Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

murphaph

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Pathfinders utterings:
"I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds"

Calling women from an area in another country deranged doesn't qualify as rasict

Lol, of course it isn't racist to call someone deranged! You are doing your best to be offended on their behalf. Why is it surprising that pathfinder came across houses with faeces scattered about? Sure didn't the weight watchers in Long Kesh do the same?!

TOMASJ

[

murphaph wrote: »

Lol, of course it isn't racist to call someone deranged! You are doing your best to be offended on their behalf. Why is it surprising that pathfinder came across houses with faeces scattered about? Sure didn't the weight watchers in Long Kesh do the same?!

This statement shows all on the board the type of low life's, the nationalist people in the occupied six had to put up with for the last eighty years, the para,s should not be even mentioned in the same breath, as a any of the 10 men who died on hunger strike in Long Kesh

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

Why is it surprising that pathfinder came across houses with faeces scattered about? Sure didn't the weight watchers in Long Kesh do the same?!

Really showing some true colours there even if you think the judicious use of the smiley deflects from it

Raintonite

These threads have gone beyond shallow analysis and purposely warped perspective usually indulged by posters into downright sectarian rants. I wish some of these people had to deal with squaddies tramping through their leafy suburbs. But then again, most of them would probably be on their knees only to ready to help the "authorities".

A Dub in Glasgo

Some of them would have been in their nappies when the good ole squaddies were showing Nationalists their version of peace keeping

Pathfinder

Good to see people north and south sorting out their differences and marginalising the nutters on both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwUQer7hdbM&feature=related

blinkey 101

Mordeth wrote: »

'oohh look at us, we're still relevant'

bastards.

mind your laungue :mad:

Moriarty

Either this thread seriously improves soon or it'll be locked for turning into a pile of sectarian bollocks.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Really showing some true colours there even if you think the judicious use of the smiley deflects from it

True colours? Sure I've never held any other opinion than that the PIRA was wrong to embark on its campaign. The fact you venerate terrorists who starved themselves to death at SF's behest and spread their own filth around their cells is a matter for yourself. They were considered criminals both in this state and the United Kingdom.

To try to bring it back on topic a bit....why do so many supporters of the PIRA (who only ceased their campaign recently) condemn the RIRA? I mean they have broadly the same modus operandi. Blow things up and shoot people in an effort to persuade the UK to abandon Northern Ireland. What's changed? SFIRA are in government walking past Craig and Carson and union flags to get to Stormont to write a cupla focail gaeilge on their british headed notepaper? At what point did violence become the "wrong" way to achieve unity?

Raintonite

Pathfinder wrote: »

Good to see people north and south sorting out their differences and marginalising the nutters on both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwUQer7hdbM&feature=related

Yeah, right. We're all good little british subjects ready to do work for queen and country. Absolute rubbish! I know of nobody from nationalist areas in the six counties who'd contenance joining the british invasion forces. Are they seriously suggesting that people who have been on the recieving end of british thuggery now want to subject others to their activities. Then, I suppose there are those gullible enough to believe everything on the "news" as sacrosanct fact.

Pathfinder

Raintonite wrote: »

Yeah, right. We're all good little british subjects ready to do work for queen and country. Absolute rubbish! I know of nobody from nationalist areas in the six counties who'd contenance joining the british invasion forces. Are they seriously suggesting that people who have been on the recieving end of british thuggery now want to subject others to their activities. Then, I suppose there are those gullible enough to believe everything on the "news" as sacrosanct fact.

So it was the British army who murdered more then 700 Catholics in NI, as well as hundreds of Protestants,tarred and feathered young Catholic women, kidnapped and murdered a mother of 10, and napalmed members of the NI collie club at the Le Mon hotel.


Like other republicans your moral hypocrisy is astounding.

A bit like SF MPs going on about brutality and human rights by day, while at night previously planting bombs and kneecapping people.


Now these same Republicans claim the BA is oppressing the poor Talibans human rights.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

I looked back through the threads, and you're right: you never explicitly said that violence is never acceptable. I also think I confused your opinion with another user who said that good people NEVER make decisions that might kill people, so I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

Now the whole point of the violence discussion was to draw a baseline. If you don't believe that violence is ever acceptable, it's going to be pretty heard to talk about the issue at hand at all, because you can't debate whether it's legitimate resistance or not, if you've already disavowed all violence, in all circumstances.

Now, when I asked you about different cases such as WWII, and an invader coming in with tanks and human shields, you said that in both cases violence was not justified. To be fair, I think you said that about only certain portions of WWII, but still, the world believed the bombing of Germany was the only way to not be conquered themselves, and those bombing campaigns were they only tool they had to stop it.

My opinion is this: if you can't condone WWII attacking Germany as just violence, or a resitance fighter accidentally killing a human shield while trying to get at a deadly invading target, what violence can you justify, because those seem pretty cut and dry decision to me.

You are coming at this from a fundamentally different way to myself.

You are appear to be saying that if a cause is legitimate (stopping Hitler for example) then violence (ie all violence or any violence) against the traget or anything remotely associated with the target is legitimate.

So "attacking Germany" was legitimate. What that "attack" is is not important.

The problem is that that is such a ridiculous generalisation. By attacking Germany you seem to be saying that any and all violence towards anything even remotely associated with the German government is acceptable.

I, and I don't think most posters here, work in such general terms. Bombing a weapons factory at night in the middle of waste ground is not the same as bombing a police station in an urban centre in the middle of the day. Both are attacking Germany, but both are not the same thing. To say that attacking Germany is necessary therefore doing the later is necessary doesn't hold.

oscarBravo

Thread closed; it's more than run its course.