RIRA make new years statement- Threaten to "expand its campaign in 2011"

Wolfe Tone

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not quite what I meant. The Tribune are basically justifying the Kingsmill murders as it prevented further Loyalist attacks.

I wouldnt read it quite like that.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness if you look at both loyalist and republican killings the vast majority of loyalist attacks where simply sectarian. Kill all taigs. Whereas with the PIRA the majority of their operations where not.

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

I didnt make up that motto did I?

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why did the army council ban attacks in Celtic countries?

Can we presume that their motto was kill all English people?

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

Einhard

danbohan wrote: »

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

Are you for real? England are the source of all the problems that "Celtic" nations have? That would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic!

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its simply amazing how you can just ignore the IRA secterian murders when they commited A LOT of them. The Troubles was famous for secterian murders from both sides.

This re writting of history is annoying.

I didnt ignore them! I just pointed out the stats.

IRA killed 334 catholic 795 Protestant and 1711 not from NI

UFF killed 128 Catholic 18 Protestant and 1 nfNI
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl
Now the 18 Protestants might have been infighting and feuding,. But even of they werent the seven to one ( 128:19) ratio of Catholics to others can be compared to the 795: 2045 i.e. 1:2 IRA ration of Protestants to others. i think the figures show which group is clearly killing based on religion.

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it. Their next line is probably 'its all de famine's and de brits fault'. Rinse and repeat.

Don't you consider this a bit hypocritical when the poster was singling out IRA killings and forgetting about others? Or about why the IRA began doing such activities?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

what was your paras motto fred ? , very touchy on this killing english people i see . perhaps the ira seen the welsh and the scots as people whose countries you the english had invaded , massacred its inhabitants , and ruled with fear and terror like you did in Ireland ,therefore it seems logical to attack the source of all celtic country's problem not the fellow celtic country's

In that case, they were as historically ignorant as you appear to be.

Remind me again when England invaded Scotland?

ISAW

Einhard wrote: »

Are you for real? England are the source of all the problems that "Celtic" nations have? That would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody tragic!

hummm let's see? What colonies did england have in the past and did they have problems as direct result of EWnglish presence? Ireland - problem . Scotland- probolems. Israel- problems. south africa. Rhodesia ( even had the gall to name the country after himself); Australia... there is a very long list of problems due to colonial military industrial presence.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In that case, they were as historically ignorant as you appear to be.

Remind me again when England invaded Scotland?

how about 1296 fred , of course you english never invaded any country you were peace keepers , !!!

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

+1

As a citizen of Ireland, the RIRA has never and will never help me by their actions.

Until they realise that they do not have a monopoly on "the cause" and that their actions are not the only option, then their supposed motivation is discredited.

I agree. How do you help them to realise this?

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

Don't you consider this a bit hypocritical when the poster was singling out IRA killings and forgetting about others? Or about why the IRA began doing such activities?

No, I don't.
I've a blanket word that covers both sides of the sectarian divide during that time. Its the same word that I save for the ignorant loons in question in this thread. Its a four-lettered word and begins with 'c' and would get me banned if I used it

ISAW

Noreen1 wrote: »

I do not condone violence.

So you are against any country having an Army?

The only way forward is by peaceful means IMHO.

Well it may not be the only way but I agree it it the one worth trying.

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

The Irish people did have a free and fair vote in the 1970s and 1980s

No they didn't!

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/scarman.htm
Thursday 6 April 1972
The Scarman Tribunal Report (Cmd. 566) was published. The report was into the causes of violence during the summer of 1969. The report found that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had been seriously at fault on a number of occasions.

Normal free and fair elections?

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

No, I don't.
I've a blanket word that covers both sides of the sectarian divide during that time. Its the same word that I save for the ignorant loons in question in this thread. Its a four-lettered word and begins with 'c' and would get me banned if I used it

And you name calling makes your position right in spite of the historical and statistical evidence?

I have another word which is for someone who believes they are always right and won't shift no matter what actual facts are presented to them. That word is "bigot". You i assume have an open mind and are prepared to change you opinion based on available evidence?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

how about 1296 fred , of course you english never invaded any country you were peace keepers , !!!

Aah, good old Dan and his anti English chip.

You really should read a history book sometime.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah, good old Dan and his anti English chip.

You really should read a history book sometime.

no time fred , but your take on world history is much better , so tell me all about it in your own words , how brave english has been trying to survive against all them nasty celts, french , germans , prussians , russians , turks, kurds ,arabs ,africans , americans , spanish , argentianans , boers . jsus who have you lot not been fighting with , but of course it was not your fault ,all picking on the poor old poms they were !

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

no time fred , but your take on world history is much better , so tell me all about it in your own words , how brave english has been trying to survive against all them nasty celts, french , germans , prussians , russians , turks, kurds ,arabs ,africans , americans , spanish , argentianans , boers . jsus who have you lot not been fighting with , but of course it was not your fault ,all picking on the poor old poms they were !

What annoys you Dan, the fact we fought them, or the fact we kept on winning?

ISAW

bmaxi wrote: »

So in your world, provocation of the Unionist community into retaliation is acceptable.

No!
Please try to keep up.
In my world "the unionists might not like it" is a comment on what the unionists might think about something like a united ireland and nothing whatsoever about diffeent and separate reasons for why RIRA commit violent acts.

this supports my original stance that removal or subjugation of the Unionist community would be a part of the RIRA strategy.

as i see it
they dont recognise a unionist veto no more then they recognise a conemars veto or a travelling community veto. aS far as they view it RIRA think that what is done for ireland should be done for Ireland and the Unionists protestant, Catholics, GAA supporters, travelling community, gay community or whatever should have no right to stop what Irielan wants.

The point I am making is how do you convince them by reason that this is not a valid position. One way out for exxample is that a Republis is not a democracy by majority ( as the Unionsts are wont to think) but is a democracy regulated by law.

Then you try to justify IRA killings by comparing them to the UFF,

No I am only saying that the IRA reasons were DIFFERENT! REmember the underlying theory
remove the reasons for violence and you remove the violence


To remove Republican violence you have to appease their reasons the main reason was a united Ireland. The GFA appeased this reason since people can in the future vote for a united Ireland. The vast majority of Republican paramilitariests stopped because of that.

The UFF had different core reasons e.g secterianism so dealing with this issue will remove their reason.

the UFF could probably counter that by saying supporters of the IRA were more likely to be Catholic and that made them "legitimate targets".

Yes they could. Just as the IRA could say peoplein loyalist areas were more likely to be protestant .
I have done a stastical analysis of this in the past. I would begin by looking at population differences so say the population was 60/40 one migh expect a 60/40 split if IRa victims were picked at random. as it happens it is about 65/35 and this is fairly much like the population split in N Ireland.

this in effect makes my case for me since it explains the two to one civilian deaths difference for the provos but NOt the seven to one for the UFF!

Neither argument holds up, it's a twisted logic.

Clearly the stats are there for you to peruse. It isnt twisted. Ther is also qualatitive evidence. Loyalists leaders saying "burn catholics". Republicans leaders denying sectarian motives and preaching against it.
Please realise Im not claiming they are better . It isn't a judgement! Im just saying the reasons were not sectarian and loyalist groups were.

The fact remains that we have a situation in Northern Ireland which clearly is not ideal to either side but that's what compromise is all about. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to the point we are now and every time I see Martin Mc Guinness and Peter Robinson together, I marvel at what has been achieved.

Again - so what? such a marvellous achievment has nothing to do with the reasons for violence held by those who decided not to become part of this process. and it is those groups we are discussing.

Now we have this band of thugs who want to throw it all away, and for what, another thirty years of innocent deaths to get us back to the same place we are now?

Trite comments won't provide a solution.

ISAW

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What annoys you Dan, the fact we fought them, or the fact we kept on winning?

Actually the Scottish Irish Welsh Kurkis etc. fought the wars for the English aristos who sat on their arses and watched the unheroic dead feed the guns. And the Empire crumbled nevertheless.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What annoys you Dan, the fact we fought them, or the fact we kept on winning?

WINNING ? where fred , afghanstian , iraq ? , remember you are tea boys and sand bags for the americans

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

And you name calling makes your position right in spite of the historical and statistical evidence?

Its just an indication of what I think of them.
Any barstool bore/anonymous internetter can be a republican or a loyalist. They do like to chuck out cherry-picked figures etc in an effort to justify their chosen cause from time to time. Their support of the violent approach usually hides a pussycat who would poop themselves if a gun went off near them.

ISAW wrote: »

I have another word which is for someone who believes they are always right and won't shift no matter what actual facts are presented to them. That word is "bigot". You i assume have an open mind and are prepared to change you opinion based on available evidence?

I know what evidence I need. No potato blight, sectarianism whatever previous decades or having to fight on the bloody Somme can change the fact that the group in question is not representitive of the people on this island as they delusionally believe they are.

ISAW

JustinDee wrote: »

Its just an indication of what I think of them.

And the Whites who controlled Rhodesia and south Africa thought similar of the kaffirs. Were they right though?

Any barstool bore/anonymous internetter can be a republican or a loyalist. They do like to chuck out cherry-picked figures etc in an effort to justify their chosen cause from time to time.

are you referring to me here? I certainly hope not.

I know what evidence I need. No potato blight, sectarianism whatever previous decades or having to fight on the bloody Somme can change the fact that the group in question is not representitive of the people on this island as they delusionally believe they are.

That is your opinion. so what? How do you propose your opinion is right and how do you convince then their opinion is delusional? that is the issue! Calling people names isn't getting any closer to that objective.

Fratton Fred

ISAW wrote: »

Actually the Scottish Irish Welsh Kurkis etc. fought the wars for the English aristos who sat on their arses and watched the unheroic dead feed the guns. And the Empire crumbled nevertheless.

That's typical Irish republican bull**** tbh.

There were plenty of Scottish aristocrats and plenty of Englishman feeding the guns as well.

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

WINNING ? where fred , afghanstian , iraq ? , remember you are tea boys and sand bags for the americans

Again Dan, you should try reading more.

Wolfe Tone

JustinDee wrote: »

Its just an indication of what I think of them.
Any barstool bore/anonymous internetter can be a republican or a loyalist. They do like to chuck out cherry-picked figures etc in an effort to justify their chosen cause from time to time. Their support of the violent approach usually hides a pussycat who would poop themselves if a gun went off near them.


I know what evidence I need. No potato blight, sectarianism whatever previous decades or having to fight on the bloody Somme can change the fact that the group in question is not representitive of the people on this island as they delusionally believe they are.

lol.

JustinDee

ISAW wrote: »

And the Whites who controlled Rhodesia and south Africa thought similar of the kaffirs. Were they right though

They have nothing to do with this and justify nothing.
Moral relativism is a last ditch attempt by anonymous internetties the world over when they run out of reason/excuses/wikis to wag.

Judgement Day

ISAW wrote: »

Actually the Scottish Irish Welsh Kurkis etc. fought the wars for the English aristos who sat on their arses and watched the unheroic dead feed the guns. And the Empire crumbled nevertheless.

I think you'll find if you try reading a history book that English Aristos did plenty of the actual fighting and dying themselves and didn't rely 'entirely' on the Irish and others. From Richard III dying on the field at the Battle of Bosworth through to the titled soldiers who fought at Balaclava, the Somme etc.etc. The Duke of York, later George VI, saw active service at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 and more recently Prince Andrew (Falklands) and Prince Harry (Afghanistan).

ISAW

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's typical Irish republican bull**** tbh.

There were plenty of Scottish aristocrats and plenty of Englishman feeding the guns as well.

Nonsence! "Remember all the nobles who gave their lives" is a rather empty call when the masses suffered more and suffered outside of war to make the overlords rich and fat absentees while their squireens did their dirty work for them.

Take Bowling for Columbine for example. Of the 600 or so congressmen and 100 Senators how many had children in Iraq? ONE! That's how many apparently.

Joanna Lumley exposed the dispicable treatment of the British establishment on the (non irish so it isnt Republican propaganda )Kukris who had died for htem opnly to get thrown on the rubbish heap.

Fratton Fred

ISAW wrote: »

Nonsence! "Remember all the nobles who gave their lives" is a rather empty call when the masses suffered more and suffered outside of war to make the overlords rich and fat absentees while their squireens did their dirty work for them.

Take Bowling for Columbine for example. Of the 600 or so congressmen and 100 Senators how many had children in Iraq? ONE! That's how many apparently.

Joanna Lumley exposed the dispicable treatment of the British establishment on the (non irish so it isnt Republican propaganda )Kukris who had died for htem opnly to get thrown on the rubbish heap.

That's vastly different to what you stated earlier.

BTW, I've another example for you, a handful of Earls sacrificing thousands of their serfs for personal gain, before heading to Rathmullan and jumping on a ship to France.