Saoradh dissident republican march in Dublin

Chips Lovell

Tomas81 wrote: »

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They had a fairly well expressed strategic interest in our ports during WW2.

Once again you show a fairly poor grasp of history.

If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything.

And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.

facehugger99

Tomas81 wrote: »

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

If you're Gerry Adams, then yes, it turned out he was.

Baggly

Tomas81 wrote:

So if you have a family member who's a sex offender are you in turn responsible?

Chips Lovell wrote:

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

facehugger99 wrote:

If you're Gerry Adams, then yes, it turned out he was.

Mod

One more false equivelancy with sex offendering will be a thread ban for those who post, quote and or respond to it.

Tomas81

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If I thought them how to be a sex offender and did some sex offending with them before I gave it up, yeah, kinda.

The man who set up the RIRA was a QM wasn't involved in bomb making. What would of fell to the EO

Tomas81

Pter wrote: »

Mod

One more false equivelancy with sex offendering will be a thread ban for those who post, quote and or respond to it.

Sorry just seen this post as I responded.

citytillidie

facehugger99 wrote: »

So the IRA killed nearly 600 more civilians than the big bad Brits?

Absolute Scumbags.

Must make the loyalist the worst of the lot as they killed more bit not a peep from you about that

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apart from pointing out that these guys would see themselves at war with the shinners too, it must be pointed out that the British started a catastrophic war on the basis that somebody had arms and explosives of mass destruction.

What kinda logic would you call that? The natives of the place they started a war with would call it 'terrorist' logic.

This is nearly as funny as the Irish IP address post.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything.

And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.

Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'.

I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality.

The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'.

I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality.

The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.

forgottenhills

citytillidie wrote: »

Must make the loyalist the worst of the lot as they killed more bit not a peep from you about that

I am sure that if there were people on her acting as apologists for Loyalist violence then there would be many posters attacking their attitudes. I would for sure. So don't be surprised when posters come on here to counter the posters spouting SF propaganda and acting as apologists for PIRA actions in the Troubles.

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Point of order...I didn't call them the 'Brits'.

I didn't discredit them for what they did in ww2 either, I merely pointed out that their defence then and their continued defence of our airspace is not the altruistic gesture it is sometimes portrayed as - it is much more 'defence of themselves' due to the proximity of our island. That proximity and their continued presence here is currently buggering up their desires to leave the EU. And once again you can see that they don't so much care for NI as they do about themselves. Simple reality.

The IRA and the IMC both stated that armaments were stolen from caches before decommissioning. Something tells me the culprits would have been those that went dissident and refused to accept the GFA. So not sure what your point is.

So is this a roundabout admission that Britain since the 1930's played and plays a positive role on the island of Ireland? Even if their actions in defending our airspace etc. by scrambling jets to meet the Russians when they fly over our airspace may not be altruistic at least they are doing it.

The funny thing is that those who use and have used the simplistic demand that Britain should just leave Ireland, would be among the first to demand that they come back and protect them, if indeed they had left, or did leave NI all of a sudden, and civil war kicked off there, as it inevitably would.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

So is this a roundabout admission that Britain since the 1930's played and plays a positive role on the island of Ireland? Even if their actions in defending our airspace etc. by scrambling jets to meet the Russians when they fly over our airspace may not be altruistic at least they are doing it.

The funny thing is that those who use and have used the simplistic demand that Britain should just leave Ireland, would be among the first to demand that they come back and protect them, if indeed they had left, or did leave NI all of a sudden, and civil war kicked off there, as it inevitably would.

It may have escaped your notice that Britain created Northern Ireland and the concentration of one identity, whose bigoted and sectarian rule caused it to go up in flames.

Rather than call on them to protect or to come back, I have always stridently called on them to leave, as it is the only way imo that we can create a real and lasting peace here. There is nothing 'simplistic' in that.

The simplisitic and lazy thing to do is ignore what is happening and to satisfied with an 'acceptable level of violence'.

What happened with Lyra McKee, as has always happened periodically, is that 'acceptable level of violence' has been crossed, hence the sudden interest.
People have been living with the Real, New, Continuity IRA and all the other groups not content with GFA since 1998.

A lot of the condemnation and moralising going on at the minute sounds very hollow tbh.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.

If I were Unionist, I would have been devastated by the GFA, frankly and I would have felt utterly abandoned by May pulling the rug from under me over Brexit tbh.
There are a lot of things Unionism has been afraid to admit to itself. But I think their behaviour since the GFA shows quite clearly that they know in their hearts and soul what it really means. Hence their love of the Brexit idea regardless of what it will mean for their prosperity. Anything that drives a wedge between the south and north is to be grasped with both hands.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It may have escaped your notice that Britain created Northern Ireland and the concentration of one identity, whose bigoted and sectarian rule caused it to go up in flames.

Rather than call on them to protect or to come back, I have always stridently called on them to leave, as it is the only way imo that we can create a real and lasting peace here. There is nothing 'simplistic' in that.

The simplisitic and lazy thing to do is ignore what is happening and to satisfied with an 'acceptable level of violence'.

What happened with Lyra McKee, as has always happened periodically, is that 'acceptable level of violence' has been crossed, hence the sudden interest.
People have been living with the Real, New, Continuity IRA and all the other groups not content with GFA since 1998.

A lot of the condemnation and moralising going on at the minute sounds very hollow tbh.

The usual mealy-mouthed BS.

Let whoever wants to change the status of NI campaign for it in a peaceful manner - they'll be in for a rude-shock when the notion is rejected in the ROI but let them try.

The Brits just aren't going to 'leave' NI, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands.

The current status of NI has been accepted by the vast majority North and South of the island - your usual attempts at deflection onto the DUP or British is shameful in the context of the murder of a young woman.

Shame on you Francie lad.

Shame on you.

Fusitive

forgottenhills wrote: »

The funny thing is that those who use and have used the simplistic demand that Britain should just leave Ireland, would be among the first to demand that they come back and protect them, if indeed they had left, or did leave NI all of a sudden, and civil war kicked off there, as it inevitably would.

Thats what the British wanted, a civil war to break out in the North. John Weir who was an RUC Seargent and a member of the UVF Glenanne gang and has provided huge amounts of testimony about the troubles said they were colluding with the UVF to organise a mass shooting at a Catholic school to make the conflict spiral out of control and for a civil war to break out so that British Forces would have justification to go to full war in the North.

All these things sound like baths!t conspiracy theories but these are British sworn affidavits on collusion during the troubles. It's not Nationalist propaganda.

citytillidie

forgottenhills wrote: »

I am sure that if there were people on her acting as apologists for Loyalist violence then there would be many posters attacking their attitudes. I would for sure. So don't be surprised when posters come on here to counter the posters spouting SF propaganda and acting as apologists for PIRA actions in the Troubles.

But there is people here backing what the BA did so that's just as bad

Grayson

RobMc59 wrote: »

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.

Didn't churchill offer the north to the free state in return for the free state entering the war?

Weirdly, it's the most nationalistic people in england who care the least about the north. There was a survey which showed that people who felt most strongly about brexit would be the people most likely to say they'd give up NI.

Baggly

facehugger99 wrote: »

The usual mealy-mouthed BS.

Let whoever wants to change the status of NI campaign for it in a peaceful manner - they'll be in for a rude-shock when the notion is rejected in the ROI but let them try.

The Brits just aren't going to 'leave' NI, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands.

The current status of NI has been accepted by the vast majority North and South of the island - your usual attempts at deflection onto the DUP or British is shameful in the context of the murder of a young woman.

Shame on you Francie lad.

Shame on you.

Mod

Dont post in this thread again. For ignoring warnings and for use of uncivil language. Everyone please heed this as a warning as well. Thanks.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

Didn't churchill offer the north to the free state in return for the free state entering the war?

Weirdly, it's the most nationalistic people in england who care the least about the north. There was a survey which showed that people who felt most strongly about brexit would be the people most likely to say they'd give up NI.

Thatcher reviewed pulling out as well as did Harold Wilson before her.

May's first agreement with the EU is just the latest example of the UK talking up the sanctity of the 'union' while attempting to do what suits Britain (or some would say the English part of that union.)

Berserker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I were Unionist, I would have been devastated by the GFA.

I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs.

(*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.

forgottenhills

RobMc59 wrote: »

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.

Its not a matter of Britain abandoning a "valiant nation". When the British see a possible majority for unification they will offer a border poll. Its not abandonment, it will be democracy as agreed under the terms of the GFA. In the same way as the English allowed a unification poll in Scotland.

I sincerely hope that if Irish unification is ever voted for and accepted North and South, that the British or some other international peacekeeping force will be deployed in the usual NI hotspots for a good many years.

forgottenhills

Fusitive wrote: »

Thats what the British wanted, a civil war to break out in the North. John Weir who was an RUC Seargent and a member of the UVF Glenanne gang and has provided huge amounts of testimony about the troubles said they were colluding with the UVF to organise a mass shooting at a Catholic school to make the conflict spiral out of control and for a civil war to break out so that British Forces would have justification to go to full war in the North.

All these things sound like baths!t conspiracy theories but these are British sworn affidavits on collusion during the troubles. It's not Nationalist propaganda.

So you are focusing on one single conspiracy theory rather then the mountain of evidence that the British have spent billions and the lives of many of their soldiers with little or no thanks over the years in suppressing violence from both sides in NI and avoiding what would have escalated into a full blown civil war there between two sets of armed hardliners?

FrancieBrady

Berserker wrote: »

I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs.

(*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.

What immediately raises the hackles of the dominant unionist party these days is the involvement of Dublin in any way shape or form.
That is motivated by a deep seated insecurity, so I take your delight with the GFA with a pinch of salt tbh. Unionists knew what it meant. And they would be 'delighted' to wreck it. Hence the Brexit mess.

I could never pretend to have a 'roadmap to a UI' financial or otherwise. But I have to inform you that republicanism is far from dead. Work is being done in preparation for a UI by the very people I thought would never go near it.

https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/implementationofthegoodfridayagreement/jcigfa2016/brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland.pdf

evil_seed

There's far too many pages to trawl through to get the info I'm looking for.
Can anyone ELI5 what Saoradh stand for and what NIRA stand for?

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What immediately raises the hackles of the dominant unionist party these days is the involvement of Dublin in any way shape or form.
That is motivated by a deep seated insecurity, so I take your delight with the GFA with a pinch of salt tbh. Unionists knew what it meant. And they would be 'delighted' to wreck it. Hence the Brexit mess.

I could never pretend to have a 'roadmap to a UI' financial or otherwise. But I have to inform you that republicanism is far from dead. Work is being done in preparation for a UI by the very people I thought would never go near it.

https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/implementationofthegoodfridayagreement/jcigfa2016/brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland.pdf

Yes it is obvious that many in the DUP were not is favour of the GFA and would like to see it shrivel out of existence.

However it is equally clear to many neutral observers that SF don't seem to be in any great rush to restart the institutions of the GFA either.

The GFA and devolved government in NI was leading to a separate NI identity among many NI people, particularly many of the younger generation in NI who didn't want to label themselves as British or Irish. This emergence of a nascent NI identity was an uncomfortable development for SF so in many ways they are happy to see the devolved government break down. Revolutionary movements thrive on chaos not settled conditions.

Fusitive

evil_seed wrote: »

There's far too many pages to trawl through to get the info I'm looking for.
Can anyone ELI5 what Saoradh stand for and what NIRA stand for?

Saoradh are the alleged Republican political wing of the NIRA which stands for the New IRA.

zapitastas

RobMc59 wrote: »

NI suffered in the Belfast blitz in WW2 and stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the UK -do you think Britain will abandon such a valiant nation?-dream on.

The north is a far cry from what anyone could term as a nation

Fusitive

forgottenhills wrote: »

So you are focusing on one single conspiracy theory rather then the mountain of evidence that the British have spent billions and the lives of many of their soldiers with little or no thanks over the years in suppressing violence from both sides in NI and avoiding what would have escalated into a full blown civil war there between two sets of armed hardliners?

No not one conspiracy, there's is literal mounds of testimony(probably a library at this stage) of British collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

forgottenhills

zapitastas wrote: »

The north is a far cry from what anyone could term as a nation

NI is obviously predominately a mix of 2 national identities, Irish and British, with a more recent move to a NI identity for some. The problem is that the hardliners on both sides try to pretend that the other identity doesn't exist, or doesn't have the right to exist.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

Yes it is obvious that many in the DUP were not is favour of the GFA and would like to see it shrivel out of existence.

However it is equally clear to many neutral observers that SF don't seem to be in any great rush to restart the institutions of the GFA either.

The GFA and devolved government in NI was leading to a separate NI identity among many NI people, particularly many of the younger generation in NI who didn't want to label themselves as British or Irish. This emergence of a nascent NI identity was an uncomfortable development for SF so in many ways they are happy to see the devolved government break down. Revolutionary movements thrive on chaos not settled conditions.

I see your point. But again reality confounds your notion. SF agreed a deal with the DUP to get the institutions up and running. But the backroom DUP (the same one that scotched the May agreement with the EU) said no to that.

What are SF meant to do, just cave in and allow the DUP to keep vetoing progress?

forgottenhills

Fusitive wrote: »

No not one conspiracy, there's is literal mounds of testimony(probably a library at this stage) of British collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

It all depends on what you define as "British". There was undoubtedly some collusion between some elements of NI-born security forces and some Loyalists, less when the (mainly English) British came over to run things. There was also collusion between some British and some Republicans as all methods of infiltration were used, both fair and foul.

But the much bigger picture is that the presence of British troops in NI and billions of British money spent there kept a lid on things and prevented what could easily have become a civil war with tens of thousands of casualties and widespread destruction of property, Syria or Libya style.

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I see your point. But again reality confounds your notion. SF agreed a deal with the DUP to get the institutions up and running. But the backroom DUP (the same one that scotched the May agreement with the EU) said no to that.

What are SF meant to do, just cave in and allow the DUP to keep vetoing progress?

If SF really wanted to restart the devolved government in NI they would be making a much bigger song and dance about it. They will restart it only when and if it suits, same for the DUP. At the moment SF are probably very happy with where the Brexit situation has led and the DUP a lot less happy. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point over the summer the DUP are the ones who will suddenly want to restart the NI executive.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

If SF really wanted to restart the devolved government in NI they would be making a much bigger song and dance about it.

How would they do that?

RobMc59

forgottenhills wrote: »

Its not a matter of Britain abandoning a "valiant nation". When the British see a possible majority for unification they will offer a border poll. Its not abandonment, it will be democracy as agreed under the terms of the GFA. In the same way as the English allowed a unification poll in Scotland.

I sincerely hope that if Irish unification is ever voted for and accepted North and South, that the British or some other international peacekeeping force will be deployed in the usual NI hotspots for a good many years.

You are correct,If a majority in NI wish for UI that's fine but until then NI remains part of the Union but the insensitivity of those people marching so soon after events in Derry show there are some who have no respect for anything that we all hold dear.

forgottenhills

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How would they do that?

Oh, I don't know, SF seem to be devoting their energies recently to organising events and making speeches around their opposition to the Brexit "hard border" concept and printing off posters, t-shirts and mugs about Brexit then anything to do with getting a devolved government back in place in NI. There is more mileage there for them.

If the DUP eventually cop on (which may not even happen) that it would be best for them to get a NI executive back in place I would speculate that SF will at that point ratchet up their demands to allow something to go back in place.

Junkyard Tom

The only thing that will motivate the likes of the DUP to get the north's institutions up-and-running is the threat of joint British/Irish authority.

The main reason we even had the DUP get involved in devolved administration of the north according to Paisley himself was that the British government were 'going to pull the plug'.

Farawayhome

Berserker wrote: »

I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs.

(*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.

You've been given the stats, why do you not accept them or what's the problem? The British side killed over 1,000 civilians, they were the biggest threat to Irish people.

Farawayhome

forgottenhills wrote: »

So you are focusing on one single conspiracy theory rather then the mountain of evidence that the British have spent billions and the lives of many of their soldiers with little or no thanks over the years in suppressing violence from both sides in NI and avoiding what would have escalated into a full blown civil war there between two sets of armed hardliners?

The British armed forces were welcomed by Nationalists at the start. They then started shooting innocents dead. The numbers joining the PIRA increased hugely after this. You are downplaying the massive role the British state played in escalating the war. Once the negative worldwide press they were getting for openly shooting civilians, they changed tactic and colluded with unionist extremists to do the murdering.

Farawayhome

forgottenhills wrote: »

It all depends on what you define as "British". There was undoubtedly some collusion between some elements of NI-born security forces and some Loyalists, less when the (mainly English) British came over to run things. There was also collusion between some British and some Republicans as all methods of infiltration were used, both fair and foul.

But the much bigger picture is that the presence of British troops in NI and billions of British money spent there kept a lid on things and prevented what could easily have become a civil war with tens of thousands of casualties and widespread destruction of property, Syria or Libya style.

By shooting innocents dead? By bombing Irish towns and cities? By killing children?

twinytwo

Berserker wrote: »

I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs.

(*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.

Would you also be opposed to prosecution of the numerous british soldiers that committed murder and other attrocities and walked away

James Brown

Berserker wrote: »

Never knew the IRA were the negotiating type.

The IRA were in talks with the British government long before any GFA.

forgottenhills wrote: »

If you understood history you would realise that the "Brits" as you call them saved our asses in WW11. They were under enormous military pressure after Dunkirk and if they had signed a peace agreement with Hitler at that point (and they were under huge pressure to do so) then the Nazis could have just walked into Ireland any time they liked. But the so called Republicans will never give credit to Britain for anything.

And getting back to the point of this thread, why are there PIRA apologists on this thread, as you are in a roundabout way defending the actions of the Real IRA? It is also shameful that the PIRA obviously did not destroy all their weapons and explosives as they were supposed to do as part of the GFA, and claimed that they did, and that some of the PIRA's semtex has now turned up in the hands of their equally psychopathic offspring, the Real IRA.

If you knew your history you'd know DeValera supported Hitler and went to the German ambassadors home to give condolences upon hearing of Hitler's death. FYI: The U.S. and many others saved the Brits ass.

Even the PIRA don't support or condone the Real or continuity IRA, so what are you talking about? So when the average drug dealer can pick up a gun you think the current shower are using weapons hid from twenty odd years ago by an organisation they don't belong to?

James Brown

Berserker wrote: »

I'm a Unionist, as you know and the GFA (*) delighted me. It's took republican terrorism out of play; the biggest threat to people on this island and guaranteed that NI will remain as part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime; speaking as a thirty something. We both know that a UI is a complete non-starter from an economic perspective. If you disagree with this, I'd welcome a financial road map for a UI. The likes of Saoradh show us exactly where republicanism is these days; on it's last legs.

(*) I was opposed to certain parts of the agreement such as the release of republicans from prison.

As is the current situation in the partially occupied province of Ulster, yet there is sits.

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote:

If you knew your history you'd know DeValera supported Hitler and went to the German ambassadors home to give condolences upon hearing of Hitler's death. FYI: The U.S. and many others saved the Brits ass.

De Valera visit to the German ambassador apparently was as much to do with how badly he got on with the American ambassador as anything. If you look at Ireland in WW2 Ireland was neutral in favour of the allies especially as the war progressed. From allowing allied planes to use the donegal gap(one of planes that spotted the bismark before it was sunk used this gap) to giving weather reports which helped with DDay. Those being just 2 examples.

On the overall topic the UK will leave when the voters of NI want them to. How killing your fellow Irish people helps persuade them to do this is anyone's guess.

FrancieBrady

forgottenhills wrote: »

Oh, I don't know, SF seem to be devoting their energies recently to organising events and making speeches around their opposition to the Brexit "hard border" concept and printing off posters, t-shirts and mugs about Brexit then anything to do with getting a devolved government back in place in NI. There is more mileage there for them.

If the DUP eventually cop on (which may not even happen) that it would be best for them to get a NI executive back in place I would speculate that SF will at that point ratchet up their demands to allow something to go back in place.

You told us that they should be doing all they can to get the devolved government up and running.

You still haven't told us 'how they would do that'? they have already negotiated a deal, which was agreed then un-agreed by the DUP.

RobMc59

Just watched the sein feinn leader on BBC news and was pleased she was speaking sense for a change- denouncing the killers saying they don't represent Ireland and wants them to disband-the only way forward is via peaceful means.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just watched the sein feinn leader on BBC news and was pleased she was speaking sense for a change- denouncing the killers saying they don't represent Ireland and wants them to disband-the only way forward is via peaceful means.

Hate having to point this out Rob - but SF have been saying this about dissidents since 1998 and also warning about their rise.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hate having to point this out Rob - but SF have been saying this about dissidents since 1998 and also warning about their rise.

I wasn't implying she has ever condoned these people-I'm sure she is a decent person if a little misguided -there are some who appear to consider these actions justified(I know you're not one of them)and it's good they can't claim to represent decent law abiding republicans.

James Brown

PeadarCo wrote: »

De Valera visit to the German ambassador apparently was as much to do with how badly he got on with the American ambassador as anything. If you look at Ireland in WW2 Ireland was neutral in favour of the allies especially as the war progressed. From allowing allied planes to use the donegal gap(one of planes that spotted the bismark before it was sunk used this gap) to giving weather reports which helped with DDay. Those being just 2 examples.

On the overall topic the UK will leave when the voters of NI want them to. How killing your fellow Irish people helps persuade them to do this is anyone's guess.

He was a fair weather Nazi sympathiser? Fair enough so. Ask any polish about Ireland leaving the lights on.
Away the point was being put forward that 'the brits saved our asses' in WW 2. Hardly, they needed saving themselves and I think had an in with Hitler.

Agreed. I don't think there's much appetite for a return to the troubles.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wasn't implying she has ever condoned these people-I'm sure she is a decent person if a little misguided -there are some who appear to consider these actions justified(I know you're not one of them)and it's good they can't claim to represent decent law abiding republicans.

Didn't come across like that.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just watched the sein feinn leader on BBC news and was pleased she was speaking sense for a change- denouncing the killers saying they don't represent Ireland and wants them to disband-the only way forward is via peaceful means.

You were just having a little dig. Fair enough.