A thread for "Republicans" Only

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

sure thats not random violence in public to change a social, religious AND political point of view, eh? :rolleyes:

Thats like saying the drunk knacker in the night club i was at last friday night who started a fight with the black toliet attendent was making a serious political statement on the current state of the governments immigration policy :rolleyes:

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

sure thats not BA harrassment or anything.

It was harrassment ... it wasn't terrorism ... seriously, what part of that do you not get?????

Milo

It was harrassment ... it wasn't terrorism ... seriously, what part of that do you not get?????

I love it...a state sends it's army into another country to be "oppressors or something" in a manner which would befit any "terrorist" organisation and it's not terrorism!!! I tell ye, ye should start posting this sh*t in the humour forum!

As for your:

How many civilians did the BA kill?

I'll name one famous British soldier guilty of this: Lee Clegg! He got promoted for doing it and all! And I'm sure ye will all say that they deserved it because they were "joy-riding" and ran a check-point that never existed except in the minds of the soldiers that were closing ranks to protect state-sponsored murder but hey whatever lets you sleep more soundly at night.

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Thats like saying the drunk knacker in the night club i was at last friday night who started a fight with the black toliet attendent was making a serious political statement on the current state of the governments immigration policy :rolleyes:

no offense man, but thats just balls.

Dont be afraid to state you really havent the blindest ****ing clue as to what I mean because to be frank, you really dont.

Your suppose 'knacker v blackperson' made up scenario is nothing like the real life fact that british soldiers terrorise innocent civillians. Please cop on a bit wil you?

If you cant debate, then dont try.

tomMK1

Milo wrote:

I love it...a state sends it's army into another country to be "oppressors or something" in a manner which would befit any "terrorist" organisation and it's not terrorism!!! I tell ye, ye should start posting this sh*t in the humour forum!

As for your:


I'll name one famous British soldier guilty of this: Lee Clegg! He got promoted for doing it and all! And I'm sure ye will all say that they deserved it because they were "joy-riding" and ran a check-point that never existed except in the minds of the soldiers that were closing ranks to protect state-sponsored murder but hey whatever lets you sleep more soundly at night.

we've been there already. theres no point debating such things with certain people on here as they'll just go back to the start again as they dont have an answer for clegg .. actually last time is was something about joyriders deserving to be killed.

MODS - you should do something about the futile repitition on here - points are raised (like clegg), ignored and end up being raised again (like now) and more than likely will be ignored again.

That just makes for a boring, boring debate

horseflesh

Milo wrote:

I love it...a state sends it's army into another country to be "oppressors or something" in a manner which would befit any "terrorist" organisation and it's not terrorism!!! I tell ye, ye should start posting this sh*t in the humour forum!

As for your:


I'll name one famous British soldier guilty of this: Lee Clegg! He got promoted for doing it and all! And I'm sure ye will all say that they deserved it because they were "joy-riding" and ran a check-point that never existed except in the minds of the soldiers that were closing ranks to protect state-sponsored murder but hey whatever lets you sleep more soundly at night.

ONE???? That's it, one?? And to you think he was under orders to kill civilians? Honestly now?
How does that compare to how many civilians the Provos killed?

(and by the way, yes I have heard of Bloody Sunday. No doubt the SFers will jump at the chance to bring up something from the distant past. Only when it suits them though of course. When the shoe is on the other foot it'll be "don't live in the past, time to move on" etc; )

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

If you were chased out of a nightclub by 3 off-duty soldiers, well that's unlucky, but surely if they were off-duty then to all intents and purposes they were 3 civilians chasing you. I don't know why it happened nor do I really care, but if 3 English blokes took an aversion to you and chased after you how the hell can you class that as terrorism???? ?

because they werent civillians, they were soldiers, terrorising an innocent civillian. If they hadda got me, they more than likely would have severely beat (or worse) an innocent civillian. if the IRA dont that, its terrorism. What happened me was mild - the shankhill butchers (part UDR) didnt just beat catholics, they killed them ... Lee Clegg and his ilk have killed innocent people .. the list could go on if I could be arsed googling some, but I cant.

The point STILL remains - you can call the IRA terrorists as (you say) if they terrorise civillians with the intend to just terrorise but the BA (on or off duty) do the same thing. ergo, they be terrorists too.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

ONE???? That's it, one?? And to you think he was under orders to kill civilians? Honestly now?
How does that compare to how many civilians the Provos killed?

(and by the way, yes I have heard of Bloody Sunday. No doubt the SFers will jump at the chance to bring up something from the distant past. Only when it suits them though of course. When the shoe is on the other foot it'll be "don't live in the past, time to move on" etc; )

One??

oh yeah ... the brits are good people. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Milo wrote:

I love it...a state sends it's army into another country to be "oppressors or something"

Exactly ... why would a state with overwhelming military superiority and numbers, who control the government, and have the majority of the people on their side, need to use terrorism??? It wouldn't make sense.

Terrorism is a tactic used against the controlling party, not by it. If Al Queda could fight the USA head on you think they would use terrorism? What would be the point of 9-11 if they could simply storm the beaches of Florida and work their way up?? If the IRA had enough miltary power to occupy England, do you think they would still be blowing up pubs and shopping centers if they had IRA men visible on the streets of London???

As for your:

Milo wrote:

I'll name one famous British soldier guilty of this: Lee Clegg! He got promoted for doing it and all!

Lee Clegg commited a war crime, just like the USA and British soldiers in Iraq are doing every day. What ever his justification, it was an illegal action, he should have been punished for it.

But it simply wasn't terrorism, in the same way the IRA robbing the Northern Bank wasn't terrorism, it was a bank robbery for money.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

ONE???? That's it, one??

http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/daniel_hegarty.htm

theres more if you look

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

The point STILL remains - you can call the IRA terrorists as (you say) if they terrorise civillians with the intend to just terrorise but the BA (on or off duty) do the same thing. ergo, they be terrorists too.

If the IRA are simply "terrorising" people (ie Robert McCarty murder, Northern Bank robbery etc), that is not a terrorist act. If they are blowing up pubs in England for a political movtive, that is a terrorist act.

FFS tomMK1, that has already been explained to you, are you being argumentative on purpose?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

in the same way the IRA robbing the Northern Bank wasn't terrorism, it was a bank robbery for money.

please provide us with your proof that the IRA robbed the Northern bank?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

If the IRA are simply "terrorising" people (ie Robert McCarty murder, Northern Bank robbery etc), that is not a terrorist act. If they are blowing up pubs in England for a political movtive, that is a terrorist act.

FFS tomMK1, that has already been explained to you, are you being argumentative on purpose?

no. its just your explaination is a tad stupid, is one sided and basically makes no sense.

You on the other hand, are you just blatently ignoring the facts and trying to hide them with descriptions of what YOU think terrorism means?

Am I meant to say 'oh wicknight has told me what terrorism means ... i must agree and not question' ? Its been 'explained' to me has it? God thats some high horse you have there mate.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

please provide us with your proof that the IRA robbed the Northern bank?

please provide me proof that the IRA don't target children.... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

You on the other hand, are you just blatently ignoring the facts and trying to hide them with descriptions of what YOU think terrorism means?

It's not my definition of terrorism, its the definition of terrorism

You seem to think terrorism is simply anyone doing anything bad to anyone else ... British Soldier hits someone over the head, terrorist act, IRA man stabs someone in a fight, terrorist act, British Soldier rapes a girl in a night club, terrorism act ... etc etc which is just nonsense

Your argument makes as much sense as you saying the action of the BA man chasing you out of the night club was a sexual assualt (something the BA are also infamous for). It clearly wasn't a sexual assualt (the man clearly had no sexual interest in you), just like it clearly wasn't an act of terrorism (i very much doubt he hoped to bring around politic change in the general population through the threat of continued chasing out of a night clubs).

tomMK1

yadda yadda.

the fact remains, the british army, in the eyes of northern irish nationalists, are terrorists. all the gibbering in the world wont change that.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

because they werent civillians, they were soldiers, terrorising an innocent civillian. If they hadda got me, they more than likely would have severely beat (or worse) an innocent civillian. if the IRA dont that, its terrorism. What happened me was mild - the shankhill butchers (part UDR) didnt just beat catholics, they killed them ... Lee Clegg and his ilk have killed innocent people .. the list could go on if I could be arsed googling some, but I cant.

The point STILL remains - you can call the IRA terrorists as (you say) if they terrorise civillians with the intend to just terrorise but the BA (on or off duty) do the same thing. ergo, they be terrorists too.

Your arguement is so flawed it's easier to find the holes......
In that "Protestant" nightclub (whatever that is) you were attacked by 3 w@nkers who were on a night out and looking for trouble. Not soldiers acting on orders. Unless you suspect they were on some sort of undercover operation, do you?
Yes if they had caught you (and I am genuinely glad they didn't, lucky escape) they would have beaten the crap out of you, at least. But it would have been an act of thuggery, not terrorism (State sponsored or otherwise).

As I understand it, when the IRA carried out such beatings it was a part of their modus operandi, part of their policy.

Yes I do call the IRA terrorists, always have.
But I honestly don't see how you can say the British Army "do the same thing" when it's clear they don't. I absolutely accept that they might harrass and intimidate, but engage in terrorist activity? I don't think so.

Anyway, this "debate" is pointless, nobody is going to win. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
Want to call it a day?

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

Your argument makes as much sense as you saying the action of the BA man chasing you out of the night club was a sexual assualt (something the BA are also infamous for). It clearly wasn't a sexual assualt (the man clearly had no sexual interest in you), just like it clearly wasn't an act of terrorism (i very much doubt he hoped to bring around politic change in the general population through the threat of continued chasing out of a night clubs).

what in gods name are you on about now? sexual what? are you mad? I was being terorrised by a brit. they violently beat other civillians on that occasion. off duty of not, they were showing just what kind of loutish arseholes they are. they're intent is to terrorise nationalists.

tomMK1

horseflesh wrote:

Your arguement is so flawed it's easier to find the holes......
In that "Protestant" nightclub (whatever that is) you were attacked by 3 w@nkers who were on a night out and looking for trouble. Not soldiers acting on orders. Unless you suspect they were on some sort of undercover operation, do you?
Yes if they had caught you (and I am genuinely glad they didn't, lucky escape) they would have beaten the crap out of you, at least. But it would have been an act of thuggery, not terrorism (State sponsored or otherwise).

As I understand it, when the IRA carried out such beatings it was a part of their modus operandi, part of their policy.

Yes I do call the IRA terrorists, always have.
But I honestly don't see how you can say the British Army "do the same thing" when it's clear they don't. I absolutely accept that they might harrass and intimidate, but engage in terrorist activity? I don't think so.

Anyway, this "debate" is pointless, nobody is going to win. You won't convince me and I won't convince you.
Want to call it a day?

its no debate. go to the north, say Omagh for example - ask 50 random people what they think a terrorist is and you'd (obviously by the looks of it) be surprised how many would say 'the brits' .... its not just a cracked idea Ive had or anything

tomMK1

as for debating - i can name a string of people that if I were a mod would be banend for trolling for arguments

tomMK1

Wicknight wrote:

please provide me proof that the IRA don't target children.... :rolleyes:

i have never said I have any proof, i said i would ASSUME that they dont target civillians. there are many others who would agree with me (thats like in the real world)

You on the other hand have made a claim you cant back up. its about time you retracted it.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

they were showing just what kind of loutish arseholes they are.

There!! You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what they were doing, no more, no less.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

as for debating - i can name a string of people that if I were a mod would be banend for trolling for arguments

Am I one of them?

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

its no debate. go to the north, say Omagh for example - ask 50 random people what they think a terrorist is and you'd (obviously by the looks of it) be surprised how many would say 'the brits' .... its not just a cracked idea Ive had or anything

How about I go to Lisburn and ask 50 "random" people there?
It's not random if you point me in the direction of the people you want me to ask.

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

i have never said I have any proof, i said i would ASSUME that they dont target civillians.

You assume they don't target civilians?

Based on what? The fact that they put bombs in areas crowded with civilians??

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

oh yeah ... the brits are good people. :rolleyes:

I would say most of them are actually.

horseflesh

tomMK1 wrote:

i have never said I have any proof, i said i would ASSUME that they dont target civillians. there are many others who would agree with me (thats like in the real world)

You're assuming they didn't target civilians, and yet they killed how many hundreds????
That would make them incredibly incompetent wouldn't it?
Unless maybe, just maybe, they actually did target civilians.......

Zombrex

tomMK1 wrote:

what in gods name are you on about now? sexual what? are you mad? I was being terorrised by a brit. they violently beat other civillians on that occasion. off duty of not, they were showing just what kind of loutish arseholes they are. they're intent is to terrorise nationalists.

I'm going to put this is big font so hopefully you will understand a bit better

Terrorism is not simply someone terrorising you

Rape is terrorising, it isn't terrorism.

A drunk driver is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

Walking down O'Connel Street at 2am is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

A burglery is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

A race crime stabbing is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

A Nazi soldier taking pot shots at Jews is terrorising, it isn't terrorism

on and on and on we go ...

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

the fact remains, the british army, in the eyes of northern irish nationalists, are terrorists. all the gibbering in the world wont change that.

So what you're saying is, a group of people of whom you are one have made up their minds about something, and no matter what's pointed out to them they refuse to contemplate changing their perception. Hmm.

tomMK1 wrote:

If people are going to argue points, yo normally take some heed to what others say and then reformulate your thoughts. That isnt happening.

Hmm.

uberwolf

tomMK1 wrote:

as for debating - i can name a string of people that if I were a mod would be banend for trolling for arguments

but you're not, so keep your opinions to yourself unless you need to report a post. But keep it off thread