Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Mr.Micro · 12-02-2008 3:09pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Jaysus wept! :rolleyes:

Its all well and good coming out with stuff like those IRA are all murderous b'tards etc etc etc. It's just way too simplistic. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps they had a legitimate reason for their actions? The IRA were the official army of the Irish state, given a mandate by the people in the 1918 elections (the election that the Brits refused to recognise of course). Britain occupied our country, against the will of the people, and still occupies 1/6th of our land today. Quote ERIN GO BRATH

The thing is the RIRA or the IRA are not the ones to sort the differences. It is up to the elected Government to do so by official, legal and diplomatic means and not a campaign of terrorism. The IRA or RIRA have no mandate now and should realize that they are like an Irish version of the Taliban, wanting to turn the clock back to suit their own ideology whatever that is pre 1800 I guess.

Zombrex · 12-02-2008 3:11pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You speak for the entire Irish Nation then. It must be a great honour for you.

Your original question didn't mention the "Irish Nation"

I expressed what I think is the position of the people on this thread disagreeing with you. But if any of them think I'm misrepresenting them I would be happy to admit that.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The vast majority voted for Sinn Fein in that election in 1918. That meant that the Irish people gave them a mandate to deliver Irish indpendence. Seeing this was denied by the British, armed conflict was the only way this could be achieved.

And independence was delivered in 1922 by the formation of the Irish Free State, which created the Irish Army, the legitimate army of the State.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

One mans thug and murderer is another mans freedom fighter.

He still remains a thug and murderer though, even if he is fighting for freedom.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I believe the PIRA were wholly justified in organising a campaign against the tyranny of the sectarian staletet.

Of course you do, but then you seem to have no respect for the cause you claim to support :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The Irish Defence forces should have crossed the border to aid the people of Derry during the battle of the bogside.

The Irish Defence forces should bring me Cadbury's Cream Eggs every Friday on a silver plate. But for some reason they don't. Maybe because the Irish people they serve don't want them to....

djpbarry · 12-02-2008 3:47pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Seeing this was denied by the British, armed conflict was the only way this could be achieved.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

There is a way forward through democratic means now.

Armed conflict was the only option at one point, but NOW democracy is the way to go? When did the democratic route finally become a valid one?

Erin Go Brath · 12-02-2008 4:43pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So the Irish Defence Forces should have *invaded* another country, being Britain? I imagine that would have been a fantastic move. Reminds me of Hitler being handed a great big chunk of Czechoslovakia because there were German speakers there.

Ridiculous analogy. There are many people who consider themselves Irish in the North, who wanted the Defence Force to come to their aid during the battle of the bogside. The vast majority of the bogside residents would have warmly welcomed them. Britain, and their so-called police force let these people down.

Zombrex · 12-02-2008 5:24pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

There are many people who consider themselves Irish in the North

That is the whole point of the analogy. There were German speaking Czechs who considered themselves allied with Germany and welcomed the Nazi's as they invaded the country.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The vast majority of the bogside residents would have warmly welcomed them.

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! · 12-02-2008 5:57pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Ridiculous analogy. There are many people who consider themselves Irish in the North, who wanted the Defence Force to come to their aid during the battle of the bogside. The vast majority of the bogside residents would have warmly welcomed them. Britain, and their so-called police force let these people down.

There were plenty of people in Czechoslovakia who considered themselves German. Was it okay then? Also, is the bogside a country? A state? A self-governed area? Does it then have the right to make political decisions such as inviting a foreign army onto British soil? No, the Irish Defence Forces should never have crossed the border, as it was not concerned with goings-on up there. Besides, plenty of people in the north consider themselves British, a majority, one might say, so frankly, the north should remain British territory. Democracy isn't to be thrown out of the pram when it doesn't suit one minority.

FTA69 · 12-02-2008 8:33pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

1. The IRA have neither the support nor mandate of a state to do what they do. They are not an army by virtue of this fact.

An army is simply an organised group of armed individuals, there are many non-state armies around the world.

2. The IRA engage in the targeting of non-military targets for the purposes of provoking fear and anger among civilians, thinking this helps their cause, and are therefore terrorists.

No they don't, they engaged in the targeting of economic targets in the hope of causing financial damage which would weaken the British state's resolve to remain in Ireland. Yes, I know that the IRA killed innocent people, and yes many of that organisation's actions were wrong. That does not equate with them seeking to target non-combatants because a cursory analysis of the their methods would show that not to be the case.

3. The IRA ignore the democratic process which has, for the time being, ensured that the north remains under ultimate British control, and ignore the domestic control conferred by the assembly.

British control in Ireland is here because of a British will to remain here, they could leave tomorrow at the stroke of a pen. Blaming Republicans for an occupation which long preceeds them is fallacious.

You say they have the right to resort to violence; how? Their cause does not have the support of the populace. Their methods are reviled by the very people they claim to represent and they certainly do not have the mandate of a state to confer legitimacy upon them, so how do you pretend to defend them?

I don't think that the conditions exist for an armed struggle, and that the only method through which Republicanism will become succesful is grassroots political activity. The battle of ideas is the first thing that needs to be won.

murphaph · 12-02-2008 8:52pm

FTA69 wrote: »

British control in Ireland is here because of a British will to remain here, they could leave tomorrow at the stroke of a pen.

I doubt the nearly 1 million brits who call Northern Ireland home (they are what make it british, not the british government saying so-they'd love to offload the most subsidised part of the UK onto us!) could leave at the stroke of a pen. Maybe their armed forces, police and other government agencies could leave for the mainland in a few weeks but then where would all the poor oppressed catholics go for their free healthcare and cheap prescriptions?!

It wasn't me! · 12-02-2008 9:04pm

What non-state armies are there? If I go out shooting with a few mates, even a few thousand mates, on a sunday afternoon, are we an army?

Economic targets are non-military, and the IRA never hoped to inflict significant economic damage on a power like Britain; to suggest they did is fallacy. And how is targeting a pub an economic objective?

The North is under British control because the will of the majority (see? Democracy) demands it remain so. It is not in British interests to control Northern Ireland, it being an enormous drain on economic resources.

They're terrorists. Their reason for existence has long since run out. They are a defunct and obsolete group, who only wish to give some veneer to their illegal rackets and garner some shred of false legitimacy.

brianthebard · 12-02-2008 9:10pm

Anyone who thinks the IRA was giving a mandate by the Irish people deserves to be shot by the real Irish army. The IRA and its deriviatives destroyed the peaceful protest movement in the north in the late 60s/early 70s. The IRA set back the peace process over forty years.

It wasn't me! · 12-02-2008 9:13pm

In 1918 they were. After 1922, no, they were not.

LordSutch · 12-02-2008 10:06pm

Greetings FTA69 oh Great defender of the IRA, we cross swords yet again, and may I recommend that you read Post #116 to enlighten you about the true meaning of the word 'Terrorist' and its good bed fellows the Provisional IRA & now the so called 'Real IRA' who wish to continue the good work into the 21st century.

Dinter · 12-02-2008 10:35pm

I think this thread is moot. Nobody is defending the RIRA should they start again.

I don't see any point in rehashing the history of Irish Republicanism or it's counterpart in Irish repression.

I can give reasons why I feel that a terrorist campaign was justified during Ireland's long history. However, conversely I can give reasons why the the repression that occured in Ireland was justified in the eyes of the Crown.

None of them will change my opinion. I know these facts yet my opinion stays the same.

This is not debating. It's more like mudslinging.

oscarBravo · 12-02-2008 10:51pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

One mans thug and murderer is another mans freedom fighter.

Anyone who deliberately murders innocent civilians in the name of a political cause is a thug and a murderer, and the beliefs of whatever misguided fools want to laud such a thug for his actions don't change that.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

ArthurF I don't agree with the RIRA's current proposed campaign. There is a way forward through democratic means now.

There's always been a way forward other than mass murder. Some people are too stupid and bloody-minded to see that now, just as some people have always been.

Dinter wrote: »

I think this thread is moot. Nobody is defending the RIRA should they start again.

Unfortunately, lots of people are being very qualified in their lack of support. It seems to be based on political opportunism, because things are starting to go their way, rather than on an abhorrence of the willingness to murder and maim.

Dinter wrote: »

I can give reasons why I feel that a terrorist campaign was justified during Ireland's long history.

Can you look into the eyes of someone whose small child was murdered, and give those reasons?

Dinter · 12-02-2008 11:23pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Anyone who deliberately murders innocent civilians in the name of a political cause is a thug and a murderer, and the beliefs of whatever misguided fools want to laud such a thug for his actions don't change that.

I presume this applies to whether the innocent civilian is killed by a terrorist or a soldier.

ArthurF wrote: »

The IRA in all its guises are Terrorists, were Terrorists (& always will be Terrorists) there is no grey area whereby they might not be Terrorists!

ArthurF wrote: »

A Terrorist Organisation is just that ~ A group that set out to 'Terrorise' the population of a Country or State because they (the Terrorists) dont agree with the Majority or Governing body, hence they resort to 'Terrorism' by planting Bombs in Shopping Centres, planting Car Bombs in crowded streets, planting Pub Bombs, shooting Police Men & shooting Police Women, Robbing Banks & Post offices, Perverting the Course of Justice, Killing Judges, Murdering Politicians, Bombing Hotels, and even knee-capping their own scum bags (should they step out of line) ~ whilst at the same time pleading innocence or claiming that they harbour some grevence, or have been badly done by which has pushed them into comitting all of the above.

The Provisional IRA are/were terrorists, & sadly the so called 'Real IRA' now carry that filthy & obscene banner into the 21st Century

That's a childish way of looking at it. The only reason for a terrorist organisation to exist is to commit terror. Michael Collins revelled in the mantle of a terrorist. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. As a military force that is how you punch above your weight.

Look at the Spanish Guerrilla's, the black and tans, the Maquis, the Chindits, in fact any organisation that has ever fought while being less in numbers and comparatively under equipped.

However the litany of charges you lay at the feet of the IRA is where your argument fails. Such a self serving list with no balance.

You have obviously never heard of the Shankhill Butchers, the Dublin - Monaghan bombing, the Belfast Pogroms, Bloody Sunday?

There's nobody, terrorist or state sanctioned whose hands are clean. I take issue with the apologists and revisionists who would argue otherwise.

LordSutch · 12-02-2008 11:47pm

Dinter wrote: »

I presume this applies to whether the innocent civilian is killed by a terrorist or a soldier.

That's a childish way of looking at it. The only reason for a terrorist organisation to exist is to commit terror. Michael Collins revelled in the mantle of a terrorist. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. As a military force that is how you punch above your weight.

Look at the Spanish Guerrilla's, the black and tans, the Maquis, the Chindits, in fact any organisation that has ever fought while being less in numbers and comparatively under equipped.

However the litany of charges you lay at the feet of the IRA is where your argument fails. Such a self serving list with no balance.

You have obviously never heard of the Shankhill Butchers, the Dublin - Monaghan bombing, the Belfast Pogroms, Bloody Sunday?

There's nobody, terrorist or state sanctioned whose hands are clean. I take issue with the apologists and revisionists who would argue otherwise.

I take nothing back Dinter (and I mean nothing), the IRA were & are terorists, its not a childish statement, its not a pointless statement, and yes maybe they were under equipped (thank God they were) but its a FACT Dinter that their whole raison d'etre was/is 'Terrorism', as their many hundreds of partially limbed & disfigured victims will testify to.

The Shankill Bombers were members of the IRA (or the INLA)? either way they were terrorists as were the perpetrators of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings + the Bloody Friday murders, etc, etc, etc .............
but 35 years later do we really want the Real IRA to continue the Terror?

The Real IRA have issued a statement claiming that 'The War is back On' & thats the question for 'you' & all "Do you agree with the Real IRA or Not"?

I certainly do NOT.

Dinter · 13-02-2008 12:06am

ArthurF wrote: »

I take nothing back Dinter (and I mean nothing), the IRA were & are terorists, its not a childish statement, its not a pointless statement, and yes maybe they were under equipped (thank God they were) but its a FACT Dinter that their whole raison d'etre was/is 'Terrorism', as their many hundreds of partially limbed & disfigured victims will testify to.

The Shankill Bombers were members of the IRA (or the INLA)? either way they were terrorists as were the perpetrators of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings + the Bloody Friday murders, etc, etc, etc .............
but 35 years later do we really want the Real IRA to continue the Terror?

The Real IRA have issued a statement claiming that 'The War is back On' & thats the question for 'you' & all "Do you agree with the Real IRA or Not"?

I certainly do NOT.

I think if you read my comments you would know I do not.

To decide the motivations of any armed act, be it the invasion of Normandy or the attack in Warrenpoint you must look at the casus belli. This seems to be the main sticking point for this thread and one we can hardly hope to be qualified to adjudicate on.

As to the raison d'etre being terrorism I stated that in the post you quoted.

The Shankhill butchers were in fact members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Google them, they make for shocking reading.

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 12:54am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So the Irish Defence Forces should have *invaded* another country, being Britain? I imagine that would have been a fantastic move. Reminds me of Hitler being handed a great big chunk of Czechoslovakia because there were German speakers there.

lol lol lol lol lol i am sorry but you have just lost all creadibility to me with that single post. in fact the south still claimed the north for all the troubles. it wasn't untill 1998 they withdrew that claim unless i am mistaken.

but a good reference all the same of hitler to britain being handed a chuck of ireland because there were british there lol oj

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 1:08am

Wicknight wrote: »

I expressed what I think is the position of the people on this thread disagreeing with you. But if any of them think I'm misrepresenting them I would be happy to admit that.

And independence was delivered in 1922 by the formation of the Irish Free State, which created the Irish Army, the legitimate army of the State.

The Irish Defence forces should bring me Cadbury's Cream Eggs every Friday on a silver plate. But for some reason they don't. Maybe because the Irish people they serve don't want them to....

well me for one, because you almost certainly dont repesent my view and i think it is quite niave to suggest that you support the majority of people on this fourm. this fourm is about everyone having an equal say and input so you cant "claim" to speak for everyone.

ok then can i ask if thats your opinion of the irish army was it an legimate force before 1922 in your opinion????

and your also comparing the plight of the bogsiders during the battle of the bogside with your own selfish aims of getting a cream egg???? its a bit of a strech of the imigination to be honest.

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 1:17am

ArthurF wrote: »

Greetings FTA69 oh Great defender of the IRA, we cross swords yet again, and may I recommend that you read Post #116 to enlighten you about the true meaning of the word 'Terrorist' and its good bed fellows the Provisional IRA & now the so called 'Real IRA' who wish to continue the good work into the 21st century.

i personally do not agree one bit with the current rira stragety.

the whole issuse that i think this thread is getting into is what is a terrorist??? and some people define a "terrorist" different to others. "post #116" is your intepertation of the word terrorist. and it is not a defined meaning such as gravity. so i would ask you from now on to try and take into account that your use of this word may not reflect other peoples use of the word.

terrorist or freedom fighter??? that is a question that no one can truly answer. its all about a persons view on the topic and the group in question.

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 1:18am

Dinter wrote: »

I presume this applies to whether the innocent civilian is killed by a terrorist or a soldier.

You presume correctly.

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 1:23am

duggie-89 wrote: »

the whole issuse that i think this thread is getting into is what is a terrorist??? and some people define a "terrorist" different to others. "post #116" is your intepertation of the word terrorist. and it is not a defined meaning such as gravity. so i would ask you from now on to try and take into account that your use of this word may not reflect other peoples use of the word.

The reason this thread has taken that direction is because of the tendency of apologists to try to deflect criticism of abhorrent and inhuman acts by engaging in moral relativism and whataboutery.

duggie-89 wrote: »

terrorist or freedom fighter??? that is a question that no one can truly answer. its all about a persons view on the topic and the group in question.

Common Law recognises the concept of the reasonable person: what an average "man in the street" (or on the Clapham Omnibus) would make of a situation.

The proverbial man in the street has no difficulty calling a spade a spade, and unconditionally condemning outright the brutal murder of innocents.

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 1:35am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Common Law recognises the concept of the reasonable person: what an average "man in the street" (or on the Clapham Omnibus) would make of a situation.

The proverbial man in the street has no difficulty calling a spade a spade, and unconditionally condemning outright the brutal murder of innocents.

indeed you are correct but how does a man on the street know what a spade is?
answer: at some point he has been told this is what a spade and if he hasn't been told then he has developed the view that this is a spade. so its all about what we precieve something to be weather it though our own learning or because we have been told something and we believe it. but what is there to say that joe blogs down the road hasn't a different idea of what a spade is and who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

and off course any right thinking human IMO would condem the murder of innocents. but who is to say that someone is innocent???

do you see where i am going with this?? if not just say and i will try and explain my point more clearly.

It wasn't me! · 13-02-2008 2:17am

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol lol lol lol lol i am sorry but you have just lost all creadibility to me with that single post. in fact the south still claimed the north for all the troubles. it wasn't untill 1998 they withdrew that claim unless i am mistaken.

but a good reference all the same of hitler to britain being handed a chuck of ireland because there were british there lol oj

Did that change the fact that the "south" had no claim to the "north" after 1920? Not one iota.

Yes, Hitler took the Sudetenland based on the fact that there were German speakers there, who considered themselves German. That was his justification to gain control of Czechoslovakia's manufacturing centres.

If that post "lost me all credibility in your eyes", then I want none of it. It was a valid analogy. Should Hitler have had the Sudetenland signed over in appeasement? No. Should Irish troops have invaded a statelet *THAT WAS RECOGNISED BEFORE THE FREE STATE EXISTED*? A rousing hell no here.

Who's to say whether someone is innocent? A non-combatant is not a valid military target. In this context, they are innocents.

oscarBravo · 13-02-2008 2:20am

duggie-89 wrote: »

indeed you are correct but how does a man on the street know what a spade is?
answer: at some point he has been told this is what a spade and if he hasn't been told then he has developed the view that this is a spade. so its all about what we precieve something to be weather it though our own learning or because we have been told something and we believe it. but what is there to say that joe blogs down the road hasn't a different idea of what a spade is and who is to say who is right and who is wrong.

and off course any right thinking human IMO would condem the murder of innocents. but who is to say that someone is innocent???

do you see where i am going with this?? if not just say and i will try and explain my point more clearly.

I know exactly where you're going with it. It's sophistry, plain and simple, which is precisely why the reasonableness test exists.

Such sophistry won't get you anywhere in a court of law, and it doesn't wash here.

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 12:38pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Did that change the fact that the "south" had no claim to the "north" after 1920? Not one iota.

Yes, Hitler took the Sudetenland based on the fact that there were German speakers there, who considered themselves German. That was his justification to gain control of Czechoslovakia's manufacturing centres.

If that post "lost me all credibility in your eyes", then I want none of it. It was a valid analogy. Should Hitler have had the Sudetenland signed over in appeasement? No. Should Irish troops have invaded a statelet *THAT WAS RECOGNISED BEFORE THE FREE STATE EXISTED*? A rousing hell no here.

Who's to say whether someone is innocent? A non-combatant is not a valid military target. In this context, they are innocents.

the south has always and will always have a claim to the north, because the last time i checked the name of the south was "the republic of Ireland" and ireland contains 32 counties not 26.

i dont understand the whole relevance of the sudentenlad point. are your comparing the south with germany (nazi germany) becuase i find that hard to believe. i mean the south jealous of the norths industrial centres??? lol

:D:D

invaded another statelet no they should have done the right thing and itervened to protect the civilians of derry who were under attack. just like what the irish forces are doing in chad and bosina recently. and anyway they wouldn't be invading they would have either been reclaiming their land or thier as peace keepers.

what does being recoginsing before another country have to do with anything??? look how long it took for communist china to be recognised??? nazi germany was recoginsed by how many countries?? does that give them creadibily???

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 12:47pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I know exactly where you're going with it. It's sophistry, plain and simple, which is precisely why the reasonableness test exists.

Such sophistry won't get you anywhere in a court of law, and it doesn't wash here.

but i wasn't talking about the a court of law i was talking about differences of views. while a court of law has pre-defined points and as few grey area's as possible.

well here is a question for you?? if a court of law told you that your beliefs and views were wrong and illegal would you change your mind???? because a court of law said so????

djpbarry · 13-02-2008 1:00pm

duggie-89 wrote: »

the south has always and will always have a claim to the north...

The Republic's constitutional claim on the North was abolished under the Good Friday Agreement.

duggie-89 wrote: »

...the last time i checked the name of the south was "the republic of Ireland" and ireland contains 32 counties not 26.

Yes, the island of Ireland contains 32 counties, but the Republic of Ireland contains 26; what's your point?

duggie-89 wrote: »

...they should have done the right thing and itervened to protect the civilians of derry who were under attack. just like what the irish forces are doing in chad and bosina recently.

Any Irish troops abroad are under the auspices of the UN - the Irish Defence Forces rarely (if ever) act unilaterally.

duggie-89 wrote: »

...and anyway they wouldn't be invading they would have either been reclaiming their land or thier as peace keepers.

Which is it? If they were to “reclaim” territory (territory that has never belonged to the Republic, by the way) then that would constitute an invasion.

duggie-89 · 13-02-2008 1:48pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The Republic's constitutional claim on the North was abolished under the Good Friday Agreement.

Yes, the island of Ireland contains 32 counties, but the Republic of Ireland contains 26; what's your point?

Which is it? If they were to “reclaim” territory (territory that has never belonged to the Republic, by the way) then that would constitute an invasion.

you have outlined my point the republic has 26 counties and has a right to the further 6 and in my opinion always will. a peoples right to govern themselves can not be thrown away. yes it was signed over to the will of the people in the north i am well aware of that. but it still has a claim in my opinion. it aknowledges that its up to all the people of the north to decided but you still cant get pass the point is has a right to the north.

the proclamtion of easter states all you need to know about the territory of ireland. i suggested two points they could "reclaim" the terrority or act as peacekeepers, with the obvious choice being the peace keepers. i was merely stating that it would still be their right to "reclaim" the north but it wouldn't be the best option to do.

Zombrex · 13-02-2008 1:57pm

duggie-89 wrote: »

so you cant "claim" to speak for everyone.

If you read my post properly you will notice I didn't :rolleyes:

duggie-89 wrote: »

ok then can i ask if thats your opinion of the irish army was it an legimate force before 1922 in your opinion????

No, it wasn't, and I'll explain why.

The only time the IRA had any claim for legitimacy was for the 3 years, between 1919 after the formation of the first Dail and 1922 after the formation of the proper Irish Army, the IRA could be considered the official Army of the Irish Republic (hence the change of name from Volunteers to IRA) because that is what the Dail decided, at least in principle.

The problem of course that the IRA refused to be directly controlled by the Dail. It was part of their own constitution to be governed only by their own executive. A sort of compromise was determined by the IRA in 1919 (still know then as the "Volunteers") agreeing that only the Dail could sanction military action, and in 1920 they swore allegiance to the government.

But in practice they still operated largely independently, run by Collins who had little legitimacy to sanction military action on behalf of the government. This would throw into serious doubt the legitimacy they claimed to have. You can see this in the arguing between Brugha and the IRA, and in the way they pretty much ignored him. He was the legitimate Minister for Defense. If the IRA were truly the legitimate army of the new Republic they had no grounds to ignore his orders.

So they lost (ignored?) their only proper claim to legitimacy, that being acting as the Army of the Republic.

An army that acts outside the mandate of its government is not legitimate. Its not even legal.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and your also comparing the plight of the bogsiders during the battle of the bogside with your own selfish aims of getting a cream egg????

Do you even understand what the "Battle of the Bogside" was?

Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Comments