Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

Fine with me.

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

Just the bits you want to make head or tail off.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

Just the bits you want to make head or tail off.

:rolleyes: I doubt I'm the only person having trouble reading them (I seem to remember Wicknight saying something similar).

So, I'll ask again; show me one post that has painted a rosy picture of "The Brits" (by which of course I mean the British Army).

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

What I am trying to do is have a bit of balance about the subjects being discussed

No, what you are trying to do is excuse what the IRA did by saying the British provoked it.

This thread is about the IRA.

No one I can see is claiming the British Army are saints, and I certainly am not. I think what the British did in Northern Ireland was horrific. But that has nothing to do with the morality of the IRA. NOTHING the British did or could have done could justify what the IRA did.

TOMASJ wrote: »

I did not use these words maybe that's how you see yourself.

TOMASJ wrote: »

The freedom fighters on the british side did just that in Ballymoney 3 little boys
wonderful how this type of terror is over looked by british apologists

What is it with you republicans and revision of history :rolleyes:

You said that in response to a post from OscarBravo that didn't even mention the British, let alone show support for them. He was (rightly) criticising those who support the IRA (there are a lot on this thread) and asking them how they can support a group that blows up children.

For some reason you felt that would be a perfect time to call him a "British apologist", despite him never even mentioning the British, let alone making excuses for their atrocities.

As I said you can't seem to see an criticism of the IRA and its supporters without trying to derail the discussion with talk of the British atrocities. This thread is about IRA atrocities.

TOMASJ wrote: »

I can;t let nonsense posts go if they paint a rosey picture on the brits and republicans being boogymen

No one is painting a rosey picture of the British. In fact the you guys are the only ones who are even mentioning the British.

You may notice that this thread is about the IRA. The IRA are "boogymen", they are an immoral unethical illegal terrorist organisation. That is nothing do with the British. The British might be Satan's own house keepers, that still doesn't change what the IRA are.

TOMASJ wrote: »

and I did not derail any discussions by bring up any unrelated atrocity anything I added was in relation to the previous posts

See above (if you want to quote the passage where OscarBravo make excuses for the British atrocities be my guest)

TOMASJ wrote: »

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

Because this is a thread about the IRA ... seriously what part of that concept are you having trouble with? Look at the thread heading FFS :mad:

Why even mention the British in this thread AT ALL? Did what the British did justify the IRA? No. So why even bring them up?

If you want to start a thread about British atrocities, British collusion, Loyalist attacks etc go ahead. I will gladly join you to say that it is all immoral/illegal/unethical etc

What I can't stand is the people who try anything to get the discussion away from actually condemning the IRA and their little "war" which was really just a series of attacks on civilian targets.

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

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

You also called people who disagreed with you "west-Brits" and "pro-Brits", despite the fact that none of the people you were quoting had even mentioned the British in their previous posts, let alone make excuses for them. :rolleyes:

I can quote you if you want to pretend you didn't use those terms either.

I suppose it is easier to brand anyone condemning the IRA and the ilk as British apologists than to actually look at the issues people have with the IRA. You are either with us or against us, isn't that right Tomasj

BostonFenian

it seems to me there is another prejudice on this thread, which to me seems more popular:

That if you support a united Ireland, republican ideals or any of that, that its ok to be branded a terrorist, war mongering baby killer.

I don't see how that's constructive, but some who are responding negatively to words like apologists and west Brit don't seem to have a problem with that.

murphaph

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what the British did in Northern Ireland was horrific.

I disagree in the main. They had an arduous task of keeping two packs of savages apart and ultimately only 3000 people died in a 30 year long conflict. That's absolutely nothing in a global or even european scale.

murphaph

BostonFenian wrote: »

That if you support a united Ireland, republican ideals or any of that, that its ok to be branded a terrorist, war mongering baby killer.

Quite untrue. Everyone is entitled to their view and they can lawfully campaign for a United Ireland if they wish. That is NOT terrorism. That is NOT what the IRA did.

TOMASJ

Here are a few rosey paintings of the brits I'm sure there are more I don't have the time or the patients of yourself to paddle trough old posts the terminology used on the posts are of a wondrous whiter than white hero as you know by downgrading one army you are glorying the other the other

Pathfinder wrote: »

War crime :rolleyes:Lets look at the facts, 1 Para had been under extreme provocation on that tour. Shoots were heard which have never fully been explained, they opened fire, believing they were under attack.
It was a regrettable event, partly caused by 1 Para being on a high state of alert due to PIRA attacks.

I am a former member of the Parachute Regiment.

Pathfinder wrote: »

You are aware the British army was deployed to stop mostly the ethnic 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.

Pathfinder wrote: »

Really, where did you live in England then ?


Irish people were/are generally treated well in England, its only sectarian **** stirrers like yourself who try to create a divide.

Normal English and Irish people get on very well.

I very much doubt English people in Dublin would have been treated so well if lets say as an example a group like the NF were exploding bombs every week in Dublin.

Irish people queued up to go to England, thats how bad it was.

Wicknight wrote: »

The IRA simply did not have the ability to force the British Army out of the North. So they terrorised the British in the hopes that they would leave themselves. I would love to say that large armies don't use terrorism that much because they have high moral standards, but it is more likely that they don't use it because they don't have to and it rarely works.

djpbarry wrote: »

How much of that pain/death was caused by the present inhabitants of England?

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The IRA are terrorists. Bombing civilian targets in order to inspire fear, planning a bombing campaign to drag British soldiers onto Northern Irish streets again, thus provoking fear and aggression, all make them terrorists. They are no army. They do not have a nation backing them. An army needs the backing of a government and they do not have it.

Wicknight wrote: »

How did the British Army put civilians in central Birmingham in harms way? The IRA picked those pubs because they were known to be used by British Army personnel. They didn't care that a bomb blast in a crowded pub would more than likely end up killing a lot more people than the British Army officers (who were off duty at the time and of no great strategic significance which would make them non-legitimate targets, but that is another matter)

The argument that these types of killings were inevitable due to the pressure put on Republicans simply doesn't hold (I'm not sure that is your argument, so correct me if I am mistaken)

Wicknight wrote: »

Pretty sure the British Army wouldn't have :rolleyes:

The idea that the Army would even have made it to Derry is ridiculous, and even if they did they would have invaded a nation and Ireland would have found itself at war with the British (again).

The Irish Army tends not to invade countries to stop Loyalist marches

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Which is why the age of colonialism is done. Modern armies are peace-keeping forces.

I presume he includes the brits here

Wicknight wrote: »

If you have planes and tanks it is very doubtful that a Commander would be stupid enough to use terrorism, considering terrorism as a military tactic is very slow and most of the time doesn't even work. If the IRA had planes and tanks I seriously doubt they would be blowing up pubs and shopping centres. /quote]

TOMASJ

murphaph wrote: »

Quite untrue. Everyone is entitled to their view and they can lawfully campaign for a United Ireland if they wish. That is NOT terrorism. That is NOT what the IRA did.

Tell me murphaph what would you have done it. If you had not right to vote no right to a job (the sings used to say when recuting no Catholics need apply) no right to a house you were used as slave labour how would you have campainged against this when you were not allowed to congerate even on your own street or the forces would have arrested you or shot you tell me what way you would have done your campaigning

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

Tell me murphaph what would you have done it. If you had not right to vote no right to a job (the sings used to say when recuting no Catholics need apply) no right to a house you were used as slave labour how would you have campainged against this when you were not allowed to congerate even on your own street or the forces would have arrested you or shot you tell me what way you would have done your campaigning

But the civil rights campaign had achieved its objective of equality legislation by 71, before the PIRA campaign got going and nor was this the motivation for the PIRA campaign.

Protestants who lived in council housing did not have a vote before this either, You had to own your own home previously to get the vote.

So its another republican red herring as are your other absurd claims of slave labour etc.

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

But the civil rights campaign had achieved its objective of equality legislation by 71, before the PIRA campaign got going and nor was this the motivation for the PIRA campaign.

Protestants who lived in council housing did not have a vote before this either, You had to own your own home previously to get the vote.

So its another republican red herring as are your other absurd claims of slave labour etc.

In case you did not know the IRA has a habit of changing the letter before its name it was the OIRA the official IRA they got going from 68or69 GOOGLE it and get the date and had the same objectives until their ceasefire

Protestants who lived in council housing did not have a vote before this either, You had to own your own home previously to get the vote.

Thats right but again in case you did not know most if not all houses were given to Protestants as to ensure a majority vote at election time

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

Here are a few rosey paintings of the brits...

Eh, half of those quotes don't even mention the British Army? How the hell is this "painting a rosey picture of the Brits", as you would put it?

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

In case you did not know the IRA has a habit of changing the letter before its name it was the OIRA the official IRA they got going from 68or69 GOOGLE it and get the date and had the same objectives until their ceasefire

Protestants who lived in council housing did not have a vote before this either, You had to own your own home previously to get the vote.

Thats right but again in case you did not know most if not all houses were given to Protestants as to ensure a majority vote at election time

Yes, but favouritism to Protestants was by the majority Protestant govt. It had nothing to with Westminster.

And was partly stoked by the south becoming a Catholic state after independence.

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: I doubt I'm the only person having trouble reading them (I seem to remember Wicknight saying something similar).

So, I'll ask again; show me one post that has painted a rosy picture of "The Brits" (by which of course I mean the British Army).

Make up your mind you said show me one post I showed you several

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, half of those quotes don't even mention the British Army? How the hell is this "painting a rosey picture of the Brits", as you would put it?

take your pick from the half that does glorify the brits

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

Yes, but favouritism to Protestants was by the majority Protestant govt. It had nothing to with Westminster.

Was it ok then that the six county's as part of the uk had 40% of its population as underdogs or are you admitting at last that this lot was rotten to the core

murphaph

TOMASJ wrote: »

Tell me murphaph what would you have done it. If you had not right to vote no right to a job

I wasn't aware at the time (1987) the IRA did this that catholics had no right to a job and the right to vote was the same for catholics and protestants:

(Enniskillen)

TOMASJ wrote: »

no right to a house

Well, coming from the free state as I do I don't expect a free house from government or anyone else. We truly are a different people.

TOMASJ wrote: »

you were used as slave labour

A slave works for no pay. I highly doubt any catholics worked for no pay. I do believe that they take money for no work alright. That welfare state mentality is what divides the north and south more than any orangemen.

TOMASJ wrote: »

how would you have campainged against this when you were not allowed to congerate even on your own street or the forces would have arrested you or shot you tell me what way you would have done your campaigning

I would have joined these good people (but you said people couldn't congregate, hmmmmm):


Peaceful civil rights associations have caused much more radical change than the british government allowed almost immediately after direct rule was applied to Northern Ireland. Martin Luther King and Ghandi are world respected figures who changed the policies of the most powerful countries in the world. The IRA thugs couldn't do that-Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom and the SFIRA leaders now accept british rule is lawfula dn they work the institutions of state every day.

At the end of the day Tomas the NICRA had achieved its goals. Westminster was alerted to the plight of catholics under the Stormont regime and stepped in with direct rule. Remember how well received Callaghan was in Northern Ireland by catholics? The british government may have been guilty of allowing Northern Ireland to run itself without enough oversight from London but when Westminster did see the problems raised by the decent people of NICRA they stepped in and passed legislation to enable equality under law. But they went much further....they suspended Stormont for 30 years and ran Northern Ireland directly, taking an enormous amount of resources in the process. Northern Ireland remained high on the agenda for the entirety of the troubles, long before the PIRA started blowing up kids in England. The majority of british prime ministers have been decent people, trying to balance the wishes of the two tribes. The british army also stepped into Nothern Ireland to protect catholics from attacks from Loyalist groups. The catholics STABBED THESE TROOPS IN THE BACK and began attacking and murdering them. It is know wonder the british army occasionally overstepped the mark in a pressure cooker like NI but by and large, Operation Banner worked and Northern Ireland functioned on a day to day basis. If it hadn't been for your pals in the PIRA then things could have been so much better much sooner. They were a hinderance to society moving forward in Northern Ireland.

Pathfinder

TOMASJ wrote: »

Was it ok then that the six county's as part of the uk had 40% of its population as underdogs or are you admitting at last that this lot was rotten to the core

No, but if their is an injustice you change it through democratic politics not through psychotic behavior.

As stated, by 1971 the objectives of the civil rights movement(which the PIRA derided) had been met.

The reality is the PIRA achieved nothing more then what was offered to them in 73.

Their campaign will be viewed as a futile disaster 50 years from now,

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

take your pick from the half that does glorify the brits

Answer the question; how does this:

djpbarry wrote: »

How much of that pain/death was caused by the present inhabitants of England?

...glorify the British Army?

It wasn't me!

I love how people are talking about the British army as though they were in the wrong. Pardon me for any mistakes I may make here, but weren't they deployed on British land to protect British citizens? And the cheek to suggest the SAS were deployed as part of a British terrorist campaign? Funny, seeing as their involvement in the province was not public knowledge. Personally, I'd love to have seen the SAS take every last scumbag terrorist, Nationalist and Loyalist, and crucify them along every main street in the north. If the only justice they understand is violence, then they get no right to complain when a body capable of infinitely more violence than their tiny minds can envisage takes off the kid gloves it spend thirty years doing business with. They should have been let loose like terriers on rats.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I love how people are talking about the British army as though they were in the wrong. Pardon me for any mistakes I may make here, but weren't they deployed on British land to protect British citizens? And the cheek to suggest the SAS were deployed as part of a British terrorist campaign? Funny, seeing as their involvement in the province was not public knowledge. Personally, I'd love to have seen the SAS take every last scumbag terrorist, Nationalist and Loyalist, and crucify them along every main street in the north. If the only justice they understand is violence, then they get no right to complain when a body capable of infinitely more violence than their tiny minds can envisage takes off the kid gloves it spend thirty years doing business with. They should have been let loose like terriers on rats.

wow..

TOMASJ

murphaph imay I suggest you read your posts before you submit them if you cant say it without use shock photos don't bother
1
What has a bomb in Enniskillen got to do with nationalist not getting jobs in the North

2 Well, coming from the free state as I do I don't expect a free house fro government or anyone else. We truly are a different people.
This does not deserve an answer I was not talking about free house a house is a human right

3
I do believe that they take money for no work alright. That welfare state mentality is what divides the north and south more than any orangemen.
This is just insulting to nationals people in the north

4
I would have joined these good people (but you said people couldn't congregate, hmmmmm):
This very group of good people as you call them had 14 innocent members murdered by the brits not very long after this photograph was taken for daring to congregate

TOMASJ

Pathfinder wrote: »

No, but if their is an injustice you change it through democratic politics not through psychotic behavior.

As stated, by 1971 the objectives of the civil rights movement(which the PIRA derided) had been met.

The reality is the PIRA achieved nothing more then what was offered to them in 73.

Their campaign will be viewed as a 50 years from now,

As far as I remember the 1916 Easter rising was viewed as a futile disaster when it took place history has a funny turning disaster into victory (Dunkirk for instance)

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

Answer the question; how does this:

...glorify the British Army?

It wasn't me!
has just posted another one for you
I love how people are talking about the British army as though they were in the wrong. Pardon me for any mistakes I may make here, but weren't they deployed on British land to protect British citizens? And the cheek to suggest the SAS were deployed as part of a British terrorist campaign? Funny, seeing as their involvement in the province was not public knowledge. Personally, I'd love to have seen the SAS take every last scumbag terrorist, Nationalist and Loyalist, and crucify them along every main street in the north. If the only justice they understand is violence, then they get no right to complain when a body capable of infinitely more violence than their tiny minds can envisage takes off the kid gloves it spend thirty years doing business with. They should have been let loose like terriers on rats.

murphaph

TOMASJ wrote: »

murphaph imay I suggest you read your posts before you submit them if you cant say it without use shock photos don't bother

Why, don't you like being reminded of the individuals murdered by your PIRA heroes? Don't you like thinking about their grieving familes and then thinking that the PIRA campaign was unsuccesful and now SFIRA ministers sit in a devolved british assembly (not a parliament) as a part of the United Kingdom.

TOMASJ wrote: »

What has a bomb in Enniskillen got to do with nationalist not getting jobs in the North

Absolutely fcuking NOTHING! which is my bloody point-the equality legislation was in place 17 years before the PIRA blew up a load of people in Enniskillen. You are the one suggesting there is a link when you said:

Tell me murphaph what would you have done it. If you had not right to vote no right to a job

TOMASJ wrote: »

This does not deserve an answer I was not talking about free house a house is a human right

Yes you were. You said people had a right to join the PIRA and blow other people up if they had...

no right to a house

...but nothing pevented catholics from owning a house.

TOMASJ wrote: »

This is just insulting to nationals people in the north

Boo-hoo. Northern Ireland shares a 300 mile land border with a state with a (still) relatively vibrant economy. Catholics who can't find work in NI could easily travel south for it like 100,000+ poles who have travelled MUCH further to find work. They generally choose not to and unemployed catholics are content to take money fom the UK.

TOMASJ wrote: »

This very group of good people as you call them had 14 innocent members murdered by the brits not very long after this photograph was taken for daring to congregate

That's your POV. I believe the British Army came under fire from a PIRA sniper and that's what caused the BA to open fire themselves-not a group of people peacefully campaiging. The PIRA were responsible for killing catholics from the earliest days. Have you heard of 'Death by Cop'-the PIRA used 'Death by Cop by Proxy' IMO.

murphaph

TOMASJ wrote: »

I love how people are talking about the British army as though they were in the wrong. Pardon me for any mistakes I may make here, but weren't they deployed on British land to protect British citizens? And the cheek to suggest the SAS were deployed as part of a British terrorist campaign? Funny, seeing as their involvement in the province was not public knowledge. Personally, I'd love to have seen the SAS take every last scumbag terrorist, Nationalist and Loyalist, and crucify them along every main street in the north. If the only justice they understand is violence, then they get no right to complain when a body capable of infinitely more violence than their tiny minds can envisage takes off the kid gloves it spend thirty years doing business with. They should have been let loose like terriers on rats.

A change of heart Tomas?

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

Answer the question; how does this:

...glorify the British Army?

murphaph wrote: »

Why, don't you like being reminded of the individuals murdered by your PIRA heroes? Don't you like thinking about their grieving familes and then thinking that the PIRA campaign was unsuccesful and now SFIRA ministers sit in a devolved british assembly (not a parliament) as a part of the United Kingdom.


Absolutely fcuking NOTHING! which is my bloody point-the equality legislation was in place 17 years before the PIRA blew up a load of people in Enniskillen. You are the one suggesting there is a link when you said:



Yes you were. You said people had a right to join the PIRA and blow other people up if they had...

...but nothing pevented catholics from owning a house.


Boo-hoo. Northern Ireland shares a 300 mile land border with a state with a (still) relatively vibrant economy. Catholics who can't find work in NI could easily travel south for it like 100,000+ poles who have travelled MUCH further to find work. They generally choose not to and unemployed catholics are content to take money fom the UK.


That's your POV. I believe the British Army came under fire from a PIRA sniper and that's what caused the BA to open fire themselves-not a group of people peacefully campaiging. The PIRA were responsible for killing catholics from the earliest days. Have you heard of 'Death by Cop'-the PIRA used 'Death by Cop by Proxy' IMO.

Your answers speak volumes about your mindset murphaph I dont think I could with my bad grammar and all , have done a better job.

murphaph

TOMASJ wrote: »

Your answers speak volumes about your mindset murphaph I dont think I could with my bad grammar and all , have done a better job.

=I cannot debate further when someone points out that in 1987 when equality legislation had been in place for 17 years and any and all gerrymandered boundaries had been amended that the PIRA went ahead and blew up a bunch of people in Enniskillen. You tried to link the PIRA campaign to the LEGITIMATE campaign for civil rights which itself had been succesful 20 years previous. The PIRA campaign (certainly after the early seventies) had ZILCH to do with civil rights so your points all fall.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

It wasn't me!
has just posted another one for you.

That's not what I asked. I asked how does this:

How much of that pain/death was caused by the present inhabitants of England?

...glorify the British Army? Answer: IT DOESN'T. I suspect that your problem is with England and English people, seeing as any defence of either provokes an accusation "pro-Brit", "British Apologist" or "West-Brit".

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

That's not what I asked. I asked how does this:

...glorify the British Army? Answer: IT DOESN'T. I suspect that your problem is with England and English people, seeing as any defence of either provokes an accusation "pro-Brit", "British Apologist" or "West-Brit".

No problem at all with English folk, Just their army' And like the those of you who write in condescending terms about nationalists and Republicans, I pick and chose what I think warrants a response.

It wasn't me!

So, how does saying that terrorists were scum and I wish they'd been dealt with less gently glorify the British army? What does glorify even mean to you? It seems to mean "not display abject hatred of". Funnily enough, that's bollocks.