Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

You are claiming the roads in the south are better ?

Now you are being totally ridiculous.

You must not have been in Ireland from the 70s

return guide

Deleted User wrote: »

It means,I disagree with you.

okay so

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

In 2008 ?
Australia back to the aboriginals as well I presume?
How about the world back to the apes while we are at it or do you draw a line as to how far back we go?

Diogenes

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

What about if they wanted the entire contentinal united states?

What if they decided to bomb 4th of july celebrations?

What if they only wanted a section of the united states say Washington State, But in order to achieve this they bombed bars in New Orleans, and Boston?

What if they marched civilians off buses, on their way to work in national parks in Washington State and murdered the non native Americans?

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

You must not have been in Ireland from the 70s

I am in the republic regularly, you obviously don't drive.

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

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

Look, discussion boards really aren't the place to get offended, especially after the relatively tame interaction we had. In my experience, people on discussion boards who become that offended, that easily, like to be offended to unload whatever vitriol comes next.

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.

When did I make a point that required me to counter those points? Do you even know what my position is beyond wishing that Ireland would be united?

But hey keep going with the ad hominiens.

I'm sorry, which ad homonyms where those?

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.

And am I? I simply said, and even made sure to say at THAT time that it was speculation based on family still there, and friends here, plus my own thinking - that if the issue of violence and unity were separated, I think the result may have been different. I never claimed to be sure of anything, but it was an idea I had. Now you don't agree with that. Fine. But you are shoving your vitriol down my throat, which is why I think you maybe you wanted to be offended, because you couldn't act like that without a proper excuse.

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

See above.

Liiiikkkkeeeee?

Why should I tell you what I think? So you can attack it rather than react to it? Maybe my idea would offend you, and what would I do then? Clearly, I'm not allowed to think about this issue, because you said so.

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 humored you, and answered it already in more detail, but I shouldn't have had to. English is a pretty precise language, and when I said I felt the Native Americans would be justified in a unilateral action and would be justified in fighting back when the inevitable reaction occured, there's not really too many ways to take that. I don't think a reasonable person would find that ambiguous. I know that you did.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

Get it back from whom exactly?

You think genocide 200 years ago justifies today the genocide of the descendent of the people who originally carried out the genocide?

You are a big believer in inherited guilt aren't you, the sins of the father transfer to the son and all that.

BostonFenian

Diogenes wrote: »

What about if they wanted the entire contentinal united states?

What if they decided to bomb 4th of july celebrations?

What if they only wanted a section of the united states say Washington State, But in order to achieve this they bombed bars in New Orleans, and Boston?

What if they marched civilians off buses, on their way to work in national parks in Washington State and murdered the non native Americans?

What if they did? Didn't I answer this? I said it would be suicide for them, but I can see the case for it. Isn't that what happened to them, essentially? Also, there's the fact that they couldn't have the entire contintental US because there literally is nowhere to put the 300 million people. Also, I outline a much more benign idea for them earlier.. I wonder if they presented a united front if they couldn't convince Congress to give them a better shake.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

Get it back from whom exactly?

You think genocide 200 years ago justifies today the genocide of the descendent of the people who originally carried out the genocide?

You are a big believer in inherited guilt aren't you, the sins of the father transfer to the son and all that.

It's not about guilt as much as it is persisting effects of the original crime. If there are no effects of that crime now, then there's no cause for reaction. If there are, then the crime is ongoing isn't it?

Also, 200 years ago was genocide. I don't see how any campaign they'd be capable of mounting would even come close to that.

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

It's not about guilt as much as it is persisting effects of the original crime. If there are no effects of that crime now, then there's no cause for reaction. If there are, then the crime is ongoing isn't it?

Hmmm with the way things are going in the U.S to be honest with you, ie the percentage of latino's and african americans (heck one of them could be president soon),It's debateable as to whether the direct decendants of those around and in power 200 years ago have much of a make up of the U.S population today.
With that in mind,you're barking up an increasingly wrong tree there I think.

oscarBravo

A note to everyone: I've handed out three or four infractions in the last few minutes. Everyone, take a deep breath and a short walk before posting anymore.

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmm with the way things are going in the U.S to be honest with you, ie the percentage of latino's and african americans (heck one of them could be president soon),It's debateable as to whether the direct decendants of those around and in power 200 years ago have much of a make up of the U.S population today.
With that in mind,you're barking up an increasingly wrong tree there I think.

It doesn't matter if they're descended. I don't think they're any more guilty if they're related to the people than if they're not.

The problem is that we continue to benefit from the crime. Can't you see that?

If a corporation ten years ago destroyed a pristine wilderness with some sort of pollution, and came under completely different ownership, they would still be required to clean up the mess because the corporation was responsible, even in absence of the original offenders.

In this case, America is that corporation, continuing to benefit from her shameful treatment of Native Americans, as well as Blacks and even the Mexicans to a lesser degree.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

It's not about guilt as much as it is persisting effects of the original crime. If there are no effects of that crime now, then there's no cause for reaction. If there are, then the crime is ongoing isn't it?

True, but what you are talking about is punishment. Just because a "crime" still has repercussions doesn't mean one can punish the children and grand children of those responsible. A rape will effect a person for their whole life. If the rapist dies though you don't throw the rapists son in jail.

Society has a responsibility to help all victims of crimes, and the children and grand children etc. It doesn't have responsibility to punish the children and grand children etc of those who committed the crimes.

spoof

Pathfinder wrote: »

I am in the republic regularly, you obviously don't drive.

I drove every inche of the 32 counties in the past 30 yrs, the roads in the 6 counties were always mile ahead we are playing catch up, the big diffrence is the planing you ll not be driving through Belfast or Derry with youre thump up youre arse for hours on end like our major cities ie Dublin and if you leave two foot back from the car in front of you no asehole will park their driving better, roads, planing better I am from the south but the truth is true.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

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



and you, you might recall, responded



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:

I was being sarcastic have a bit of cop on and lighten up

BostonFenian

Deleted User wrote: »

In 2008 ?
Australia back to the aboriginals as well I presume?
How about the world back to the apes while we are at it or do you draw a line as to how far back we go?

Did the colonial powers wring their hands when they took it from them? Why should they wring their hands when considering taking it back? It seems as if you accept that might makes right. Sure, hundreds of years ago this was taken, but it's too late, so get used to it, seems to be the prevailing attitude here.

What I'm saying is, if they can come up with the resources, why shouldn't they? Clearly for hundreds of years that was the norm, and now we're just going to say no more, we're happy with what we have, and if you try and take anything back, you're awful people.

It doesn't make sense to me.

TOMASJ

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.

But we were ALL PROVOS when the brits stoped cars how would you like if an occupation German force were stopping cars in england and taking you out up an alleyway for a fair dig or to Murder you because he had more power than you

TOMASJ

Deleted User wrote: »

In 2008 ?
Australia back to the aboriginals as well I presume?
How about the world back to the apes while we are at it or do you draw a line as to how far back we go?

How about a new british empire when were at it let them eat cake syndrome
I'm being sarcastic again for the purest among you
Wicknight

BostonFenian

BostonFenian wrote: »

The problem is that we continue to benefit from the crime. Can't you see that?

Nope.
I'm actually baffled that it's worrying you though.
But hey to each their own

return guide

Pathfinder wrote: »

I am in the republic regularly, you obviously don't drive.

you dope

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

I was being sarcastic have a bit of cop on and lighten up

You weren't being sarcastic you were trying to make me out as a hypocrite by inventing the the ridiculous idea that I would some how support the Dublin bombings and then trying to use that against me :rolleyes:

You have done nothing in this thread except go on and on about how we all seemingly approve of everything the British do, and to support this you keep making up ridiculous charges. All that to distract from actually looking at what the IRA and R-IRA actually did.

This is what always happens when there is debate on the IRA, or Republican violence, the old "But Miss the other boys were doing it too" excuse. It is a ridiculous way to debate any topic.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

You weren't being sarcastic you were trying to make me out as a hypocrite by inventing the the ridiculous idea that I would some how support the Dublin bombings and then trying to use that against me :rolleyes:

You have done nothing in this thread except go on and on about how we all seemingly approve of everything the British do, and to support this you keep making up ridiculous charges. All that to distract from actually looking at what the IRA and R-IRA actually did.

This is what always happens when there is debate on the IRA, or Republican violence, the old "But Miss the other boys were doing it too" excuse. It is a ridiculous way to debate any topic.

Maybe we should have [SIZE=-1]Section 31 on this board and have the blue shirts waffle on among themselves ([/SIZE] You have done nothing in this thread except go on and on about how we all seemingly approve of everything the British do) shor that what a lot of you are doing
and to support this you keep making up ridiculous charges.
tell me what ridiculous charges I made up

Rossibaby

of course ye support what the brits do,the media tells you to think this so you do.west brits galore here:-)

Rossibaby

Rossibaby wrote: »

of course ye support what the brits do,the media tells you to think this so you do.west brits galore here:-)

Why debate the topic when you can come in with meaningless one liners like that?
I mean lets all go round insulting one another instead of debating with one another :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Rossibaby wrote: »

of course ye support what the brits do,the media tells you to think this so you do.west brits galore here:-)

And of course you guys get your rocks off watching the dead bodies of British children on the news ... yes this is a constructive way to debate a topic :rolleyes:

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

[/U]tell me what ridiculous charges I made up

Would the phrase "British apologist" mean anything do you. You certainly like to band it around.

You seem to can't let any criticism of the IRA be discussed without derailing the discussion by bring up some unrelated atrocity the British Army carried out.

Why?

Are you saying that everything the IRA did is ok because the British did equally bad things (bit of a silly position to take, if it is bad for the British why is it ok for the IRA)?

You are inventing a hypocrisy that doesn't exist simply so you can avoid discussing the horrible things your beloved IRA did.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

Would the phrase "British apologist" mean anything do you. You certainly like to band it around.

You seem to can't let any criticism of the IRA be discussed without derailing the discussion by bring up some unrelated atrocity the British Army carried out.

Why?

Are you saying that everything the IRA did is ok because the British did equally bad things (bit of a silly position to take, if it is bad for the British why is it ok for the IRA)?

You are inventing a hypocrisy that doesn't exist simply so you can avoid discussing the horrible things your beloved IRA did.

What I am trying to do is have a bit of balance about the subjects being discussed
Would the phrase "British apologist" mean anything do you. You certainly like to band it around. I did not use these words maybe that's how you see yourself. You seem to can't let any criticism of the IRA be discussed without derailing the discussion by bring up some unrelated atrocity the British Army carried out. I can;t let nonsense posts go if they paint a rosey picture on the brits and republicans being boogymen and I did not derail any discussions by bring up any unrelated atrocity anything I added was in relation to the previous posts I did read posts about screwing baby's on a barque this did not get your attention Are you saying that everything the IRA did is ok because the British did equally bad things (bit of a silly position to take, if it is bad for the British why is it ok for the IRA)?I am saying why ignore everything the brits done and concentrate on all that the IRA done after all if there was no british army in our country there would be no IRA

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

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

Fair enough, I'll give another example; Kosovo. Do you support independence for Kosovo?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I am certain of it. Most polls done on this show a 2:1 majority if not more in favour.

Show me one such poll.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I just picked a random username...

:rolleyes: Sure you did.

TOMASJ wrote: »

Would the phrase "British apologist" mean anything do you. You certainly like to band it around. I did not use these words...

Yes you did:

TOMASJ wrote: »

wonderful how this type of terror is over looked by british apologists

TOMASJ wrote: »

I can;t let nonsense posts go if they paint a rosey picture on the brits...

Show me one post that has painted such a picture.

TOMASJ wrote: »

I am saying why ignore everything the brits done and concentrate on all that the IRA done

Maybe you should look at the title of this thread?

TOMASJ

Are we nit picking now and going over previous posts to niggle over what him or her said and when YES the title of this tread is the
Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

djpbarry wrote: »

It's quite simple really. Hezbollah engage in terrorist activities. Hamas engage in terrorist activities. The IRA has engaged in terrorist activities. Therefore, based on their actions, they are all terrorists. But hey, who am I to judge – I’m not a terrorist!

You might like to add the ANC and Nelson Mandella to your list of terrorist

Sure you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMASJ
Would the phrase "British apologist" mean anything do you. You certainly like to band it around. I did not use these words...

Ok I used it once I dont think that would constitute banding it about

Show me one post that has painted such a picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMASJ
I am saying why ignore everything the brits done and concentrate on all that the IRA done

Yes in answer to the question below

Are you saying that everything the IRA did is ok because the British did equally bad things (bit of a silly position to take, if it is bad for the British why is it ok for the IRA)?I am saying why ignore everything the brits done and concentrate on all that the IRA done after all if there was no british army in our country there would be no IRA
AND

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

You might like to add the ANC and Nelson Mandella to your list of terrorist

Fine with me.

I can't make head nor tail of the rest of your post.