North & South

tomMK1

rsynnott wrote:

Well, in this case the cause is a bunch of terrorists who want to force something on a population that the majority doesn't want...

the catholic population dont want equality? well .. thats a new one, unless you mean the british army and crew of course - then you might have a point.

Granted, the time has come for the IRA to go - and they are presently working on making that happen - but if they had never existed at all, we wouldnt be looking at an equal people in the north right now - it'd still be unionist rule and **** you fenian.

I think its 'well in this case people are taking everything for granted, just like typical huimans do' which will probably be the undoing of the peace process.

tomMK1

tomMK1 wrote:

but if they had never existed at all, we wouldnt be looking at an equal people in the north right now - it'd still be unionist rule and **** you fenian.

I doubt that.
None of the inequalities of the 60's and 70's would have survived E.U membership.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

ehhh ... run that by me again? The SAS runn up to someone, say 'Im fighting you' and then has a game of fisty cuffs? Really, come on. thats airy fairy land you're living in.

No, 'real' soldiers, liek th ebritish army, kill innocent people, then plant guns on them, just like they done outside omagh in 1987 when they shot three people they know were republicans, then decided to arm them afterwards so they could say they shot in self defense. what gweat bwave soldiers.

I wasn't comparing the IRA to special forces (SAS) charged with their capture/killing whatever (I didn't say that British agents haven't behaved reprehensibly at times-I totally accept that they have). You said there would be casualties of war, like the two kids in Warrington were caught up in a firefight between real soldiers. They weren't. They were blown to pieces by a bomb left behind by an IRA member who scurried back to whatever hole he came from afterwards. That's a cowardly act of the highest order. I have family who fought in real wars on real battlefields, against real soldiers who shoot back, not targeting children out on a saturday afternoon to get a new pair of trainers!

axer

murphaph wrote:

You reveal your true colours as a terrorist sympathiser with the above statement.

Your funny! Are you ashamed of Connolly, Pearse, De Velara and the other leaders of the Easter Rising? Do you denounce their actions on and before Easter Week 1916?

tomMK1

Earthman wrote:

I doubt that.
None of the inequalities of the 60's and 70's would have survived E.U membership.

to a degree true, but a lot of rubbish lasted up until the early 90s and no-one outside the north was complaining , EU membership or not. actually Amnesty was, but noone was listening.....

tomMK1

murphaph wrote:

I wasn't comparing the IRA to special forces (SAS) charged with their capture/killing whatever (I didn't say that British agents haven't behaved reprehensibly at times-I totally accept that they have). You said there would be casualties of war, like the two kids in Warrington were caught up in a firefight between real soldiers. They weren't. They were blown to pieces by a bomb left behind by an IRA member who scurried back to whatever hole he came from afterwards. That's a cowardly act of the highest order. I have family who fought in real wars on real battlefields, against real soldiers who shoot back, not targeting children out on a saturday afternoon to get a new pair of trainers!

So flying over countries and bombing from the sky is manly?

Whatever - you personal opinion on what a soldier does doesnt take away from the fact that you really arent basing your argument on reality - its based on what you perceive reality to be ... which isnt the same thing. you dont have to be part of a legal army to be a soldier afaik.

tomMK1

I have family who fought in real wars on real battlefields, against real soldiers who shoot back

i do think murphaph that you are getting to the crux of your anti republican feelings

murphaph

axer wrote:

Your funny! Are you ashamed of Connolly, Pearse, De Velara and the other leaders of the Easter Rising? Do you denounce their actions on and before Easter Week 1916?

What actions are you refering to?

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

So flying over countries and bombing from the sky is manly?

It is when there are batteries of anti-aircraft guns and fighters trying, usually successfully to shoot you down.

tomMK1 wrote:

Whatever - you personal opinion on what a soldier does doesnt take away from the fact that you really arent basing your argument on reality - its based on what you perceive reality to be ... which isnt the same thing.

Your perception of reality would also fall under the above then.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

i do think murphaph that you are getting to the crux of your anti republican feelings

I'm a republican.

tomMK1

good for you. Personally i think you're a confused one, but thats only my opinion.

tomMK1

murphaph wrote:

It is when there are batteries of anti-aircraft guns and fighters trying, usually successfully to shoot you down.

ehh .. i think aviation technology is a tad more advanced these days

Your perception of reality would also fall under the above then.

Id have to disagree.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

good for you. Personally i think you're a confused one, but thats only my opinion.

You think I'm a confused republican? Why's that then?

tomMK1

well, you are a republican because you believe in the republic of Ireland, which is fair enough, but yet your beliefs differ (and could be construed as being almost the opposite) from that of the founders of the republic which leads me to believe either you a confused republican or the founders of the republic were. You were asked earlier by someone on a thread (maybe this one?) about the leadup to the 1916 rising, but you never answered that one so I am guessing why you are a republican.

tomMK1

murphaph wrote:

What actions are you refering to?

this seems to be how you answer questions - by ignoring the question and ask more. Tell me, what is your answer to the question you 'answered' here? It will help me in understanding your beliefs.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

well, you are a republican because you believe in the republic of Ireland, which is fair enough, but yet your beliefs differ (and could be construed as being almost the opposite) from that of the founders of the republic which leads me to believe either you a confused republican or the founders of the republic were. You were asked earlier by someone on a thread (maybe this one?) about the leadup to the 1916 rising, but you never answered that one so I am guessing why you are a republican.

You're position is so narrow minded it's unreal. You don't have a monopoly on the term 'republican' in Northern Ireland. I believe in republics over monarchies. That's what a republican is. There are republicans in Britain too you know! Perhaps you should open your mind instead of trying to label us all.

I was asked a vague question, to which I sought clarification before blustering into a tirade. When I receive clarification on that question I will answer it.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

this seems to be how you answer questions - by ignoring the question and ask more. Tell me, what is your answer to the question you 'answered' here? It will help me in understanding your beliefs.

I am waiting for the clarification of what the questioner was refering to before I launch into a part political broadcast. When the poster comes back with clarification I will come back with my measured and reasoned response. I know it doesn't matter to some here what questions are asked-the response will be a standard SFIRA response, straight from the textbook.

FTA69

oscarBravo wrote:

Unless you can demonstrate that every resident of a "nationalist" area is routinely harassed

So what are you saying oscar? That all residents of a Republican area have to be harassed before it can be said the police don't like Republicans/Nationalists?

I know Northerners who live in nationalist areas and who have no difficulty with the police.

And as I am pointing out repeatedly there is scarcely a nationalist area in the whole state that does not have a history of police oppression and collusion.

You evidently have a radically different concept of "polite" to mine.

And what would you do if a police officer started threatening your family or your own personal safety? What would you do if they were 2 inches away from your face screaming obscenities as frequently happens upon an unprovoked arrest? To be honest you are attempting to detail circumstances you have no experience of.

In your case, you wave placards and give cheeky answers, and you're surprised when you get a hostile response?

Hold on now mate, are you honestly attempting to justify my being racially abused ("Fenian bastard" is akin to calling a Traveller a knacker or a Nigerian a "blackie") simply because I excercised my legitimate right to protest? I gave no cheeky answers, I stated my required information and simply informed him of my rights.

As for those who are insinuating that the Special Branch has "gone", this article states clearly its existance and the need to monitor it.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=1874790&p=y8748x5&n=1874882&x=&fs=2

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

As for those who are insinuating that the Special Branch has "gone", this article states clearly its existance and the need to monitor it.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=1874790&p=y8748x5&n=1874882&x=&fs=2

Perhaps you should have looked at the date of publication of that article.

NI police reform needs more work - report
10/12/2003 - 07:45:05

The report I posted from the SDLP is from 2004. Clearly things changed under Patten in that time and Special Branch's abolition was one of those things.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

So what are you saying oscar? That all residents of a Republican area have to be harassed before it can be said the police don't like Republicans/Nationalists?

Way to dodge the point. Let's recap, shall we? Some people claim to be harassed because of their religion. I ask how the police know what their religion is. You reply that it's because of where they live. I respond by asking why not everyone in a nationalist area gets harassed. You go off on a rhetorical tangent.

A more accurate interpretation of my point would be that if not all residents of a Republican area are harassed, there must be some other factor that leads to the harassment of specific individuals.

FTA69 wrote:

And as I am pointing out repeatedly there is scarcely a nationalist area in the whole state that does not have a history of police oppression and collusion.

...and I keep pointing out that the "oppression" seems to affect some nationalists more than others; ergo there must be a factor other than your address that makes you a target.

FTA69 wrote:

And what would you do if a police officer started threatening your family or your own personal safety? What would you do if they were 2 inches away from your face screaming obscenities as frequently happens upon an unprovoked arrest? To be honest you are attempting to detail circumstances you have no experience of.

There's a simple reason I don't have experience of such situations: I don't put myself in situations where I'll find myself in conflict with the police.

A relative of mine got lost in a Northern town several years ago, and found himself in a cul-de-sac behind a heavily fortified police station. When he turned around to leave, his path was blocked by a Land Rover, and he was asked some pointed questions by a heavily-armed RUC officer. He sheepishly explained his situation, and was politely given directions by the officer.

What do you suppose would have happened if he had announced his name, address and date of birth, and that he knew his rights?

FTA69 wrote:

Hold on now mate, are you honestly attempting to justify my being racially abused ("Fenian bastard" is akin to calling a Traveller a knacker or a Nigerian a "blackie") simply because I excercised my legitimate right to protest? I gave no cheeky answers, I stated my required information and simply informed him of my rights.

I'm not attempting to justify anything. I'm exploring the reasons why some people have had negative experiences with the police in the North, and others have not. The way I see it, you went to the North looking for trouble, and you found it.

[edit:] Oh yeah, you forgot to explain why it's ok to be pragmatic when we're releasing convicted murderers from prison, but it's not ok to be pragmatic in dealing with the PSNI.

Wheely

murphaph wrote:

a real soldier who goes into battle with a rifle and a 50:50 chance of making it through the day.

The definition of which is highly contestable. The 4th company of 1 Para had uniforms and were acting on the behalf of their coountry when they murdered 13 unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry. As did Charlie Company 11th Brigade, American Division when they murdered 504 men women and children with their rifles at close range and in cold blood at My Lai. Were those proudly posing beside mounds of naked abused prisonrs at Abu Gharib fit into your definition of what a real soldier is? Dont get me wrong, Im not bull-headed or narrow-minded and Im not a hard-line republican either, I just think that people are capable of horrific things and the fact that one is a soldier doesn't mean that they're an exception. There are many soldiers out there who have done far worse things than some terorrists

Wheely

axer wrote:

Your funny! Are you ashamed of Connolly, Pearse, De Velara and the other leaders of the Easter Rising? Do you denounce their actions on and before Easter Week 1916?

I dont get your meaing either here. You implied that if Australian republicans had resorted to criminality, then they would no longer be a commonwealth state??? I think that was yopur meaning....then when toldthis was an implicit support of terrorism, which it could certainly be construed to be, you asked the above questions??? Maybe you wanna elaborate a little....as it stands i have greayt respect for Connolly, I think Pearse was an absolute nut-job, and De Valera was nothing more than a snake and probably responsible for a lot of what is wrong/ugly in Ireland today. But maybe i missed the point of the question......?

murphaph

Wheely wrote:

The definition of which is highly contestable. The 4th company of 1 Para had uniforms and were acting on the behalf of their coountry when they murdered 13 unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry. As did Charlie Company 11th Brigade, American Division when they murdered 504 men women and children with their rifles at close range and in cold blood at My Lai. Were those proudly posing beside mounds of naked abused prisonrs at Abu Gharib fit into your definition of what a real soldier is? Dont get me wrong, Im not bull-headed or narrow-minded and Im not a hard-line republican either, I just think that people are capable of horrific things and the fact that one is a soldier doesn't mean that they're an exception. There are many soldiers out there who have done far worse things than some terorrists

I think I may have been misunderstood. When I say real soldier, I don't mean someone who happens to be in a uniform. I mean a fighter who risks his or her own life in their pursuit of their enemy. This is in marked contrast to the examples you've cited above and also in marked contrast to IRA members leaving high explosive devices inside 2 litter bins at either end of a busy shopping street, thereby killing 2 children. These IRA members were and are gutless, spineless scum, just like soldiers in uniform who commit war crimes. The original poster compared these children to collateral damage in a conventional war. This is patently ridiculous-leaving bombs in civilian shopping areas is an attempt to murder civilians. They weren't caught in the crossfire in Warrington-they were the targets!

FTA69

Some people claim to be harassed because of their religion. I ask how the police know what their religion is. You reply that it's because of where they live. I respond by asking why not everyone in a nationalist area gets harassed. You go off on a rhetorical tangent.

Police harrasment is not purely religious (although sectarianism is a major factor) but also political, obviously a Republican living in Turf Lodge will recieve more harrasment than a middle-class Catholic on the Malone Rd.

...and I keep pointing out that the "oppression" seems to affect some nationalists more than others; ergo there must be a factor other than your address that makes you a target.

It is usually the Republican element of Northern nationalism that has suffered in the past, originally for their rebellion against the state in 1969 and subsequently for their continued opposition to the status quo.

There's a simple reason I don't have experience of such situations: I don't put myself in situations where I'll find myself in conflict with the police.

Unfortunately in this country many forms of entirely legitimate activity attract the attention of the various intelligence forces in Ireland. I was harassed twice in one day by the police, the first for handing out leaflets on collusion on a public pedestrianised street, I was subject to threats intimidation and accusations. Later on that evening I was picketing a Shell station and recieved similar treatment of seperate Branch men. Now do you think any of the above activities warranted such behaviour?

A relative of mine got lost in a Northern town several years ago, and found himself in a cul-de-sac behind a heavily fortified police station. When he turned around to leave, his path was blocked by a Land Rover, and he was asked some pointed questions by a heavily-armed RUC officer. He sheepishly explained his situation, and was politely given directions by the officer.

And what exactly is your point? We can go on with the "I know a lad" stories for hours, chances are though, if the police thought your friend was a Republican the scenario would well have been different.

The way I see it, you went to the North looking for trouble, and you found it.

Okay, so I engaged in an entirely legitimate protest and as such was racially abused, and it was me who was looking for trouble? And how would you react if Nigerians protesting deportations were called "****" by the police? Would they be looking for trouble too?

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

I was harassed twice in one day by the police, the first for handing out leaflets on collusion on a public pedestrianised street, I was subject to threats intimidation and accusations. Later on that evening I was picketing a Shell station and recieved similar treatment of seperate Branch men. Now do you think any of the above activities warranted such behaviour?

As described, probably not. I do have some questions, though: did you pursue these matters through the Garda Complaints Boards? and how do you know those involved were "Branch men"?

FTA69 wrote:

And what exactly is your point? We can go on with the "I know a lad" stories for hours, chances are though, if the police thought your friend was a Republican the scenario would well have been different.

My rather obvious point is that the attitude you get from the police is almost invariably a reflection of the attitude you display towards them.

FTA69 wrote:

Okay, so I engaged in an entirely legitimate protest and as such was racially abused, and it was me who was looking for trouble? And how would you react if Nigerians protesting deportations were called "****" by the police? Would they be looking for trouble too?

I've already said I wasn't justifying their remarks.

You still haven't explained your lopsided approach to pragmatism.

FTA69

As described, probably not. I do have some questions, though: did you pursue these matters through the Garda Complaints Boards? and how do you know those involved were "Branch men"?

No, I didn't pursue the matter through Garda channels because 1) you'd only have cops investigating cops so what would be the point? 2) complaints can often be distorted ie there have been cases of those having complained about being beaten up by the police only to be counter-accused of "attacking Gardaí". It is not worth the hassle to be honest. I knew the men were Branch because they were plain-clothes detectives on a purely political matter that would not concern other sections of the Guards.

My rather obvious point is that the attitude you get from the police is almost invariably a reflection of the attitude you display towards them.

Except for the fact that if you hold Republican beliefs you will come to the rather unpleasent attention of the police regardless of what actions or attitude you have displayed prior.

I've already said I wasn't justifying their remarks.

You still haven't explained your lopsided approach to pragmatism.

No you didn't justify them, you insinuated I was somehow deserving of them by stating I was "looking for trouble" by protesting legally and legitimately. Such an attitude has been taken by many throughout the course of history, the belittlement of oppression is just as bad as the defense of it. Regards pragmatism, it is not written in stone that one must automatically be "polite" and courteous to a force that has terrorised your community for 30 years, that sounds more like sycophancy to me.

Flex

C'mon, quit goin on about how bad the police were!!! Can't ya see that oscarBravo has destroyed your claims of 30 years of oppression and discrimination by explaining how his friend got directions when he got lost in a cul-de-sac or the time he got away without a traffic ticket!! And who the hell do ya think ya were protesting anyway?!?!?!? LOL. Sheesh :rolleyes:

tomMK1 wrote:

I find the anti republican element on this forum doesnt like getting answers (and they ignore them when they do) plus they generally disbelieve anything that doesnt suit them.

Yeah, but in fairness this is just a very pro unionist forum. People seem to choose to ignore Irish history prior to the 60's and 70's and beyond.

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

Yeah, but in fairness this is just a very pro unionist forum. People seem to choose to ignore Irish history prior to the 60's and 70's and beyond.

Erm, that was history. It's over now. We've got to move on, or we'd still be having wars with the Norwegians...

bus77

Well I don't support a united Ireland anymore. If someone had of just told me the Unionists were Germans it would have put a stop to the daydreaming.

Hydroquinone

Flex wrote:

Yeah, but in fairness this is just a very pro unionist forum. People seem to choose to ignore Irish history prior to the 60's and 70's and beyond.

I don't know if I agree with that.
I reckon there are a lot of republican and a lot of loyalist people on this board. I also think there are a lot of middly people, and these are the ones who get the most flak - from the big old republicans AND the big old loyalists.

All the "Well, if you don't agree with this specific point I'm making you must be one of THEM, you scummy person" crap gets really boring after a while.

Anyone attempting a middle ground or a bit of live and let live gets the the ever living you know what kicked out of them.