Bachelors Walk Massacre

by Hagar the Horrible Fri Mar 09, 2007 14:50

"I'm calling a mass protest outside the Danish Embassy next Thurday, Aug 5. This is to mark the 1134th anniversary of the Termonfeckin massacre when the Danes butchered 17 innocent Irish men and women in that fair town. That this massacre is little known to most Irish people is testimony to the success revisionist historians have had in expunging this foul deed from our national consciousness. I invite all republicans and socialists to join me on this protest. Even if you are not a republican or socialist, you can still come, as long as you hate all Danes. By doing this we can show our solidarity with all those who are suffering around the world as a result of Danish imperialism. We can also have a good time and go to the pub afterwards, as long as we don't drink Carlsberg. Banners and flags welcome."

Brilliant! Just brilliant! The best send-up of agenda-driven "rememberances" I've ever read.

Bravo!

More of this please!!

by Mr Jolly Thu Mar 08, 2007 23:56

such marvellous discourse on these forums.

by old father time Thu Mar 08, 2007 14:14

sometimes debate is wonderfully slow here. 2004, 2006, 2007...

by Pádraig Thu Mar 08, 2007 13:23

Hello Milmor_1

As far as I can tell you are a commander in the Israeli Navy. Is this correct? (I really don't have time or the interest to confirm) If it is true, then as a super terrorist, your comments the above topic would be totally worthless.

Pádraig O' Braonain
Former Irish Volunteer

by Milmor_1 Thu Mar 30, 2006 15:24

Republican History is wonderfully interpretated. First off the crowd were on their way back from Howth on the occassion of the Asgard Gun running.

Yes they were fired on by the Kings Own Scottish Borderers to be precise and yes you are correct about the justification given.

But to carry that on into modern day British Army doctrine is ludicrous.

I am sick and tired of mealie mouth republicans going on about shoot to kill policies taken by security forces against IRA/Republican "VOLUNTEERS" tell me when these so called volunteers didnt go out on one of their terror rides without intending to shoot to kill.
Where are the British POW's taken by the IRA, oh thats right they didnt take any.

Oh then again I am wrong they did take some prisoners such as 18 year old GNR Gary Barlowe separated from his squad while on patrol and held by a group of women until an IRA volunteer took him prisoner and then executed him.

The list is endless, there was faults on both side's to use the republican terms anyway it was a war.

by moonwolf Sat Jul 31, 2004 04:38

see

by moonwolf Sat Jul 31, 2004 03:56

Tand R starts with oneself!

by Strongbow cider Sat Jul 31, 2004 00:51

I am calling on all native Irishmen and women to rise up and attack the French,especially anyone from Normandy. have we forgotton already after a 1000 years the massacare of Waterford????where a traitor brought a imperiallist mecenary army to our shores,which ultimately exploited and enslaved us to this very day??Boycott everything French,and plan on an invasion and bombing campain of their capital.We need brave Irish people who will drive tractors or asses and carts into their most scared landmarks in Paris,dat will show dem bastards to invade Ireland

by John Fri Jul 30, 2004 20:55

I'm calling a mass protest outside the Danish Embassy next Thurday, Aug 5. This is to mark the 1134th anniversary of the Termonfeckin massacre when the Danes butchered 17 innocent Irish men and women in that fair town. That this massacre is little known to most Irish people is testimony to the success revisionist historians have had in expunging this foul deed from our national consciousness. I invite all republicans and socialists to join me on this protest. Even if you are not a republican or socialist, you can still come, as long as you hate all Danes. By doing this we can show our solidarity with all those who are suffering around the world as a result of Danish imperialism. We can also have a good time and go to the pub afterwards, as long as we don't drink Carlsberg. Banners and flags welcome.

by nordie Fri Jul 30, 2004 20:35

Or maybe I mean slavery is freedom. Sue me boyo.

Can anyone point me to a website which gives the figures for all killed in the Iraq war? The Iraqi Body Count seems to only give civilian deaths.

by Nordie Fri Jul 30, 2004 19:58

And war is peace and freedom slavery. But of course.


I wouldn't be surprised if an Al'Qaeda terrorist cell hit Ireland but the reasons for it happeing would be quite the opposite from people being opossed to the war and would actually be because of the bastards in Dublin who allow the American jets to use Shannon in order to refuel on their way to bomb Iraq. Far from Al'Quaea attacking America and her allies because they simply 'don't like our freedoms' its in reality completely because of Americas corruption in the Arab world.


Below is a link to bin Ladens' 1998 fatwa in which he declared war on America and those of her allies who are complicit in crimes against the muslim people. Now he talks a lot of shite about slaying the pagans and so forth but the jist of the statement cannot be in any doubt - Al'Qaeda's problem and her reasons for war are America's evil deeds in the Arab world and not because bin Laden thinks he can convert all of the west to Islam by letting bombs off. Otherwise he wouldn't just be declaring war on America and her partners in crime but also Brazil, Mexico, Ireland, New Zealand and so forth. Mature and intelligent people can accept this. The rest are happy enough chanting slogans and waving flags at the television news.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

People must try and convey this truth to Americans because we are their friends. Not to do so would be anti-American. The best people I know are American, although, granted, they are in the camp who see whats really going on.

by Devil Dog Fri Jul 30, 2004 18:33

MW: I'm also an Irish citizen who has lived most of my life in Irealnd, and plan on going back after a 1 year sojourn in the UK. I think that gives me sufficient standing to comment on the issues at hand. As for your T & R commission - good luck but I won't be holding my breath for Grizzly to tell all he knows about Bloody Friday, Jean McConville and La Mon.

Nordie - Good luck to you in bringing democracy and happiness throughout the world and I hope you continue to enjoy yourself when it comes to slating the west. A couple of points - your figures on Fallujah are wrong, as are your figures for Iraqi deaths. Supporting the French line really encapsulates our differences - By all means, support the inept, corrupt and defeatism of Chirac but don't be surprised when an AQ cell hits Ireland.

Debate ended, find someone else to induge in your moral posturing and condescension.

by Nordie Fri Jul 30, 2004 17:57

'They gave enough of a shite to put Home Rule on the statute book in 1914.'

That was 1914. In 1818 the overwhelming majority block of the Irish people used the democratic process to express their wish to be free from a foreign military occupier. The British ignored this and instead tried to keep Home Rule on the statue even though it was only favored by the minority block! Thats democracy, is it?


'No, launching a war bumping off RIC men and former soldiers as well as a few Prods in West Cork was the least democratic thing to do." '

Sorry again, but I can't see how that was the least democratic thing to do. The elected government of the people of Ireland launched
a war against a foreign power which refused to recognise democracy. The RIC was collabarating with the foreign military power and therefore made themselves targets in a war. I want you to explain how the representives of the Irish people fighting against a foreign snubber of democracy was the least democratic thing to do and how the undemocratic occupiers sending in brutes and terrorists to fight the rightful Irish government was the democratic thing to do.


'A view taken by the Anti-Treaty IRA & SF....and it didn't get very far, did it? When you have a proposal grounde din reality, go ahead and post it.'

Well if the Treaty wasn't signed then the war or some other resistence would have gone on until complete freedom was achieved, in the long or short term. The disgracful butchering of the island was disgusting and the sell out should never have been accepted by Irish men who had no right to do so and I don't think that the rights of the people of all Ireland to run their own country was such an outrageous demand.


I' think it's what 1 million Prods think is what's relevant- "you're Irish, ya better like it".... a bit arrogant isn't it, dictating a people's nationality to them? Incidentally, given the fact that the 26 county state quickly became a theocracy run by that fucker McQuade, the fears of N. Unionists weren't really groundless, were they?'

One fifth of the population of the country cannot hold the rest up for ransom. Thats democracy. Take it or leave it. And what about the over half a million catholics who were forced into the northern state? What about their right not to be forced into a fake country (its not even Ulster) to become a minority. Fake countries can't be set up just to please the undemocratic. No, either you believe in democracy all the time or you don't believe in it.
If the Unionists had have been in the full Irish nation then the fascist catholic power base would not have allowed such a run down south. No way. Do you think such staunch protestants would have allowed that?!




'The Southern govt didn't really oppose IRA violence all that much - the fact that the IRA wanted to overthrow said state might be relevant. And saying the S. Govt shd "stick up for Catholics" kinda scuppers your "one nation" theory.'

But they did. As much as they could with the political strength they had. And its quite obvious that they were more sympathetic to the Unionists (whose dominance and state terror wasn't really on the terms with the catholic minority who were abused and then rose up) at times and just fudged Catholic pain. It was all the IRA's fault in their simplistic eyes. Not exactly fair play, was it?

The IRA didn't ever attempt to overthrow the Southern state. An absolute myth. Give me a few examples of them trying to do so if I'm wrong.


'So under what circumstances would you have accepted the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq? UN approval? So the vote of 15 countries, with 10 of them being arbitrary members at that particular time, shd decide how the democracies of the west act? A body which puts Sudan on its human rights commission, Iraq on its disarmament committee and pretends that Libya and N. Korea are the same as New Zealand & Luxembourg is to decide questions of grand strategy? The many other abuses & failures of the UN wd take too long to document here.....'

So the UN is not legitimate enough to sanction war to a country that didn't pose the world any real threat (and if you believe Britian and the US thought in their hearts Iraq was a threat you're a moron quite frankly) but these two Western powers were? I can't understand.



'I like the way you blithely condemn Iraqis to the mercies of Saddam - do you really think US & UK forces are shooting hundreds of people at a time and burying them in mass graves, like the one full of Kuwaitis I stood over in Southern Iraq?'

What was the casulty rate for a weeks work by the US god in Fallujah? Was it 900 dead with 600 of them being civilians? Thats freedom from a country that cares?

'Again - wrong - the anti-war protestors predicted the Arab Street igniting, ecological disaster, 100,000's of civilian refugees and casualties and the Battle of Stalingrad Mk II on the Tigris - whooops, didn't happen.'

Over 40,000 Iraqis (soldiers and civilians)(and nearly 200 in Spain because of it) dead so far and no signs of it slowing down, Al 'Qaeda gaining a massive foothold in a country were it coundn't move freely in before, one civil war on the cards, if not already happening (between those who oppose the US occupation and those who work with it) another secterian one brewing as said Al'Qaeda spread like a cancer, the countries infrastructre in ruins, the Islamic world turning more and more extremist (a recent poll carried out in Turkey showed 45% of people there now look upon bin Laden with sympathy, in Syria the figure was 55% and in Jordan 65%) and the West in more danger from Islamists than ever as the true eternal hate brews and more minds set to work in trying to find ways to attack the coalition countries. Good going lads.


'What flame? Most of the Shia south & kurdish north is peaceful. The Ba'athists and Jihaadists need to be defeated.......and eventually, if the Iraqis want it, they will have a democracy.'

They can't be defated by force. This makes more and more people want to join up. A psychiatrist who interviewed Palestinian children recently said that 50% of those he spoke to dreamed of becoming suicide bombers when they gro up because it was prefearable to dying from some random violence.


'It also believes a liberal, free-market Iraq can act as the genesis for the same things in the rest of the region - you can call that naive if you want (personally, I think the Arab Muslim world has missed the boat to reforming itself, but that's neither here nor there)...but hardly nefarious.'

In reality the new Iraq will be run by regilious extremists who will quite rightly hate the West and Israel. Do you hear the creek of that wheel of stupidity turning yet?

You just accept the establisment view of things and ignore the truth. You claim to favour democracy and soverign states (was Palestine not a country?)but not when it dosn't suit the beliefs you have entrenched in your mind and so are engaging in double think. I know you don't mean to be so contradictry but your computer mind which tells you 'west is best' just dosn't know any better. You're just part of the peasantry machine that blindly helps the criminal class who have always run this world. Taking out Saddam Hussein and replacing him with another kind of hell isn't freeing the Iraqi people and doing it to flex Americas muscles was an unspeakable evil.

Before the war the Minister of foreign affairs for France spoke at the UN about what was happening and I think his words summed up what most sensible people thought:

Make no mistake about it: the choice is inded between two visions of the world. To those who choose to use force and think they can reslove the world's complexity through swift and preventive action, we offer in contrast determined action over time. For today, to ensure our security, all the dimensions of the problem must be taken into account: both the manifold crises and their many facets, including cultural and religious. Nothing lasting in international relations can be built therefore without dialogue and respect for the other, without exigency and abiding by principles, especially for the democracies that must set the example. To ignore this is to run the risk of misunderstanding, radicalization and spiraling violence. This is even more true in the Middle East, an area of fractures and ancient conflicts where stability must be a major objective for us.

by moonwolf Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:59

Reality check, it is now 2004 a.d, the island of Ireland is partitioned and has been for over80 years, the I.R.A campaign is over, the british government have effectively conceded "home rule" in their new federalised U.K, the gombeen men still run the "republic", and fools still debate what should have happened!!!
When are all of you going to wake up to reality and realise that peace is the only way forward? When are you going to realise that peace, truth and justice go hand in hand?THEY WERE ALL MURDERING BASTARDS, ALL OF THEM!!!!! whether they were the black and tan representitives of a "democratic" Government or the irregular forces of an unelected movement. They were all fuckin terrorists! they all terrorised portions of this islands population.

And by the way D.D having a uniform and a cap badge/insignia dosen't make one any less of a terrorist!!! nor does it justify the war crimes committed. You seem to be solely interested in attacking one side, BOTH sides bear responsibilty. Truth and reconciliation is the only answer, but i guess you don't actually live on this island, do you?not as a serving U.S Marine Corps officer, you don't!

by Devil Dog Fri Jul 30, 2004 05:14

Actually , the British didn't give a shite about the numbers in all their arrogance.

They gave enough of a shite to put Home Rule on the statute book in 1914.


"Certainly the keeping of the foreign and unwelcome British presence was the least democratic thing to do, don't you think?

No, launching a war bumping off RIC men and former soldiers as well as a few Prods in West Cork was the least democratic thing to do."

"Well sorry, but I believe that the tail shouldn't wag the dog when it comes to democracy. I wouldn't have accepted anything less than the whole nation united and soverign. "

A view taken by the Anti-Treaty IRA & SF....and it didn't get very far, did it? When you have a proposal grounde din reality, go ahead and post it.

"I don't accept Ireland as being two nations. I believe in true democracy not puesdo half way fudges."

I think it's what 1 million Prods think is what's relevant- "you're Irish, ya better like it".... a bit arrogant isn't it, dictating a people's nationality to them? Incidentally, given the fact that the 26 county state quickly became a theocracy run by that fucker McQuade, the fears of N. Unionists weren't really groundless, were they?


"I've already said that I think violence wasn't the right way. But that dosen't take away from the fact that republicans were also under attack from the British and unionist establishment."

I missed that bit - I don't think it was Republicans, more Catholics, as you later say.

"Why didn't the majority of the Irish people oppose their violence or did their violence not hurt as much as republican violence? Its all very well to blah blah about majorities and so forth but why didn't the 26 county government stick up for the Catholic people more and oppose British violence as much as they opposed IRA violence?"

The Southern govt didn't really oppose IRA violence all that much - the fact that the IRA wanted to overthrow said state might be relevant. And saying the S. Govt shd "stick up for Catholics" kinda scuppers your "one nation" theory.


"You argue that the IRA violence of 1919 wasn't legitimate because the majority of Irish people didn't support it. Well because the British government refused to accept democracy in Ireland if it didn't go their way then they certainly ceased to be the legitimate government (not that they ever were, but for the sake of argument lets pretend they were before hand) and so the elected reps of the Irish people, who would have been the government of Ireland anyway if the British had have pulled out, decided to represent the people who elected them and formed a cabinet of war as they had been given the right to do by the people of Ireland who voted for the party which was aligned to the men of Easter week and so therefore it was no secret of their willingless to bear arrms. The rightful reps of the Irish people then fought a war of Indepdence. Just like any sovereign state can do to a occupier."

Jaysus, if that's not twisting things, I don't know what is...in a word, crap - again, the IRA had NO mandate to start bumping off RIC men. SF manifest for 1918 election was to maintain the fiction that a Republic proclaimed in 1916 existed, abstention from Westminister and send reps to Paris Peace Conference - not a dicky bird about shooting cops in the head.

"The current British government on the other hand were not elected to fight wars based on lies in foreign countries no matter how sovereign they are in their own country. No one gave them that right."

So under what circumstances would you have accepted the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq? UN approval? So the vote of 15 countries, with 10 of them being arbitrary members at that particular time, shd decide how the democracies of the west act? A body which puts Sudan on its human rights commission, Iraq on its disarmament committee and pretends that Libya and N. Korea are the same as New Zealand & Luxembourg is to decide questions of grand strategy? The many other abuses & failures of the UN wd take too long to document here.....


"This shows how racist your heart actually is. "

Not really.


'How about Iraq, do you think it's better off with SH or without?'

"You know, we'll have to wait and see. And thats saying something. Certainly two foreign powers with nefarious designs on Iraq going in like that was just about the worst thing that could have happened and was just gonna lead to the same, if not higher, level of misery for the Iraqis as under Saddam."

I like the way you blithely condemn Iraqis to the mercies of Saddam - do you really think US & UK forces are shooting hundreds of people at a time and burying them in mass graves, like the one full of Kuwaitis I stood over in Southern Iraq?

"Anyone with half an ounce of wit could have seen which way this Iraq war was gonna go -"

Again - wrong - the anti-war protestors predicted the Arab Street igniting, ecological disaster, 100,000's of civilian refugees and casualties and the Battle of Stalingrad Mk II on the Tigris - whooops, didn't happen.

"lighting a flame in that country which will be impossible to extinguish and will spread around the world in time. See the eternal wheel of stupidity turning again?"

What flame? Most of the Shia south & kurdish north is peaceful. The Ba'athists and Jihaadists need to be defeated.......and eventually, if the Iraqis want it, they will have a democracy.

So tell me, why did the US invade? Oil....nope

WMD....nah, but I think they thought he had them,....as did everyone else...and of course he did have them, gassed Kurds being testimony to that.

The US invaded to demonstrate power & resolve to the Arab Muslim world by toppling one of that world' strongmen and to restore credibility in the aftermath of 9/11 - AQ believed the US to be a paper tiger, given Clinton's appaling cowardice in the face of AQ attacks. It also believes a liberal, free-market Iraq can act as the genesis for the same things in the rest of the region - you can call that naive if you want (personally, I think the Arab Muslim world has missed the boat to reforming itself, but that's neither here nor there)...but hardly nefarious.

by Nordie Fri Jul 30, 2004 04:26

.


'Not really - a majority didn't want a Republic and the IRA didn't give a shite about the numbers.'

Actually , the British didn't give a shite about the numbers in all their arrogance.

If you look at it from the point of view as 'What shall we do now if we are to honour democracy?' you would have to say 'Well, 46% of this block favour total independence from Britian, 29% favor the status quo, and the rest more or less want Home Rule so therefore the only democratic and sane decision that can be made is to go with the majority of the block and give this nation independence. Anything else is an affront to democracy'.
Certainly the keeping of the foreign and unwelcome British presence was the least democratic thing to do, don't you think?


'HR = Home Rule, not sure what you interpreted it as.'

Ok, I didn't actually look at that properly. I thought you were talking about HM forces. My mistake.


'Sorry, but I subscribe to the 2 nations theory - Partition was inevitable, the price for independence.

What wd you have done if it were up to you?'

Well sorry, but I believe that the tail shouldn't wag the dog when it comes to democracy. I wouldn't have accepted anything less than the whole nation united and soverign. Too bad to those who can't accept democracy, so sad and get used to it me lads. I will never accept the British government as being the rightful government of this part of Ireland because I don't accept Ireland as being two nations. I believe in true democracy not puesdo half way fudges.


'So we shd just ignore the bit about the overwhelming majority of the Irish people opposing their violence, should we?'

I've already said that I think violence wasn't the right way. But that dosen't take away from the fact that republicans were also under attack from the British and unionist establishment. Why didn't the majority of the Irish people oppose their violence or did their violence not hurt as much as republican violence? Its all very well to blah blah about majorities and so forth but why didn't the 26 county government stick up for the Catholic people more and oppose British violence as much as they opposed IRA violence?


'You're the one engaging in "whataboutery" and turning things around....Put very simply, the British Govt is a legitimate Democratic govt, the IRA is anything but (contrary to their claims)....Increasing income tax is probably against the wishes of the majority, but it doesn't make it less legitimate for being so. '

You argue that the IRA violence of 1919 wasn't legitimate because the majority of Irish people didn't support it. Well because the British government refused to accept democracy in Ireland if it didn't go their way then they certainly ceased to be the legitimate government (not that they ever were, but for the sake of argument lets pretend they were before hand) and so the elected reps of the Irish people, who would have been the government of Ireland anyway if the British had have pulled out, decided to represent the people who elected them and formed a cabinet of war as they had been given the right to do by the people of Ireland who voted for the party which was aligned to the men of Easter week and so therefore it was no secret of their willingless to bear arrms. The rightful reps of the Irish people then fought a war of Indepdence. Just like any sovereign state can do to a occupier.

The current British government on the other hand were not elected to fight wars based on lies in foreign countries no matter how sovereign they are in their own country. No one gave them that right.


'Because innocent people die in wars - a sad but inescapable fact. Do you really think I revel in the deaths of civilians if caused by US/UK forces? Approx 20,000 French civilians died in preparatory bombing raids prior to D-Day.......war is evil, vile, cruel and if you want to use your term, Satanic but sometimes necessary.'

No, it was not nesessary to bomb these cities so much. it was gratutious terrorism and could have been avoided. The people who planned it out will have to answer to the deepest parts of their souls. Now lets just agree to disagree.


'I suppose the Jews had no historical presence in Palestien then?'

Oh, that laughable utter bullshit for cretins that the decendents of a people who once resided on a certain bit of land on this Earth have more rights to that land than the current residents. And, by the way, the Jews stole in land in the first place back in Old Testament times and by all accounts their actions would have done old Adolf proud. No divine right to the land in other words.

'Because it was the right thing to do - the UN created a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan.'

This shows how racist your heart actually is. That the indiginous population of Palestine should should have made way for the new masters and went to live with their own kind (cuz all Arabs are the same. Just like all Europeans, right?) on the say so of the UN who knew what was right for these natives is just old time colonial stupidity at work in your mind.

No, the right thing to do would to have given the Jews the better part of Germany - not to have given them a green light to take out their hate for the Holocaust on the Palestinians just to ease the white mans guilt.

'How about Iraq, do you think it's better off with SH or without?'

You know, we'll have to wait and see. And thats saying something. Certainly two foreign powers with nefarious designs on Iraq going in like that was just about the worst thing that could have happened and was just gonna lead to the same, if not higher, level of misery for the Iraqis as under Saddam.

Anyone with half an ounce of wit could have seen which way this Iraq war was gonna go - lighting a flame in that country which will be impossible to extinguish and will spread around the world in time. See the eternal wheel of stupidity turning again?

by Devil Dog Fri Jul 30, 2004 02:08

"Well I woundn't dispute millions. You may not have actually said 'killing innocents is okay if done by a soverign state' but by your unrelenting support of the British army and your refusal to condemn its colonial history you are surely a proxy supporter of the slaughter of countless innocents and the unspeakable evil it wrought on this backward little planet."

Unrelenting support?? Hardly.....You're right, many evil deeds were done in support of the British Empire....will you also admit a lot of good resulted from said empire too?


"the killing machine that is the British army "

An army exists to kill? Never wd have guessed....

"You must be a supporter of all the British armys actions as your comments convey to me a sense of absolute pride in all the British armys history and an unwillingless to look at their murderous side."

You could only infer this if you filtered my comments theu your own predjudices.....See my response to MW's question above.


These are the figures for the 1918 election:

Sinn Féin 476087 votes (46.9% of cast votes)
Irish Unionists 257314 (25.3%)
Nationalists 220837 (21.7%)
Labour Unionists 30304 (3.0%)3
Labour 12164 (1.2%)
Independent Unionists 9531 (0.9%)
Independent Nationalists 8183 (0.8%)
Independent Labour 659 (0.1%)
Independents 436 (0.0%)

Seems to me that any reasonably democratic person would have to look at the various blocks and declare that the only reasonable democratic thing to do would be to go with the decision and wishes of the majority block.

Not really - a majority didn't want a Republic and the IRA didn't give a shite about the numbers.


HR forces might have been on the statue books but they were not wanted in Ireland by the majority of Irish people. The Nazi government may have declared themselves the rulers of various states in their day and even made it legal in their law or made proxy puppet governments they set up the 'legal rulers' but I would be one for thinking that it should be up to the people to decide, eh?

HR = Home Rule, not sure what you interpreted it as.

"Shit man, you're the boyo who's bleating about democracy and yet you can't bring yourself to condemn the outrageously undemocratic decision to split Ireland in two to placate a minority who only embrace democracy when it suits them. How strange."

Sorry, but I subscribe to the 2 nations theory - Partition was inevitable, the price for independence.

What wd you have done if it were up to you?



Well its my contention that the leaders of the republican movement were intelligent enough to realize that any attempt by the IRA to bring about a dictatorship in Ireland would have been totally against the beliefs of the republican movement and absolutely unaceptable and would have qute rightly been opposed by everyone on the island and they (the IRA) also quite rightly would have been slaughtered. But by going back to the seventies and looking at the Provisionals embracment of the Eire Nua document we can can see clearly that the IRA was certianly a supporter of a truely democratic new Ireland. it was just their position that this could only be acceived through armed struggle.

So we shd just ignore the bit about the overwhelming majority of the Irish people opposing their violence, should we?

Now please answer my question of why it was ok from the British government to send its troops to Iraq against the wishes of its people but wrong for the IRA to fight in its own country when it was aginst the beliefs of the majority population. Don't try and turn this question around again and insult our itelligence further. Please just answer me this time.

You're the one engaging in "whataboutery" and turning things around....Put very simply, the British Govt is a legitimate Democratic govt, the IRA is anything but (contrary to their claims)....Increasing income tax is probably against the wishes of the majority, but it doesn't make it less legitimate for being so.

But why was it ok for them to slaughter civilians so needlessly? They didn't have to become such blatant air terrorists. Why is it ok for the 'regular' armies to bring such devestation and misery to ordinary people? Why is the Satanic reality of needlessly burnt and destroyed human beings so wrong here but ok if or maybe just a little bit regretable if done by the British or US armies?

Because innocent people die in wars - a sad but inescapable fact. Do you really think I revel in the deaths of civilians if caused by US/UK forces? Approx 20,000 French civilians died in preparatory bombing raids prior to D-Day.......war is evil, vile, cruel and if you want to use your term, Satanic but sometimes necessary.

I think the 3rd Reich occupies a special podium in the pantheon of evil regimes.....I guess what really bugs me about the IRA seeking help from the Nazis though is the smug IRA attitude of solidarity with "progrssive" movements, neatly captured in that song "Viva La Quinta Brigada" which lauds Frank Ryan yet doesn't mention the bit about sucking up to the Nazis.why did the US support vile regimes? For the hell of it? Or because there was this little misunderstanding with the Soviets called the Cold War?

I suppose the Jews had no historical presence in Palestien then?

"Yes, it is the same UN. but you're skirting around the issue again. Why, O great defender of democracy, was it fine and great for the UN to go against the majority of the Palestinian people? Please answer with a real answer this time or don't answer at all."

Because it was the right thing to do - the UN created a Palestinian state - it's called Jordan.

It's very easy to sit at a computer screen and engage in your supercillious, self-righteous condemnations of the West - i.e. the US/UK - wd you rather the Nazis or the Soviets had triumphed in their confrontation switht he west? How about Iraq, do you think it's better off with SH or without?

by Nordie Fri Jul 30, 2004 00:47

'Never claimed to love the British Army....once again, I'd dispute "millions"....And I never said killing innocents is ok if done by AF of a soverign state....'

Well I woundn't dispute millions. You may not have actually said 'killing innocents is okay if done by a soverign state' but by your unrelenting support of the British army and your refusal to condemn its colonial history you are surely a proxy supporter of the slaughter of countless innocents and the unspeakable evil it wrought on this backward little planet.

'Much of the British Empire became colored red on the map not thru military invasion but thru private enterprises, missionaries, trade etc - not saying mil forces weren't involved, but not quite as clear cut as you make out...don't know how you can infer support for imperialism form my posts...final word on Empire - try reading Niall Ferguson's "Empire"...'

Well a lot of the empire was coloured red from these things you mention but it wouldn't have been able to have been coloured red if the British has not been occuping the countries and letting the rape of the land happen for it (Britians) greedy needs and supporting the Christian religious bastards in their attempts to tame the pesky natives and so forth. And the rest of the red spats on the British Empires map came from the killing machine that is the British army and the wars its presence in foreign countries provoked.

You must be a supporter of all the British armys actions as your comments convey to me a sense of absolute pride in all the British armys history and an unwillingless to look at their murderous side. Will you now stand up and condem their colonial adventures at least and prove me wrong? And don't say, well I would ahve been on the American side during their struggle against British imperial arrogance and domination. It must be wrong for Britian to have occupied anywhere at all for its colonial greed or nowhere at all.

'The majority of the Irish people did not vote for SF in 1918 - 48% did. Admittedely, many SF candidates were returned unopposed but there was also widespread SF personation & intimidation....Don't have the figures to hand, but those who voted Unionist of Irish Party outnumbered those who voted SF.'

These are the figures for the 1918 election:

Sinn Féin 476087 votes (46.9% of cast votes)
Irish Unionists 257314 (25.3%)
Nationalists 220837 (21.7%)
Labour Unionists 30304 (3.0%)3
Labour 12164 (1.2%)
Independent Unionists 9531 (0.9%)
Independent Nationalists 8183 (0.8%)
Independent Labour 659 (0.1%)
Independents 436 (0.0%)

Seems to me that any reasonably democratic person would have to look at the various blocks and declare that the only reasonable democratic thing to do would be to go with the decision and wishes of the majority block.

'HR was on the statute book - the IRB had no mandate for 1916 nor had the IRA any mandate for 1919 onwards.'

HR forces might have been on the statue books but they were not wanted in Ireland by the majority of Irish people. The Nazi government may have declared themselves the rulers of various states in their day and even made it legal in their law or made proxy puppet governments they set up the 'legal rulers' but I would be one for thinking that it should be up to the people to decide, eh?


'A unitary state solution wasn't going to happen - the actual area of NI shd have been much smaller....and no, I don't believe the actions of the UVF were right...'

Shit man, you're the boyo who's bleating about democracy and yet you can't bring yourself to condemn the outrageously undemocratic decision to split Ireland in two to placate a minority who only embrace democracy when it suits them. How strange.

'The IRA weren't fighting for democracy & freedom, they were fighting to seize power in their fantasy 32 county socialist republic...democracy??? Don't make me laugh.....what was SF's support during the violence?'

Well its my contention that the leaders of the republican movement were intelligent enough to realize that any attempt by the IRA to bring about a dictatorship in Ireland would have been totally against the beliefs of the republican movement and absolutely unaceptable and would have qute rightly been opposed by everyone on the island and they (the IRA) also quite rightly would have been slaughtered. But by going back to the seventies and looking at the Provisionals embracment of the Eire Nua document we can can see clearly that the IRA was certianly a supporter of a truely democratic new Ireland. it was just their position that this could only be acceived through armed struggle.
Now please answer my question of why it was ok from the British government to send its troops to Iraq against the wishes of its people but wrong for the IRA to fight in its own country when it was aginst the beliefs of the majority population. Don't try and turn this question around again and insult our itelligence further. Please just answer me this time.

'Dresden/Tokyo - ya know, I wish all those civvies hadn't died but it was total war against two unrelentingly evil systems...please don't compare the IRA's campaign with the Allies' fight in WW II.....said IRA being only too happy to go looking for help from the nice chaps in the jackboots.....'

But why was it ok for them to slaughter civilians so needlessly? They didn't have to become such blatant air terrorists. Why is it ok for the 'regular' armies to bring such devestation and misery to ordinary people? Why is the Satanic reality of needlessly burnt and destroyed human beings so wrong here but ok if or maybe just a little bit regretable if done by the British or US armies?

And if it was wrong for the IRA to have asked for support from the Nazis in arms when they needed to get them (and don't forget they also asked the Soviet Union for support at that time. Those crazy mixed up IRA! Whose side were they on?!) how wrong was it then for the British and American governmets to have supported (and to continue to support) so many vile regimes around the world when it suits or suited them to do so and how wrong is it then for these sovereign and democratic British and US governments to sell arms to disgusting and very undemocratic governments around the world?


'As for UN involvement in Palestine - is this the same UN whose resolutions the Arab states and Palestinians support so much when directed against Israel?'

Yes, it is the same UN. but you're skirting around the issue again. Why, O great defender of democracy, was it fine and great for the UN to go against the majority of the Palestinian people? Please answer with a real answer this time or don't answer at all.

by Devil Dog Thu Jul 29, 2004 23:21

Nordie....

Never claimed to love the British Army....once again, I'd dispute "millions"....And I never said killing innocents is ok if done by AF of a soverign state....

Much of the British Empire became colored red on the map not thru military invasion but thru private enterprises, missionaries, trade etc - not saying mil forces weren't involved, but not quite as clear cut as you make out...don't know how you can infer support for imperialism form my posts...final word on Empire - try reading Niall Ferguson's "Empire"...

The majority of the Irish people did not vote for SF in 1918 - 48% did. Admittedely, many SF candidates were returned unopposed but there was also widespread SF personation & intimidation....Don't have the figures to hand, but those who voted Unionist of Irish Party outnumbered those who voted SF.

HR was on the statute book - the IRB had no mandate for 1916 nor had the IRA any mandate for 1919 onwards.

" Why is murder by the IRA so wrong and murder by the British foreign occuping army so right?" I don't believe I ever said it was.

A unitary state solution wasn't going to happen - the actual area of NI shd have been much smaller....and no, I don't believe the actions of the UVF were right...

The IRA weren't fighting for democracy & freedom, they were fighting to seize power in their fantasy 32 county socialist republic...democracy??? Don't make me laugh.....what was SF's support during the violence?

Dresden/Tokyo - ya know, I wish all those civvies hadn't died but it was total war against two unrelentingly evil systems...please don't compare the IRA's campaign with the Allies' fight in WW II.....said IRA being only too happy to go looking for help from the nice chaps in the jackboots.....

As for UN involvement in Palestine - is this the same UN whose resolutions the Arab states and Palestinians support so much when directed against Israel?

Israel's not going away, the Palestinian people wd be best served by a leadership which recognizes that fact.

Yeah, I'm going to need some lumberjacks to help with removing that tree.....

by Nordie Thu Jul 29, 2004 22:51

So, Devil. You don't like the IRA because they kill people. Fair enough.
But then again you love the Brit army and they have killed people by the millions over the years.
You say this is OK because they are the legitimate forces of a sovereign democratic state.
But what about during the days of empire when they invaded and colonised whole countries? Were they the legitimate force in those countries in which they subjugated foreign peoples?
And what about when the majority of Irish people voted in 1918 for a fully independent Republic of Ireland free from all British interference and the British government refused to recognize their decision? Was the British army still the legitimate army in Ireland? Was it not the right of the Irish people to rise up and fight a foreign military occupier? And if the IRA commited murders during this period was it not okay by your logic because the British army were commiting murder also and the British army set the highest standards? Why is murder by the IRA so wrong and murder by the British foreign occuping army so right?
And when Ireland was split into two states against the democratic wishes of the Irish people did that not make the British army who stayed in the Northern state to secure it for a foreign power opponents of democracy? Was it okay for a minority of people on the island of Ireland to have ignored the majority wishes and then set up a secterian state by threat of force and then bleat about an attack on democracy whenever some of the minority whom they abused terribly in that state rose up in violence?
And while its wrong for the IRA to have planted bombs in civilian areas (not talking here about the rights or wrongs of why the conflict was being fought but the actual realities of bombs exploding) does it not make it equally wrong for the British and US army to have been involved in dropping bombs over the Dresden and Toyko civilian areas that killed well over 100,000 between them on 2 different nights?
And why is it OK for the British army to have fought in Iraq seemingly for 'freedom and democracy' but wrong for the IRA to have fought in their own country for freedom and true democracy in the past 30 years? Is it because the majority of the Irish people oppossed the use of violence? But why then was it alright for the British army to have gone to war in Iraq when the majority of the British people opposed the move?
And while we're on it, why was it alright for the land of Palestine to have been butchered up in 1948 by a foreign body (the UN) who had absolutely no right to do so and against the wishes of the majority population and to please the wishes of the minority population?
Are you just suffering a gross case of not being able to see the wood for the trees? Or has the plank you have stuck in your eye that stretches all the way from here to China just blinded you to the awful truth?

by Ted Thu Jul 29, 2004 17:36

Lets have a protest against the first world war and the Battle of Clontarf. Nice to see the real issues being highlighted.

by moonwolf Thu Jul 29, 2004 14:56

First pooka: "is anyone in Iraq an innocent civilian, I don't think so"

i find no need to respond to such a ludicrous statement.

Devil dog: The irish volunteers had no electoral mandate to attack anybody, in fact they had no electoral mandate at all prior to 1919. Post 1919 they would appear to have had a significant mandate in electoral terms.
they do appear however to have had substantial popular support throughout the southern portion of the island.

My own opinion about all of this is that this island badly needs a truth and reconciliation commission along the lines of the one established in South Africa. It seems to me that the truth is there were atrocities carried out by all sides, that is republicans, loyalists , Free state forces and British forces. It would be more helpful to all of us living on this island today if we could accept that and try to move forward in a constructive manner rather than this constant "you were worse than us" attitude.I say this as a former member of the Republic of Ireland Permanent Defence Force, a member of the minority religious community in the south and a republican in the origional meaning of the word. Just for the record Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet and C.S. Parnell, not to forget Dr. Douglas Hyde were all members of the Non Roman Catholic minority on this Island yet all were proud to be Irish, All were opposed to British occupation and all were leaders of resistance to that occupation. Peace can only truly be achieved here through all those who live on this Island adopting an attitude of Truthfullness and reconciliation.

by Pooka Thu Jul 29, 2004 13:15

Moonwolfe, Is anyone in Iraq an innocent civilian? I don't think so.

by Eamonn T. Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:30

I think in this day and age we should have a bit of respect for people who want to commemorate their dead. Lack of respect for these simple human acts of rememberance led to the bombing of the ceremony at Enniskillen. Equally respect should be shown to the people gathering annually at Arbour Hill, Bodenstown, and the numerous other republican memorials. While some might see acts of rememberance as coat trailing or triumphalist, surely it is up to the people in attendance to define what the event is about.

On a related point about rememberance ceremonies in november, - over 50,000 Irishmen died in the British army in WW1. The vast majority of those who volunteered from this island were Nationalists, asked by their then leadership to go where the firing line extended, they believed that by doing so they were copperfastening home rule which had already been passed at westminster. Over the years, and with the founding of the Free State and then the Republic, the sacrifice of these nationalists was forgotten and the 'national mythology' that we all supported the Easter Rising and the War of Independence was created.

Thankfully in recent times people have started to question this and once again wear poppies in november to commemorate the thousands of ordinary men and women who were butchered by the aristocracy of Europe in pursit of their own imperial ambitions. Of the three Irish divisions in WW1, only one was clearly unionist the 36th Ulster Division, the other two were majority catholic nationalist. When I attend the war memorial in Derry this year it will be to remember the 4500 Donegal men who died in WW1. If i happen to be standing beside a man or woman who is there to remember a son or husband who was in the UDR then so be it. I hope that both our losses will be respected and recognised.

I hope that more republicans will follow the example of the former Mayor of Belfast Alex Maskey, and remember our nationalist forefathers who like so many others were butchered on the killing fields of Flanders, France and Gallipoli.

P.S. I haven't time to go into the numbers of Irish who joined up to fight the Nazi's in WW2 when DeValera kept us out of the war, but suffice it to say I will be honouring their memory too, as I have also honoured the men of the Connolly Column who fought fascism in Spain. Did both sets of men not have the same common motivation?

by Chuck E. R. Law Thu Jul 29, 2004 03:46

No commemoration of the killing of unarmed policement by back-shooters like Markievicz. then?

"If I could only shoot one British soldier I should die happy!" Was the wish fulfilled? . . . Some officers coming out from lunch at the Shelbourne Hotel on the other side of the square fell to the ground---they were just casual visitors, and unarmed.

More @: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/comment/Ireland/Ire4.htm

by Devil Dog Thu Jul 29, 2004 02:59

Moonwolf:

To answer your ?'s:

1. No.

2. No - I'd like to see such an individual receive harsher punishment. To dwell on a case you mentioned previously - I personally think Calley should have been executed - then again, you cd argue he was of subnormal intelligence and so shd have been spared. Not to harp on My Lai too much, but a US Warrant Officer flying overhead in a helo landed the bird between Calley's men and the civilians and ordered his men to shoot at the troops if they tried to keep attacking the civilians.

One question for you - what mandate did the Irish Vols ever receive to start knocking off RIC men?

Nordie:

Thanks for a somewhat more reasoned argument than insults.

I take your point about who gets remembered at US/UK memorial services - if the original poster had announced a commeration of the victims and left it at that, then I wouldn't have bothered to post what I did. However, he choose to go a little bit farther, citing Belfast, Basra and just what a murderous bunch the BA is. Hence, my response.....

If you want to go into Viet Nam, a whole other thread - I wd dispute your figure of 3 million...however, if US intervention in VN prevented the spread of Soviet backed Marxism thru Asia, then yes, the war was justified.

As for the IRA's "fighting the Brits" - unfortunately, the IRA was a few decades late in realizing that the impediment to a united Ireland wasn't the Brits but 1 million Prods.

Re understanding IRA violence - yeah, if I was a 17 year old in the Ardoyne who got the shite kicked out of him by Paras, then I wd have wanted to join the IRA too...doesn't mean I wd have been right though....then again, if my aunt had a dick & balls, she'd be my uncle.

Finally, please, no moral equivalence between the IRA and the US/UK militaries.....

by Nordie Thu Jul 29, 2004 02:27

Sorry? What did I ignore. I thought I was being very honest. In fact, me lad, I think its you who has been doing the ignoring around here.

I asked you will you be rembering the millions who your heros have, well,lets just say have caused to die throughout the world by, take for the US example their grossly stupid intervention in Vietnam in which they killed around 3 million human beings and for the Brits we'll say, mmmm, what about their colonial adventures which caused the deaths of millions also? And maybe for good measure, since we're talking about the Tan days, will you be remembering the 14 murdered in Croke Park by the Tans on the original Irish Boody Sunday (and don't try and equate the dead at the hurling match in Dublin with the dead British spies).

Actually, I woundn't count myself as an IRA supporter but I certainly don't blame people for having fought the Brits. I think a peaceful path should have been taken but then again I'm only 24 and can't really imagine what the seventies must have been like. I just try and understand why there was IRA violence. I am certainly sympathetic to their aims but I think war is only permissible in extreme circumstanes.

But, personally, yeah, I do always try and remember the people who republicans have killed but to be honest I'm not going to attend a service which commemorates British soldiers who died over here.

I will call a spade a spade and say that the IRA have engaged in savage bloody murder. Of course they have. And, now, lets face it, so has your British and American armies. Face it. Please. Don't subject us to more sheer buffoonry. And thats what I'm getting at. Your original comments were directed at republians who wanted to commemorate a massacre which was carried out by the British army in Ireland (and rem now, nothing at all to do with dead IRA volunteers being remembered) and you engaged in what-about-ry in which you seemingly tried to convey that these people should not be able to take part in their remembrance service without also sparing a moment for people who have been killed by the IRA and for British troops who died in a war which was totally unconected with the services aims in any way what-so-ever. And so I'm asking you will you remember all the victims of your affiliated militaries the next time you attend a service of remembrace for their fallen dead? And even if you don't want to remember the soldiers who have died at their hands (not even the men and women who had to give their lives in fighting the British who invaded their lands) will you remember the civilians who died (I would find it very hard to believe that the 3 million dead by American actions in Vietnam were all armed combatants, eh?) ?

by moonwolf Thu Jul 29, 2004 01:41

Two questions Devil Dog:

Do you condone the murder of innocent civilians by those who hold lawful firearms as a result of their enlistment in national or state armed forces?

Do you believe that any serving soldier who deliberately fires on innocent civilians should recieve the same treatment as a "terrorist" who fires on innocent civilians.

And for the record, wishing to highlight injustices committed by the British armed forces does not make one a "provo " or a "provo supporter". Had the Irish Volunteers not taken up arms"illegitimately" against the british forces we would still be under occupation, those men and women who would today be called terrorists done exactly what your countrymen done in overthrowing British colonial rule in North America. Oh but what a short memory todays American citizens have!!!!

by Devil Dog Thu Jul 29, 2004 01:27

Ignore what you can't countenance...as for me, I don't think calling attention to murder is tedious...as I think I can safely describe you as an IRA supporter, I can see how someone mentioning the events I did might upset you.

Buffoon??? Oh dear, why resort to name calling? Is that the best you can do???

Millions killed???? Hmmn, not really...most wd have been other combatants...but I digress, some condescending IRA supporter getting upset and calling me names won't upset me.

by dube Thu Jul 29, 2004 01:00

how many of these occured on 26th of july

by Nordie Thu Jul 29, 2004 00:58

Just curious meself Devil - will you be remembering the millions of people your heros in the British and American armies have slaughtered down the years whenever these two nations have their individual remembrance days this year?

We're all mostly still tribal like so don't you try and pretend you're not you absolutely tedious buffoon.

by Devil Dog Thu Jul 29, 2004 00:48

Will you also be remembering the 28 children killed in the 1916 Rising?
Will you be remembering ex-soldiers murdered by the IRA in 1919-22?
Will you be remembering the sacrifices of the British army to defeat Nazi tyranny?
Will you be remembering victims of La Mon, Enniskillen, Kingmills, Darkley, Frizzells Fish Shop?
Will you be remembering thousands murdered by Saddam Hussein?

Just curious.......

by . Thu Jul 29, 2004 00:39

A ban on party banners and newspapers, have the british army returned to Dublin?
What happened to political freedom?