Saoradh dissident republican march in Dublin

Farawayhome

There's nothing wrong with being anti the GFA and any other agreement. A good argument can be made that the whole thing has failed. Putting effort into getting support to change things is something that should be encouraged. It should be a peaceful movement, now is not the time for violence.

eagle eye

StinkyMunkey wrote:

Not at all, those scumbags wanna hurt people just for ****s and giggles, I wanna see them get a hiding because they deserve one.
Or is that a little hard to comprehend?

You say they want to hurt people and you seem to say it's wrong. Then you go saying you want to see them hurt.
That's being a hypocrite.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

There is one legitimate armed force in this Republic and thats the Defence Forces.

I have no objection to any peaceful marches (marches including hateful messages or images aren't peaceful), but no-one should be permitted to march in military fashion in military or military-esque clothing, even if it is just army surplus.

Let them wear white shirts and black trousers if they wish, they'll just look like the lounge boys union, but all headware, scarves, dark glasses and military garb that give an utterly false impression of a citizen militia or other para-military nonsense or seek to obscure marchers faces in a gathering should be confiscated on sight.

Yes, there will be talk of infringements of rights to assemble or free expression etc, but these scum cannot have it both ways. If the Dept of Justice and Gardaí don't deal with this, the next time word of such a march gets around there will be other groups there to meet and and stop them and that could turn very violent very quickly.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe the free state army is equipped for a defence force. Our military presence is shambolic.

Dyr

Larbre34 wrote: »

the next time word of such a march gets around there will be other groups there to meet and and stop them and that could turn very violent very quickly.

You gonna posse up with a few other mouth frothing boards types?


I'd actually pay to see that fight, The keyboards vs barstoolers, its a win win scenario.

FrancieBrady

Tomas81 wrote: »

Was the shooting wrong

Absolutely wrong. I have said this a number of times now.

paw patrol

I worry that a member of government who sits at cabinet describes this march as frightening. He shouldn't be frightened , he is a leader of the country and should show leadership, fortitude and all that good stuff.
Harris is out of his depth.

Also it worries me that government sources are seeking to ban these marches as per todays media. We have free assembly and any dilution of this brings us into the territory of banning people we don't like.
That will be used on these jackasses (about 150 people) today but others down the line. I always thought Leo was a wannabe dictator and this is evident now.

Which leads me to a final point, the indo said about 150 people march. We shouldn't really lose our minds over 150 people.

zapitastas

paw patrol wrote: »

I worry that a member of government who sits at cabinet describes this march as frightening. He shouldn't be frightened , he is a leader of the country and should show leadership, fortitude and all that good stuff.
Harris is out of his depth.

Also it worries me that government sources are seeking to ban these marches as per todays media. We have free assembly and any dilution of this brings us into the territory of banning people we don't like.
That will be used on these jackasses (about 150 people) today but others down the line. I always thought Leo was a wannabe dictator and this is evident now.

Which leads me to a final point, the indo said about 150 people march. We shouldn't really lose our minds over 150 people.

Be interesting to see what sort of legislation could be put forward and would it require a referendum . Couldn't see it passing if it did need one. Curtailing civil liberties because of a few out of shape people parading around the place would be a hard sell

James Brown

They shouldn't be banned unless there is proof they were responsible for any criminal activity. I don't believe they should have been allowed march dressed as they were. Those opposed to the GFA or with any politics have a right to form political non-violent organisations.
FG/Lab made a dissident republican a Senator, so if that's not acceptance by the establishment I don't know what is.

Tomas81

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely wrong. I have said this a number of times now.

That's ok sorry just seen tail end of thread after posting at start. Saoradh aren't republicans, their leadership Dublin and Lurgan and some of Derry were dismissed for pilfering PDF

Tomas81

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They shouldn't be banned unless there is proof they were responsible for any criminal activity. I don't believe they should have been allowed march dressed as they were. Those opposed to the GFA or with any politics have a right to form political non-violent organisations.
FG/Lab made a dissident republican a Senator, so if that's not acceptance by the establishment I don't know what is.

They made a decision at the AF that they are the voice of the NIRA, alot of members of Saoradh are in prison on republican charges, they are on and the same.

Marcos

K.Flyer wrote: »

I was looking at that myself and thought could they really have made such a cokcup to be out wearing British Army Surplus DPM.
So I checked, and of All the uniforms in the world to use, they Are wearing British Army.

That's what I thought as well, so I checked it out against the Sunday World photos and it's right, they're definitely wearing British Army surplus.

Ironic isn't the word. :rolleyes:

Strumms

The best thing to do with these cretins is to deny them the Oxegyn and publicity they so badly crave. Until they get driven so incensed that they can’t reason with themselves and end stepping over the line. At which point they get hauled up in front of the courts, put away...then give them all the scope they desire and let the world see the kind of vermin we are dealing with.

Larbre34

Bambi wrote: »

You gonna posse up with a few other mouth frothing boards types?


I'd actually pay to see that fight, The keyboards vs barstoolers, its a win win scenario.

Did I say I was going to? No i didn't, but then that wouldn't suit your immaculate sarcasm.

An ad hoc group of about 300 took on PEGIDA in Dublin in Feb 2016, so its absolutely plausible that on another day a similar group would be there to oppose subversive para-military style marches after this weekend's outpouring. Do you remember the violence that day or were you too busy finding people to sneer at online?

Junkyard Tom

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They shouldn't be banned unless there is proof they were responsible for any criminal activity.

Rerouted then. If it's good enough for the unionist marchers in the north then it's good enough for them.

OldMrBrennan83

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Rerouted then. If it's good enough for the unionist marchers in the north then it's good enough for them.

We're not part of NI so what they do doesn't apply here. That's the whole idea.

JeffKenna

paw patrol wrote: »

I worry that a member of government who sits at cabinet describes this march as frightening. He shouldn't be frightened , he is a leader of the country and should show leadership, fortitude and all that good stuff.
Harris is out of his depth.

Also it worries me that government sources are seeking to ban these marches as per todays media. We have free assembly and any dilution of this brings us into the territory of banning people we don't like.
That will be used on these jackasses (about 150 people) today but others down the line. I always thought Leo was a wannabe dictator and this is evident now.

Which leads me to a final point, the indo said about 150 people march. We shouldn't really lose our minds over 150 people.

Bar the 8th ammendment this government has achieved nothing so I wouldn't be worried about them starting now. Its the usual few soundbites with no action behind them that we've become accustomed to.

RobMc59

Tomas81 wrote: »

They made a decision at the AF that they are the voice of the NIRA, alot of members of Saoradh are in prison on republican charges, they are on and the same.

They should rename themselves New Order Boys Saoradh I reckon.

rockatansky

Larbre34 wrote: »

Did I say I was going to? No i didn't, but then that wouldn't suit your immaculate sarcasm.

An ad hoc group of about 300 took on PEGIDA in Dublin in Feb 2016, so its absolutely plausible that on another day a similar group would be there to oppose subversive para-military style marches after this weekend's outpouring. Do you remember the violence that day or were you too busy finding people to sneer at online?

As far as I understand, the 300 group was made up of alot of members of Oghra Sinn Fein, who themselves parade in the same paramilitary uniforms as was seen on Sunday.

This group of people you say that could turn up to do violence against these people simply doesn't exist.

Larbre34

rockatansky wrote: »

As far as I understand, the 300 group was made up of alot of members of Oghra Sinn Fein, who themselves parade in the same paramilitary uniforms as was seen on Sunday.

This group of people you say that could turn up to do violence against these people simply doesn't exist.

I never said they would turn up to "do violence", I said if they were to be opposed, it could turn violent.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

Did I say I was going to? No i didn't, but then that wouldn't suit your immaculate sarcasm.

An ad hoc group of about 300 took on PEGIDA in Dublin in Feb 2016, so its absolutely plausible that on another day a similar group would be there to oppose subversive para-military style marches after this weekend's outpouring. Do you remember the violence that day or were you too busy finding people to sneer at online?

You're aware a few of the crowd in Anti Fa who fought with pegida were 32csm members and are now Saoradh.

rockatansky

Larbre34 wrote: »

I never said they would turn up to "do violence", I said if they were to be opposed, it could turn violent.

The Organisers of these marches are well versed on their rights and boundaries of the law. They know the Gardai are watching them very closely at all times and are just looking for an excuse to lift a few of them. They now know more than ever that the media will be watching them for any slip up. Violence is not going to happen from their side.

Likewise, I know of no other group out there who would turn up en mass to protest that could lead to violence happening through their opposition.

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe the free state army is equipped for a defence force. Our military presence is shambolic.

I am entitled to my opinion, and as it happens I agree with you the defence forces are under-resourced, however their status in the Nation are not my opinion, but rather a matter of fact.

Article 15.6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann...

1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

You can say Free State Army too, but that has no status, the statutory title is Óglaigh na hÉireann or otherwise in English, Irish Defence Forces.

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're aware a few of the crowd in Anti Fa who fought with pegida were 32csm members and are now Saoradh.

I am, its why I used the words ad hoc.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion, and as it happens I agree with you the defence forces are under-resourced, however their status in the Nation are not my opinion, but rather a matter of fact.

Article 15.6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann...

1° The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

2° No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.

You can say Free State Army too, but that has no status, the statutory title is Óglaigh na hÉireann or otherwise in English, Irish Defence Forces.

Well no in English it means Irish Volunteers, but I get what you mean. The only Oglaigh na hEireann I'd recognise is one that decommissioned it's arms in July 2005.

Tomas81

Larbre34 wrote: »

I am, its why I used the words ad hoc.

Well none of that crowd would go against Saoradh the JR society links them quite close.

Dyr

Tomas81 wrote: »

You're aware a few of the crowd in Anti Fa who fought with pegida were 32csm members and are now Saoradh.

There was about 12 of them Pegida twats being chased by a pick n mix from various groups.

300 me hole, it wasn't Thermopylae.

branie2

They are complete and utter scumbags!

Tomas81

Bambi wrote: »

There was about 12 of them Pegida twats being chased by a pick n mix from various groups.

300 me hole, it wasn't Thermopylae.

Who said 300?

MrFresh

paw patrol wrote: »

I worry that a member of government who sits at cabinet describes this march as frightening. He shouldn't be frightened , he is a leader of the country and should show leadership, fortitude and all that good stuff.
Harris is out of his depth.

Also it worries me that government sources are seeking to ban these marches as per todays media. We have free assembly and any dilution of this brings us into the territory of banning people we don't like.
That will be used on these jackasses (about 150 people) today but others down the line. I always thought Leo was a wannabe dictator and this is evident now.

Which leads me to a final point, the indo said about 150 people march. We shouldn't really lose our minds over 150 people.

We also have the Offences Against the State Act which makes it illegal to be a member of an unlawful organisation.

Farawayhome

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

TheValeyard

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

The History that defined them.

upupup

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

There is a HUGE difference between the new IRA and the old IRA and IRB.
Read a history book and you will see

Farawayhome

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

The History that defined them.

Were all of them not fighting for the same thing? Were all of them not viewed as terrorists and were unlawful organisations?

Farawayhome

upupup wrote: »

There is a HUGE difference between the new IRA and the old IRA and IRB.
Read a history book and you will see

Tell me the difference.

Larbre34

Farawayhome wrote: »

What's the difference between the New IRA, the PIRA and the old IRA/IRB? What makes any of them legitimate compared to the others?

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

zapitastas

Larbre34 wrote: »

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

The provos had an enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties. If the recent book on the issue is to be believed then they also had an enormous amount of support in the rest of the country as well

upupup

Farawayhome wrote: »

Tell me the difference.

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

OldMrBrennan83

Is this new IRA the ones doing the ATM's to tool up?

zapitastas

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

The IRA in the north in the early 70s would have have more community support than the IRA in the 20s. That is because they were the only line of defense against degenerate gangs of loyalists burning people out of house and home.

The Rape of Lucretia

Farawayhome wrote: »

Were all of them not fighting for the same thing? Were all of them not viewed as terrorists and were unlawful organisations?

They were indeed. The original IRA were an illegal murdering terrorist organisation who cleaved 26 counties out of the United Kingdom, and then wrote a historical narrative of themselves as heroes rather than enemies of the state.

Farawayhome

Larbre34 wrote: »

When Irish Volunteers, IRB and Citizen Army were active in British ruled Ireland, they weren't legitimate as far as the Crown was concerned. They acquired the support of the people who wanted their own nation state and became legitimate actors in that birth of a nation.

The IRA, PIRA, CIRA, NIRA and I can't believe its not the IRA weren't and aren't legitimate either, but have next to zero support in either jurisdiction on the island.

So none of the above which you've mentioned were legitimate according to the British government. If support is the meaure you're going by, then those who fought in 1916 were not legitimate. On the other hand, the IRA and the PIRA had huge support. I think you need to review your reasoning.

Farawayhome

Farawayhome wrote:

Tell me the difference.

Farawayhome

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

Why? They killed huge numbers, many civilians. They disappeared informers, they killed children, the civil war is littered with atrocities. Maybe you should read a history book!

Larbre34

Tomas81 wrote: »

Well no in English it means Irish Volunteers, but I get what you mean. The only Oglaigh na hEireann I'd recognise is one that decommissioned it's arms in July 2005.

And you'd be wrong. Apart from having no legitimacy in this Republic, they never had anything bar tiny pockets of support. And much of that tiny support was achieved through intimidation, racketeering, extorsion, kidnapping, torture and murder and they perpetrated any number of other completely non-political crimes such as smuggling, money and fuel laundering and despite their statements, drugs.

They were criminal scum, just like this current crowd are criminal scum for which their 'political aims' are just a red herring, only their support now could probably fit on a basketball court and as we've seen, no one is buying what they're selling, nor are they afraid of them.

upupup

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They were indeed. The original IRA were an illegal murdering terrorist organisation who cleaved 26 counties out of the United Kingdom, and then wrote a historical narrative of themselves as heroes rather than enemies of the state.

hahahahahahahahah
AM I DREAMING reading this?.............sadly no:(

Infini

It should be said that these idiot's and waster's are essentially relics long past their prime. They're also utter idiots doing this less than 2 days after a poor woman was shot dead by some idiot thinking he's hot stuff. This kinda stuff is best consigned to the past the majority are fed up with it.

janfebmar

zapitastas wrote: »

The provos had an enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties.

During the worst years of the troubles, 1969-1982, their political wing could not get a single MP or TD elected. First SF MP elected during the troubles was 82 or 83, first SF TD elected since the troubles started was not until 1997. So no, the provos did not have "enormous amount of support in the north and in the border counties."

Infini

Infini wrote:

It should be said that these idiot's and waster's are essentially relics long past their prime. They're also utter idiots doing this less than 2 days after a poor woman was shot dead by some idiot thinking he's hot stuff. This kinda stuff is best consigned to the past the majority are fed up with it.

I'd thank this more if I could.

Larbre34

Farawayhome wrote: »

If support is the meaure you're going by, then those who fought in 1916 were not legitimate.

Of course they weren't legitimate and they had little support in a divided City and Country at the time, many of whom relied on the Queen's shilling coming back from the Western Front or the pension from their dead sons and brothers. They were spat upon by a divided City and only changed things through their martyrdom. The execution of the leaders was the biggest strategic mistake the Crown made in the previous 150 years of their rule in Ireland.

I mean Jesus, dont come in here pontificating when clearly you've either read or understood very little history.

Dyr

upupup wrote: »

If you REALLY want to know,then like I said then read some history from any time before 1930.
Putting the OLD IRA in the same category as the modern IRA is crazy

Yeah, because the old IRA was all Tom Barry ambushing Tans in country lanes, they weren't shooting off duty cops and civil servants in cold blood or robbing banks and throwing bombs around on busy streets.

The Old IRA were every bit like the provos, They were just white washed afterwards.