Mother anger at IRA medals given by GAA

FTA69

Joko wrote: »

Read the Sinn Fein election manifesto of 1918 or newspaper articles printed during that election. People knew exactly what they were voting for, a war.

No mention of armed struggle in that manifesto. None at all. And besides, my point still stands. The IRA did they what they did in 1916 and the period afterwards solely off their own back. It was only toward the very end of the campaign that the Dáil officially took responsibility for the IRA campaign.

Similarly there has been no satisfactory answer to the question I've posed a number of times on this thread. Namely why people have a massive issue with clubs and tournaments being named after Martin McCaughey or Kevin Lynch hurling club in Dungiven etc, but have no problem with cups being named after "terrorists" from the 1920s or before. Saying, "well that was ages ago like" isn't a logical response, neither is the historical fallacy of "good IRAs" and "bad IRAs". You're either against Republican symbology in the GAA or you aren't. If you are then logic would dictate we rename the Sam Maguire and Liam McCarthy cups immediately as it may offend Unionists or some other bullsh*t.

getz

Spread wrote: »

Today warm and breezy

No. Enough casinos already



Christ getz .......... you're only a heartbeat away. Why not catch a ferry or Speke (JL) airport. But if you meet up with Fratton Fred in a pub - button it or speak in Cornish/Manx



No need to. I hope you realise why the Founding Fathers came here? A kind of Middle Ages terrorism. Incidently, Portsmouth is just a few hours away and Dublin is about 45 mins

i would love to,but i have a wife from gibraltar and a english bulldog stopping me,but i do miss that pint in shillelagh

Spread

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

What have the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar got to do with anything?

Gibraltar was given to the UK by Spain with the Treaty of Utrecht. The Argentinians gave up any claim on the Falklands in the Arana-Southern Treaty.

Arguing anything else is equivalent to saying that all these "invaders" in America should lose their vote and give the country back to the Native Americans - it isn't going to happen.

I refuse to answer you as you've got Alzheimer's and you might start beating up your nurse. A pill is a pill is a pill

getz wrote: »

people in the 16th and 17th century did not have a vote, gibralter only had a few fishermen on when sold to britain in return for a med ireland and a part of florida,and was then settled by people from malta, falklands only had one native settler and never belonged to argentina,all alot different from northern ireland

Pease explain that so lucidly to the Spanish and Argentinians. You'll save the three sides countless millions AND lives

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Technically the claims were only removed from the constutition. Nothing was renounced. Ah politics.

Well I've always defined "renounce" along the lines of giving something up. By removing the clause, we renounced our constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. Seems pretty unambiguous to me!

I take it you missed my earlier post about how these things get started. The loyalists and british were turning the screws as hard as they could on the nationalist community for many decades. Suddenly it blows up in their faces and we have weeping and wailing.

Oh I agree completely. I think you're making the mistake of equating condemnation of the IRA with condonation of the Brits and the Loyalists.

Spread wrote: »

A bit like the voting in Islas Malvinas or Gibralter. If 100,000 French people were planted in the Isle of Wight and given a vote .......... they would vote to be part of France. Do you not understand the word gerrymandering?

I do...but pretty sure you don't. The Unionists in the North have been there for hundreds of years, and have every much the right to express their opinions as anyone else.

I find if amusing though, that you are sitting in the United States of all places, and compaining of illegal occupation. How about you turn your plot of land over the the nearest native American? At least you'd have the benefit of being consistent then.

maggy_thatcher

Spread wrote: »

I refuse to answer you as you've got Alzheimer's and you might start beating up your nurse. A pill is a pill is a pill

You must be mixing me up with Maggie Thatcher - a completely different person entirely!

And I'm going to assume refusing to answer is just your way of saying you don't have a proper response.

Spread

getz wrote: »

i would love to,but i have a wife from gibraltar and a english bulldog stopping me,but i do miss that pint in shillelagh

No doubt called Churchill. I imagine you're ex Navy so Nelson may be more appropriate

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

Well I've always defined "renounce" along the lines of giving something up. By removing the clause, we renounced our constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. Seems pretty unambiguous to me!

If we had entered a clause in the constitution saying we would never go near the place, that would be renunciation. We didn't though, we just removed the bit that said it was ours.

Einhard wrote: »

Oh I agree completely. I think you're making the mistake of equating condemnation of the IRA with condonation of the Brits and the Loyalists.

Meh, I don't support any of the terrorist groups. What I'm saying is that in similar circumstances would you do any different? Would anyone? You can't go around forcing people to kneel before you and not expect a haymaker in the plums one of the days.

Spread

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You must be mixing me up with Maggie Thatcher - a completely different person entirely!

And I'm going to assume refusing to answer is just your way of saying you don't have a proper response.

Oops! The second person in the world to be cured of it. You're in illustrious company.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/forget-alzheimers--saunders-1388784.html

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If we had entered a clause in the constitution saying we would never go near the place, that would be renunciation. We didn't though, we just removed the bit that said it was ours.

I think removing the claim amounted to the same thing though. Tomato/tamata I s'pose...

Meh, I don't support any of the terrorist groups. What I'm saying is that in similar circumstances would you do any different? Would anyone? You can't go around forcing people to kneel before you and not expect a haymaker in the plums one of the days.

I don't disagree. I can understand why the IRA enjoyed a resurgence in the North, and I can understand why people felt the need to fight back. However, any sympathy for their actions ceases at the point where innocent civilians are murdered in cold blood, and massive bombs are placed in areas crowded with civilian men, women, and children.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

I think removing the claim amounted to the same thing though.

It explicity does not.

Einhard wrote: »

I don't disagree. I can understand why the IRA enjoyed a resurgence in the North, and I can understand why people felt the need to fight back. However, any sympathy for their actions ceases at the point where innocent civilians are murdered in cold blood, and massive bombs are placed in areas crowded with civilian men, women, and children.

Well we're singing from the same hymn sheet then. The chain of cause and effect, action and reaction, doesn't begin with IRA terrorism though. If one wished to trace it back to its original roots, the damn fool Ulster plantations were the start of it all.

getz

Spread wrote: »

I refuse to answer you as you've got Alzheimer's and you might start beating up your nurse. A pill is a pill is a pill



Pease explain that so lucidly to the Spanish and Argentinians. You'll save the three sides countless millions AND lives

both countries have deep economic problems and always stir up so the natives take their eyes off the ball,now spain has its own problems not only with argentina but with the call of the basque independance movement,and morocco and the conclaves, thy are hardly in any position to lay claim to a fellow EU member

Einhard

Doc Ruby wrote: »

It explicity does not.

It explicitly does so. See what I did there? :cool:

Anyway, minor point. Not point arguing over it.

Well we're singing from the same hymn sheet then. The chain of cause and effect, action and reaction, doesn't begin with IRA terrorism though. If one wished to trace it back to its original roots, the damn fool Ulster plantations were the start of it all.

Absolutely. I don't reserve my criticism (or, indeed, praise) for any one group. However, many Republicans will condemn the British and Loyalists for actions which they either celebrate or defend when carried out by the IRA. That's what gets me. I imagine of course, that it's the same with the Loyalists, but then I've not much exposure to them.

getz

Spread wrote: »

No doubt called Churchill. I imagine you're ex Navy so Nelson may be more appropriate

merchant navy,he is called TJ [like tj hooker] ,and i will have you know bullies are the most popular dogs in the USA [your country] during the normandy landing a american general landed on he beaches with two pet bullies,

nua domhan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Any unionist who picked up a gun is guilty of association and I think it is fairly well established how the Irish feel about the paras.

This isn't some random nationalist we are talking about. He was killed holding an AK47.

I don't think you actually understand what "guilty by association" means?
I'll give you a hint, internment.

Fratton Fred

nua domhan wrote: »

I don't think you actually understand what "guilty by association" means?
I'll give you a hint, internment.

Internment for some, shot in cold blood for others.

Spread

getz wrote: »

merchant navy,he is called TJ [like tj hooker] ,and i will have you know bullies are the most popular dogs in the USA [your country] during the normandy landing a american general landed on he beaches with two pet bullies,

Misquote, getz old bean! What the Daily Sketch printed was during the Normandy landing, an American general landed on the beach with two pots of Bully Beef.

This saved a lot of red faces as the real thing should have been landed on the beach with two packets ....... one of chocolate and t'other nylons!

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

I imagine of course, that it's the same with the Loyalists, but then I've not much exposure to them.

Maybe more than you think. Take our friend fred there for example, every single one of these threads he sets to, swaddled in a flag dipped deeper in innocent blood than a thousand IRAs, and then waves it about himself bellowing of the atrocities inflicted on his country.

Its so far beyond irony its actually come full circle to ironic again.

Spread

Hey Fred! This is really taking the Jubilee a bit far. I mean, come off it, five days of Beefeaters walking around your front room. Bet you were glued to the box to watch that peace loving woman (who's ancestors came to the throne by peaceful means) pull the wool over the eyes of the beholders.

maggy_thatcher

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe more than you think. Take our friend fred there for example, every single one of these threads he sets to, swaddled in a flag dipped deeper in innocent blood than a thousand IRAs, and then waves it about himself bellowing of the atrocities inflicted on his country.

Its so far beyond irony its actually come full circle to ironic again.

That flag has only been around for 213 years. The IRA have murdered at least 2,000 people. Does this mean that the British have murdered more than 2,000,000 innocent people in the last 213 years?

In addition, at least the British Army aren't cowards always hiding behind balaclavas, and are proud to come out and say who they are and who they fight for.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe more than you think. Take our friend fred there for example, every single one of these threads he sets to, swaddled in a flag dipped deeper in innocent blood than a thousand IRAs, and then waves it about himself bellowing of the atrocities inflicted on his country.

Its so far beyond irony its actually come full circle to ironic again.

good old Doc, so full of pent up anger towards the Brits.

Is it jealousy, or just plain begrudgery.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Nodin

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

That flag has only been around for 213 years. The IRA have murdered at least 2,000 people..

OInly if you say that crown forces weren't legitamate targets and it wasn't a war.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Does this mean that the British have murdered more than 2,000,000 innocent people in the last 213 years?
.

Given that possibly 500,000 were killed in reprisals for the Indian Rebellion of 1857 alone, its more than possible.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

In addition, at least the British Army aren't cowards always hiding behind balaclavas, and are proud to come out and say who they are and who they fight for.

I'm sure the tribesmen mowed down with rifle and cannon fire appreciated their frank manner.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

Hey Fred! This is really taking the Jubilee a bit far. I mean, come off it, five days of Beefeaters walking around your front room. Bet you were glued to the box to watch that peace loving woman (who's ancestors came to the throne by peaceful means) pull the wool over the eyes of the beholders.

I was at the Thames Sunday, the Mall on Monday and St Stephens Green today thanks. No Beefeeters but plenty of people just enjoy each day for what it is, a bit of a carnival.

4th July is coming soon, will you be celebrating "Freedom"? One nation of the people, for the people by the people....no injuns allowed.

maggy_thatcher

Nodin wrote: »

OInly if you say that crown forces weren't legitamate targets and it wasn't a war.

Hmm, don't remember the formal declaration of war from the recognized government of any country.

Nodin wrote: »

Given that possibly 500,000 were killed in reprisals for the Indian Rebellion of 1857 alone, its more than possible.

Nobody's entirely sure how many were killed in that (vs how many were "displaced"). Also the flag the British Indians used was slightly different. I'm not excusing the fact that it was a terrible thing that happened; but this was before the Geneva Conventions were formed - it was how the rule of war worked back then.

Chuck Stone

Einhard wrote: »

IHowever, any sympathy for their actions ceases at the point where innocent civilians are murdered in cold blood, and massive bombs are placed in areas crowded with civilian men, women, and children.

So you're anti-war then? You wouldn't be so very very naive to think that any conflict can be fought without civilian deaths? Would you? There hasn't been a conflict in the history of humanity where civilians haven't been killed - indeed it is almost always civilians who bear the brunt of any conflict.

While we're talking about civilians being killed you know that the civilian deaths attributable to the IRA, as a percentage of their actions, pale in comparison to the that of the BA and their surrogate Loyalist death squads?

Another thing - if the UK removed the glorification of combatants and militarism from its culture the BBC, ITV and British newspapers wouldn't have a fucking clue what to do to fill the void. The UK media never shuts the fuck up about the British army and its exploits.

Spread

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

In addition, at least the British Army aren't cowards always hiding behind balaclavas, and are proud to come out and say who they are and who they fight for.

So they blacken their faces, put greenery on their helmets and wear full face visors just for the aesthetics. Or, perhaps, in case Jeremy Beedle pops out.

The lies that these soldiers told cost the British taxpayer an awful lot as corrupt inquiry after corrupt inquiriy rolled on and on.

This will only take a few minutes to read and will enlighten you:http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/irgovt3.htm

Nodin

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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

Nobody's entirely sure how many were killed in that (vs how many were "displaced"). Also the flag the British Indians used was slightly different. I'm not excusing the fact that it was a terrible thing that happened; but this was before the Geneva Conventions were formed - it was how the rule of war worked back then.

"British Indians"....dear o dear o dear. Its the ITV sports doctrine- Everybody is British till they lose or fuck up.

This is what you stated earlier.......

Does this mean that the British have murdered more than 2,000,000 innocent people in the last 213 years?

Before we continue, are there any other goal post moves and caveats you want to add? Are people killed on all days of the week eligible, or just mon-fri, office hours?


This would fill your Geneva conventions requirement, I believe.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you're anti-war then? You wouldn't be so very very naive to think that any conflict can be fought without civilian deaths? Would you? There hasn't been a conflict in the history of humanity where civilians haven't been killed - indeed it is almost always civilians who bear the brunt of any conflict.

While we're talking about civilians being killed you know that the civilian deaths attributable to the IRA, as a percentage of their actions, pale in comparison to the that of the BA and their surrogate Loyalist death squads?

Another thing - if the UK removed the glorification of combatants and militarism from it's culture the BBC, ITV and British newspapers wouldn't have a fucking clue what to do to fill the void. The UK media never shuts the fuck up about the British army and it's exploits.

When you place a bomb in a pub, a restaurant or a shopping centre, only civilians are going to get killed. If it was a war then targeting civilians is a war crime. If it wasn't, then these were blatant acts of terrorism.

additionally, (blatantly pinching this from another poster) if the British Army had followed the example of their enemy and executed everyone in cold blood instead of taking them prisoners, then the civilian to combatant death ratio would have been hugely different.

You need to understand the army in Britain to comment to be honest. We had conscription in two world wars. Hundreds of thousands of men who never ever saw themselves joining up had no choice. I think they are worth remembering. Also at the moment the UK is playing an active role in a very nasty UN mission (which, as alluded to earlier, the Irish delegates at the UN security council voted for) and the 10,000 or so servicemen and women out there should be recognised.

There are also Irish servicemen and women out on UN missions, but for some reason Ireland seems to ignore them, almost as if they are embarrassed of them.

It's quite shameful really.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it jealousy, or just plain begrudgery.

The British history of colonialism, racism, slavery, military adventurism, resource thieving and mass slaughter of less technologically advanced peoples is not something to be coveted.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

"British Indians"....dear o dear o dear. Its the ITV sports doctrine- Everybody is British till they lose or fuck up.

This is what you stated earlier.......


Before we continue, are there any other goal post moves and caveats you want to add? Are people killed on all days of the week eligible, or just mon-fri, office hours?


This would fill your Geneva conventions requirement, I believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

Enjoy http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n11/letters#2

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The British history of colonialism, racism, slavery, military adventurism, resource thieving and mass slaughter of less technologically advanced peoples is not something to be coveted.

I was alluding more to "Small Man" syndrome than anything else.

btw, did you know that Dublin was one of europe's largest slave trading centres in the 9th century?

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When you place a bomb in a pub, a restaurant or a shopping centre, only civilians are going to get killed. If it was a war then targeting civilians is a war crime. If it wasn't, then these were blatant acts of terrorism.

When you go to war on fabricated evidence, against the protests of the majority of the population of your country, then not only are you ignoring the democratic wishes of those you're supposed to serve but you are responsible for a war that is essentially an act of mass terrorism.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When you go to war on fabricated evidence, against the protests of the majority of the population of your country, then not only are you ignoring the democratic wishes of those you're supposed to serve but you are responsible for a war that is essentially an act of mass terrorism.

aah right, so everything the IRA did was OK because Tony Blair went off on some sort of religious crusade.

OK, fine.:rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah right, so everything the IRA did was OK because Tony Blair went off on some sort of religious crusade.

OK, fine.:rolleyes:

Strawman.

Pappa Charlie

What did the runners ups get? Osama bin laden medals?

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The British history of colonialism, racism, slavery, military adventurism, resource thieving and mass slaughter of less technologically advanced peoples is not something to be coveted.

Is that your justification for murdering two small boys in Warrington,or two Austrialian tourists in Roermond in 1990, or bombing working class folk in Birmingham and Guilford, or does it excuse the calculated execution of Jean McConville, why is it that the apologists for the ira criminal gang NEVER just accept responsibility for their cowardly and psychopathic actions, but choose instead to point to events generations earlier carried out by the British?

karma_

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Strawman.

Give Fred a break, his fingers has to be sore posting in this thread after 30+ posts, besides, he has other threads where his anti-Irish rhetoric must be submitted.

karma_

SocSocPol wrote: »

Is that your justification for murdering two small boys in Warrington,or two Austrialian tourists in Roermond in 1990, or bombing working class folk in Birmingham and Guilford, or does it excuse the calculated execution of Jean McConville, why is it that the apologists for the ira criminal gang NEVER just accept reaponsibility for their cowardly and pschopathic actions, but choose instead to point to events generations earlier carried out by the British?

The thing is this, the vast majority of posters who have replied in here would have no bother denouncing the IRA, I'm sure there are one or 2 who probably wouldn't in fairness, but the majority would. Fred on the other hand has a track record of denouncing Irish nationalism all the while being a proud British nationalist at the same time.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Give Fred a break, his fingers has to be sore posting in this thread after 30+ posts, besides, he has other threads where his anti-Irish rhetoric must be submitted.

Why anti Irish?

As much as I'm sure you'd love me to be, I think it is pretty obvious I am not anti Irish.

Anti SF/IRA does not mean anti Irish. If it did, that accusation could be thrown at 2/3 of the population.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

The thing is this, the vast majority of posters who have replied in here would have no bother denouncing the IRA, I'm sure there are one or 2 who probably wouldn't in fairness, but the majority would. Fred on the other hand has a track record of denouncing Irish nationalism all the while being a proud British nationalist at the same time.

Examples please.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Examples please.

Just have a look through your own posting history there mate, you have a knack of turning up in 'these' threads.

Chuck Stone

SocSocPol wrote: »

Is that your justification for murdering two small boys in Warrington,or two Austrialian tourists in Roermond in 1990, or bombing working class folk in Birmingham and Guilford, or does it excuse the calculated execution of Jean McConville, why is it that the apologists for the ira criminal gang NEVER just accept responsibility for their cowardly and psychopathic actions, but choose instead to point to events generations earlier carried out by the British?

Understanding fail.

The British were supposed to be in control of the situation - the sectarian statelet was in their territory and instead of slapping down Unionists for causing the troubles they chose to side with them.

Maybe you should ask the movers and shakers in the UK why the troubles wound down after the IRA attacked Canary Wharf and the Manchester CBD. Shortly after these bombs went off and the IRA threatened the UK economy barricades went up to prevent Unionists from marching down the Garvaghy road and the message was sent. Talk to nationalists, stop treating them like 2nd class citizens or we'll do it without you.

Something the British had the power to do in the early 70's and chose not to.

Context. Context. Context.

summerskin

karma_ wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Strawman.

Give Fred a break, his fingers has to be sore posting in this thread after 30+ posts, besides, he has other threads where his anti-Irish rhetoric must be submitted.

Looks to me like he is not anti-Irish, rather defending his country against a bunch of bigots who still spout their "800 years" bollix as they sit at home watching British tv( as some have complained about British tv covering their army, only way they would know this is by watching British channels).

You want anti-Irish? Here goes...

Whinging moaning pathetic individuals who cling to the past as they have no future. Pathetic specimens in a tiny country that Europe wishes never existed and the rest only remember on paddy's day so that they can copy and get drunk and useless too. Ireland is known for two things: Guinness and terrorism. People everywhere drink "Irish car bombs". Funnily only in Ireland will someone know what you want if you order a "black and tan". Oh and of course you're welcome all over the world, as events in Australia have proven recently.

Of course, I'll get banned for that but it's ok for the Irish to slag England and it's inhabitants off constantly, otherwise at least 6 posters on this thread would be banned by now.


Little man syndrome. Greater Manchester is bigger than Ireland.

SocSocPol

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Understanding fail.

The British were supposed to be in control of the situation - the sectarian statelet was in their territory and instead of slapping down Unionists for causing the troubles they chose to side with them.

Maybe you should ask the movers and shakers in the UK why the troubles wound down after the IRA attacked Canary Wharf and the Manchester CBD. Shortly after these bombs went off and the IRA threatened the UK economy barricades went up to prevent Unionists from marching down the Garvaghy road and the message was sent. Talk to nationalists, stop treating them like 2nd class citizens or we'll do it without you.

Something the British had the power to do in the early 70's and chose not to.

Context. Context. Context.

There you have it folks the ira gang manufacture and plant a no warning bomb, happily murder two little boys shopping for mothers days presents and guess what its all the fault of the brits!

flash1080

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When you place a bomb in a pub, a restaurant or a shopping centre, only civilians are going to get killed. If it was a war then targeting civilians is a war crime. If it wasn't, then these were blatant acts of terrorism.

additionally, (blatantly pinching this from another poster) if the British Army had followed the example of their enemy and executed everyone in cold blood instead of taking them prisoners, then the civilian to combatant death ratio would have been hugely different.

You need to understand the army in Britain to comment to be honest. We had conscription in two world wars. Hundreds of thousands of men who never ever saw themselves joining up had no choice. I think they are worth remembering. Also at the moment the UK is playing an active role in a very nasty UN mission (which, as alluded to earlier, the Irish delegates at the UN security council voted for) and the 10,000 or so servicemen and women out there should be recognised.

There are also Irish servicemen and women out on UN missions, but for some reason Ireland seems to ignore them, almost as if they are embarrassed of them.

It's quite shameful really.

Resistance forces planting bombs in public places is certainly not exclusive to Ireland.

The PDF get on and do their job professionally. I don't see it as being shameful that we don't throw a parade for them every second Sunday.

Fenian Army

SocSocPol wrote: »

There you have it folks the ira gang manufacture and plant a no warning bomb, happily murder two little boys shopping for mothers days presents and guess what its all the fault of the brits!

Why dont we ever hear the likes of you giving out about what happened the likes of Julie Livingstone?


What happened those kids was terrible, and shouldnt have happened.

karma_

summerskin wrote: »

Looks to me like he is not anti-Irish, rather defending his country against a bunch of bigots who still spout their "800 years" bollix as they sit at home watching British tv( as some have complained about British tv covering their army, only way they would know this is by watching British channels).

You want anti-Irish? Here goes...

Whinging moaning pathetic individuals who cling to the past as they have no future. Pathetic specimens in a tiny country that Europe wishes never existed and the rest only remember on paddy's day so that they can copy and get drunk and useless too. Ireland is known for two things: Guinness and terrorism. People everywhere drink "Irish car bombs". Funnily only in Ireland will someone know what you want if you order a "black and tan". Oh and of course you're welcome all over the world, as events in Australia have proven recently.

Of course, I'll get banned for that but it's ok for the Irish to slag England and it's inhabitants off constantly, otherwise at least 6 posters on this thread would be banned by now.


Little man syndrome. Greater Manchester is bigger than Ireland.

You need to work on that fella, I don't think that even comes close to the suburbs of insulting.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Just have a look through your own posting history there mate, you have a knack of turning up in 'these' threads.

So you can't back up your allegation then?

Chuck Stone

summerskin wrote: »

Whinging moaning pathetic individuals who cling to the past as they have no future. Pathetic specimens in a tiny country that Europe wishes never existed and the rest only remember on paddy's day so that they can copy and get drunk and useless too. Ireland is known for two things: Guinness and terrorism. People everywhere drink "Irish car bombs". Funnily only in Ireland will someone know what you want if you order a "black and tan". Oh and of course you're welcome all over the world, as events in Australia have proven recently.

Oh dear.

summerskin

karma_ wrote: »

summerskin wrote: »

Looks to me like he is not anti-Irish, rather defending his country against a bunch of bigots who still spout their "800 years" bollix as they sit at home watching British tv( as some have complained about British tv covering their army, only way they would know this is by watching British channels).

You want anti-Irish? Here goes...

Whinging moaning pathetic individuals who cling to the past as they have no future. Pathetic specimens in a tiny country that Europe wishes never existed and the rest only remember on paddy's day so that they can copy and get drunk and useless too. Ireland is known for two things: Guinness and terrorism. People everywhere drink "Irish car bombs". Funnily only in Ireland will someone know what you want if you order a "black and tan". Oh and of course you're welcome all over the world, as events in Australia have proven recently.

Of course, I'll get banned for that but it's ok for the Irish to slag England and it's inhabitants off constantly, otherwise at least 6 posters on this thread would be banned by now.


Little man syndrome. Greater Manchester is bigger than Ireland.

You need to work on that fella, I don't think that even comes close to the suburbs of insulting.

Must be the Irish blood in me.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was alluding more to "Small Man" syndrome than anything else.

summerskin wrote: »

You want anti-Irish? Here goes....

SocSocPol wrote: »

There you have it folks the ira gang manufacture and plant a no warning bomb, happily murder two little boys shopping for mothers days presents and guess what its all the fault of the brits!

Your army slaughtered unarmed innocent Irish kids in the early 70's and 80's in your name, forgetful are we?