do you wish you had died for ireland

Kalashnikov_Kid

stovelid wrote: »

I think it's possible to reject republican militarism as an Irishman or woman. Even to call them criminal in some respects. As citizens of this country, we have the right to criticize acts committed in our name. And to question orthodox interpretations of history without being labelled as unpatriotic.

That doesn't mean that we forget or excuse war-crimes committed by the British and their agents. Even if you grit your teeth and accept that lasting peace probably means accommodation of theiir views and aims.

Absolutely - 'history in the eye of the beholder' I think they call it.

Dudess

stovelid wrote: »

Personally, I detest the IRA but I fucking loathe Loyalism and most of what passed for British 'policy' in the North, including murder.

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

phelixoflaherty

I would have dined for Ireland

stovelid

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

Absolutely - 'history in the eye of the beholder' I think they call it.

What do you mean?

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

I agree on both levels. State agencies commit acts that basically equate to terrorism. In the case of the UDR, although a nominal improvement on the B-men, their ranks were riddled with conventional terrorists and those that weren't terrorists, were often briefed by terrorists as you would expect a force made up nearly entirely of protestants to be in those times.

Very much the way Cartholics often set up colleagues for assassination. Sometimes justified; sometimes not.

Preaching to the converted re: the UDR tbh

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, just because the UDR wore uniforms doesn't mean they weren't terrorists.

But some assume if it's a British Army uniform they are terrorists. I admire the people, often not considered Irish, who put a stop to the UDR, RUC etc., often at great personal danger.

Unfortunately dying for Ireland is now a dirty term. Men who WWI died for Ireland are forgotten and Guards who died for Ireland protecting law and order are considered different to others.

It is sad that saying that is now tarnished.

dlofnep

phelixoflaherty wrote: »

I would have dined for Ireland

Would you not dine for Italy or something? Or for China? I can see potatoes getting boring after a while.

Kalashnikov_Kid

stovelid wrote: »

What do you mean?

There is 'official' history and 'unofficial' history. One can be argued to be more legitimate than the other, depending on one's personal background and views. Same goes wrt the definition of 'terrorism' - the lines between terrorism and state-sponsored/freedom-fighting/whatever you wanna call it have become very blurred IMO.

Jamey

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but a quick question to the people saying they'd die 'for Collins' IRA but not for the modern day IRA', because they are truly baffling me.

What difference do you see in Collins' IRA killing numerous British agents on Bloody Sunday 1920, and in the Real IRA killing British soldiers this year in Massereene Barracks? Whether you were in the IRA in the 1910's and 1920's or in the IRA in the 1970's and 1980's, you were still a cold blooded killer fighting for the same cause.

stovelid

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

There is 'official' history and 'unofficial' history. One can be argued to be more legitimate than the other, depending on one's personal background and views. Same goes wrt the definition of 'terrorism' - the lines between terrorism and state-sponsored/freedom-fighting/whatever you wanna call it have become very blurred IMO.

True.

You could argue that plenty of unofficial/marginal narratives exist that don't take much detective work to find.

Part of the difficulty for the Brits was accountability. They had to fight a war (and a dirty war) under the eyes of a free media. Who didn't all jump to the tune. Nor did all politicians. There was also a watchdog of sorts in the shape of our own state.

Nothing that ultimately came to light - shoot to kill, the dirty war - was completely subdued even at the time. Not in the way you could supress dirty tricks and subterfuge in a 'foreign' war at the time.

Terry

thelastditch wrote: »

Oh you're such a laugh Dudess. Isn't it funny that the father's and grandfather's of BNP activists (and some members themselves) fought Nazi Germany, whilst Irish scum were helping The Fuhrer?

What's it like to be Irish eh? Some country...

:rolleyes:

Bye bye.

punk_one82

The IRA of the Collins era didn't usually resort to blowing up civilians on the street ie. Omagh. Yes, killing is killing. Man to man with the British army seems a better fight to be in than planting bombs on busy shopping streets. I also have a hard time saying I'd fight for the IRA of today as there's no British occupation in the south. If there were soldiers around where I live I'm sure I'd feel quite different about the matter.

K-9

Jamey wrote: »

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but a quick question to the people saying they'd die 'for Collins' IRA but not for the modern day IRA', because they are truly baffling me.

What difference do you see in Collins' IRA killing numerous British agents on Bloody Sunday 1920, and in the Real IRA killing British soldiers this year in Massereene Barracks? Whether you were in the IRA in the 1910's and 1920's or in the IRA in the 1970's and 1980's, you were still a cold blooded killer fighting for the same cause.

That's an interesting question.

My answer is democratic legitimacy. Collins had it, though obviously not specifically for Bloody Sunday.

Jamey

punk_one82 wrote: »

The IRA of the Collins era didn't usually resort to blowing up civilians on the street ie. Omagh. Yes, killing is killing. Man to man with the British army seems a better fight to be in than planting bombs on busy shopping streets. I also have a hard time saying I'd fight for the IRA of today as there's no British occupation in the south. If there were soldiers around where I live I'm sure I'd feel quite different about the matter.

The Old IRA certainly did kill civilians on the street. Films like Michael Collins have put rose tinted glasses on most Irish men and women.

Kalashnikov_Kid

True. You could argue that plenty of unofficial/marginal narratives exist that don't take much detective work to find.

Thats what I was getting at - Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (book not film) being a classic case in point - get an edited edition and read through the footnotes - a real eyeopener to the unseen side of colonialism in general.

punk_one82

Jamey wrote: »

The Old IRA certainly did kill civilians on the street. Films like Michael Collins have put rose tinted glasses on most Irish men and women.

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

Jamey

K-9 wrote: »

That's an interesting question.

My answer is democratic legitimacy. Collins had it, though obviously not specifically for Bloody Sunday.

That's true. I can't help thinking then though, that one of the main reasons the modern day IRA (PIRA I suppose) didn't have democratic legitimacy is because post 1921, the people of the 'Republic' were happy out with their freedom, not caring to democratically legitimize the fighters representing their Northern neighbours, because it wasn't affecting them directly. Hope I'm not talking drivel here, it's been a while since I've been in a history class!

Jamey

punk_one82 wrote: »

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

You're right, but I think if it wasn't for Collins & co., these tactics wouldn't have been used/invented. The PIRA picked up where Collins had left off (they did arguably take it to another level though) with his style of urban guerilla warfare.

K-9

punk_one82 wrote: »

I know the old IRA killed civilians, but the troubles of recent times have had a much more devastating effect on civilians. Roadside/car bombs etc usually have a higher rate of civilian deaths than armed forces deaths. I certainly don't base my beliefs on films though, thats for sure.

Bloody Sunday was seen as a reprisal for Croke Park which get back to the tit for tat point.

K4t

I'd die for my family. I wouldn't even have to think about it tbh.

But my country? Well, that depends on a lot of different factors........

K-9

Jamey wrote: »

You're right, but I think if it wasn't for Collins & co., these tactics wouldn't have been used/invented. The PIRA picked up where Collins had left off (they did arguably take it to another level though) with his style of urban guerilla warfare.

Hardly his or their fault. Guerrilla warfare preceded the IRA and Collins. It was effective against the British Empire. 1916 Combat would have been madness.

punk_one82

Jamey wrote: »

You're right, but I think if it wasn't for Collins & co., these tactics wouldn't have been used/invented. The PIRA picked up where Collins had left off (they did arguably take it to another level though) with his style of urban guerilla warfare.

I know Collins was a pioneer of guerilla warfare but would he agree with the killing of so many civilians to kill a few soldiers? The PIRA did take it to another level, which is why I find it quite easy to say(considering the circumstances) that I wouldn't have been involved with the IRA of today or the past 40 years but it's quite clearly not an accurate comparison. If Collins had the technology available today, who's to say he wouldn't have engaged in the same ruthless violence on the same scale?

Jamey

punk_one82 wrote: »

If Collins had the technology available today, who's to say he wouldn't have engaged in the same ruthless violence on the same scale?

Exactly, and this lack of technology is perhaps why many people see Collins these days as a hero, while the PIRA are scumbags, when in fact they share more similarities than people think.

K-9

Jamey wrote: »

That's true. I can't help thinking then though, that one of the main reasons the modern day IRA (PIRA I suppose) didn't have democratic legitimacy is because post 1921, the people of the 'Republic' were happy out with their freedom, not caring to democratically legitimize the fighters representing their Northern neighbours, because it wasn't affecting them directly. Hope I'm not talking drivel here, it's been a while since I've been in a history class!

Well, it wasn't until the Anglo Irish agreement in 85 and indeed until FF accepted the consent line in 87 that the state "turned its back"!

Plenty of support in 1969, burnings of the British embassy etc. among FF supporters too. The practicalities of what a United Ireland would actually entail took over.

The IRA was seen as a danger to the state.

Kalashnikov_Kid

K-9 wrote: »

Plenty of support in 1969, burnings of the British embassy etc. among FF supporters too.

Indeed! I recently found out that a close family member of mine was actively involved in this, and he's not cut from what you may call the Republican stone - South Dublin upbringing, private education, third level qualification - now holds a professional senior management position looking after the vested interests of a large section of a large section of the Dublin community - no wonder he kept schtum about it!

punk_one82

Jamey wrote: »

Exactly, and this lack of technology is perhaps why many people see Collins these days as a hero, while the PIRA are scumbags, when in fact they share more similarities than people think.

Exactly, which is also why an answer to this question is easy to come by but an explanation for the answer isn't.

dlofnep

punk_one82 wrote: »

Exactly, which is also why an answer to this question is easy to come by but an explanation for the answer isn't.

I think it's a question of situation dictating the public opinion. Obviously in the north, support for the PIRA was tenfold compared to it in the south - but that is because they had to endure all the gerrymandering, inequality, harassment and murder. In the south, many people were completely oblivious to the real day to day life for a catholic in the north - and didn't see the PIRA as a necessary force - although obviously after Bloody Sunday - that support rose to the highest it had ever been at any given point since shortly after partition.

I'm not saying the PIRA were saints, but they were definately the product of a hellish environment.

Donnelly117

indough wrote: »

Patriots always talk of dying for their country, but never of killing for their country

cod4 much? :pac:

punk_one82

dlofnep wrote: »

I think it's a question of situation dictating the public opinion. Obviously in the north, support for the PIRA was tenfold compared to it in the south - but that is because they had to endure all the gerrymandering, inequality, harassment and murder. In the south, many people were completely oblivious to the real day to day life for a catholic in the north - and didn't see the PIRA as a necessary force - although obviously after Bloody Sunday - that support rose to the highest it had ever been at any given point since shortly after partition.

I'm not saying the PIRA were saints, but they were definately the product of a hellish environment.

My feelings exactly. It's all circumstancial. You can't know what you'd do unless you've been in the position where you have to make the decision.

meglome

indough wrote: »

you mean like, grazed or something?

Well yeah. Maybe get a nasty cut opening up those old style tinned rations as we didn't have the plastic ones.

PrivateEye

What difference do you see in Collins' IRA killing numerous British agents on Bloody Sunday 1920, and in the Real IRA killing British soldiers this year in Massereene Barracks?

Any revolutionary movement needs the support of the people behind it, otherwise it has no legitamacy.

The vast majority of the nationalist community in the North have rejected violence. Men like Tom Barry, Dan Breen and Liam Mellows (I was never a Collins man ) waged an insurrectionist conflict against Britain because they had the broad-based support to do so. The IRA was of the community.

I think the states lines of defence (The Police Force, The Army...) if seen as protectors and indeed advancers of the states interests CAN be legitimate targets in conflict. The lads shot at Massereene were shot in 2009, and not 1921. There is no hunger among the people for a return to violence that wielded little results in the first place. Gestapo men got shot, Black and Tans got shot, and so on..... the difference is their was a legitamate political reason to shoot them at the time.

The RIRA and the CIRA are trying to kickstart a war nobody wants. This isn't Derry '71, or Cork 21', but the 21st Century, and its the fact they refuse to see that and rather attempt to 'go out on their own' that seperates them from the Irish Republican Army of the early 20th Century.

asdasd

Indeed! I recently found out that a close family member of mine was actively involved in this, and he's not cut from what you may call the Republican stone - South Dublin upbringing, private education, third level qualification - now holds a professional senior management position looking after the vested interests of a large section of a large section of the Dublin community - no wonder he kept schtum about it

Jeez, there is another thing that has been written out of history. The British Embassy was attacked by right-on southsiders. At the time it was as fashionable to be as anti-Imperialism in Northern Ireland as it is now to be anti-Imperialist against Americans, or anti-Israeli etc. Not just here, but around the world. There were pro-IRA literature across the leftwing acadamies, along with pro-Palestinian literature, and pro-Sandinista. the IRA were accused of being Marxist by British government ministers n the UK as late as 1990's ( they werent but the officals were).. The palestinains at the time were largely Marxist, or Nationalist and not Islamist. Even the provos had a lot of left wing literature.

Hope I'm not talking drivel here, it's been a while since I've been in a history class!

The difference is consent. Although the parition of Ireland is a bit of a sham, the northern part does have a pro-Unionist majority which makes the IRA campaigns anti-democratic and terrorist. If the place was 90% Catholic, and they voted to join the Republic and the UK intervened, things would be different.

asdasd

The A level curriculum on Ireland:

Norman Conquests, Elizabethan plantations, Cromwellian plantations, Penal laws, Hedge Schools, Famine, Ireland was neutral in WWII.

dlofnep

asdasd wrote: »

Although the parition of Ireland is a bit of a sham

Understatement of the year

Dan I Am

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, dumbfuks. They hang Israeli flags not because they give a sh1t about Israelis (and many of them are probably anti Semitic - Northern Ireland isn't exactly a haven of tolerance when it comes to anything, not just catholicism/protestantism) but just as a "**** you" to catholics who feel an empathy with Palestinians (very much understandable).

LOL at the idiotic inconsistency of the far right...

What I don't get is the whole time-scale thing. Where is the cut off. Sinn Fein opposes the Israelis in their attempts to retake land from the Palestinians after a few thousand years, but supports Ireland retaking land from the staunchly British majority in the six counties after 4? 5? hundred years?

This is not a facetious question. I support the Palestinians, some of whom can go and look at Israelis living in their stolen houses that they grew up in (if they can get past the checkpoints). I can understand, and would have supported, the Catholic Irish fight against discrimination in N.I. in the relatively recent past (if I'd been old enough).

In these kind of threads though, I wonder how many posters have actually been to Northern Ireland, and experienced this uniquely staunch culture of the British Isles. Why the hell would Ireland want to assimilate that bunch unwillingly. This is a serious question (assuming you don't want 'ethnic cleansing' in the north).

Dan I Am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If you died for Ireland and Lisbon gets through your death would be all in vein.

Like hell I would die for the EU superstate. :rolleyes:

looks like a unified Europe did its job then;)

Richard Cranium

I would not die for Ireland. If the situation permitted, I would flee or go into hiding or something, and hopefully come back when things looked a bit more hopeful/stable/whatever, and do my very best to build a better Ireland for the Irish of the future. My death would make no difference in the grand scheme of things.

However, I do think that many Irish people in the past died for their country so that we would not have to. This is also the reason why I don't have a post-colonial chip on my shoulder. Some relations of mine died for a free Ireland in the early years of the last century. We have that now, so I don't feel any grievance towards Great Britain. I was born in the Republic of Ireland, and I view the British as equals- close neighbours and friends- rather than enemies of my country. The Irish of the past would have wanted this, I think.

topotheday

Kalashnikov_Kid wrote: »

And lets not forget the fact that certain loyalist paramilitary groups were funded by Apartheid South Africa during the 1980s

I think you'll find that when you're fighting a war you'll take help where you can find it. The UK and The US sided with Stalinist Russia for instance (when Ireland was sobbing over Hitler's death). Who was it armed The Provos (apart from certain Irish politicians)? Libya. Yes, the same Libya that shot down a passenger plane over Scotland.

But perhaps you didn't support The Provos - just their war aims?

topotheday

weepee wrote: »

There was a guy two doors up from me, shot thru the chin when answering the door at a party in a friends house, luckily for him he was
dead before he hit the ground.

His neighbour, three doors up from me, was abducted by the Shankill
Butchers, when what was left of him was discovered and returned to
his family, his coffin was sealed.

I worked with a female friend years ago. She had the misfortune of hanging out with a Protestant friend of hers. While visiting him one night,
the front door was smashed open and in they came. She put her hands up
to protect herself, I guess she knew at that moment what was coming.

This bastard shot her with a shotgun, blowing off her forearms and head.

Ulster British Patriots, dont make me laugh.

Heartbreaking stories weepee. Just think, if it wasn't for The IRA they'd all still be alive.

Tragic.

topotheday

dlofnep wrote: »

Nobody wants to die for their country, but many will happily be ready to fight for it's defense. Would I fight to defend Ireland? Absolutely. I would have certainly had no qualms in fighting the Crown forces during the events that surrounded pre and post partition up until the GFA. After that - the political roadmap is for the best interests of Ireland. So long as the likes of Bloody Sunday don't happen again, we can work within that political roadmap.

"I would have fought when I couldn't and now I can I won't!"

Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots springs to mind.

Will you fight if there's another Bloody Friday?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

topotheday

Dudess wrote: »

dlofnep, don't give him the satisfaction. He posts hateful bigoted posts and the best way to deal with that is: ignore...

You really are a professional clown aren't you? This site is full of 'hateful bigoted posts' aimed at The UK and British Ulster in particular, I don't see you kicking up a fuss about them. Your wee pal dlofnep is a typical example.

topotheday

dlofnep wrote: »

Nick Griffin is an anti-semite. This new found tolerance of Israel is really only from a strategic voting stand-point, and not from a belief standpoint.

On the holocaust he stated: "I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that 6m Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades... I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."

What Griffin's views are is irrelevant - what matters is party policy. There may be people who molest children in SF, but I don't believe it's party policy - is it?

brummytom

topotheday wrote: »

You really are a professional clown aren't you? This site is full of 'hateful bigoted posts' aimed at The UK and British Ulster in particular, I don't see you kicking up a fuss about them. Your wee pal dlofnep is a typical example.

I don't see any "hateful bigoted posts" aimed at the UK at all on this site - if I did, I wouldn't continue to use it. I can't say I've ever recieved even the slightest bit of abuse for being English.

Not paranoid are we?

You don't like the IRA, we get it.
Lots of people don't like terrorists (which is what they're now seen as). Certain people seem to forget the circumstances during which they fought - opression, internment, loyalist killings (maybe they didn't kill as many as the P.IRA, I don't know, I lack the facts... but the UVF et al. had no need to, they had the upper hand, they weren't suffering, they had no cause to raise awareness to).

topotheday

brummytom said:

I don't see any "hateful bigoted posts" aimed at the UK at all on this site - if I did, I wouldn't continue to use it. I can't say I've ever recieved even the slightest bit of abuse for being English.

Any post that supports the breaking up of The UK is a "hateful bigoted post". Any post that gives succour to militant Irish Nationalism (now or in the recent past) is a "hateful bigoted post".

You're English are you brummytom? Not a wee bit of the mick in you then?

You don't like the IRA, we get it.
Lots of people don't like terrorists (which is what they're now seen as). Certain people seem to forget the circumstances during which they fought - opression, internment, loyalist killings (maybe they didn't kill as many as the P.IRA, I don't know, I lack the facts... but the UVF et al. had no need to, they had the upper hand, they weren't suffering, they had no cause to raise awareness to).

What about you brummytom - did you despise and hate The PIRA and all they stood for? Did you despise their goals?

You ask about the 'facts' regarding who was responsible for most of the suffering in Ulster:

This is from Cain:

British Security 363Irish Security 5Loyalist Paramilitary 1019not known 82Republican Paramilitary 2057TOTAL3526

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html

Yes tom, Republicans killed twice as many people as Loyalists. Amazing that, given that they were 'the oppressed'. You see usually tom, 'the oppressed' don't manage to inflict the most suffering in these situations (ask the Palestinians) - perhaps the oppression wasn't quite as bad as brummy lads like you have been led to believe?

In All Fairness

brummytom wrote: »

I don't see any "hateful bigoted posts" aimed at the UK at all on this site - if I did, I wouldn't continue to use it. I can't say I've ever recieved even the slightest bit of abuse for being English.

Not paranoid are we?

You don't like the IRA, we get it.
Lots of people don't like terrorists (which is what they're now seen as). Certain people seem to forget the circumstances during which they fought - opression, internment, loyalist killings (maybe they didn't kill as many as the P.IRA, I don't know, I lack the facts... but the UVF et al. had no need to, they had the upper hand, they weren't suffering, they had no cause to raise awareness to).

Jesus Tom, sorry about that. I'm so used to abusing you for other reasons it just completely slipped my mind. I hope you're not offended. Btw it's i before e except after c y'pomme cnut.

In All Fairness

topotheday wrote: »

brummytom said:



Any post that supports the breaking up of The UK is a "hateful bigoted post". Any post that gives succour to militant Irish Nationalism (now or in the recent past) is a "hateful bigoted post".

You're English are you brummytom? Not a wee bit of the mick in you then?



What about you brummytom - did you despise and hate The PIRA and all they stood for? Did you despise their goals?

You ask about the 'facts' regarding who was responsible for most of the suffering in Ulster:

This is from Cain:

British Security 363Irish Security 5Loyalist Paramilitary 1019not known 82Republican Paramilitary 2057TOTAL3526

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html

Yes tom, Republicans killed twice as many people as Loyalists. Amazing that, given that they were 'the oppressed'. You see usually tom, 'the oppressed' don't manage to inflict the most suffering in these situations (ask the Palestinians) - perhaps the oppression wasn't quite as bad as brummy lads like you have been led to believe?

Not the IRA's fault that the UVF can't shoot for **** or hit a target even with access to British Intel. But I suppose that's what happens when you send a bunch of drugdealers to do a soldier's job. I notice you adverted to the fact that British "security" killed 363 terrorists. Any chance you could tell us the ratio of loyalist terrorists to republican terrorists in that tally. I would imagine it would be pretty even Stephen given the fact that they're "security".

Rebelheart

topotheday wrote: »

Any post that supports the breaking up of The UK is a "hateful bigoted post".

Oh well, then, get used to it.


PS: Amazing that this incredibly silly thread has lasted this long.

Dudess

Dan I Am wrote: »

What I don't get is the whole time-scale thing. Where is the cut off. Sinn Fein opposes the Israelis in their attempts to retake land from the Palestinians after a few thousand years, but supports Ireland retaking land from the staunchly British majority in the six counties after 4? 5? hundred years?

Hardly comparing like with like - retaking land that wasn't belonging to those who took it by force in the first place, is not the same as just taking land.

topotheday wrote: »

Heartbreaking stories weepee. Just think, if it wasn't for The IRA they'd all still be alive.

Tragic.

Like you're remotely heartbroken or upset by them - it does give you the opportunity to make that disgusting comment though. Nice. Oh and in keeping with your "loyalist paramilitaries only carried out their atrocities because of the IRA" approach, Enniskillen wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for many members of the unionist community discriminating against/harassing catholics.

topotheday wrote: »

You really are a professional clown aren't you? This site is full of 'hateful bigoted posts' aimed at The UK and British Ulster in particular, I don't see you kicking up a fuss about them. Your wee pal dlofnep is a typical example.

Jeez thelastditch, you could at least try to hide that it's obviously you re-regging to get around your After Hours ban. And I see you use futurehope's posting style also.
Anyhoo, you "don't see" me kicking up a fuss about bigotry towards the UK and unionists... eh, have you gone through all my posts or something? That's one heck of an achievement.
If you were familiar with my views you would see that I'm constantly objecting to anti English sentiment and constantly criticising Sinn Féin/the IRA (I'm sure you'll tell me I'm not - but I am). Anti unionist sentiment? Well I mostly just see that towards hate-filled sectarian bigots which I ain't gonna object to. But hate towards unionists simply for wanting Northern Ireland to remain in Britain - oh I'd object to that. It's their right to want to remain in Britain and I know some wonderful people from that tradition - it's just a shame their community are misrepresented by people with bigoted, sectarian, anti-Irish attitudes like yourself. You've signed up to a message-board to make racist comments against the majority of people contributing to that message-board... and then you get all defensive when people call you up on it...

topotheday wrote: »

What Griffin's views are is irrelevant - what matters is party policy. There may be people who molest children in SF, but I don't believe it's party policy - is it?

Yes, Griffin's views on Jews - and the BNP, a far-right party... these have no bearing on each other whatsoever. :rolleyes:

dlofnep

topotheday wrote: »

The UK and The US sided with Stalinist Russia for instance (when Ireland was sobbing over Hitler's death).

Yeah sure, we were all heart-broken with the death of the most evil man in the history of the planet. :rolleyes:

topotheday wrote: »

You really are a professional clown aren't you?

Oi, less of that. Dudess doesn't get paid for making fun of the likes of you.

topotheday wrote: »

This site is full of 'hateful bigoted posts' aimed at The UK and British Ulster in particular, I don't see you kicking up a fuss about them.

Where are these hateful bigoted posts? Please demonstrate in this thread anything remotely hateful or bigoted, aside from your personal attacks on posters.

topotheday wrote: »

Your wee pal dlofnep is a typical example.

Those views wouldn't be constructed perhaps because I have opposing political views to you, now would it?

Sharpshooter

topotheday wrote: »

You really are a professional clown aren't you? This site is full of 'hateful bigoted posts' aimed at The UK and British Ulster in particular, I don't see you kicking up a fuss about them. Your wee pal dlofnep is a typical example.

Banned.

Dudess

topotheday wrote: »

(when Ireland was sobbing over Hitler's death).

LOL - brilliant. The "De Valera sent a message of condolence when Hitler died so ALL the Irish loved Hitler" approach. You also seem to have brushed over the fact that your lot (because you don't seem to have much of a problem with them) have links with neo nazis.

topotheday wrote: »

Any post that supports the breaking up of The UK is a "hateful bigoted post".

No it isn't. That land was taken by force - it is rightfully Ireland's, I don't care how long ago it was. Having that view is not hateful or bigoted - it is a valid opinion.

Any post that gives succour to militant Irish Nationalism (now or in the recent past) is a "hateful bigoted post".

You know well it isn't. Irish nationalism is perfectly legitimate, just like unionism is. The only reason you call it hateful and bigoted is simply because it conflicts with your ideology.
You see, thelastditch/topoftheday/futurehope, you seem to feel persecuted here simply because you're a loyalist - it's actually slightly more to do with your naked bigotry towards Irish people/nationalists and your lack of acknowledgement of the mini apartheid that was the reality up there, and implemented by members of your community.
Now if you were to simply put across your views reasonably (without the racism) and also put yourself in the shoes of nationalists (which you are blatantly refusing to do) then any muppet who gives you abuse for being unionist, well I'd report them so that they'd get banned.

What about you brummytom - did you despise and hate The PIRA and all they stood for? Did you despise their goals?

Same question to you in relation to the UDA/UFF/UVF/LVF.

You ask about the 'facts' regarding who was responsible for most of the suffering in Ulster:

This is from Cain:

British Security 363Irish Security 5Loyalist Paramilitary 1019not known 82Republican Paramilitary 2057TOTAL3526

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Summary.html

Yes tom, Republicans killed twice as many people as Loyalists. Amazing that, given that they were 'the oppressed'. You see usually tom, 'the oppressed' don't manage to inflict the most suffering in these situations (ask the Palestinians) - perhaps the oppression wasn't quite as bad as brummy lads like you have been led to believe?

Yawn. Anyone can manipulate stats to suit themselves. It's not just a question of numbers, and you know it. And also, you've only mentioned loyalists - what about the arms of the British state whom they colluded with?

Also, get educated about the sectarianism at institutional level that came into operation post partition - seriously.