Is it time for Irish Republicans to admit their mistakes?

steddyeddy

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Civil Rights Movement, the Peace People, the SDLP and many others were not exhausted. They sought a peaceful solution to Ireland's problems rather than the bomb and the gun which produced nothing but death and destruction. The outcome of decades of bombing and shooting was the GFA which was Sunningdale for slow learners - the SF and DUP were two sides of the same coin.

The IRA sought Brits out, an end to Stormont, the end of partition and the destruction of Unionism. They failed on all counts and set back any possibility there ever existed of an agreed unification of Ireland by at least a century.

The civil rights movements were attacked by the police, loyalists and bigots. They were even called ira at several points. When that happened there was no way they were going to make ground.

EI_Flyboy

When asked, prime minister Edward Heath assured the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland that there was legal recourse for their situation within British law. They hired a top civil rights lawyer from America who, after months of searching, advised them this was not so. Then followed months of stone-walking by Heath which culminated with the Bloody Sunday massacre. When the southern government tried to intervene to help solve the situation, Dublin got bombed by loyalists. That to me sounds like the exhaustion of all legal and political avenues.

I'm not looking for reunification, only effective government that represents the people instead of big business. I believe that the armalite has been left behind thanks to the peace process and I think everything that went before should be left in the past as it's counterproductive to keep dragging it back up. Every time one of our politicians uses the troubles as a stick to beat Sinn Fein, I think it goes to show their true feelings on the matter, that the only thing the peace process has done for them is create a political threat. They don't care about the peace process beyond soundbites and photo ops that make them look good. These are not the kind of people who are fit for government, they are self serving and self important, the very attributes that have gotten us where we are today and helped prolong the troubles.

If I vote Sinn Fein, it won't be because I want 32 counties, it'll be for a change in the status quo, for someone who I think might actually believe the words that come out of their own mouth. Many of them lived in the hell that is an occupied country, I can only imagine going back to the gun is the very last thing Sinn Fein want and I think all it takes is a willingness to open your mind and put a little thought into the matter to see the truth of the situation. How hard can that be?

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

And one thing I find with almost all republican apologists who post here on this matter, or rather one thing I fail to find, is such an unequivocal commitment. If you are looking for evidence that the armelite and ballot box strategy is firmly in the past, that democracy is something to be exploited when it delivers but may be abandoned when there are no more dividends, then you won’t find much here (or anywhere else) that will do much to reassure you. See for example the comment of one C. Stone above.

Democracy is an ideal. Don't you get it?

Democracy certainly wasn't working for the cynically created Nationalist minority in the north who, when they tried using non-violent means to initiate change, were met with thuggery, violence and inaction from a police force that was supposedly civilian but was little more than a unionist militia.

If you want to point fingers at those who abused and made a mockery of this ideal to which you hold dear, i.e. democracy, I think you should direct your ire towards of the majority community behind that line drawn by the British on this island.

ilovelois

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Civil Rights Movement, the Peace People, the SDLP and many others were not exhausted. They sought a peaceful solution to Ireland's problems rather than the bomb and the gun which produced nothing but death and destruction. The outcome of decades of bombing and shooting was the GFA which was Sunningdale for slow learners - the SF and DUP were two sides of the same coin.

The IRA sought Brits out, an end to Stormont, the end of partition and the destruction of Unionism. They failed on all counts and set back any possibility there ever existed of an agreed unification of Ireland by at least a century.

cant see what all the fuss was about surely the easiest and correct thing would have been for the fenians to accept that they are an inferior being and a second class citizen and let the superior british unioinist run their wee bigoted state as they saw fit

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

Well I would dispute that all avenues were exhausted, or more pertinently, that this was the majority view of Northern nationalists.

Of course you would.

You want to hold northern Nationalists to impeccably high standards of civilised behaviour and completely ignore why they reacted in the first place i.e. very poor standards of civilised behaviour by an abusive and overarching concentration of power.

You accuse people of being Republican apologists but it seems clear that you are a passive apologist for Unionist/British discrimination, thuggery and violence against Nationalists.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

The IRA sought Brits out, an end to Stormont, the end of partition and the destruction of Unionism.

Again that was the uniting element for physical force republicanism. I don't think even the most deluded among Republicans thought that the British/Unionist edifice would collapse into the Irish sea and melt away.

and set back any possibility there ever existed of an agreed unification of Ireland by at least a century

Nice crystal ball you have there. Will you check who's going to win the football next week while you're at it please?

kthxbye

snafuk35

ilovelois wrote: »

cant see what all the fuss was about surely the easiest and correct thing would have been for the fenians to accept that they are an inferior being and a second class citizen and let the superior british unioinist run their wee bigoted state as they saw fit

And the answer to the bigotry of the Northern Ireland state was to indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children with bullets and bombs and to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in Britain with car bombs? Do you think it is okay to bomb and shoot completely innocent people? The aim of the IRA was to overthrow democracy in the north and force the democratic majority to join a united Ireland against their will. You are out of your mind if you think that was justified.

irishh_bob

steddyeddy wrote: »

The civil rights movements were attacked by the police, loyalists and bigots. They were even called ira at several points. When that happened there was no way they were going to make ground.

correct , you cannot appeal to the better nature of bigots by getting together in groups and shouting slogans about equality , theese people are utterly shameless about thier prejudice and many of them ( like thier white supremacists counterparts in texas or cape town ) see nothing wrong with it , was once asked by a scottish protestant bigot , give me one reason why i shouldnt treat you like **** , that kind of mentality simply cannot be reasoned with but even bigots bleed and eventually come round

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

And the answer to the bigotry of the Northern Ireland state was to

HUGE GAP HERE FILL IN AS REQUIRED

indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children with bullets and bombs and to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in Britain with car bombs?

If the principle goal of the IRA was

indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children

then there would have been thousands and thousands of dead Protestants and a much worse situation in the North.

The aim of the IRA was to overthrow democracy in the north

Lol 'democracy'. Is that what it's called now? Democracy for everyone*

*unless you're a Nationalist

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

And the answer to the bigotry of the Northern Ireland state was to indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children with bullets and bombs and to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in Britain with car bombs? Do you think it is okay to bomb and shoot completely innocent people? The aim of the IRA was to overthrow democracy in the north and force the democratic majority to join a united Ireland against their will. You are out of your mind if you think that was justified.

attacking british soldiers or unionists who administered institutional aparthied was entirely legitimate , catholics in the north couldnt trust thier own state , something had to give

killing regular citizens was terrorism

snafuk35

Again that was the uniting element for physical force republicanism. I don't think even the most deluded among Republicans thought that the British/Unionist edifice would collapse into the Irish sea and melt away.

Trying to rewrite history are you? This deluded republican?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kiRZMbIR0c

Admittedly this is a loyalist edited video and the video was posted on youtube by a loyalist headbanger but these are still Gerry's own words. The fool actually believed the Brits would withdraw when the democratic majority of Unionists wanted no part in a united Ireland.

Nice crystal ball you have there. Will you check who's going to win the football next week while you're at it please?

It was obvious that there was a democratic majority in Northern Ireland who wished to remain in the UK on day one of the Troubles. It should have been obvious by the early seventies after hundreds had already died that bombing and shooting was not going to bring about a United Ireland. But the thickos running the IRA campaign continued more bombs and more gun attacks and surprise surprise, the Prods and the Brits had not moved an inch.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

attacking british soldiers or unionists who administered institutional aparthied was entirely legitimate , catholics in the north couldnt trust thier own state , something had to give

killing regular citizens was terrorism

So why didn't the IRA target more police, loyalist paramilitaries and unionist politicans then? The overwhelming majority of the IRA's victims were completely innocent people who had nothing whatever to do with the conflict.

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

So why didn't the IRA target more police, loyalist paramilitaries and unionist politicans then? The overwhelming majority of the IRA's victims were completely innocent people who had nothing whatever to do with the conflict.

a sizeable number of unionists were content to see thier catholic neighbours treated like second class citizens , otherwise the likes of mollenoux and paisley would never have been elected , they were not what you would call entirely innocent but it was still terrorism to murder non combatants , mc guinness and adams are bad people by most peoples standards , my point is that people like those men will always arise out of a situation like northern ireland , only so many people will take things lieing down and say , please sir can i have some more , the painting of republicans as inherently evil is tedious to me in the extreme

audi a4 2008

snafuk35 wrote: »

And the answer to the bigotry of the Northern Ireland state was to indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children with bullets and bombs and to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in Britain with car bombs? Do you think it is okay to bomb and shoot completely innocent people? The aim of the IRA was to overthrow democracy in the north and force the democratic majority to join a united Ireland against their will. You are out of your mind if you think that was justified.

you do know about the uvf do you,do you want me to tell you what they said in may of 1966,
also they shot and killed john scullion a innocent man,they then killed peter ward also they set off bombs in the hope people would blame the ira and turn the people agaist them.

what a lot of posters forget and just go with the flow and blame the ira it was as bad from the other side,
people should read up on history and facts and lets not forget its all about land.land thats owned by ireland no matter what way you want to look at it

Chuck Stone

It should have been obvious by the early seventies after hundreds had already died that bombing and shooting was not going to bring about a United Ireland.

Again achieving a UI was the ideal. It was an effective rallying cry from the point of view of Republicans.

But the thickos running the IRA campaign continued more bombs and more gun attacks and surprise surprise

Even British soldiers would disagree with you that those making the decisions in the IRA were 'thickos'.

the Prods and the Brits had not moved an inch.

While their brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts were dying.

How commendable.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

So why didn't the IRA target more police, loyalist paramilitaries and unionist politicans then? The overwhelming majority of the IRA's victims were completely innocent people who had nothing whatever to do with the conflict.

There were many pretty despicable things the IRA did but when it comes to killing civilians they weren't a patch on the British and their proxies.

steddyeddy

irishh_bob wrote: »

correct , you cannot appeal to the better nature of bigots by getting together in groups and shouting slogans about equality , theese people are utterly shameless about thier prejudice and many of them ( like thier white supremacists counterparts in texas or cape town ) see nothing wrong with it , was once asked by a scottish protestant bigot , give me one reason why i shouldnt treat you like **** , that kind of mentality simply cannot be reasoned with but even bigots bleed and eventually come round

I remember you saying that. I usually treat bigots like a lower form of life to be honest. Not worthy of respect.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

a sizeable number of unionists were content to see thier catholic neighbours treated like second class citizens , otherwise the likes of mollenoux and paisley would never have been elected , they were not what you would call entirely innocent but it was still terrorism to murder non combatants , mc guinness and adams are bad people by most peoples standards , my point is that people like those men will always arise out of a situation like northern ireland , only so many people will take things lieing down and say , please sir can i have some more , the painting of republicans as inherently evil is tedious to me in the extreme

Mothers with their children, teenagers, old men and women, unarmed and completely innocent were blown up or shot dead in IRA attacks.
How would the gunmen and bombers have known what religion they were or who they voted for before they killed them?

irishh_bob

steddyeddy wrote: »

I remember you saying that. I usually treat bigots like a lower form of life to be honest. Not worthy of respect.

was the victim of sectarianism over a decade ago while working overseas , was a truly horrible experience which left me scarred , that was only one person , i can only imagine what it was like for an entire population living in the sectarian statelet which was northern ireland

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

Mothers with their children, teenagers, old men and women, unarmed and completely innocent were blown up or shot dead in IRA attacks.
How would the gunmen and bombers have known what religion they were or who they voted for before they killed them?

that was terrorism , not defending it but ultimatley the london goverment were the ones to blame for allowing such a situation to develop , thier level of medaling can be traced back to the treasonous tory leader bonar law who opposed home rule

snafuk35

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There were many pretty despicable things the IRA did but when it comes to killing civilians they weren't a patch on the British and their proxies.

So that makes it alright then?

Imagine if a man who murdered his wife by walloping her on the head with a frying pan says to the judge that at least he didn't rape a newborn baby before cooking it and eating it?

Murder is murder. Just because loyalists and British security forces killed innocent people does not excuse the murder of innocent people who had nothing to do with loyalist violence or British policy in Northern Ireland.

When an Israeli missiles kills Palestinian civilians does that give a Palestinian the right to walk onto a bus full of Israelis going to work and Israeli kids going to school and blow them up? The taking of innocent life does not justify the taking of innocent life in response.

You clearly have a screw loose if you can't understand that logic.

snafuk35

irishh_bob wrote: »

that was terrorism , not defending it but ultimatley the london goverment were the ones to blame for allowing such a situation to develop , thier level of medaling can be traced back to the treasonous tory leader bonar law who opposed home rule

You are claiming you are not defending terrorism and then proceed to defend terrorism in the same sentence.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Bonar Law who died decades before the Troubles began was directly responsible for the shooting or bombing victims and not the gunman or bomber who actually committed the terrorist act?

Don't insult my intelligence.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Of course you would.

You want to hold northern Nationalists to impeccably high standards of civilised behaviour and completely ignore why they reacted in the first place i.e. very poor standards of civilised behaviour by an abusive and overarching concentration of power.

You accuse people of being Republican apologists but it seems clear that you are a passive apologist for Unionist/British discrimination, thuggery and violence against Nationalists.

You continue with the dishonesty peddled by several others here, despite me having pointed it out perhaps a dozen times. It is not what was done in the name of Northern nationalists that I take particularly issue with, it was the arrogance of physical force republicans to presume that they acted in the interest of all Irish people, including the vast majority who made clear that they did not represent us.

Now this is not a subtle or complex nuanced point. It was a wrong that was clearly articulated in the simple mantra “not in our name”. If you and the others persist in strawmanning and presenting a rebuttal that does not address my principle point then I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

If you could provide a credible justification for individuals using violence on behalf of a people against the wishes of those people (not plausible justifications for all sorts of other things which I do not ask about) then I think you would have done so.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

So that makes it alright then?

I didn't make that claim.

Just because loyalists and British security forces killed innocent people does not excuse the murder of innocent people who had nothing to do with loyalist violence or British policy in Northern Ireland.

I agree. I've already said that a lot of the things the IRA did were despicable brutal acts.

Physical force Nationalism was a reaction to state sanctioned discrimination and violence. It grew uglier and more ruthless as time went on for sure but it was within a context of increasing violence from their enemies.

You clearly have a screw loose if you can't understand that logic.

And you come from a strange reality if you think that conflicts don't impact civilians more than anyone else. It's civilians who bear the brunt of most conflicts.

As much as people like yourself wish it conflicts don't have little blue soldiers and red soldiers who meet at a designated time and place when everyone else is in bed.

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

You continue with the dishonesty peddled by several others here,

Nonsensical. I continue with the dishonesty of others? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not tag-teaming with anyone here. I think having a 'thanks button' anywhere outside AH is kinda silly FWIW.

It is not what was done in the name of Northern nationalists that I take particularly issue with, it was the arrogance of physical force republicans to presume that they acted in the interest of all Irish people, including the vast majority who made clear that they did not represent us.

Why don't you write to SF and tell them that then?

If you could provide a credible justification for individuals using violence

Is any violence justified except perhaps that which is actionable in self-defence?

on behalf of a people against the wishes of those people (not plausible justifications for all sorts of other things which I do not ask about) then I think you would have done so.

I can't and nor do I seek to.

The Scientician

I think some sort of Truth and Reconciliation system might be a good idea but if you really want to find out about the horrors committed by all parties involved in the Troubles you just need to read books like Lost Lives.


Contrary to what others have said, I think that for the sake of future electoral prosperity that SF should be more open about the Provos' role in the butchery. Being open about (in retrospect) heinous acts may well help them to win over voters who think they're a pack of liars on top of being involved in murder.

ilovelois

lugha wrote: »

You continue with the dishonesty peddled by several others here, despite me having pointed it out perhaps a dozen times. It is not what was done in the name of Northern nationalists that I take particularly issue with, it was the arrogance of physical force republicans to presume that they acted in the interest of all Irish people, including the vast majority who made clear that they did not represent us.

Now this is not a subtle or complex nuanced point. It was a wrong that was clearly articulated in the simple mantra “not in our name”. If you and the others persist in strawmanning and presenting a rebuttal that does not address my principle point then I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

If you could provide a credible justification for individuals using violence on behalf of a people against the wishes of those people (not plausible justifications for all sorts of other things which I do not ask about) then I think you would have done so.

dont think the ira wanted a mandate. the majority of ireland done nothing when the nationalist where being killed and tortured. the majority didnt care. so why should the ira care about them.

ilovelois

The Scientician wrote: »

I think some sort of Truth and Reconciliation system might be a good idea but if you really want to find out about the horrors committed by all parties involved in the Troubles you just need to read books like Lost Lives.


Contrary to what others have said, I think that for the sake of future electoral prosperity that SF should be more open about the Provos' role in the butchery. Being open about (in retrospect) heinous acts may well help them to win over voters who think they're a pack of liars on top of being involved in murder.

this would only work if the british would admit that there army and goverment to the top played a role in shoot to kill. shooting innocent men women and children, lawyers and human rights workers. there part in dublin and monaghan bombings. the systematic torture of republican suspects or indeed any catholics in police cells. the ruc, sas and british army links to loyalist terrorists and most importantly the fact that they ignored telephone warnings to ensure civiian casualities to try and win the propaganda war. nice people indeed

irishh_bob

lugha wrote: »

You continue with the dishonesty peddled by several others here, despite me having pointed it out perhaps a dozen times. It is not what was done in the name of Northern nationalists that I take particularly issue with, it was the arrogance of physical force republicans to presume that they acted in the interest of all Irish people, including the vast majority who made clear that they did not represent us.

Now this is not a subtle or complex nuanced point. It was a wrong that was clearly articulated in the simple mantra “not in our name”. If you and the others persist in strawmanning and presenting a rebuttal that does not address my principle point then I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

If you could provide a credible justification for individuals using violence on behalf of a people against the wishes of those people (not plausible justifications for all sorts of other things which I do not ask about) then I think you would have done so.

the majority of irish people on this island were not suffering at the hands of organge fascism , its easy for people like you to be so sanctimonious and moral , you were never stripped of your dignity and made feel inferior in your own country

The Scientician

ilovelois wrote: »

this would only work if the british would admit that there army and goverment to the top played a role in shoot to kill. shooting innocent men women and children, lawyers and human rights workers. there part in dublin and monaghan bombings. the systematic torture of republican suspects or indeed any catholics in police cells. the ruc, sas and british army links to loyalist terrorists and most importantly the fact that they ignored telephone warnings to ensure civiian casualities to try and win the propaganda war. nice people indeed

I'm not talking about the British and their many questionable acts during the Troubles. I was just saying that from the POV of SF openess might help make them more mainstream in the Republic. By the way, I find your last point hard to believe and would like a cite for it if you have one.

JustinDee

irishh_bob wrote: »

the majority of irish people on this island were not suffering at the hands of organge fascism , its easy for people like you to be so sanctimonious and moral , you were never stripped of your dignity and made feel inferior in your own country

Oh dear...
Everyone else should forget what happened except the anonymous barstool republican 'movement'?

irishh_bob

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh dear...
Everyone else should forget what happened except the anonymous barstool republican 'movement'?

so unless you lived in west belfast or were a full card carrying member , your not entitled to an opinion ?

JustinDee

irishh_bob wrote: »

so unless you lived in west belfast or were a full card carrying member , your not entitled to an opinion ?

Hardly what I was saying. Its not as if anyone else's opinion matters to certain republicans and their supporters.

I'm talking about selective and subjective memory (or memory loss when convenient) by the ilk I described.

steddyeddy

snafuk35 wrote: »

And the answer to the bigotry of the Northern Ireland state was to indiscriminately murder Protestant men women and children with bullets and bombs and to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians in Britain with car bombs? Do you think it is okay to bomb and shoot completely innocent people? The aim of the IRA was to overthrow democracy in the north and force the democratic majority to join a united Ireland against their will. You are out of your mind if you think that was justified.

The Ira didnt establish an aim to murder protestent people based on their religion. I dont think the bombings were a good tactic but yes violence was certainly justified. Democracy in the north? Some people hadnt got the right to vote in the north.

JustinDee

steddyeddy wrote: »

Democracy in the north? Some people hadnt got the right to vote in the north.

Now they do in spite of the actions of the misguided paramilitaries, not because of them.

maccored

JustinDee wrote: »

Now they do in spite of the actions of the misguided paramilitaries, not because of them.

How have you come to that conclusion? If there hadnt been violence then chances are it would have stayed the way it had been for 40 odd years previously - ie second class citizenship for non-loyalists.

Border-Rat

Jerry McCabe.
Jerry McCabe.
Jerry McCabe.

3,000+ lost up here, and all we ever hear from the South is Jerry McCabe. Oh, the outrage over Jerry fecking McCabe.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

How have you come to that conclusion? If there hadnt been violence then chances are it would have stayed the way it had been for 40 odd years previously - ie second class citizenship for non-loyalists.

Not really a valid conclusion though , is it ? American Civil rights, Eastern Europe 1989, Arab Spring achieved much more in a shorter space of time without recourse to that kind of violence and had a unifying effect thereafter.

JustinDee

maccored wrote: »

How have you come to that conclusion? If there hadnt been violence then chances are it would have stayed the way it had been for 40 odd years previously - ie second class citizenship for non-loyalists.

Equating the actions in the late 60s until 1971 with say, the slaughter of innocent civilians, various UK mainland bombings, racketeering, sectarian murders is a typically skewed view of the past four decades.

There are plenty of examples of civil rights movements achieving goals without resorting to slaughter and delusional representation.

marienbad

JustinDee wrote: »

Equating the actions in the late 60s until 1971 with say, the slaughter of innocent civilians, various UK mainland bombings, racketeering, sectarian murders is a typically skewed view of the past four decades.

There are plenty of examples of civil rights movements achieving goals without resorting to slaughter and delusional representation.

Indeed , and the two struggles that did resort to such violence - ETA and PIRA , one could argue have made the least progress toward their goals.

Border-Rat

JustinDee wrote: »

Equating the actions in the late 60s until 1971 with say, the slaughter of innocent civilians, various UK mainland bombings, racketeering, sectarian murders is a typically skewed view of the past four decades.

There are plenty of examples of civil rights movements achieving goals without resorting to slaughter and delusional representation.

Doesn't stop the free-state turning a blind eye to its own terrorist past though, does it?

Wolfe Tone

Border-Rat wrote: »

Jerry McCabe.
Jerry McCabe.
Jerry McCabe.

3,000+ lost up here, and all we ever hear from the South is Jerry McCabe. Oh, the outrage over Jerry fecking McCabe.

He's the only victim who matters don't ya know.


Or more accurately, he is the one whose death fits their agenda.

JustinDee

Border-Rat wrote: »

Doesn't stop the free-state turning a blind eye to its own terrorist past though, does it?

Obviously I can't speak for an entire State but how exactly does and has the entire Republic of Ireland turn a blind-eye to the past?

Its interesting you bring up 3,000 deaths. Its as if you're blaming everyone else but excusing the republican paramilitaries, for contributing to such a figure.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember what things were like in the from the late 60s onwards through the time that paramilitaries delusionally thought they were rescuing an entire country with their shennanigans, but eternally playing the victim gets no-one anyhere either.

marienbad

Border-Rat wrote: »

Doesn't stop the free-state turning a blind eye to its own terrorist past though, does it?

Not at all , Border-Rat, you are caught in bit of a time warp there (as the use of free-state would also indicate), what may have been acceptable in 1916 was not 50 years later. In the same way than lynching in the deep south and gerrymandering in the north was going to end one way or the other. We could have choosen the Martin Luther King ,Lech Walesa way ( indeed some did) or the PIRA/ETA way. We choose the latter and made less progress in a longer timeframe and are as divided as ever , but continually patting ourselves on the back for being such great heroes. Those other nations the choose the peaceful route are all now fully functioning democracies having taken their rightful place as nation states in the world at large

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

Not really a valid conclusion though , is it ? American Civil rights, Eastern Europe 1989, Arab Spring achieved much more in a shorter space of time without recourse to that kind of violence and had a unifying effect thereafter.

So who's that an enditement of?

Blame British/Unionist intransigence, abuse of democracy and violence.

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all , Border-Rat, you are caught in bit of a time warp there (as the use of free-state would also indicate), what may have been acceptable in 1916 was not 50 years later.

Says who? You?

KeithAFC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So who's that an enditement of?

Blame British/Unionist intransigence, abuse of democracy and violence.



Says who? You?

Blame the PIRA for declaring war and seeking to get a United Ireland by force. Thankfully a lot of people weren't having it and stood up to them. That is why the PIRA fought for 30+ years. Not for civil rights.

old hippy

Border-Rat wrote: »

Doesn't stop the free-state turning a blind eye to its own terrorist past though, does it?

Language such as the above tends to confirm my theory that we really are 2 different countries. Probably for the best.

guitarzero

Corruptable wrote: »

Morality is something which is clearly measured by an objective standard

This is where intelligent people stopped reading.

Chuck Stone

KeithAFC wrote: »

herp de derp

I've told you before, more than once, that you're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

KeithAFC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've told you before, more than once, that you're outside the spectrum of people I'm interested in discussing these matters with.

Then you should get the facts right before you post what isn't true. Everyone knows the aims of the PIRA. Even the people who had been in it said they fought for a United Ireland for 30 odd years. They said it was a war. Not this myth about defending the Catholic people.

These things do need to be pointed out because some one who doesn't understand might read the thread and believe that nonsense.