in the European elections. And we ratified that Good Friday agreement by a momentous landslide.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

My history is a little weak in this regard, but my understanding is that it was essentially shared by various groups, no?

You mean like medieval Ireland?

There was a time when the entire region of modern Israel and Palestine was united under the Israeli monarch, including areas of modern-day Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, until it was destroyed by Assyria. Admittedly, the details are sketchy at best, but, most historians and archaeologists would agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an ancient Kingdom of Israel did exist.

So, does this give modern-day Israelis the right to reclaim said lands?

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

Nope thats still not answering the question.



So let me have this clear anecdotal evidence from you trumps the fact that the vast majority of people in this country made a clear and informed decision to renounce our claim on the six counties?

As you might say "WOW Neat!"

Boston Fenian you can kid yourself that secretly we all want a United Ireland all you want, the facts speak for themselves. The IRA never had a popular mandate down south. SF is a minority party in the republic who did poorly in the last elections, and look set to do badly in the European elections. And we ratified that Good Friday agreement by a momentous landslide.

The only thing I'm saying is that I understand the landscape is different now, but that I feel it's the responsibility of people who believe in a united Ireland should continue to present choices and viable arguments for that. I'm not advocating anything beyond that. I don't understand what's so unacceptable about that.

My peresonal feelings based on conversations I've had are just that, and I've not attempted to force them on you, or use them characterize you. I admitted at the outset that it's anecdotal, so I'm not sure I see the controversey there.

And as I said, in my original post that you can't seem to read correctly, and again when I pasted it for you, yes, if the Native Americans were not able to achieve what they wanted politically, I could seem them unilaterally taking it, as it was taken from them. If and when they were attacked, I could justification for them responding with their own attacks.

What can't you understand about that?

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean like medieval Ireland?

There was a time when the entire region of modern Israel and Palestine was united under the Israeli monarch, including areas of modern-day Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, until it was destroyed by Assyria. Admittedly, the details are sketchy at best, but, most historians and archaeologists would agree that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an ancient Kingdom of Israel did exist.

So, does this give modern-day Israelis the right to reclaim said lands?

I'll have to brush up on my history and get back to you with a reasoned response, instead of a gut reaction.

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

The only thing I'm saying is that I understand the landscape is different now, but that I feel it's the responsibility of people who believe in a united Ireland should continue to present choices and viable arguments for that. I'm not advocating anything beyond that. I don't understand what's so unacceptable about that.

My peresonal feelings based on conversations I've had are just that, and I've not attempted to force them on you, or use them characterize you. I admitted at the outset that it's anecdotal, so I'm not sure I see the controversey there.

Because I find it offensive. You're projecting your idealogy onto the majority of Irish people

I also believe people by and large voted to end the violence, rather than grant NI soveriegnty.

Classic American arrogance.

Let me break it down to you.

WE. THE. PEOPLE. OF. IRELAND. MADE. A. CONSCIOUS. INFORMED. DECISION. TO. RENOUNCE. OUR. CONSTITUTIONAL. CLAIM. ON. NI.

You can pretend and dream, about Ireland and the Irish all you want, but you can stop right there when you try and shove your opinion of why we did this down our throats.

Everyone I know knew what we were doing and why we were doing it. We know the cost of a United Ireland, and thanks, but no thanks. This can be born out in the fact that SF have completely failed to capitalise on this and have not made any significant political inroads in the south.

And as I said, in my original post that you can't seem to read correctly, and again when I pasted it for you, yes, if the Native Americans were not able to achieve what they wanted politically, I could seem them unilaterally taking it, as it was taken from them. If and when they were attacked, I could justification for them responding with their own attacks.

What can't you understand about that?

Define "Unilaterally". I think it's going to get very amusing.

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well hey, at least you finally made it all the way through my five line post to find that I did actually answer the question..

And I'm sorry, when did I presume to tell you anything about what you were thinking? I happen to know from conversations what a lot of people were thinking when they voted. Of course, maybe it is all about you..

I don't know who you were talking to.
I voted in that referendum.
I live here,I watched and saw all media here at the time-and who ever you were talking to are giving you a vastly different version of events than reality.

It's the Republican's job today to present a clear and compelling argument for that to the people.

Heh.
Fair enough if minus violence advocation and plus condemnation of the real Ira (the eejits going around NI pretending they've a mandate for shooting the psni and training with guns and bombs in Cork and Kerry last week...they were arrested).

But Reality tells me, you'd be wasting your time.
Most political parties in the Republic would advocate or like a UI by the way and always did-but with the consent of the people up North.

If you really want a UI,I suggest you start the door to door knocking up there and present your arguments and see how you get on.
Hillsborough or Lisburn might be a good place to start.
If you are lost just look for red white a blue road side kirbs in the neighborhood and union jacks flying from flag poles and start the door knocking in the immediate vicinity.

Please post back as to how you get on

p.s theres an aer lingus sale on at the moment too which will help get you over here but the dollars kind of weak so things might be a tad expensive.

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know who you were talking to.
Most political parties in the Republic would advocate or like a UI by the way and always did-but with the consent of the people up North.

How is this different than what I was suggesting? I mean I already said I wasn't advocating violence, so how would it be done without NI consent?

If you really want a UI,I suggest you start the door to door knocking up there and present your arguments and see how you get on.
Hillsborough or Lisburn might be a good place to start.
If you are lost just look for red white a blue road side kirbs in the neighborhood and union jacks flying from flag poles and start the door knocking in the immediate vicinity.

Please post back as to how you get on

What do you want me to say to that? I'm not sure how that contributes to the conversation, but maybe this really isn't about an honest debate, anymore.

p.s theres an aer lingus sale on at the moment too which will help get you over here but the dollars kind of weak so things might be a tad expensive.

You can still get there from Boston for relatively cheap; cheaper than California, actually.

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

Because I find it offensive. You're projecting your idealogy onto the majority of Irish people

I clearly said I was speculating. I may very well be wrong about that, but I didn't project anything onto you. I jsut think you want to be offended.

You can pretend and dream, about Ireland and the Irish all you want, but you can stop right there when you try and shove your opinion of why we did this down our throats.

I'm not shoving my opinion down your throat any more than you are mine. This is a discussion board for just that, discussion.

Everyone I know knew what we were doing and why we were doing it. We know the cost of a United Ireland, and thanks, but no thanks. This can be born out in the fact that SF have completely failed to capitalise on this and have not made any significant political inroads in the south.

Truly, which is why I feel it's time to try a different approach.

Define "Unilaterally". I think it's going to get very amusing.

You mean you don't know?

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

What do you want me to say to that? I'm not sure how that contributes to the conversation, but maybe this really isn't about an honest debate, anymore.

Whats dishonest about suggesting you go door to door in unionist areas of the North with your persuasion?
Afterall it's them that you need the consent from first.

Still unsure how my simple advice actually is amongst the most constructive comments you've had here?
You do know you have to engage with the voters whose minds you have to change in this case I gave you pointers as to where to find them and simply asked aswell that you keep us posted as to how you get on.

We'll know anyway from watching the NI election results

BostonFenian wrote: »

You mean you don't know?

Tip:
Answering questions with questions is a deflection in a debate that most people recognise here,we are after all debaters.
He knows what his definition is,he just wants to hear yours.

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats dishonest about suggesting you go door to door in unionist areas of the North with your persuasion?
Afterall it's them that you need the consent from first.

I wasn't trying to suggest it was dishonest as much as it was a device that had less to do with the debate, and more to do with scoring some sort of point, because that would clearly be a bad idea.

Still unsure how my simple advice actually is amongst the most constructive comments you've had here?
You do know you have to engage with the voters whose minds you have to change in this case I gave you pointers as to where to find them and simply asked aswell that you keep us posted as to how you get on.

We'll know anyway from watching the NI election results

The smiley suggesting you'd like to know how I got on sure seemed to indicate you had a suspicion that you knew. It seems to me there are much better ways to get started on a campaign of that nature, rather than risking the violence I thought we all were trying to avoid. Maybe I mistook your honest goodwill advice as sarcasm. If it was offered without duplicity, I apologize.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

I recognize those words but I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to me. Can you try again

If you read the posts proper you may understand.
there is a lot of posts that you dont seem to understand so i will try again
(I recognize those words but I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to me. Can you try again)
This means put on your glasses (I call them specks) and tell me on what post number (each one is numbered) did I say
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.yours 566
or have you selected sight as well

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me explain this again.

"Legitimate" means rightful way. If I ask what is the legitimate way to bomb Omagh and you say the same way as Dublin you are saying that Dublin was legitimate, and that to be legitimate Omagh would have to be like the Dublin bombing. Or you are trying very badly to be ironic, which was a bit silly because I don't remember anyone ever claiming that the British bombing Dublin was legitimate.

If you now decide that isn't what you meant to say I don't really care. That is what you said. If you now decide that that was some how supposed to be taken as an expression of your distaste for the Dublin bombing (how the f**k you thought that claiming Dublin was legitimate would demonstrate your distaste for it I've no idea), again I don't care. That is what you said.

Very sorry if I cant get my point across to you but don't blame me if you don't understand the beloved queens english

TOMASJ

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats dishonest about suggesting you go door to door in unionist areas of the North with your persuasion?
Afterall it's them that you need the consent from first.

Still unsure how my simple advice actually is amongst the most constructive comments you've had here?
You do know you have to engage with the voters whose minds you have to change in this case I gave you pointers as to where to find them and simply asked aswell that you keep us posted as to how you get on.

We'll know anyway from watching the NI election results :)Tip:
Answering questions with questions is a deflection in a debate that most people recognise here,we are after all debaters.
He knows what his definition is,he just wants to hear yours.

When the Irish in the North are 51% will it be ok for them to ask for a united Ireland or will they have to have the permission of the british or will the six county's have to be split again say to the two countys of Ulster with another artificial majority after all four of the nine countys of Ulster have Irish majority

Erin Go Brath

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not a believer in democracy, then?

Thats a bit rich coming from you.

Ireland has never been allowed democracy. The election in 1918 was ignored by the Brits who decided not to recognise our state. The majority of people in Ireland support unity (all polls taken back that up), but theres never been a referendum to allow people to vote on it.

Instead what we have is an artificial Unionist statelet in the North East of our country which holds a veto over the wishes of the majority of the Irish people.

TOMASJ

TOMASJ wrote: »

When the Irish in the North are 51% will it be ok for them to ask for a united Ireland or will they have to have the permission of the british or will the six county's have to be split again say to the two countys of Ulster with another artificial majority after all four of the nine countys of Ulster have Irish majority

There is a facility afaik for them to call for a referendum.
I would expect them to wait untill numbers are a little firmer than that because there are some catholic unionists.

Boston fenian wrote:

I wasn't trying to suggest it was dishonest as much as it was a device that had less to do with the debate, and more to do with scoring some sort of point, because that would clearly be a bad idea.

Isn't the essence of debate point scoring? After all one side of a debate is usually stronger than the other,not always but usually.
Secondly,is there anything invalid in my suggestion that you go directly to the people(to persuade them) whose consent you've already conceded you need?

The smiley suggesting you'd like to know how I got on sure seemed to indicate you had a suspicion that you knew. It seems to me there are much better ways to get started on a campaign of that nature, rather than risking the violence I thought we all were trying to avoid. Maybe I mistook your honest goodwill advice as sarcasm. If it was offered without duplicity, I apologize.

No need for apoligies.I was just advocating common sense.
If you are looking for peoples consent as you say you are,then you go to them.
I'd imagine alright that you'd have your work cut out for you...
But that said,God loves a trier and you seem to have no shortage of enthusiasm.

Erin go brath wrote:

Instead what we have is an artificial Unionist statelet in the North East of our country which holds a veto over the wishes of the majority of the Irish people.

Lol Erin go brath.
You haven't quite grasped what the people did have you.
70% of them in the 6 counties voted for the GFA (most of the other 30% were pro union) and somewhere in the high 90's% and definitely a majority of the people of the whole island voted to end our constitutional claim on the North.

No unpermitted veto there.