Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

You could have given a yes or a no.

And you could have read my post.

To be honest,you've presented none of them whatever they are in the preceding several pages,so I'm doubting they exist.

Well, I'm not sure how you would know if I did or not, since you don't seem to fully read posts, or at the very least if you do, you don't retain it until it's repeated to you.

I'll save you the trouble, and admit that I haven't. I've spent most of my time here trying to argue that Britian's actions have had disastrous consequences for Ireland, and that they've not acted at all in Ireland's interests. I've been told that Cromwell was ok, and that Henry II was actually just looking out for Ireland, so that's what I spent most of my time refuting.

I would've been happy to discuss ideas about moving forward with you, but, you would find some sarcastic rejoinder that had very little to do with anything, and I realize how futile it would be, since this stopped being a productive debate several pages ago.

Pathfinder

BostonFenian wrote: »

And you could have read my post.



Well, I'm not sure how you would know if I did or not, since you don't seem to fully read posts, or at the very least if you do, you don't retain it until it's repeated to you.

I'll save you the trouble, and admit that I haven't. I've spent most of my time here trying to argue that Britian's actions have had disastrous consequences for Ireland, and that they've not acted at all in Ireland's interests. I've been told that Cromwell was ok, and that Henry II was actually just looking out for Ireland, so that's what I spent most of my time refuting.

I would've been happy to discuss ideas about moving forward with you, but, you would find some sarcastic rejoinder that had very little to do with anything, and I realize how futile it would be, since this stopped being a productive debate several pages ago.

Maybe people have simply seen that the PIRA campaign was a disaster, which killed 3,000 people. The same people who preached war now take 100k a year as MPs and earn money from bookdeals.

Maybe most normal people realise its not just about evil Brits but can see both sides and realise its up to people in the north to resolve their own problems and don't need the wisdom Of Irish American warmongers, who won't be there if the bombs started to explode again.

A Dub in Glasgo

Pathfinder wrote: »

A number of reasons, a significant one being PIRA activity, which they hide behind the Catholic community to carry out, thus causing a security response against nationalist neighbourhoods and turning the nationalist community against the army, which was the PIRAs objective.

I suppose a PIRA objective was for 1 Para to murder 14 innocent people in Derry then as well

Pathfinder wrote: »

So you are claiming ordinary Irish people drew up in their cars at army VCPs and were dragged out of their cars and beaten :rolleyes:


This is typical Sinn Fein/PIRA lies.

Really? Are you saying only extra ordinary Irish people were beaten?

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

A number of reasons, a significant one being PIRA activity which they hide behind the Catholic community to carry out, thus causing a security response against the nationalist neighbourhoods and turning the nationalist community against the army, which was the PIRAs objective.

when you say (they hide behind the Catholic community) thats the kettle calling the pot black ass The brits built all there sangers in populated areas and used the population as human shields

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

So you are claiming ordinary Irish people drew up in their cars at army VCPs and were dragged out of their cars and beaten :rolleyes:


This is typical Sinn Fein/PIRA lies.

Keep your head buried in the sand. if you were in the North you knew this happened and worse

BostonFenian

Pathfinder wrote: »

Maybe people have simply seen that the PIRA campaign was a disaster, which killed 3,000 people. The same people who preached war now take 100k a year as MPs and earn money from bookdeals.

Maybe most normal people realise its not just about evil Brits but can see both sides and realise its up to people in the north to resolve their own problems and don't need the wisdom Of Irish American warmongers, who won't be there if the bombs started to explode again.

Do you consider yourself a normal person?

I mean seriously, what have I said that makes you think I'm a war monger? For real.. who are you arguing with? It certainly isn't me, because almost everything you throw at me shows no resemblance to anything I've said or advocated. Seriously, what's your malfunction?

And besides which how many times do I have to tell you I'm moving to Ireland. When in your mind, will I have a right to be on a public discussion board? Will I have to live to live there a certain number of years, before I'm qualified to care? Or will the fact that I'll be living in Munster somehow disqualify me from talking about things in Ulster?

Seriously, I'm sick of this. My great grandfather fought in the war of independence and in my family at least we're very proud of him. We're proud of what he stood up for, and we honor his memory. He was forced to leave because he felt it was abandoning brothers and sisters in the North to God knows what awfulness. They told him they were going to kill him and his family if he didn't leave in 30 days. Tell me again I don't have a right to an opinion about that. Who the hell do you think you are anyway?

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

And you could have read my post.

You know quite well that I've been reading your posts as it's quite obvious that I've noticed a few things about them.They mostly avoid what people say in reaction to them in the hope somehow that if you post enough of them that somewhere in the mist people wont notice this.

Well, I'm not sure how you would know if I did or not, since you don't seem to fully read posts, or at the very least if you do, you don't retain it until it's repeated to you.

Thats more of what I'm talking about regarding your posts.

I'll save you the trouble, and admit that I haven't. I've spent most of my time here trying to argue that Britian's actions have had disastrous consequences for Ireland, and that they've not acted at all in Ireland's interests. I've been told that Cromwell was ok, and that Henry II was actually just looking out for Ireland, so that's what I spent most of my time refuting.

Can I ask another simple question? Why are you stuck in the past like that? People have moved on.
The voter turnouts in NI are amongst the highest in the known world and 99% of these people are now voting for parties that agree with the consent principle.
So whats your particular problem with what is the obvious choice of the people of this Island ie that things constitutionally are grand for the time being?

I would've been happy to discuss ideas about moving forward with you, but, you would find some sarcastic rejoinder that had very little to do with anything, and I realize how futile it would be, since this stopped being a productive debate several pages ago.

With respect,thats rich coming from someone whose posts almost exclusively in the last few pages have completely avoided most if not all questions posed.
Thats a bad example to give if it's dialogue you are really interested in,to be frank with you

return guide

I am not sure there would be a majority in the "26" counties that would like to see unity.
I know I for one pay enough taxes and get a very bad return for my money (health, schools and homeless etc).

When it comes to vote in the south, as it must if the north votes positive, I will vote against as I do not think we would be able to match what the British have invested.

Would anybody like to see higher taxes go to the government to pay for the costs of unification.

I am just happy that we are all part of the EU, but i do wish that the Uk would get its finger out and join the Euro.

TOMASJ

return guide wrote: »

When it comes to vote in the south, as it must if the north votes positive, I will vote against as I do not think we would be able to match what the British have invested.

When you say (able to match what the british invested) are you joking take a look at our roads for a start

return guide

return guide wrote: »

I am not sure there would be a majority in the "26" counties that would like to see unity.
I know I for one pay enough taxes and get a very bad return for my money (health, schools and homeless etc).

When it comes to vote in the south, as it must if the north votes positive, I will vote against as I do not think we would be able to match what the British have invested.

Would anybody like to see higher taxes go to the government to pay for the costs of unification.

I am just happy that we are all part of the EU, but i do wish that the Uk would get its finger out and join the Euro.

Return guide,the Irish tax payer wouldnt be paying for a UI.
It would be Europe initially untill we could afford it again.

Thats not an aspect that should worry you about a UI.
TBH,theres absolutely nothing worrysome about a UI save for the few nut head loyalist terrorists that might struggle on to oppose it, ie the reverse of what we have now.

return guide

TOMASJ wrote: »

When you say (able to match what the british invested) are you joking take a look at our roads for a start

Yes thats what I meant, mind you I have driven on some very bad roads up north as well

TOMASJ

return guide wrote: »

Yes thats what I meant, mind you I have driven on some very bad roads up north as well

I meant the roads up North not in the 26 they are a lot better

return guide

TOMASJ wrote: »

I meant the roads up North not in the 26 they are a lot better

Sorry , Its just we are so used to our roads being used as a negative comparison.

With the money from Europe Thomas j-theres only small amounts of Irish exchequer funding going into them comparatively.

Funding is not an issue regarding a UI.

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

Can I ask another simple question? Why are you stuck in the past like that? People have moved on.

Go back and read the posts here. I wasn't overly concerned with the past (beyond historically interested), until I saw people falling over themselves to defend all things British, and somehow justify the insertion of a foreign state by whitewashing history.

That's why I felt I had to start there.

As far as what you've noticed about my posts, I don't like to answer questions just because somone posed it, when they could have understood where I was coming from simply by reading.

That whole game about the door-to-door. I mean seriously, that was just a device on your part. I didn't come on here to have a fake conversation, and constantly deflect irrelevant tangential ideas, while you make me answer the same question three frigging times. And it's actually those games that made me realize, if I tried to express a complicated idea to you, you would pick somethign to pick at, and argue semantics, probably missing the actual point. I suppose it's an effective tactic in its way, but it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding one another.


By the way, I don't have a problem with the British, or any group of people as a whole. I'm speaking only of this particular context.

return guide

Deleted User wrote: »

Return guide,the Irish tax payer wouldnt be paying for a UI.
It would be Europe initially untill we could afford it again.

Thats not an aspect that should worry you about a UI.
TBH,theres absolutely nothing worrysome about a UI save for the few nut head loyalist terrorists that might struggle on to oppose it, ie the reverse of what we have now.

Get a grip

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

Go back and read the posts here. I wasn't overly concerned with the past (beyond historically interested), until I saw people falling over themselves to defend all things British, and somehow justify the insertion of a foreign state by whitewashing history.

Frankly history is history,it involves dead people.
It's live people that have to be persuaded to consent up north to a UI.

As far as what you've noticed about my posts, I don't like to answer questions just because somone posed it, when they could have understood where I was coming from simply by reading.

With all due respect then,you have a wierd and might I say inacurate definition of dialogue then.
It's all about the questions,the statements,the clarifications,the agreements, the agree'ing to disagree and the conclusions.

That whole game about the door-to-door. I mean seriously, that was just a device on your part. I didn't come on here to have a fake conversation, and constantly deflect irrelevant tangential ideas, while you make me answer the same question three frigging times. And it's actually those games that made me realize, if I tried to express a complicated idea to you, you would pick somethign to pick at, and argue semantics, probably missing the actual point. I suppose it's an effective tactic in its way, but it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding one another.

You think talking to the people whose consent is needed for a UI is irrelevant and tangential?
LoL thats right up there with what seems to be your definition of dialogue.
What next ? A hypnotist on all tv and Radio channells up North to mass convince unionsists of a UI instead of actually talking with them?



(It's all about the laughs aswell boston fenian so don't take this personally obviously)

return guide

return guide wrote: »

Get a grip

You don't believe me?
You don't think that the EU already fund NI?They do you know.
In actual fact the UK probably puts more money into the UK by the way than it does into NI , if you exclude the ever decreasing funding for the GB Army based there.

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

I meant the roads up North not in the 26 they are a lot better

You are claiming the roads in the south are better ?

Now you are being totally ridiculous.

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly history is history,it involves dead people.
It's live people that have to be persuaded to consent up north to a UI.
With all due respect then,you have a wierd and might I say inacurate definition of dialogue then.
It's all about the questions,the statements,the clarifications,the agreements, the agree'ing to disagree and the conclusions.
You think talking to the people whose consent is needed for a UI is irrelevant and tangential?
LoL thats right up there with what seems to be your definition of dialogue.
What next ? A hypnotist on all tv and Radio channells up North to mass convince unionsists of a UI instead of actually talking with them?



(It's all about the laughs aswell boston fenian so don't take this personally obviously)

I'm simply saying that sending one person into unionist NI to advocate an all island Ireland is a bad idea, and I'm smarter than that. I know we have to communicate with them, but there are better ways in more neutral territory to do it, is all I'm saying, and I think if you thought about it you would see that.

It really seemed like the idea was brought up so you could be entertained by the visual of me getting my ass kicked in unionist ulster. At least that's what the smiley there seemed to indicate.

Pathfinder

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I suppose a PIRA objective was for 1 Para to murder 14 innocent people in Derry then as well



Really? Are you saying only extra ordinary Irish people were beaten?

If a patrol stopped a carded PIRA member sometimes they would be searched and offered a fair dig with a member of the patrol up an alleyway, thats very different from dragging ordinary Irish people out of cars and beating them what was claimed.

return guide

Deleted User wrote: »

Return guide,the Irish tax payer wouldnt be paying for a UI.
It would be Europe initially untill we could afford it again.

Thats not an aspect that should worry you about a UI.
TBH,theres absolutely nothing worrysome about a UI save for the few nut head loyalist terrorists that might struggle on to oppose it, ie the reverse of what we have now.

EU funding is for east not the "rich " west.

Our gov would put up taxes to build a road ,never mind the added responsability of the six counties

spoof

Pathfinder wrote: »

If a patrol stopped a carded PIRA member sometimes they would be searched and offered a fair dig with a member of the patrol up an alleyway, thats very different from dragging ordinary Irish people out of cars and beating them what was claimed.

I love the way people living in other countrys ie usa ,uk are such big rebels when it comes to Ireland and our troubles, if they like Ireland so much why did they not stay here and live under the little hitlers we have had to put up with for the last few year and to all you natinalists I wish to Chirst some one took over the 26 counties, the joe soap would be no worse of, 1 Ireland cant AFFORD the six counties,I traveled the north no one of any coulor wants to be a part of Ireland better off where they are. 2 what was a life worth after the the peace in the north. I will say it again war is money.

Oh whatever return guide..

return guide

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh whatever return guide..

whats that mean?

It means,I disagree with you.

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

Oh look backpeddling and projecting. You don't think I was offended you assume I want to be offended.

Look Yank, quit projecting.

You've yet to counter a single point about how SF or the IRA have never had a mandate politicaly or among the populous.

But hey keep going with the ad hominiens.

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

Am I making assumptions about why the Irish population voted for The Good Friday Agreement? No. Am I telling you why the population of my country voted for something? No.

How am I "shoving" my opinion down your throat?

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

Liiiikkkkeeeee?

You mean you don't know?

Oh look you're being evasive again, I know what it means why don't you tell me what you think unillaterial attack by native americans would be.

Go on give it a go...

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

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

Why didn't you just say that. Perhaps if you slowed down before typing you would make less spelling errors and I would understand what you are saying.

Anyway, I asked

Wicknight wrote: »

What was the correct way, the legitimate way, to bomb Omagh?

and you, you might recall, responded

TOMASJ wrote: »

(hope no one will find out) Ask the british who bombed Monaghan and Dublin

So why exactly should I ask the British the correct legitimate way to bomb Omagh? They bombed Dublin legitimately did they? They know how to do it legitimately do they? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

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.

Funny, I seem to remember this strange, hazy, referendum we held in 1998 where we voted, overwhelmingly, to give up our claim to Northern Ireland.

Oh that's right, I forgot. We didn't know what we were doing. How stupid of us.

:rolleyes:

We have no right to force our island majority on the Northern Ireland people, nor do we (ie the rest of us, everyone except the extreme Republican minority) wish to force our island majority on the Northern Irish people.

The majority of people on this island are perfectly happy for the people of Northern Ireland to represent themselves.

I know you guys hate that fact, you would much rather force your will on them. But then that makes you no better than the Plantation era British.

Funny how principles go out the window when people start doing the opposite of what you want. Not too different from the people you hate are you.

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

Oh look backpeddling and projecting. You don't think I was offended you assume I want to be offended.

Look Yank, quit projecting.

You've yet to counter a single point about how SF or the IRA have never had a mandate politicaly or among the populous.

But hey keep going with the ad hominiens.



Am I making assumptions about why the Irish population voted for The Good Friday Agreement? No. Am I telling you why the population of my country voted for something? No.

How am I "shoving" my opinion down your throat?




Liiiikkkkeeeee?



Oh look you're being evasive again, I know what it means why don't you tell me what you think unillaterial attack by native americans would be.

Go on give it a go...

I don't know why you don't think I explained it before. When I say unilaterally, I mean they just take whatever it is they've decided they're willing to fight for, whether it's a few acres in Montanna, or Manhattan.

And if people come and try to take it back as I'm sure they would, they would fight back. I'm not even trying to be evasive, I just don't get what's hard to understand.

They were a proud culture, and screwed out of everything they had. The people who took it didn't ask permission, didn't mind giving them smallpox soaked blankets and whiskey, didn't mind marching them all the way to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears, etc, and in my opinion there's no reason they couldn't use the same tactics to take it back.