Kerryman survey shows Ferris leading

Cork

Do Sinn Fein Believe in nationisation?

How much money does it get from the US?

Did anybody see the programme on Channel 4 last week?

Kim Tae-Woo

?

Keep on Trekin

How much does America give?

Johnny 5

To the gent on the last page who said we could have had an agreement like this 30 years ago.

Your talking through your ass. You seriously think Catholics would have acheived equal rights, a new police service and an end to violence while it was a Unionist dictatorship. Catch yourself on my friend, the IRA brought the British establishment to it's knees in 1916-21, and in 1969-1996.

mike65

Originally posted by Johnny 5
Your talking through your ass. You seriously think Catholics would have acheived equal rights, a new police service and an end to violence while it was a Unionist dictatorship. Catch yourself on my friend, the IRA brought the British establishment to it's knees in 1916-21, and in 1969-1996.

Where do all these cool newbie plonkers come from...should boards.ie subject all would be members to an IQ and personality test before letting them loose with a keyboard?.

Mike.

Von

Originally posted by mike65


Where do all these cool newbie plonkers come from...should boards.ie subject all would be members to an IQ and personality test before letting them loose with a keyboard?.

Mike.

What's innaccurate about his claim? Quite early on, the bloody Brits realised that they couldn't defeat the IRA militarily while loyalist paramilitaries believe it was their campaign that helped bring the republican movement to the negotiating table.

John White, a former member of the Ulster Freedom Fighters who walked into Downing Street as a member of the loyalist peace delegation, said 'I was proud to enter Downing Street as a member of the UFF. It justified the nature of loyalist violence, that it was political not criminal.'

Of course, if the ratlike catholics (communists?) had not insisted on getting so uppity in what was after all a prod state for a prod people, and had all shifted down south in accordance with Herr Paisley's wishes, then there wouldn't have been any bother.

Biffa Bacon

Your talking through your ass. You seriously think Catholics would have acheived equal rights, a new police service and an end to violence while it was a Unionist dictatorship. Catch yourself on my friend, the IRA brought the British establishment to it's knees in 1916-21, and in 1969-1996.

1. The IRA campaign of 1969-1997 had nothing to do with achieving “equal rights, a new police service and an end to violence”. It was about trying to create a 32-county socialist republic and this it failed to do. Therefore you cannot claim that the IRA achieved any of the aforementioned goals. Most if not all of the Catholic community’s civil rights grievances were resolved in the early 70’s, the issue of a new police service only arose in the 90’s and the ending of loyalist pogroms was brought about by the British army.

2. Northern Ireland was never a Unionist dictatorship in the true sense of the word. There were probable instances of gerrymandering but nationalists were still represented in Stormont. Just because it was based on majority rule, like most parliamentary democracies, does not make it a dictatorship.

3. The IRA never brought the British “establishment” to its knees. If it had it could have demanded and got a 32-county republic.

Victor

Keep on Trekin, Sinn Féin have been declaring several hundred thousand pounds per year from the USA, though donations and dinners. It is believed there are other financing methods used by republicans in the USA (extortion, protection rackets, front companies).

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
2. Northern Ireland was never a Unionist dictatorship in the true sense of the word. There were probable instances of gerrymandering but nationalists were still represented in Stormont. Just because it was based on majority rule, like most parliamentary democracies, does not make it a dictatorship.

Perhaps, but wasn't Hitler elected by majority?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Victor

Perhaps, but wasn't Hitler elected by majority?

No, the Nazis never got a majority. Hitler came to power as head of a coalition government. He then assumed dictatorial powers undemocratically.

Von

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

No, the Nazis never got a majority. Hitler came to power as head of a coalition government. He then assumed dictatorial powers undemocratically.

You sure about this? I thought Hindenberg invited him to become chancellor.

BJJ

Ok let me first say that I think Michael Collins was no hero , he was a good soldier but he sold out the people of Northen Ireland to disaster. He was a bogger with no diplomacy skills.


Now about the whole oppression of Catholics.

The Irish government appeased the English and Opressed Catholics, the banned Irish music, denied Irish a right to education and Censored Gerry Adams from speaking while Dr Paisley was allowed to venture south, speak in public and call Irish people IRA supporters.

But during the early 90s something extraordinary happened the BBC and Channel four started broadcasting Adams with a voice over, and investigating the RUC on corruption and colaboration with loyalist groups.

Suddenly politicans were talking and progress was being made.

I think the past is the past, and things are better now than they ever have been and the truth will come out some day. About the Irish governments support for Terrorist groups, about their knowledge of the Omagh bomb, about the M16's murder of innocent Cavan footballers, about Bloddy Sunday.

The Truth will come out. But right now Ireland and England are moving forward and have a much better relationship compared to any other places that had hundreds of years of Conflict.

The Futures Bright but I hope it's Green not Orange.

BJJ

Mike's half Irish, isn't he?

ReefBreak

The Futures Bright but I hope it's Green not Orange.

What shade of green are you talking about? The Sinn Fein Murderous shade or the real Irish shade that wants to live in peace with unionists?

As for Gerry Adams talking about "the Irish governments support for Terrorist groups, about their knowledge of the Omagh bomb, about the M16's murder of innocent Cavan footballers, about Bloddy Sunday"... Well, that can be described using one word: hypocrite. In fact, almost everything that comes out of that guy's mouth is hypocritical.

sceptre

Originally posted by Von

You sure about this? I thought Hindenberg invited him to become chancellor.

Hindenburg indeed appointed Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 (he had beaten Hitler to the presidency in 1932) but the Nazis didn't have a majority at the time (they had received 37% of the vote, up from 2.6% in 1928). Von Papen suggested to Hindenberg that Hitler be made Chancellor with himself as Vice-Chancellor, a Conservative-NS coalition. The promise was that only 2 Nazis would be appointed to cabinet. The rest as they say, is history. Hitler managed to get the Enabling Act passed after the burning of the Reichstag, which on the death of Hindenberg was used to combine the offices of President and Chancellor, giving Hitler complete power (especially after all army officers were convinced to swear allegiance to him, rather than the state).

The Weimar Republic system was a mess. Under the Weimar Constitution a majority was needed in order for progress to be made. Unless a party achieved a majority, which never occurred in the entire history of Weimar, a coalition was needed, which also never occurred (with the exception of the last fateful effort). Von Papen thought by appointing Hitler as Chancellor that he himself could gain control of the Reichstag and meanwhile contain Hitler by surrounding him with non-Nazis. If one person can be blamed for Hitler's rise to complete power at the time, it's von Papen (as well as Hindenberg's failure with Kurt von Schleicher). He didn't realise his mistake till June 1934 by whch time the power had passed totally and his speeches were effectively hidden by Goebbels.

Von

Sceptre...that's what I thought. Biffa's confused again it seems. Technically everything Hitler did was legal and above board.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
1. The IRA campaign of 1969-1997 had nothing to do with achieving “equal rights, a new police service and an end to violence”. It was about trying to create a 32-county socialist republic and this it failed to do. Therefore you cannot claim that the IRA achieved any of the aforementioned goals. Most if not all of the Catholic community’s civil rights grievances were resolved in the early 70’s, the issue of a new police service only arose in the 90’s and the ending of loyalist pogroms was brought about by the British army.

The British army did not halt loyalist terrorism. They were in there essentially to prop up the status quo. Loyalist paramilitary activity was not just a response to IRA activity as people would liketo believe. They started organising in the early to mid 60's - when the IRA had given up "armed struggle" and got into marxism, and all that class stuff. The UVF and Paisley's UPV were to protect NI from poisonous popery. They regarded the Civil Rights Association, which aimed to be non-sectarian, as being a front for the IRA.

2. Northern Ireland was never a Unionist dictatorship in the true sense of the word. There were probable instances of gerrymandering but nationalists were still represented in Stormont. Just because it was based on majority rule, like most parliamentary democracies, does not make it a dictatorship.

The PM James Craig, said NI "was a protestant state for a protestant people". His chum Basil Brooke, who became PM later, told businessmen not to employ catholics '99% of whom are disloyal'. Protestants controlled industry and services to such an extent that strikes crippled the province in response to reforms. They ran the security services. That doesn't sound like a state run for the benefit of one section of the community?

3. The IRA never brought the British “establishment” to its knees. If it had it could have demanded and got a 32-county republic.

From 1916-1921 republicans did bring the establishment to its knees with bugger all resources. As for 1969-1998, like I said before, the british knew that they couldn't win a military victory and they'd have to negotiate at some stage. On both occasions, from a military point of view, just because they didn't achieve 100% of their objectives doesn't mean they lost. The shinners wouldn't be in govt otherwise.

Members of my father's family (including my granny) were involved during the war of independence and civil war (pro-treaty side) at not inconsiderable risk and inconvenience. Why they ever bothered I DO NOT F**KING KNOW.

sceptre

Originally posted by Von
Sceptre...that's what I thought. Biffa's confused again it seems. Technically everything Hitler did was legal and above board.

Pretty much, though it's generally accepted that the Nazis themselves started the eichstag fire so that the Enabling Act would be passed. On a parliamentary level, Hitler's rise to power was unfortunately, perfectly legal.

Agree with your three responses. I'm certainly not blindly pro-Nationalist or anti-Unionist - the NI question, it would seem, is as difficult to solve as ever. As much of a mess as Cyprus.

Biffa Bacon

Just a correction to an earlier point I made: the Nazis did win an overall majority in the election of 5 March 1933, which was called after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. However, during this election campaign, all opposition party meetings and newspapers were banned and there was widespread imtimidation by the SA and SS. 4,000 Communist party officials had also been arrested by this time as part of the crackdown on Communists after the Reichstag fire. In getting the Enabling Act passed, the Nazis prevented many opposition deputies from attending the debate on the Act, while the SA lined the walls and corridors of the chamber as it was taking place. In the light of this, Hitler’s seizure of power could hardly be deemed legal.

The British army did not halt loyalist terrorism. They were in there essentially to prop up the status quo.

How were they propping up the status quo? They were brought in because the RUC was unable to contain the rioting on its own.

The PM James Craig, said NI "was a protestant state for a protestant people". His chum Basil Brooke, who became PM later, told businessmen not to employ catholics '99% of whom are disloyal'.

Both these statements were made in the 1930’s, long before the outbreak of the Troubles.

Protestants controlled industry and services to such an extent that strikes crippled the province in response to reforms. They ran the security services. That doesn't sound like a state run for the benefit of one section of the community?

It sounds like a state where there were discriminatory employment practices and where historical factors granted one community a dispropotionately large control of industry. It does not sound like a dictatorship.

From 1916-1921 republicans did bring the establishment to its knees with bugger all resources.

Again, if they brought the establishment to its knees, why did they accept partition, Commonwealth status (rather than republican status), the retention of the Treaty Ports and the Oath of Allegiance?

On both occasions, from a military point of view, just because they didn't achieve 100% of their objectives doesn't mean they lost.

I never claimed that the republicans of 1919-21 lost, I said they didn’t bring the “British establishment” to its knees. I will say however that the Provisional IRA lost its campaign of 1969-97 in the sense that they just gave up. The Peace Process was only possible because the Provisionals came to accept that they could never achieve a united Ireland through physical force, not because they had forced the British to the negotiating table.

BJJ

talking about "the Irish governments support for Terrorist groups, about their knowledge of the Omagh bomb, about the M16's murder of innocent Cavan footballers, about Bloddy Sunday"...


Yes that was the United Nations talking about Northen Ireland not Adams you twit!


Fact is many memebrs of the DUP, PUP... have been former terrorists and killers members of groups like the UFF LVF UVF...they have shaped Northen Irelands politcal landscape.


It is an ugly fact

The whole equality issue means now that Sinn Fein can do the same.

It is also an ugly fact, but at least it's working on the lines of equality.

ReefBreak

talking about "the Irish governments support for Terrorist groups, about their knowledge of the Omagh bomb, about the M16's murder of innocent Cavan footballers, about Bloddy Sunday"...


Yes that was the United Nations talking about Northen Ireland not Adams you twit!

A Sinn Fein supporter hurling abuse? How appropriate. Well, at least it's only verbal. Anyway, you should have stated that it was the UN.

Regardless, Adams has been saying similar things for years - so my point still stands. Him and the rest of Sinn Féin are nothing more than digusting hypocrites. They talk about British army/loyalist paramilitary murders when they did they same for years themselves. On the "green" side: I laugh when I hear SF talking; I listen intently when I hear the SDLP talking.

Victor

Originally posted by BJJ
Ok let me first say that I think Michael Collins was no hero , ... He was a bogger with no diplomacy skills.

Who got a majority in the independence referendum.

gurramok

Wasn't it a slim majority?...something like fifty odd percent in favour ?
Sounds like it needs a re-run like Nice/divorce/abortion etc...hehe