Question for Republicans (of the Irish variety)

SlabMurphy

Otacon wrote: »

I am Irish, born and bred. No English in my roots as far back in my family as anyone can remember. I even had a grand-uncle or someone like that who was a member of the IRA.

I am firmly against Sinn Fein, the IRA, their policies, beliefs and ideals.

Am I another one?

Well that would depend. If your against SF and the IRA - I suppose you have some good reasons. But when people come on again and again and again totally blaming the IRA for everything to the total ignoring of Britian and the unionists role, apart from the odd token comment, can you blame a person from starting to conclude their actaully unionists ??

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

So are we to conclude from your post that McGuinness and Adams were solely the ones respondcible for all the deaths during the conflict. Even the ones carried out by the brits and their unoffical allies the loyalists who they armed and directed throughout the conflict ??

Of course the British and the unionists who created and sustained the conditions of repression and bigotry for decades that inevitably gave rise to the conflict aren't in anyway to blame either. No, it's all down to Gerry and Martin - in your views anyway.

Nope. I said 'contributed to'. Which they did. As did the other agents in the conflict. I'd be the first to offer praise to both of them for steering the movement to the table. However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook.

I'm not assigning blame. As an ex-WP (or stick as you would say) member, was making a point that Harris and DeRossa made it to the same place (power-sharing, acknowledgment of protestant fears) as McGuiness and Adams have, without 35 years of war. Not that I endorse DeRossa or especially Harris, these days.

Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war?

SlabMurphy wrote: »

(BTW, I notice you use the term SF/Provos, any chance you could use the term RUC/Brits/UVF ? since it's equally applicable ?)

I also find it irritating when the DUP use the appellation SF/IRA, but I was answering the post re: Marxism and the Officials/INLA. As such, I was distinguishing between the three Republican political strands (SFWP/SF/IRSP) and their respective armed wings (OIRA/PIRA/INLA).

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I've yet to see you or your other british friends emphasise the british guilt and murders etc in the conflict. You unionists - and you are unionists wherever your supposed to be from - are always focusing solely on the IRA's actions to the complete ignoring of Britain.
Sure when it's pointed out you throw in the odd token comment regarding Britain's wrongs - but that's all it ever is TOKEN.

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

Fratton Fred

As a point of order, if it is acceptable to use the term RUC/Brits/UVF then should it also read SF/Irish/IRA?

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

oh, and also

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

Nope. I said 'contributed to'. Which they did. As did the other agents in the conflict. I'd be the first to offer praise to both of them for steering the movement to the table. However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook.

I'm not assigning blame. As an ex-WP (or stick as you would say) member, was making a point that Harris and DeRossa made it to the same place (power-sharing, acknowledgment of protestant fears) as McGuiness and Adams have, without 35 years of war. Not that I endorse DeRossa or especially Harris, these days.

Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war?


I also find it irritating when the DUP use the appellation SF/IRA, but I was answering the post re: Marxism and the Officials/INLA. As such, I was distinguishing between the three Republican political strands (SFWP/SF/IRSP) and their respective armed wings (OIRA/PIRA/INLA).

" However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook. " It was the unionists and the RUC who launched themselves on the nationalist community in August 1969, not the other way around. In fact young nationalists wrote on the walls of Belfast, Derry etc IRA - I Ran Away, such was the felling of disgust at the poor ability of the IRA to be properly armed to defend the areas ( a situation brought about by the so called ' leadrership ' ( Goulding, McGiolla, Garland etc ) in Dublin that went on to become the Stickies ).

Well since you use the British govt. speak ( DUP didn't make it up ) term SF/IRA, surely for balance you could use Brits/RUC/UVF

" Partition still exists and unionists (and non-unionist protestants) are still as estranged as ever. To what end 35 years of war? " Yes, it was an all or nothing situation, no matter what gloss SF put on it, brits out or not. Looks like we'll have to outbreed them. Anyway through economic links etc teh process of integrating the two states has already started, letting the air out of the tyres slowly as a british minister said once off the record

( BTW, the brit PM Wilson firmly wanted to withdraw around 1974 but was argued out of it by Healy and Callaghan. It was around this time also that the brit dirty tricks dept where trying to smear Wilson as a Soveit agent -but that's entirely another story )

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

AND YET ANOTHER ONE :eek::eek::eek: FFS, this is getting out of hand. The mods will have to intervene

Still it goes to show where the pro british propaganda is really coming from

They certainly may have to intervene if you keep insisting that where you are born somehow makes you unable to form a political opinion, yes.

SlabMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As a point of order, if it is acceptable to use the term RUC/Brits/UVF then should it also read SF/Irish/IRA?

Well the term brits in this context is been used for the armed forces of that evil state. Maybe SF/Paddy's/IRA would be more appropriate ( although some of our insanely politically correct citizens might object ).

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

" However, they were ending an armed campaign that they themselves undertook. " It was the unionists and the RUC who launched themselves on the nationalist community in August 1969, not the other way around.

Nope, the provos chose to respond to unionist misrule and the presence of the British army (at that stage deployed to aid the civil forces) with an armed campaign.

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Looks like we'll have to outbreed them.

Seriously Slab, this kind of attitude is foolish, and no different to some of the opinions in the cracker-wing of the DUP. It's counter-productive to any lasting settlement in NI.

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

I always acknowledge the evils carried out by all parties, because I haven't been brainwashed by any of them.

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

Fratton Fred

so being a unionist or a republican is a genetic thing?

Why do people seem so certain that as yet unborn people will vote the way they are expected to?

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

They certainly may have to intervene if you keep insisting that where you are born somehow makes you unable to form a political opinion, yes.

Never said where anyone was born makes them unable to form a political opinion. Some of our greatest leaders were born in Britian, Connolly, Davitt, Liam Mellows. Which ironically throws further doubt on the unionists views continually expressed by so called people born in England but raised in Ireland etc, etc

stovelid wrote: »

Nope, the provos chose to respond to unionist misrule and the presence of the British army (at that stage deployed to aid the civil forces) with an armed campaign.

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles.As for the Provos and the Brits, the Brits came into the north in August 1969. The IRA's first killing of one of them was in August 1970, a full 12 months after their arrival ( and the murder of at least half a dozen nationalists in between by the brits, check out the Cain website) and in responce to what is called the Falls Road curfew when 3000 British army troops sealed off the streets around the nationalist Falls, home to about 10,000 people. They flooded the area murdering 4 civilians, smashing in doors, beating up nationalists of all ages, calling the women dirty fenian whores etc in an attempt to provoke the IRA in an excuse to recover IRA weapons. ( Though naturally, they didn't do the same on the Shankill Road to recover loyalist weapons, but that's british neutrality for you isn't it ) This event is widely regarded as the end of the British army's "honeymoon" period with the Irish nationalist community in the north. See Tim Pat Coogan's book, THE IRA.

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles, but what else would a unionist come out with.

Fratton Fred

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

probably because you and Mcarmalite do nothing but put the blame firmly on the British/Unionist population.

People trying to get you to see the other side does not mean they are ignoring your points, only pointing out an alternative viewpoint.

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Just goes to show you are perpared to acknowledge nothing whatsoever regarding the origins of the troubles, but what else would a unionist come out with.

I have no idea. Seeing as I'm not one, perhaps a actual unionist could oblige you.

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Then why the continual emphasis of the wrongs of the IRA and the ignoring of the actions of unionism and Britian, apart from the token comment, through secterian bigotry and thuggery that actually created the IRA - not the other way around ??

Unless ofcourse you are a unionist who tries to balme it all on the IRA regardless

If you think that I ignored the actions of unionism and Britain, I would suggest that you read my posts again, only this time more carefully. :rolleyes:

SlabMurphy

stovelid wrote: »

I have no idea. Seeing as I'm not one, perhaps a actual unionist could oblige you.

:rolleyes:

SlabMurphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

If you think that I ignored the actions of unionism and Britain, I would suggest that you read my posts again, only this time more carefully. :rolleyes:

How many times does it have to be repeated, your continual emphasis on the IRA and your token mention of Britian and Unionism :rolleyes:.

SlabMurphy

snyper wrote: »

Firstly, irish republicanism has been hijacked by the filthy communist terrorist movement that is Sinn Fein, so in effect, true decent thinking moderates dont have an anti american bias.

You forgot to mention also their Anarchism, Islamic fundamentalism, baby eating etc

stovelid

SlabMurphy wrote: »

As for the Provos and the Brits, the Brits came into the north in August 1969. The IRA's first killing of one of them was in August 1970, a full 12 months after their arrival ( and the murder of at least half a dozen nationalists in between by the brits, check out the Cain website)

Though naturally, they didn't do the same on the Shankill Road to recover loyalist weapons, but that's british neutrality for you isn't it )

The IRA didn't kill a Brit until 1971.

Do you mean nationalists (I prefer the designation Catholic, myself) killed by the NI police forces? They (and loyalists) claimed the only catholic lives in 1969. Hence the deployment of the army.

On CAIN, the only fatalities attributed to the Brits in 1969 seem to protestants (from the Shankill incidentally!):

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

The Brits didn't claim a catholic life until the summer of the following year.

By the way, I'm not disputing the wrongs of Loyalists and the Brits. In 1969, I think armed defense from Loyalists incursion was valid. But you seem to think that Loyalist and Brit atrocities warranted a 35 armed campaign, including indiscriminate bombings.

I don't.

But that doesn't mean I'm a Unionist. Don't bother answering if you are simply going to call me a unionist and roll your eyes.

ejmaztec

SlabMurphy wrote: »

How many times does it have to be repeated, your continual emphasis on the IRA and your token mention of Britian and Unionism :rolleyes:.

Vision Express.

sink

SlabMurphy wrote: »

EXTRAORDINARY - YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: " Being from a mixed Irish and British background " It's absoulutely amazing how many people who are always the most anti nationalist on boards.ie are never actually unionists, but ALWAYS allegedly come form

- Born in England but raised in Ireland from their teens
- Born in England but of Irish parents
- Born in Ireland but raised in England from an early age, hence explianing their pro Britsh opinions

It's extraordinary, but I cann't remember yet of seeing anyone spouting pro British thuggery being honest enough to claim that they are unionists from the six counties but obviously try and disguise their views under the already mentioned backgrounds

Do me a favour, try spouting your British views in public sometime and we'll see the nice agreement you'll get

You haven't a clue about me mate, I don't fall into any of your categories. My Grandad was Scottish and he was an RAF fighter pilot during the war. My grandma was from Tipperary and she joined the WRAF mainly for the excitement and the chance to get away from a small sleepy town. They met in England and got married after the war. My father was born in England and raised there until he was 5. Then my Grandad took a job with Aer Lingus and they moved to Dublin where he worked for 30 years. My father moved to London in his twenties and my mother who is Irish born and raised was working over there and the two of them met. When they got married they moved back to Ireland and I was born in Dublin and I have lived here all my life.

My views on British and Irish history go back a lot further than the last 40 years. I also feel that British nationalism is just as dangerous as Irish nationalism and I am far from pro-British. I would have all nations dissolved and form and form a different global structure not based on nation states.

McArmalite

SlabMurphy wrote: »

EXTRAORDINARY - YET ANOTHER ONE :eek: " Being from a mixed Irish and British background " It's absoulutely amazing how many people who are always the most anti nationalist on boards.ie are never actually unionists, but ALWAYS allegedly come form

- Born in England but raised in Ireland from their teens
- Born in England but of Irish parents
- Born in Ireland but raised in England from an early age, hence explianing their pro Britsh opinions

It's extraordinary, but I cann't remember yet of seeing anyone spouting pro British thuggery being honest enough to claim that they are unionists from the six counties but obviously try and disguise their views under the already mentioned backgrounds

Do me a favour, try spouting your British views in public sometime and we'll see the nice agreement you'll get

Good stuff Slab, it's not just on www.irishrepublican.net I can depend on ya

oscarBravo

SlabMurphy wrote: »

The mods will have to intervene

Always happy to oblige. Banned for trolling.

marco murphy

snyper wrote: »

Firstly, irish republicanism has been hijacked by the filthy communist terrorist movement that is Sinn Fein, so in effect, true decent thinking moderates dont have an anti american bias.

Communist? Explain how Sinn Fein is communist please. And what is a decent thinking moderate?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As a point of order, if it is acceptable to use the term RUC/Brits/UVF then should it also read SF/Irish/IRA?

No. Brits is a reference to the British presence in the North, not British people in general. British people are decent, hard working people. They cannot be tarred with the same brush as the RUC/UVF/Brits. And I'm not using the slahses for the craic, they were actively in cahoots with eachother and that must be made clear. SF/Irish/IRA is a non runner.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so being a unionist or a republican is a genetic thing?

Why do people seem so certain that as yet unborn people will vote the way they are expected to?

Nothing worse than tribal political inheritance. I can assure you the majority of Republicans nowadays, especially south of the border (obviously) indepdently established themselves as Republicans.

stovelid wrote: »

The IRA didn't kill a Brit until 1971.

Do you mean nationalists (I prefer the designation Catholic, myself) killed by the NI police forces? They (and loyalists) claimed the only catholic lives in 1969. Hence the deployment of the army.

On CAIN, the only fatalities attributed to the Brits in 1969 seem to protestants (from the Shankill incidentally!):

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

The Brits didn't claim a catholic life until the summer of the following year.

By the way, I'm not disputing the wrongs of Loyalists and the Brits. In 1969, I think armed defense from Loyalists incursion was valid. But you seem to think that Loyalist and Brit atrocities warranted a 35 armed campaign, including indiscriminate bombings.

I don't.

But that doesn't mean I'm a Unionist. Don't bother answering if you are simply going to call me a unionist and roll your eyes.

I wouldn't descend into branding the conflict a religious one, that is an age old British tactic in the countries that they had under their boot in the height of their imperialist agenda. Divide and conquer I guess.

stovelid

Perestroika wrote: »

I wouldn't descend into branding the conflict a religious one, that is an age old British tactic in the countries that they had under their boot in the height of their imperialist agenda. Divide and conquer I guess.

Nor would I brand it as a religious conflict.

I was responding to SlabMurphy's (untrue) comments in post 43.

Erin Go Brath

snyper wrote: »

Firstly, irish republicanism has been hijacked by the filthy communist terrorist movement that is Sinn Fein, so in effect, true decent thinking moderates dont have an anti american bias.

Oscarbravo; how come you banned slabmurphy for reasonable debate and not blatent trollery and slanderous comments like synpers above?

oscarBravo

Don't discuss moderation in-thread. Further off-topic posts will result in bans.

ejmaztec

Given that Sinn Fein is trying to re-establish itself in mainstream Irish politics, as a party to be respected, do any hardline republicans think that they are doing SF any favours by constantly dragging up the past? The association of SF and the IRA during the troubles is probably the reason for there not being more SF TDs. The less voters are reminded of the past, the more chance SF stands of making future progress.

Liam Byrne

whitey1 wrote: »

When Gerry Adams was a pariah in his own country he was welcomed with open arms into the highest circles of influence within the Irish American community.

You could replace the "Gerry Adams" in that sentence with "Saddam Hussein" and it's still be true.

History has proven that the U.S. Administration has no problem getting into bed with terrorists when it suits them, and they'll do a u-turn just as quickly when they want to.

Gerry Adams, Saddam Hussein, whoever......it's not the valid argument that you're proposing of "look at all we did for you by meeting you, so why aren't you more grateful"; more "it suited us at the time because it got us votes".

Attributing anything more noble would - in my humble opinion - be a mistake.

But then, I'm not completely sure that I'm the target of the original post; I'm kindof "republican" - it's almost safe to say that again now without being associated with murderers and terrorists - but I've never supported Adams and the other terrorists or their actions.

So could you be more specific as to what you mean by the "R" word ? Are we talking the former-psychos-now-thankfully-inactive "republicans" that hijacked the term, or are we talking normal, moderate people who never killed - or supported anyone who killed - anyone in their lives ?

Liam Byrne

whitey1 wrote: »

I am not asking for Republicans to come out in favor of the Iraq war, I am just disappointed that they seem to be taking sides with our enemies. As the saying goes-"when the chips are down you find out who your friends are".

That's self-victimisation. When the chips are down, you should know who your friends are, but if you completely f**k up and invade a country under false pretences, a true friend would politely tell you that you f**ked up, and wouldn't get involved by coming out in favour of an illegal and unjust war and letting you use their airport to continue it.

You're viewing this as "it doesn't matter what we ever did, we were once friends", but I can tell you that my closest friends tell me when I do wrong, and vice versa, and we're far better friends for it; and if any of them have done something COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY wrong, they're no longer friends; not because I'm abandoning them, or overlooking the good they might have done in the past, but because THEY DID SOMETHING COMPLETELY WRONG and it took precedence.

A friend of mine robs a fiver; I'll overlook it.
A friend of mine has an affair with a married man/woman; I'll let them know I don't agree but I won't write them off
A friend of mine murders or rapes someone; they're no longer my friend. Period.

Is it that hard to understand ?