A new wave of republican violence

Denerick

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's a typically lazy tactic of the neo-unionist "reform" group to try and smear irish republicans through the last century by attempting to conflate them with fascists.

Cheap smear tactics I'm afraid.

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

Legitimicacy is conditional upon the consent of the Irish people. The Irish people revoked the sole right of Republicans to decide the fate of the Irish people in 1922. The semi mystical/religious belief that the 1918 general election is some kind of religious accord with a higher power, that has perpetual existance, is exactly the kind of creepy fascist philosophy I'm complaining about.

You obviously don't know anything about the actual definintion of what constitutes fascism beyond what you've read in a Kevin Myers or Ruth Dudley Edwards diatribe...

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Legitimicacy is conditional upon the consent of the Irish people. The Irish people revoked the sole right of Republicans to decide the fate of the Irish people in 1922. The semi mystical/religious belief that the 1918 general election is some kind of religious accord with a higher power, that has perpetual existance, is exactly the kind of creepy fascist philosophy I'm complaining about.

So you are saying in 1922. Why that specific point in time? You accept they had legitimicy then, why did it stop 4 years later.

And will you give over labelling Irish Republicans as 'fascits'. They are left leaning in general and are the only Irish political tradition who actually stood up against them on principal - with many dying in the process.

getz

Hugo Drax wrote: »

PS, history records the first use of poison gas in Iraq was by the RAF on Iraqi civilians in the 1920s...

Sorry old chap!

is that another republican lie ?history only records that churchill only contemplated the use of poison gas against the kurds,but never did,but poison gas was used in the first world war by all sides,even in the second world war[1940s]those of us who were young children in england were taught to put on gas masks,

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

I'm not saying you're in the "reform" group, probably not as there's only 3 or 4 of them.

But i am saying you seem to be parroting verbatim the sort of revisionist clap trap they peddle....

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

LoL! Says the same man who tries to smear me by associating me with a neo-unionist group! IRONY!

To be fair, the only other people who I have heard or read attempt to label Republicans as fascits are in or around that group....

Hugo Drax

getz wrote: »

is that another republican lie ?history only records that churchill only contemplated the use of poison gas against the kurds,but never did,but poison gas was used in the first world war by all sides,even in the second world war[1940s]those of us who were young children in england were taught to put on gas masks,

Is it really so hard to believe the English were murdering people with poison gas 20 years before the Nazis?

Of course they wouldn't so something like that would they

Winston Churchill:"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So you are saying in 1922. Why that specific point in time? You accept they had legitimicy then, why did it stop 4 years later.

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.

And will you give over labelling Irish Republicans as 'fascits'. They are left leaning in general and are the only Irish political tradition who actually stood up against them on principal - with many dying in the process.

Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

Hugo Drax

Denerick wrote: »

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.



Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

Denerick

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

Every single Republican who opposed the Treaty in 1922 went on to claim that every single Republican who accepted it, was no longer a Republican. They had renounced their claim to that mantle because they were impure, because they were willing to compromise, because they were willing to make peace.

And I could probably give you 10,000 examples of Republicans in pubs arguing about who has the biggest cock. (A metaphor)

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

The Irish people accepted the Treaty settlement in 1922 and 1923 at the ballot box.

And the Irish political elite were openly discussing how to reclaim the 6 counties. But regardless, you have a date where the legitimacy ended, others have a different one. So ideologically, you are only splitting hairs with the dissidents.

Denerick wrote: »

Thats lazy. I define fascism as a small elite superseding the wishes of the majority because they believe themselves to adhere to an ideology which is ranked by 'purity'. A rather pedestrian definition I'll admit, but I think I'll hang on to it. It ruffles feathers if nothing else.

By that definition FF are fascists....

Is pedestrian your word for plain wrong? But at least you acknowledge that your use of the word is lazy and done to provoke.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Every single Republican who opposed the Treaty in 1922 went on to claim that every single Republican who accepted it, was no longer a Republican. They had renounced their claim to that mantle because they were impure, because they were willing to compromise, because they were willing to make peace.

But thats not fascism. Thats comrades falling out.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

By that definition FF are fascists....

Is pedestrian your word for plain wrong? But at least you acknowledge that your use of the word is lazy and done to provoke.

Of course, even the most irritating an delusional modern dissident is not technically a 'fascist' (As in they don't believe in the institution of a corporate state etc. etc.) But it does contain very specific fascist ideas. Namely that small elites have the right to decide the fates of millions, based on their perceived ideological superiority and purity.

McNulty32

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But thats not fascism. Thats comrades falling out.

I woudnt engage in an argument with this person, he/she has no understanding of Irish history, nevermind republicanism.

McNulty32

Denerick wrote: »

Of course, even the most irritating an delusional modern dissident is not technically a 'fascist' (As in they don't believe in the institution of a corporate state etc. etc.) But it does contain very specific fascist ideas. Namely that small elites have the right to decide the fates of millions, based on their perceived ideological superiority and purity.

Please give even the minutest example of how republicans hold a sense of 'preceived ideological superiority and purity'???

Your attempts to link republicanism to the links of those in Nazi Germany is laughable to be frank, republicans are more akin to those in Cuba and South America that abhor the notion of fascism and strive for all manners of liberation

Republicanism is the very opposite of fascism.

getz

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Is it really so hard to believe the English were murdering people with poison gas 20 years before the Nazis?

Of course they wouldn't so something like that would they

Winston Churchill:"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1]

i know what he said,now show me any proof it was used

moonpurple

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Name me one instance of an Irish republican spouting on about "purity".

take a look at the statue in fairview park, Mr. russell, one of a few irish chaps who was backing the triumph of a thousand year reich of the aryan white northern europeans ubermensh (higher people) who would be served by the untermensh (underlings)

the rira and ira are fascists, violent closed communites not tolerating dissent

the only difference between them and the crime gangs of limerick is location

Dannyboy83

McNulty32, any chance you will answer my question for me?
The Fourth time in this thread now.

1.Is Gerry Adams a legitimate target & what would be your reaction to his assassination by dissident republicans?

2. Can you clarify the legitimate targets of which you spoke earlier.
Does it include the PSNI?
Does it include Sinn Fein?

getz

McNulty32 wrote: »

Please give even the minutest example of how republicans hold a sense of 'preceived ideological superiority and purity'???

Your attempts to link republicanism to the links of those in Nazi Germany is laughable to be frank, republicans are more akin to those in Cuba and South America that abhor the notion of fascism and strive for all manners of liberation

Republicanism is the very opposite of fascism.

during the last war republicans were trained and armed by nazi germany,one german sub was sunk off the west coast of ireland delivering arms to the IRA

trapsagenius

Look, I am a Republican,I fully acknowledge the many, many wrongs Britain did to us over the years and I accept that violence is sometimes necessary, but the RIRA are completely in the wrong .The people of the North approved the GFA, they are war-weary and there is no appetite for a return to the Troubles up there.The fact that the RIRA have no possibility of military success is lost on them.Just wait.We will have a united Ireland eventually.Violence now on from Republicans will only serve to alienate the unionist community when we should be trying to show them they have nothing to fear from Republicans.

McNulty32

getz wrote: »

during the last war republicans were trained and armed by nazi germany,one german sub was sunk off the west coast of ireland delivering arms to the IRA

The IRA being an illegal and underground organisation and at the time saw advantage in a major world power being engaged in a war with Britain, the IRA were not willing to convert to Nazi ideology nor don gestapo uniforms, it was a tactical and logistical decision to obtain arms and funding, it was the then IRA cheif of staff Sean Russel who perished on a Nazi submarine on route back to Ireland, and is still revered by republicans today and indeed the state itself which honored the man with a statue in Fairview park.

The IRA is opportunistic when it has to be for a greater good so to speak, when Britian killed Ghadaffi's daughter it was an opportunity for the IRA to procure arms from another sympathetic source.

'Britains plight is Ireland might'

trapsagenius

McNulty32 wrote: »

'Britains plight is Ireland might'

I always thought it was "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity"...

McNulty32 let me just clear this up-you actually condone the RIRA's actions??

McNulty32

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

McNulty32, any chance you will answer my question for me?
The Fourth time in this thread now.

1.Is Gerry Adams a legitimate target & what would be your reaction to his assassination by dissident republicans?

2. Can you clarify the legitimate targets of which you spoke earlier.
Does it include the PSNI?
Does it include Sinn Fein?

1. I am not in any position to say if Gerry Adams is a legitimate target, he is certainly no longer a republican and indeed is a threat to currently active republicans thats for sure, but my personal opinion is that his execution would be counter-productive, he does more harm to his group alive then dead anyway.

2. Again I cant comment on who is legitimate targets, but personally speaking I would imagine certainly that the PSNI are a viable if the most viable of legitimate targets.
I believe there are still those in Sinn Fein who believe in the true republicanism and I think at present they are doing alot of soul searching and may be on the 'dissident side' soon enough, its the leadership of SF that is the problem, they are traitors yes but killing them would have no merit.

McNulty32

trapsagenius wrote: »

I always thought it was "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity"...

McNulty32 let me just clear this up-you actually condone the RIRA's actions??

No I dont condone them, but I understand them and would not condemn them

getz

McNulty32 wrote: »

The IRA being an illegal and underground organisation and at the time saw advantage in a major world power being engaged in a war with Britain, the IRA were not willing to convert to Nazi ideology nor don gestapo uniforms, it was a tactical and logistical decision to obtain arms and funding, it was the then IRA cheif of staff Sean Russel who perished on a Nazi submarine on route back to Ireland, and is still revered by republicans today and indeed the state itself which honored the man with a statue in Fairview park.

The IRA is opportunistic when it has to be for a greater good so to speak, when Britian killed Ghadaffi's daughter it was an opportunity for the IRA to procure arms from another sympathetic source.

'Britains plight is Ireland might'

so you believe that the IRA was fighting for the good of the people who were living in the now republic ?even though the irish goverment was locking them up,as a threat to the irish population

McNulty32

getz wrote: »

so you believe that the IRA was fighting for the good of the people who were living in the now republic ?even though the irish goverment was locking them up,as a threat to the irish population

The state under De Valera was receiving plenty of funding and support from Britain as the 26 counties was still under British rule at this stage and not yet a 'republic'. De valera kept republicans under his thumb, by interning members or alleged members of the IRA and executing many by firing squad.

The whole point of De Valera and FF's actions was to try and repress the republican movement at the time which posed a huge threat to his leadership considering the IRA had contacts in Germany that could have pooled them enough weapons to overthrow the state and 'el duce' himself De Valera, nothing to do with the 'good of the Irish people'

trapsagenius

McNulty32 wrote: »

The state under De Valera was receiving plenty of funding and support from Britain as the 26 counties was still under British rule at this stage and not yet a 'republic'. De valera kept republicans under his thumb, by interning members or alleged members of the IRA and executing many by firing squad.

De Valera was an Irish Republican if there ever was one.I must clarify that first.As for "funding and support from Britain"-are you joking??Britain was placing under considerable pressure to join the war on their side.Britain was not giving Ireland any support or funding.

McNulty32 wrote: »

The whole point of De Valera and FF's actions was to try and repress the republican movement at the time which posed a huge threat to his leadership considering the IRA had contacts in Germany that could have pooled them enough weapons to overthrow the state and 'el duce' himself De Valera, nothing to do with the 'good of the Irish people'

You talk about this as if it is a good thing, which is very worrying...

The reason Dev and FF repressed the IRA during the War was to prevent England from having an excuse to invade.Therefore it was for the "good of the Irish people"-surely a Republican like yourself is happy Ireland wasn't invaded?

getz

McNulty32 wrote: »

The state under De Valera was receiving plenty of funding and support from Britain as the 26 counties was still under British rule at this stage and not yet a 'republic'. De valera kept republicans under his thumb, by interning members or alleged members of the IRA and executing many by firing squad.

The whole point of De Valera and FF's actions was to try and repress the republican movement at the time which posed a huge threat to his leadership considering the IRA had contacts in Germany that could have pooled them enough weapons to overthrow the state and 'el duce' himself De Valera, nothing to do with the 'good of the Irish people'

i take it you do know that the USA and the UK had drawn up plans to invade southern ireland if things got out of hand

IrishTonyO

McNulty32, what is your definition of a republican? A true republican is a citizen who abides by the will of the people. The will of the people both North and South has been clearly voiced. So where do you stand are you a republican or not?

McNulty32

trapsagenius wrote: »

De Valera was an Irish Republican if there ever was one.I must clarify that first.As for "funding and support from Britain"-are you joking??Britain was placing under considerable pressure to join the war on their side.Britain was not giving Ireland any support or funding.



You talk about this as if it is a good thing, which is very worrying...

The reason Dev and FF repressed the IRA during the War was to prevent England from having an excuse to invade.Therefore it was for the "good of the Irish people"-surely a Republican like yourself is happy Ireland wasn't invaded?

You claim to be a republican, but are willing to label De Valera one in the same breathe, my friend De Valera was no republican. infact so hostile was he to the concept of republicanism, he had the leaders of republicanism lined up against a wall and shot by the freestate army, he was once a republican who through being offered power and wealth became an enemy to republicanism, and a vicious one at that.

Like I said Ireland was under complete British rule at the time, and was in receipt of British funding from the commonwealth, there was no chance of Invasion as Ireland was already invaded so to speak

moonpurple

a fresh wave of republican violence against history

from 1923 dublin has ruled over 26 counties independant from the uk,
not only did ireland or de valera not receive money from the uk, de valera refused to sent over ground rents to artistocrats in the uk leading to a backlash eonomically that made life hard for farmers as the uk refused to import farming produce and livestock:pac:

trapsagenius

McNulty32 wrote: »

You claim to be a republican, but are willing to label De Valera one in the same breathe, my friend De Valera was no republican. infact so hostile was he to the concept of republicanism, he had the leaders of republicanism lined up against a wall and shot by the freestate army, he was once a republican who through being offered power and wealth became an enemy to republicanism, and a vicious one at that.

Jesus wept....De Valera was certainly a republican.I can't believe I actually have to state this.He was on the anti-treaty side during the civil war, did so much from 1932 to 1938 to push Ireland to full sovereignty (abolished the oath, made a joke of the governor general before abolishing the position, got rid of the senate, got rid of the constitution and wrote his own one, got back the 3 ports etc.) and laid claim to NI in the constitution and you still claim he wasn't a Republican??You are completely wrong.I could point out that you linked Dev with the free state army, but maybe it is because you are one of the Republicans who still (pathetically) refer to the south as the "free state", so I will leave this comment slide.

McNulty32 wrote: »

Like I said Ireland was under complete British rule at the time, and was in receipt of British funding from the commonwealth, there was no chance of Invasion as Ireland was already invaded so to speak

We were a republic in all but name as you well know.Dev's work in the years prior to the war had done this.The fact Britain could not force us into the war confirmed our sovereignty, despite the fact we were not an official Republic but "Eire".

McNulty32

moonpurple wrote: »

a fresh wave of republican violence against history

from 1923 dublin has ruled over 26 counties independant from the uk,
not only did ireland or de valera not receive money from the uk, de valera refused to sent over ground rents to artistocrats in the uk leading to a backlash eonomically that made life hard for farmers as the uk refused to import farming produce and livestock:pac:

So you say, even though most of what the state had or used was provided by Britain

IrishTonyO

IrishTonyO wrote: »

McNulty32, what is your definition of a republican? A true republican is a citizen who abides by the will of the people. The will of the people both North and South has been clearly voiced. So where do you stand are you a republican or not?

So McNulty32, are you a republican or not?

Denerick

McNulty32 wrote: »

Please give even the minutest example of how republicans hold a sense of 'preceived ideological superiority and purity'???

Your attempts to link republicanism to the links of those in Nazi Germany is laughable to be frank, republicans are more akin to those in Cuba and South America that abhor the notion of fascism and strive for all manners of liberation

Republicanism is the very opposite of fascism.

Well if you say so, it must be true

After all, you only advocate continuing an armed struggle against the wishes of the people, believe you and your buddy's in dodgy Belfast bars are 'nationally superior', and refuse to abide by the laws as established by your democratic representatives.

And you have not displayed any knowledge whatsoever of Irish history in this thread.

getz

moonpurple wrote: »

a fresh wave of republican violence against history

from 1923 dublin has ruled over 26 counties independant from the uk,
not only did ireland or de valera not receive money from the uk, de valera refused to sent over ground rents to artistocrats in the uk leading to a backlash eonomically that made life hard for farmers as the uk refused to import farming produce and livestock:pac:

yes that was true in the early years of ireland ,but upto and even after 1948 the republic was kept healthy by being a member of the the british commonwealth,which allowed them to still export.much against the will of the UK canada and other commonwealth countries,it was only because of the irish promise from ireland that they would rethink about rejoining in the future that they were allowed to reap the benifits for years to come,

McNulty32

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So McNulty32, are you a republican or not?

Yes I think I am, I wish to see a United Ireland, free from all forms of imperialism,
a republic based on the one aspired to in Easter 1916.

IrishTonyO

McNulty32 wrote: »

Yes I think I am, I wish to see a United Ireland, free from all forms of imperialism,
a republic based on the one aspired to in Easter 1916.

Then as a republican you agree to abide by the people's wishes, which have been stated and voted on.

McNulty32

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Then as a republican you agree to abide by the people's wishes, which have been stated and voted on.

Well republicans are kinda of like the Jewish people, they are still waiting on their Christ like we are still waiting on the Republic, the wishes of people manipulated by the British and 26 county states dont factor much in our thinking, if there was any real democracy and not the carefully constructed kind we have in effect at present, there would be an independent refurendum on the prospect of a United Ireland and the vote would take place 32-County wide, the GFA promised this, Im verly confident that the whole of this Island would be in favor of the idea, and I think there is no better time then now considering that there are more nationalists resident in the 6 counties then Unionists

And the Lisbon and Nice treaties comes to mind, democracy isnt worth sh*t in either state when it doesnt go their way.

jagerbreath

McNulty32 wrote: »

2. Again I cant comment on who is legitimate targets, but personally speaking I would imagine certainly that the PSNI are a viable if the most viable of legitimate targets.

Bar stool Republican opinions legitimizing targeting the members of a police force that looks out for both communities. You do realize that the members of the PSNI are human beings with families and children. Your ideology is shagged so you might as well take your dog for a walk or something,

IrishTonyO

McNulty32 wrote: »

Well republicans are kinda of like the Jewish people, they are still waiting on their Christ like we are still waiting on the Republic, the wishes of people manipulated by the British and 26 county states dont factor much in our thinking, if there was any real democracy and not the carefully constructed kind we have in effect at present, there would be an independent refurendum on the prospect of a United Ireland and the vote would take place 32-County wide, the GFA promised this, Im verly confident that the whole of this Island would be in favor of the idea, and I think there is no better time then now considering that there are more nationalists resident in the 6 counties then Unionists

So because the majority of citizen hold a view that is not yours, you think you have the right to try an enforce your opinion on them. If they did hold referendum I do not agree with your opinion on the outcome. I know I would vote against and may people I know would vote against. the reason we would is because we can't afford a united Ireland at the moment. The North is heavily subsidised by the UK at the moment and it is not a viable self supporting place. We have enough of our own problems now. A lot of people I know want nothing to do with the North, hence the vote down here to rescind our claim on the North.

McNulty32

jagerbreath wrote: »

Bar stool Republican opinions legitimizing targeting the members of a police force that looks out for both communities. You do realize that the members of the PSNI are human beings with families and children. Your ideology is shagged so you might as well take your dog for a walk or something,

You call me a barstooler yet your username is 'jagerbreath', the ironing is delicious :pac:

I enjoy a drink on occasion but no sir Im no bar stool republican.

Yes I am well aware that a British police militia consists of a human membership, and they may have families and children, but why does this exclude them from being targets? they know what they are signing up for when they fill out the form.

In WW2 was there troops going around with signs that said 'I am human and I have children, you cant shoot me'

McNulty32

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So because the majority of citizen hold a view that is not yours, you think you have the right to try an enforce your opinion on them. If they did hold referendum I do not agree with your opinion on the outcome. I know I would vote against and may people I know would vote against. the reason we would is because we can't afford a united Ireland at the moment. The North is heavily subsidised by the UK at the moment and it is not a viable self supporting place. We have enough of our own problems now. A lot of people I know want nothing to do with the North, hence the vote down here to rescind our claim on the North.

You call me undemocratic and ignoring the wishes of the people, yet you are prepared to abandon your fellow countrymen afew hours up the road because they might cost you too much money, goes to show the kind of person you are, money isnt the most important thing in the world, that my surprize you Im sure, last time I looked there were farms, shops and the like up North, they seem to employ people aswell, so the North is not the jobless wasteland you make it out to be

Are the people of the North not entitled to same freedoms and benefits you recieve in the Southern State?

IrishTonyO

McNulty32 wrote: »

You call me undemocratic and ignoring the wishes of the people, yet you are prepared to abandon your fellow countrymen afew hours up the road because they might cost you too much money, goes to show the kind of person you are, money isnt the most important thing in the world, that my surprize you Im sure.

Are the people of the North not entitled to same freedoms and benefits you recieve in the Southern State?

My fellow countrymen a few miles up the road are my fellow country men because they live on the island of Ireland, but they belong to a different state.

And what freedoms and benefits do the people not have in the North that we do in the South?

Anyway all this makes no difference as you reject the will of the people both North and South, and for sure I want nothing to do with people who think they are above the law or the will of the people.

The meaning of republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. . And you say you are a republican but you ignore the will of the people? Well mate you can't have it both ways.

Denerick

McNulty32 wrote: »

You call me undemocratic and ignoring the wishes of the people, yet you are prepared to abandon your fellow countrymen afew hours up the road because they might cost you too much money, goes to show the kind of person you are, money isnt the most important thing in the world, that my surprize you Im sure, last time I looked there were farms, shops and the like up North, they seem to employ people aswell, so the North is not the jobless wasteland you make it out to be

Are the people of the North not entitled to same freedoms and benefits you recieve in the Southern State?

Complete cop out answer. The nationalist community of Northern Ireland has consistently supported non violence throughout the troubles and overwhelmingly supported the Good Friday agreement. Your arguments fool no-one. You are a fascist elitist who believes that you and you alone (And your elite coteries of Republican purists) can decide this country's destiny. You are a dinosour and the Irish people repeatedly shun you - yet for some reason, like a rat who just won't leave the sewer, you won't go away.

jagerbreath

McNulty32 wrote: »

You call me a barstooler yet your username is 'jagerbreath', the ironing is delicious :pac:

I enjoy a drink on occasion but no sir Im no bar stool republican.

Yes I am well aware that a British police militia consists of a human membership, and they may have families and children, but why does this exclude them from being targets? they know what they are signing up for when they fill out the form.

In WW2 was there troops going around with signs that said 'I am human and I have children, you cant shoot me'

But Sir, Calling the PSNI a "British Police Militia" is the type of tripe that one would expect from a "Republican" bigot who is fed well by the Queens/ Free State Welfare

I Assume that in saying members of the PSNI are targets then so to are member of Republican dissident groups you so vehemently support.
Are you Actually comparing WWII with the "Conflict" in Northern Ireland?

I would also like to hear your views regarding collusion on both sides during the troubles

McNulty32

jagerbreath wrote: »

But Sir, Calling the PSNI a "British Police Militia" is the type of tripe that one would expect from a "Republican" bigot who is fed well by the Queens/ Free State Welfare

I Assume that in saying members of the PSNI are targets then so to are member of Republican dissident groups you so vehemently support.
Are you Actually comparing WWII with the "Conflict" in Northern Ireland?

I would also like to hear your views regarding collusion on both sides during the troubles

So your resorting to to cheap shots assuming Im on the dole, not the case, I work, but then again this argument is not about me, its totally irrevelevant who I am, but thats what the West Brits do to discredit republicanism, get personal.

Yes republicans are aware that death or imprisonment is a possibility, it hasnt stopped them before, thousands of republicans have served time in Freestate or British Gaols standing up for their beliefs as POWs, and hundreds have given their lives in active service.

WW2 and the conflict in the North may differ in scale and method but they were wars none the less.

Collusion by British Intelligence, Army and police with willing Loyalist murderers was widespread during the conflict and resulted in many deaths, mostly of innocent catholics, if your refering to republicans colluding with the Brits, yes that may have been the case with informers certainly.

Denerick

McNulty32 wrote: »

So your resorting to to cheap shots assuming Im on the dole, not the case, I work, but then again this argument is not about me, its totally irrevelevant who I am, but thats what the West Brits do to discredit republicanism, get personal.

Yes republicans are aware that death or imprisonment is a possibility, it hasnt stopped them before, thousands of republicans have served time in Freestate or British Gaols standing up for their beliefs as POWs, and hundreds have given their lives in active service.

WW2 and the conflict in the North may differ in scale and method but they were wars none the less.

Collusion by British Intelligence, Army and police with willing Loyalist murderers was widespread during the conflict and resulted in many deaths, mostly of innocent catholics, if your refering to republicans colluding with the Brits, yes that may have been the case with informers certainly.

Why do you consistently ignore unpalatable truths? The Irish people have rejected your obscuritan, narrow, fascist political philosophy consistently in practically every electoral contest (Bar a few exceptions during the Troubles) since 1922.

McNulty32

Denerick wrote: »

Why do you consistently ignore unpalatable truths? The Irish people have rejected your obscuritan, narrow, fascist political philosophy consistently in practically every electoral contest (Bar a few exceptions during the Troubles) since 1922.

Yet we are still here and wont be going anywhere, and when we go there will be more to take our place.

Revolutionary politics is not for everyone, but there will always be those who make the hard decisions, your moaning wont make us go away, infact your attitude only motivates me more.

IrishTonyO

McNulty32 wrote: »

Yet we are still here and wont be going anywhere, and when we go there will be more to take our place.

Revolutionary politics is not for everyone, but there will always be those who make the hard decisions, your moaning wont make us go away, infact your attitude only motivates me more.

What you describe is not politics at all!
We will a reserve a place for you in the Natural History museum along with the other dinosaurs.

And the fact that democratic people motive you more only simply shows you are in no way democratic but more fascist as you wish to impose your very minority opinion on the majority.

If you are confident of your views and the support you think you have, then you would be involved in legitimate politics, however when you realise you are outdated, outmoded and unwanted you resort to terror. And you wonder why people do not support you, do not want you. Ireland as a whole country both North and South has said no, no kindly get the message.