Mother anger at IRA medals given by GAA

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Back away Happyman, you have no idea what you are talking about.

No one is denying the wrongs of the empire over the years, simply that Doc Ruby's assertion that the British are worse than the Nazis is a load of bollocks.

As for Dresden, this has been done many many times http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/225369.stm
http://www.coventry.anglican.org/news/pressreleases/opt/0/download/532

I was hoping you would search something like that out. So you now accept that the British engage in terror when it suits them. Why is it Fred then, that you demand apologies and moniker the IRA as 'terrorists' when you don't do the same for the British?
The Queen never apologised for Dresden, but she accepted that it happened, as she did here.

Oddly enough, the British and Germans are very good friends and allies, we have all moves on. The only people, it appears, are a few Irish people that still insist that no matter what has happened anywhere else n the world, no one has ever suffered as bad as the poor old Irish.

And who is saying that? :rolleyes:

By the way, on the Nazis being worse thing; it makes precious little difference to the victim who is doing the terrorising, they still get brutalised and dead, the intern of a concentration camp or a little boy in Warrington. Just ask any Iraqui mother how she feels about that distinction.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No one is denying the wrongs of the empire over the years, simply that Doc Ruby's assertion that the British are worse than the Nazis is a load of bollocks.

Wasn't through a lack of effort though, the nazi's just did it better

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No one is denying the wrongs of the empire over the years, simply that Doc Ruby's assertion that the British are worse than the Nazis is a load of bollocks.

What, you want a headcount of the murdered? Directly, I'd say the british are well ahead. Indirectly, maybe the nazis, if you factor in the rest of the axis. Its a toss up really.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oddly enough, the British and Germans are very good friends and allies, we have all moves on. The only people, it appears, are a few Irish people that still insist that no matter what has happened anywhere else n the world, no one has ever suffered as bad as the poor old Irish.

No smoking allowed in this thread, the strawmen are everywhere. A strawman, fred, is where you invent an imaginary argument so you can knock it down, and is typically recognised as being an admission of defeat in a discussion.

If you're talking diplomatic international relations, sure everyone is great buddies now. That doesn't erase or excuse history though. Where are the Nuremberg trials for the british? Do Africans not get that recognition?

getz

Bambi wrote: »

Wasn't through a lack of effort though, the nazi's just did it better

yes and they was the ones who first started the bombing of the cities,and they also bombed and killed people in ireland as well ,

Doc Ruby

getz wrote: »

yes and they was the ones who first started the bombing of the cities,and they also bombed and killed people in ireland as well ,

The comment in question was not in fact a reference to world war 2. Many of the salient events happened years after world war 2.

Wibbs

getz wrote: »

yes and they was the ones who first started the bombing of the cities,

In WW2 it was the British IIRC. They bombed Berlin and since Goering(utter gobshíte) had sworn that no bomb would fall on Berlin on his watch, they directed the bombers away from the British airfields and started the blitz on London. Ironically saving the RAF in the process by giving them breathing space. The battle of Britain may well have turned out differently if they had continued to concentrate on the RAF resources.

Both sides were happy enough to bomb civilians, though the Germans really kicked it off as a deliberate tactic when they bombed Guernica in the Basque country.

and they also bombed and killed people in ireland as well

Well the bombs dropped on Dublin were a mistake to be fair.

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

yes and they was the ones who first started the bombing of the cities,and they also bombed and killed people in ireland as well ,

You learned your history from The Sun and Elstree Studios?:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Wasn't through a lack of effort though, the nazi's just did it better

LOL.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

What, you want a headcount of the murdered? Directly, I'd say the british are well ahead. Indirectly, maybe the nazis, if you factor in the rest of the axis. Its a toss up really.


No smoking allowed in this thread, the strawmen are everywhere. A strawman, fred, is where you invent an imaginary argument so you can knock it down, and is typically recognised as being an admission of defeat in a discussion.

If you're talking diplomatic international relations, sure everyone is great buddies now. That doesn't erase or excuse history though. Where are the Nuremberg trials for the british? Do Africans not get that recognition?

Numbers?

Are we going to see another one of your stats where 1+1 =3?

If we want to talk about numbers, how come the 18 month civil war killed twice as many people and three times more civilians than the 4 year black and tan war?

Are the Irish worse than the British?

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Numbers?

Are we going to see another one of your stats where 1+1 =3?

If we want to talk about numbers, how come the 18 month civil war killed twice as many people and three times more civilians than the 4 year black and tan war?

Are the Irish worse than the British?

The population of the country still hasn't recovered to what it was 170 years ago.

Really fred, there comes a point in the discussion where one is just picking one's teeth. There are no endless rounds of rhetoric here, its long over to any reasonable observer. The appalling, unending parade of atrocities inflicted upon innocents by the british, right up to modern times, is a matter of historical record.

There's just no argument left to make.

getz

Wibbs wrote: »

In WW2 it was the British IIRC. They bombed Berlin and since Goering(utter gobshíte) had sworn that no bomb would fall on Berlin on his watch, they directed the bombers away from the British airfields and started the blitz on London. Ironically saving the RAF in the process by giving them breathing space. The battle of Britain may well have turned out differently if they had continued to concentrate on the RAF resources.

Both sides were happy enough to bomb civilians, though the Germans really kicked it off as a deliberate tactic when they bombed Guernica in the Basque country.
Well the bombs dropped on Dublin were a mistake to be fair.

german bombs dropped on ireland during WW11, 26 aug dropped bombs in canpile co/wicklow killing three,2 jan dropped bombs on dublin [terenur area,3 jan dropped bombs on south circular road many injuries,31 of may four bombs in north dublin killing 28 people.it is acknowledged germany frist bombed residental areas on london [its said accidentally] the next day the RAF bombed berlin for the first time[targeting tempelhof airport.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The population of the country still hasn't recovered to what it was 170 years ago.

Really fred, there comes a point in the discussion where one is just picking one's teeth. There are no endless rounds of rhetoric here, its long over to any reasonable observer. The appalling, unending parade of atrocities inflicted upon innocents by the british, right up to modern times, is a matter of historical record.

There's just no argument left to make.

Who is arguing?

All you are doing is name calling.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who is arguing?

All you are doing is name calling.

Feel free to point out where the evidence is flawed or false.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Feel free to point out where the evidence is flawed or false.

Sigh...

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

german bombs dropped on ireland during WW11, 26 aug dropped bombs in canpile co/wicklow killing three,2 jan dropped bombs on dublin [terenur area,3 jan dropped bombs on south circular road many injuries,31 of may four bombs in north dublin killing 28 people.it is acknowledged germany frist bombed residental areas on london [its said accidentally] the next day the RAF bombed berlin for the first time[targeting tempelhof airport.

Are you perhaps going to make a point or have you just discovered wikipedia?:rolleyes:

Ms.M

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Numbers?

Are we going to see another one of your stats where 1+1 =3?

If we want to talk about numbers, how come the 18 month civil war killed twice as many people and three times more civilians than the 4 year black and tan war?

Are the Irish worse than the British?

Why are you arsed defending murdering rapists? Why do you care if colonising evil cnuts get compared to Nazis? They deserve to be. When you completely dehumanise people atrocities are going to happen. The Bristish Empire are most definitely guilty of dehumanising different peoples and mass genocide. The British Empire and Nazis are not by any means the only ones, it was a trait of colonial nations. You're not accountable for the British Empire however. The British Empire was never really emphatically supported by normal working class Britons.
Unfortunately, there have been lots of atrocities just as bad as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the most shocking because of the disturbing method of disposal of Jews and the fact that it took place in Europe. (Disturbing, yes, not necessarily worse for the victim than any other agony).
You're objecting that IRA supporters are ignoring the victims of IRA violence. This is what people do when they're either a) IRA supporters, or b) overly defensive (misguidedly) about their own community. I presume you're not a) A supporter of the British Empire so I can only presume you're b).

Seriously, unless you can imagine killing innocent people yourselves none of ye should be issuing forth silly unqualified statements in defence of the IRA or the British Empire.
I hope a moderator kills this thread before it drives you all mad. I mean that kindly.
I mean, wtf is the point of it?

micropig

It could be worse, The could be giving GAA medals to the IRA:D

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

Why are you arsed defending murdering rapists? Why do you care if colonising evil cnuts get compared to Nazis? They deserve to be. When you completely dehumanise people atrocities are going to happen. The Bristish Empire are most definitely guilty of dehumanising different peoples and mass genocide. The British Empire and Nazis are not by any means the only ones, it was a trait of colonial nations. You're not accountable for the British Empire however. The British Empire was never really emphatically supported by normal working class Britons.
Unfortunately, there have been lots of atrocities just as bad as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the most shocking because of the disturbing method of disposal of Jews and the fact that it took place in Europe. (Disturbing, yes, not necessarily worse for the victim than any other agony).
You're objecting that IRA supporters are ignoring the victims of IRA violence. This is what people do when they're either a) IRA supporters, or b) overly defensive (misguidedly) about their own community. I presume you're not a) A supporter of the British Empire so I can only presume you're b).

Seriously, unless you can imagine killing innocent people yourselves none of ye should be issuing forth silly unqualified statements in defence of the IRA or the British Empire.
I hope a moderator kills this thread before it drives you all mad. I mean that kindly.
I mean, wtf is the point of it?

If it stops one person using the name 'terrorist' to describe what the Irish did while defending the actions of the British at war as lawful and beyond reproach, then this thread will have been worth it. 'Terrorist' is a moral distinction usually resorted to when somebody wants to be dishonest and biased.

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

No Fred, the Holocaust happened, what I said was that informed people don't just take the winners word for things. They view history from many different sources.
You and others on here are the deniers, your version is hidebound and from the worst type of British perspective, the one that sees them as benevolent peace makers and forces for much good in their colonies. That is what the purpose of the gentle Queen is, she markets that message around the world, the one that you and so many Irish have fallen for, hook line and sinker.
Yes the British have done good, even in this country, but they have also done much wrong, have used terror in the same way as everybody else has when it suited them and denied responsibility for their actions.

“ ...ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians. ”

—A.C. Grayling.

It was curious to watch the BBC last night and see the British football team in Poland visit Auzwitch, cue, much wringing of hands and solemn voiceovers, another knife put into the Germans, but I asked myself, would the soccer team visit Dresden and Colonge to see the damage and killing done there? Not likely.
Wake up Fred and look around you.

They got what was coming to them. Don't mess with the British Empire and start a war you can't finish.

The Jewish freedom fighters in Poland would not give a damn about the Germans suffering.

hyperborean

Fair enough, the man was a member of an terror organisation that murdered thousands in cold blood..... I wouldn't want an organisation that is subsidised by the taxpayer to allow it members to give medals with one of these scumbags on it to children!

The woman has a right to be horrified, its a ****ing disgrace.

Fratton Fred

Ms.M wrote: »

Why are you arsed defending murdering rapists? Why do you care if colonising evil cnuts get compared to Nazis? They deserve to be. When you completely dehumanise people atrocities are going to happen. The Bristish Empire are most definitely guilty of dehumanising different peoples and mass genocide. The British Empire and Nazis are not by any means the only ones, it was a trait of colonial nations. You're not accountable for the British Empire however. The British Empire was never really emphatically supported by normal working class Britons.
Unfortunately, there have been lots of atrocities just as bad as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the most shocking because of the disturbing method of disposal of Jews and the fact that it took place in Europe. (Disturbing, yes, not necessarily worse for the victim than any other agony).
You're objecting that IRA supporters are ignoring the victims of IRA violence. This is what people do when they're either a) IRA supporters, or b) overly defensive (misguidedly) about their own community. I presume you're not a) A supporter of the British Empire so I can only presume you're b).

Seriously, unless you can imagine killing innocent people yourselves none of ye should be issuing forth silly unqualified statements in defence of the IRA or the British Empire.
I hope a moderator kills this thread before it drives you all mad. I mean that kindly.
I mean, wtf is the point of it?

You seriously think Doc Ruby gives a **** about people is Africa, or those killed in Dresden?

In a different he was bragging about the number of English girls he'd slept with in an attempt to wind me up. He has attempted to wind up several British posters and been warned for it.

I don't defend the atrocities carried out by the British empire, but I do take exception for having them thrown around just to help a bigot satisfy their own prejudice.

Maybe Doc can tell us why dozens of Irish posters who object to this medal haven't been challenged by him?

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

If it stops one person using the name 'terrorist' to describe what the Irish did while defending the actions of the British at war as lawful and beyond reproach, then this thread will have been worth it. 'Terrorist' is a moral distinction usually resorted to when somebody wants to be dishonest and biased.

Oh come on, a lot of Irish people use the word "terrorist" likewise for the IRA and State-sponsored acts of brutality. A fair few of you jumped to assumptions and self-defecne mode uneccessarily early on this thread. People who perhaps imagine themselves to be more alienated than they actually are and get entrenched in their outlook as a result.

It is offensive when the term "terrorist" is wielded by people trying to distinguish between atrocities carried out by illegal organisations and State-sponsored atrocities. Some people don't have a problem with atrocities carried out by people in positions of power. It basically goes like "yea you can tell us our armies murdered and brutalised millions of people but at least you can't call us terrorists. We're all official like."

And you think you'll change someone's mind that thinks like that?
It's a position borne out of desperation, out of a misguided desire to deny what they can't defend, tied up with patriotism and identity....
Good luck unravelling that.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You seriously think Doc Ruby gives a **** about people is Africa, or those killed in Dresden?

I actually wasn't aware of the goings on in Africa except in a peripheral manner until I looked it up in this thread. To say at this point I don't care about it is not only personal abuse, its the last act of someone with nowhere else to go. The facts are horrendous in the extreme, so fred gets out the handbag.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In a different he was bragging about the number of English girls he'd slept with in an attempt to wind me up. He has attempted to wind up several British posters and been warned for it.

Your disdain for liberal minded females says a lot more about you than me. And who warned me for it exactly? Adding a bit of back seat modding to the mix are we?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't defend the atrocities carried out by the British empire, but I do take exception for having them thrown around just to help a bigot satisfy their own prejudice.

So wait, hold on, if I'm a bigot, presumably against english people, why do I sleep with english women?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe Doc can tell us why dozens of Irish posters who object to this medal haven't been challenged by him?

My comment was in response to someone's musings on the Irish position in world war 2. The rest developed from there; its a pity you're feeling so put upon fred, but there's no defending the indefensible.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

.............

I don't defend the atrocities carried out by the British empire,..............?

....Fred, we wouldn't have threads that go to this length if you didn't.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

It is offensive when the term "terrorist" is wielded by people trying to distinguish between atrocities carried out by illegal organisations and State-sponsored atrocities. Some people don't have a problem with atrocities carried out by people in positions of power. It basically goes like "yea you can tell us our armies murdered and brutalised millions of people but at least you can't call us terrorists. We're all official like."

Which was my point and my reason for getting involved in this thread. The desire by some people to whitewash. The community do not use the moral term 'terrorist' to describe the man's contribution. There isn't much you can do about that and nothing should be done about it by those who call themselves democrats. They simply aren't thinking clearly or fairly.
Horrible things happened, reprehensible things happened on all sides, as it has been shown it happens in any conflict. The point is though, IT'S OVER.
The function and the reason for the existence of armies is that they protect or allow you to enforce your rule or to get you something that you believe is yours by right.
The methods they use are TERROR, there is no other way to describe it. What the IRA did is no worse than what the British did in Dresden and what the US did in Japan.
To describe and seek to vilify just one group involved is to be a moral coward and I will always object to that, pointless and all as it might seem.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which was my point and my reason for getting involved in this thread. The desire by some people to whitewash. The community do not use the moral term 'terrorist' to describe the man's contribution. There isn't much you can do about that and nothing should be done about it by those who call themselves democrats. They simply aren't thinking clearly or fairly.

I agree with everything you've just said except this line. You're generalising.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

I agree with everything you've just said except this line. You're generalising.

:rolleyes: Ok, the community, bar one elusive, probably fictious mother.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Ok, the community, bar one elusive, probably fictious mother.

No, it's still a blanket statement. You're implying that the community is exclusively made up of people who view the IRA man as having made a contribution to their community.
They mightn't use the term terrorist but approval across the community? Even from families damaged by IRA bombs?
It's just not plausible.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I actually wasn't aware of the goings on in Africa except in a peripheral manner until I looked it up in this thread. To say at this point I don't care about it is not only personal abuse, its the last act of someone with nowhere else to go. The facts are horrendous in the extreme, so fred gets out the handbag.


Your disdain for liberal minded females says a lot more about you than me. And who warned me for it exactly? Adding a bit of back seat modding to the mix are we?


So wait, hold on, if I'm a bigot, presumably against english people, why do I sleep with english women?


My comment was in response to someone's musings on the Irish position in world war 2. The rest developed from there; its a pity you're feeling so put upon fred, but there's no defending the indefensible.

I think people see you for what you are Doc.

My mistake is feeding you.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

No, it's still a blanket statement. You're implying that the community is exclusively made up of people who view the IRA man as having made a contribution to their community.
They mightn't use the term terrorist but approval across the community? Even from families damaged by IRA bombs?
It's just not plausible.

That's fair enough, I mean the community responsible for presenting this medal then.
As I said earlier in the thread, one of the facts of life of living in the North or on the border, means you have to make decisions about what you sanction and are signing up to. That is not likely to normalise for a long long time. But it will, given a chance, and by making sure that people are not driven back into sectarian enclaves or bolt holes.
The GFA, as well as bringing resolution and relative peace, also has a framework to allow the different traditions to live and let live. People have to be allowed to remember and to have free political thought. That is not to allow sectarianism or triumphalism, but respectful recognition of each others pasts and shared future.
There is no room for moral suprematism and this hysterical reaction to and attempt to supress an honest gesture of respect is damaging in the extreme.
A 12 year old asking questions about their history should be told honestly, what happened, not given a moral interpretation of it, just as German school children are taken to and told honestly, (in graphic detail, so I'm told by German friends)what happened in Dachau, Belsen and places like it. The past is part of the future, regardless of what we think of it.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's fair enough, I mean the community responsible for presenting this medal then.

I accept the rest of what you posted.
However, the "community" responsible for presenting this medal is not a community of IRA supporters. The only thing you can say conclusively is that they are a community of GAA supporters. Plenty of GAA supporters, even in Republican areas in the North, play the sport and don't support the IRA.

If you are talking solely about those responsible for presenting the medals, you shouldn't be using the term "community" at all.

Happyman42

Ms.M wrote: »

I accept the rest of what you posted.
However, the "community" responsible for presenting this medal is not a community of IRA supporters. The only thing you can say conclusively is that they are a community of GAA supporters. Plenty of GAA supporters, even in Republican areas in the North, play the sport and don't support the IRA.

If you are talking solely about those responsible for presenting the medals, you shouldn't be using the term "community" at all.

The community that took part in the tournament, the majority of whom had no problem with respecting and honouring what this man did for his club and his community.
One nameless person objected,(to the BBC, not the GAA it should be noted) a person who SHOULDN'T have taken part in the first place because all the clues where there. She wasn't hoodwinked.
Again, I refer you to what I said about the position the GAA found and still finds itself in, in the North.
IMO 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North would have no problem with this, that's a sizable community......no?

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

The community that took part in the tournament, the majority of whom had no problem with respecting and honouring what this man did for his club and his community.
One nameless person objected,(to the BBC, not the GAA it should be noted) a person who SHOULDN'T have taken part in the first place because all the clues where there. She wasn't hoodwinked.
Again, I refer you to what I said about the position the GAA found and still finds itself in, in the North.
IMO 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North would have no problem with this, that's a sizable community......no?

Isn't that the point? It is aiming itself towards one part of the community. 99% of Protestants would have a problem with this because it is the IRA. How can it be called inclusive when it is only being aimed at one side of the community with this drivel?

More nonsense from Irish Republicans.

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Isn't that the point? It is aiming itself towards one part of the community. 99% of Protestants would have a problem with this because it is the IRA. How can it be called inclusive when it is only being aimed at one side of the community with this drivel?

More nonsense from Irish Republicans.

Wrong Keith. Everybody has to accept their shared history. Nobody is asking you to embrace it, you are just being asked to RESPECT it. This was an honest, respectful, non sectarian honouring of a person's contribution.
The GFA was not a stick for Unionists to beat anybody with. You have to accept that those who supported the IRA, those who wish to have a united Ireland still exist and just as you insist on the rights of Orangism to parade, so also do these people insist on the right to honour their dead.

*Capitals are for emphasis, not to shout.

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wrong Keith. Everybody has to accept their shared history. Nobody is asking you to embrace it, you are just being asked to RESPECT it. This was an honest, respectful, non sectarian honouring of a person's contribution.
The GFA was not a stick for Unionists to beat anybody with. You have to accept that those who supported the IRA, those who wish to have a united Ireland still exist and just as you insist on the rights of Orangism to parade, so also do these people insist on the right to honour their dead.

*Capitals are for emphasis, not to shout.

Call me Patrick.

And you are wrong, this was sectarian. The fact that some people involved in GAA are trying to get more Protestants to join GAA clubs and then this club does that. It just puts all that work towards getting more Protestants in Ulster to join the GAA in jeopardy. Especially from working class areas.

A huge mistake which has disillusioned many from GAA.

Ms.M

Happyman42 wrote: »

IMO 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North would have no problem with this, that's a sizable community......no?

Well I can only state that I do not accept that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North would have no problem with this. While a large proportion might be used to being tolerant of things, I don't believe they have no problem with it. And the GAA, if they want to be invested in the community, shouldn't limit itself to those with the strongest views.
p.s I hope you're saying that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North won't object to something like this, and not that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North actually support the IRA! :eek: (not that I agree with the former assumption)

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Call me Patrick.

And you are wrong, this was sectarian. The fact that some people involved in GAA are trying to get more Protestants to join GAA clubs and then this club does that. It just puts all that work towards getting more Protestants in Ulster to join the GAA in jeopardy. Especially from working class areas.

A huge mistake which has disillusioned many from GAA.

It wasn't sectarian Keith, because (sigh) his exploits as an IRA member where not being celebrated. Here is the medal, what about that image tells you that he was an IRA man?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60685000/jpg/_60685948_medal1.jpg

Had this image been used then you would have had a right to complain, rightly so.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/536383/thumbs/s-SAS-IRA-SHOOTINGS-large.jpg

Ms.M wrote: »

Well I can only state that I do not accept that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North would have no problem with this. While a large proportion might be used to being tolerant of things, I don't believe they have no problem with it. And the GAA, if they want to be invested in the community, shouldn't limit itself to those with the strongest views.
p.s I hope you're saying that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North won't object to something like this, and not that 99.9% of GAA supporters in the North actually support the IRA! :eek: (not that I agree with the former assumption)

No, I am not saying that 99.9% of GAA supporters support or supported the IRA. But people did and a significant amount of people did. Again, the GFA does not require anybody to renounce that, nor was it's signing an admission of guilt.
You either respect people's rights to a point of view or you don't. You are entitled to disagree with them, what you are not entitled to do is supress that point of view.
That is the only way forward, and if in fact you read the agreement you will see that that way forward is enshrined within it. It is why it was hard fought for and took so long to agree and crucially...why it is working.
If the IRA still existed and was still on active service then it would be an entirely different story. They are not.

Ms.M

No, I am not saying that 99.9% of GAA supporters support or supported the IRA. But people did and a significant amount of people did. Again, the GFA does not require anybody to renounce that, nor was it's signing an admission of guilt.
You either respect people's rights to a point of view or you don't. You are entitled to disagree with them, what you are not entitled to do is supress that.

[/QUOTE]

Not even a majority of GAA supporters in the North support the IRA. You only need to look at Sinn Féin before and after decommissioning.
You have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't allow an IRA appreciation party in my house, it wouldn't be allowed in a school.... I wouldn't want it anywhere near my kids.
It's got nothing to do with suppressing peoples view.
The GAA is a completely inappropriate platform for these views because it is shared by a community, it's not meant to be biased towards one section over another.
I mean, are they going to have an anti-IRA disco or something? That would be a laugh.

Spread

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Call me Patrick. ...............................
.............................................................................................................
..........................................

OK Keith!

Happyman42

Not even a majority of GAA supporters in the North support the IRA. You only need to look at Sinn Féin before and after decommissioning.
You have to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't allow an IRA appreciation party in my house, it wouldn't be allowed in a school.... I wouldn't want it anywhere near my kids.
It's got nothing to do with suppressing peoples view.
The GAA is a completely inappropriate platform for these views because it is shared by a community, it's not meant to be biased towards one section over another.
I mean, are they going to have an anti-IRA disco or something? That would be a laugh.

I can guarantee you the majority 'understand' why the IRA existed and where they came from though. While they may not have supported them they understand the integrity of most of the IRA's motives and will not dishonour their sarcrifice. That is why I say, the majority would not have a problem with honouring a Gael who gave great service to his club and county. They realise that it isn't a black or white situation.

Even Keith now feels he can speak for the GAA, things are moving forward!
(even though he presents no evidence for his claim, because already this storm in a teacup has died probably.)

A huge mistake which has disillusioned many from GAA.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can guarantee you the majority 'understand' why the IRA existed and where they came from though. While they may not have supported them they understand the integrity of most of the IRA's motives and will not dishonour their sarcrifice. That is why I say, the majority would not have a problem with honouring a Gael who gave great service to his club and county. They realise that it isn't a black or white situation.

Even Keith now feels he can speak for the GAA, things are moving forward!
(even though he presents no evidence for his claim, because already this storm in a teacup has died probably.)

A Gael?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A Gael?

I'm glad you are here Fred, you and Keith brilliantly illuminate what reasonable people are up against.
When you run out of corners to hide in, remember to change your name and come back and find them all over again!:D

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm glad you are here Fred, you and Keith brilliantly illuminate what reasonable people are up against.
When you run out of corners to hide in, remember to change your name and come back and find them all over again!:D

Tell me, you've already made it clear that I can't call the IRA terrorists because 25 years before I was born my country carpet bombed Dresden, but, why is it the majority of people on here, ie the majority of people in Ireland plus the Irish defence forces, AGS etc and the Irish government call them terrorists?

Oh, and reasonable? All I am doing is disagreeing with you.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Tell me, you've already made it clear that I can't call the IRA terrorists because 25 years before I was born my country carpet bombed Dresden, but, why is it the majority of people on here, ie the majority of people in Ireland plus the Irish defence forces, AGS etc and the Irish government call them terrorists?

Oh, and reasonable? All I am doing is disagreeing with you.

You can call the IRA whatever you want, what you can't do is say that they did anything different to what others have done in a conflict. Others, that have had honours bestowed on them.
To call a member of one organisation a 'terrorist' in Ireland is to take a moral position, it is an attempt to distinguish them as something uniquely evil. The IRA engaged in a nasty campaign of terror, that is beyond doubt, and even they would not deny that. But all conflicts have instances of that, by all sides, even by those in power.
Churchill saw a way to try and break the will of the German people by KNOWINGLY and indiscriminately bombing innocents, he did nothing different to the IRA bombing town centres. In fact, if you read the thoughts of the IRA men, their rationalising of bombing places like Enniskillen and Birmingham is very very similar to that of Bomber Command. Sad but true and an unfortunate consequence of a conflict that was allowed to spin out of control. The British should have seen how it was going to play out, and have acted sooner, that is the responsibility of governance. But, as we know to our cost, they thought they could suppress it with acts of terror of their own. (Internment, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot to Kill etc etc etc.)
So when I see you also defining British soldiers as terrorists then I will know you have a balanced viewpoint.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can call the IRA whatever you want, what you can't do is say that they did anything different to what others have done in a conflict. Others, that have had honours bestowed on them.
To call a member of one organisation a 'terrorist' in Ireland is to take a moral position, it is an attempt to distinguish them as something uniquely evil. The IRA engaged in a nasty campaign of terror, that is beyond doubt, and even they would not deny that. But all conflicts have instances of that, by all sides, even by those in power.
Churchill saw a way to try and break the will of the German people by KNOWINGLY and indiscriminately bombing innocents, he did nothing different to the IRA bombing town centres. In fact, if you read the thoughts of the IRA men, their rationalising of bombing places like Enniskillen and Birmingham is very very similar to that of Bomber Command. Sad but true and an unfortunate consequence of a conflict that was allowed to spin out of control. The British should have seen how it was going to play out, and have acted sooner, that is the responsibility of governance. But, as we know to our cost, they thought they could suppress it with acts of terror of their own. (Internment, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot to Kill etc etc etc.)
So when I see you also defining British soldiers as terrorists then I will know you have a balanced viewpoint.

again, back to blah blah blah Britain did this etc.

I've been lambasted for apparently defending the empire, I wonder will people have a go at you for defending the deliberate murder of innocent people.

Probably not.

And why "A Gael" ?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

again, back to blah blah blah Britain did this etc.

I've been lambasted for apparently defending the empire, I wonder will people have a go at you for defending the deliberate murder of innocent people.

Probably not.

And why "A Gael" ?

I am not defending anything. It happened, the politics of condemnation are useless, they won't stop it happening and never did. The British sat down and talked even when the IRA campaign was active. That's what stopped it, the right people taking responsibility and dealing with the issues. You are reading stuff that is not and never was there, in my posts, this is your problem Fred.

GAA people commonly refer to other members as fellow Gaels.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not defending anything. It happened, the politics of condemnation are useless, they won't stop it happening and never did. The British sat down and talked even when the IRA campaign was active. That's what stopped it, the right people taking responsibility and dealing with the issues. You are reading stuff that is not and never was there, in my posts, this is your problem Fred.

You know what, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

It wasn't sectarian Keith, because (sigh) his exploits as an IRA member where not being celebrated. Here is the medal, what about that image tells you that he was an IRA man?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60685000/jpg/_60685948_medal1.jpg

Had this image been used then you would have had a right to complain, rightly so.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/536383/thumbs/s-SAS-IRA-SHOOTINGS-large.jpg



No, I am not saying that 99.9% of GAA supporters support or supported the IRA. But people did and a significant amount of people did. Again, the GFA does not require anybody to renounce that, nor was it's signing an admission of guilt.
You either respect people's rights to a point of view or you don't. You are entitled to disagree with them, what you are not entitled to do is supress that point of view.
That is the only way forward, and if in fact you read the agreement you will see that that way forward is enshrined within it. It is why it was hard fought for and took so long to agree and crucially...why it is working.
If the IRA still existed and was still on active service then it would be an entirely different story. They are not.

He was in the IRA. The club know this and they decided to celebrate it. Shame you can't see this.

Not that it matters now as the SAS got to him and he won't be coming back. Good riddance.

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

He was in the IRA.

No **** Sherlock............I mean Keith! :rolleyes:

Not that it matters now as the SAS got to him and he won't be coming back. Good riddance.

Used to be a guy on here called Keith, but the mods got to him too and he won't be coming back either, allegedly...although I think he hasn't gone away at all, the wee rascal!