E-Bay Bows to Brits on IRA Items

by Fuse Sun Sep 26, 2004 02:04

I'm glad they banned it. I'm tired of corporate free market enterprise in politics and this is such a shameful example. True colours though.

Yeah defend them why don't you. Plastic lefties defending plastic marketeers who work for plastic paddies. Sad.

by alex tonto Sat Sep 25, 2004 16:07

I think we can take it you will not be purchasing any of the rather fetching Christmas cards or visiting Cuba in the near future. It would be best to avoid Cuba as you are opposed to the death penalty and stick to somewhere much more humane like Geoge Bush's USA.
you clearly have evidence that the sale of festive cards is used to fund terrorism it would be helpful to have this if we are to complain

by alexander toneore Sat Sep 25, 2004 15:33 toneore at eircom dot net

Don't forget to point out any republican fellow travellers using PayPal to raise funds too - they're used for terrorism - you can complain to eBay too about crapsters like the following using PayPal: http://irelandsown.net/pownews13.html

Use some of the postings on this page and this site as evidence to support your arguments.

by Antiques RoadShow Sat Sep 25, 2004 15:27

See: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/offensive.html.

Complain here : http://pages.ebay.com/help/contact_inline/index.html

by Ali H. Fri Sep 24, 2004 16:54

It didn't work in Nurnberg and it wont for Sharon and his cronies when the day of reckoning eventually comes.

by moonwolf Fri Sep 24, 2004 03:10

Check out the UNRWA site for news of the I.O.F latest defence of Israel. The murder of a child at her school desk.

Maybe they are biased too, are they Noel?

More on this story and otheer palestinian news
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?field=tech_news&id=1722

by moonwolf Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:37

The Kahan Commission investigated Sabra/Shatila Massacre

Excerpt from Kahan Commission Report:
"We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Read the full report at:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

by kintama Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:21

Noel probably already has it on his DVD of great victories by the glorious IDF

by seedot Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:16

some is more unsettling then others.


TV has presented both versions of this story - google gives loads more.

The version I saw, either Irish or British pinned the blame clearly on the IDF. I do not say this is true.

The truth is really really ugly, but now unknowable as the media swirl has claimed the images.

if you want to see the video it is available at a link from

www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html

with a url like that it is sure to be objective.

by Noel Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:07

Check out ADR television in Germany.
They did a progamme a while back.

by kintama Fri Sep 24, 2004 00:59

there are none so blind etc etc.
I assume your knowledge of the brutal murder of young Mohammed by the IDF came from an unbiased source

by Noel Fri Sep 24, 2004 00:53

Mohammed al-Durra was shot by Palestinian gunmen. Do your homework.

Sabra/Shatila was Falangists. Do your homework.

The differences between Ariel Sharon and George Bush? Not too sure. They are similar.

Both are strong leaders.
Both lead countries which are hated by Islamists.
Both are democratically elected.
Both will be re-elected next time round.

by moonwolf Fri Sep 24, 2004 00:33

You request info on I.D.F atrocities, why don't you check the other press section on this site and you will find a story i posted last saturday regarding same. Also if you scroll down the newswire you will find an article on Sabra/Shatila massacre which I posted last week, including links to the Kahan Commission , you know of the Kahan Commission, the commission that found the then Israeli defence minister Ariel Sharon to be responsible.

As to your original question:
They are spelt differently?
The I.N.L.A was much more successful at killing their own members?


Now you tell me whats the difference between Ariel Sharon and George Bush?

Apart from the fact that they have both been denounced by unbiased international organisations such as TheU.N

Correct , they are both murdering thugs!

by kintama Fri Sep 24, 2004 00:03

noel to paraphrase the much revered Eoghan Harris it would seem that you are a sneaking regarder for the type of overwhelming violence indulged in by your heroes in the IDF. Perhaps if the palestinians had the same 'precision' weapons supplied by a supportive superpower they could manage to avoid the hundreds of civilian childrens deaths your so honourable friends have caused.
I suggest you check up on Fadl Abu Zuhra age 9 ,Mohammed 'Abeb Hassan age 14 or more famously Rami Mohammed al Durra.
The casual disregard for the lives of children like these demonstrates that your heroes have no more honour than those you so casually label as terrorists and murderersf

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 15:48

I didnt think it too rude. I could have been clearer in the first place. I would disagree with you about NICRA. I dont think they would have gotten the equivalent of the GFA.

Remember Bloody Sunday was a NICRA march. Even in 1974 loyalists wouldnt accept powersharing. Faulkners UPNI became yeterdays men. Even William Craig caused outrage when he suggested voluntary coalition in 1976. This led to him losing his seat in 1979.

I dont think much of the GFA, but i dont support RIRA or CIRA. It gave me no joy to see DeBrun & McGuinness as Ministers of the crown. But do you really think NICRA could have got the DUP to the cusp of going into govt with SF.

by Leon - Anarchist Drivers Thu Sep 23, 2004 15:13

sorry pat that comment was quite rude.

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:48

C sna C,

Welcome to another unbiased poster.

Now let me get this straight.
Reliable unbiased news sources BAD.
Unreliable biased news sources GOOD.

I think that's what you meant.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:45

The UN & EU both reagard these "targeted assassinations" as illegal, a breach of international law and a breach of the geneva convention of human rights.

Its a fact that the IDF have killed tousands of unarmed Palestinians in the Intifada. Firing missilles into a crowded area will inevitably lead to a loss of civilian life, the IDF know this. Shooting into crowds will lead to a loss of civilian life, the IDF know this.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:37

I'm not validating SF, my aim is to expose hypocrisy. Thats why I chose that particular example. Noel has double standards.

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:35

Pat,

Have you not found that link yet?

The one which says the IDF deliberately kills civilians.
The one which you must have read sometime to formulate your argument against the IDF.

Tell me you haven't just believed stories of IDF atrocities from biased sources. Say it isn't so!

As for targeted assassinations. Under international law killing enemy combatants is lawful, even while they sleep.
All the targeted assassinations have been against enemy combatants.

And what's more, they're working.
Check out some unbiased news sources for their effectiveness in virtually destroying Hamas' ability to murder more Israelis.

by Leon - Anarchist Drivers Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:32

"Yes Noel there is. If you shoot unarmed demonstrators then you are a paratrooper, a loyal member of the State forces. If you kill an armed paratrooper then you are a terrorist."

Give it a rest man that was a long long time ago. Do leftists have to keep validating Sinn Fein because so many oldies have sutrvivor guilt. If you really believe that stuf why aren't you dead? The brits shot demonstrators because they knew if they lost Belfast today, they'd lose Brixton tomorrow and Birmingham the day after that. There was nothing anti irish about. Our rulers were fighting the class war. They never stop.

The troubles were a waste of thirty years. They weren't worth it. NICRA would have achieved everything that has been achieved.


Nole if you think you're shaking things up here you're wrong. Talk about pissing in the wind.

Here's a simple example: If I knocked someone down with my car (Anarchist Drivers don't by the way) that would be manslaughter.

But if I knocked down 15 people one after another peopel might start to wonder. See what I mean? didn't think so.

by C sna C Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:31

It is not Pat C or anybody else's job to find you an "unbiased" (handy opt-out clause there eh?) source of information that proves the IDF are a vicious sectarian cowardly pack of state-terrorist murderers who use guns against stones, tanks against guns, missiles against cars etc.

Try checking out different sources of news for yourself instead of relying on "kickarabass.com" or "www.youngpatriots"

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:22

You havent pointed out any inaccuracies.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:20

Are you denying that 400 palestinians were killed during that 5 month period? Are you denying that 73 children were killed by the IDF?

Do you believe that what you would call a Democratic State has the right to execute someone without trial? How is it then a Democratic State?

The truth is that by supporting the actions of terrorist states you are the terrorist supporter and the real murdering thugs are the British, US and Israeli Armed forces.

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:15

Pat,

No joy with the googling?

Don't just do it for me old chap, do it for yourself.
Maybe then you'll realise the inaccuracies in your previous rants and learn not to repeat them again.

Otherwise, I'll just have to conclude I'm debating with a prejudiced fool. And that just wouldn't do.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:09

I am not going to do a trawl of the web or elsewhere for your satisfaction.

I repeat: are you stating that the Israelis did not kill these people?

How about answering my question: how is a state democratic if it executes people without trial in targeted assassinations (which sometimes result in death of 15 children rather than the target)?

You are deluding no one except yourself.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:04

Nope. Check out the figures the terrorist states, the US, Brits, Israel etc have waded through rivers of blood.

Now are you denying that Israel and the US in particular are murdering thousands of civilians in the Middle East?

How many ordinary civilians are safe in fallujah today as US jets fly over and indiscriminately bomb it yet again?

How many children are safe in West Bank and Gaza refugee camps as IDF jets and copters rain death down on them?

by PPP Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:53

Pat C,
truth by defination is black and white, and you say the real murdering thugs are in tthe white house etc...
Hamas, Al Qaeda are the sham murdering thugs?
the panomine murdering thugs? - I hope you are not on a train or in a building or on a bus when the pantomine starts

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:51

Pat,

I take it your trawl of the web and your 2 volume book collection couldn't unearth the damning evidence of IDF deliberate civilian killing then?

It's probably my fault. I did say unbiased which probably threw you.

by Tocaigh Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:36

Its all nostalgia now, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are the MPs now, the glorious struggle is over - now we can have a virtual struggle by adopting the Israeli- Palestine conflict, actual terrorism has gone way out of fashion RIP 9/11, except for getting our own house in order every once in a while with stern words and sterner bats.

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:13

Edward Said said that, and for once he seems to have been right.

Where do you get your news from?

Show me an unbiased news source which proves the IDF deliberately kill civilians.

Now, back to the thread.
Does anyone know the difference between the murdering IRA thugs and the murdering INLA thugs? Republican offered the MPs killed tally but that shows similarity as opposed to difference.
Anyone?

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 13:02

" guess the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths recently, being attributed to the US is par for the course around these parts.
US car bombs, US suicide bombers."

Noel, you are making a foll of yourself. Deal with the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by the US.

"You lump in assassinations of militants with deaths of innocent civilians. Are they the same to you?"

Are they the same to you? Do you believe that States have the right to execute people without trial?

"Of all the world's armies in a war situation the IDF have proved themselves the most restrained. "

Ha! Ha! Tell that to the 73 children.

"They follow strict rules of engagement which helps to minimise civilian casualties."

You cant really believe this.

"The fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide amongst heavily populated areas is the biggest contributing factor to the deaths of these innocents."

Yes the palestinian militants live heavily populated areas, their areas. Over crowded because their rightful homes have been stolen by Israeli settlers.

"If the Palestinian terrorists used the same rules of engagement as the IDF then less innocents would be killed."

Really? You think Palestinians should shoot children in the streets and fire missiles indiscriminately into Tel Aviv?

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:58

Republican,

It's a fair cop.
You've got me.
Banged to rights.

I do support the US, the UK and the Israeli governments.
The democratic process which elects them. I support that too.

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:55

I guess the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths recently, being attributed to the US is par for the course around these parts.
US car bombs, US suicide bombers.

As for Palestine.
The relative peace and calm reported was a direct comment on the failure of suicide bombers to get past the security barrier.

You lump in assassinations of militants with deaths of innocent civilians. Are they the same to you?

Of all the world's armies in a war situation the IDF have proved themselves the most restrained. They follow strict rules of engagement which helps to minimise civilian casualties. The fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide amongst heavily populated areas is the biggest contributing factor to the deaths of these innocents.

If the Palestinian terrorists used the same rules of engagement as the IDF then less innocents would be killed.

by Republican Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:45

Noel has some neck calling us terrorist supporters. He supports the real terrorists the US , British and Israeli Governments.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:39

"You terrorist sympathisers are a humourless bunch.When armies of democratically elected governments are sent to war they tend to kill the enemy.Unfortunately, some civilians get killed. It's a tragedy of war."

Nothing humerous abot the thousands of Palestinians or Iraqis killed at the hands of State forces. The US firing a missile into a crowd near an abandoned burning US tank, accident? I think not. The US continually bombing houses in Fallujah killing civilians, acident? I think not.

On 7 Sep, Palestinian suicide bombers killed 16 Israelis in Beersheba. Almost every news report mentioned this as marking the end of a 5 month period of "relative peace and calm". During those 5 months almost 400 Palestinians were killed by the Israelis, 71 of them in assassinations. 73 Palestinian children were killed by Israelis. A 13 year old murdered with a bullet through the heart, a 5 year old shot in the face. Mazin Majid aged 14 was riddled with 18 Israeli bullets as he and his family fled their bulldozed home.

So, these were the enemy?

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:26

Lads,

You terrorist sympathisers are a humourless bunch.

Let's start at the beginning.
When armies of democratically elected governments are sent to war they tend to kill the enemy. Unfortunately, some civilians get killed. It's a tragedy of war.

When the IRA kill soldiers that's an act of war.
When Hamas/Aqsa kill soldiers that's an act of war.

When either of the above deliberately kill civilians that's an act of terrorism.

Killing Jean McConville was an act of terrorism.
Killing busloads of kids is an act of terrorism.

Let there be no mistake, Bloody Sunday was an act of terrorism too.

Now, please, somebody, what is the difference between IRA murdering thugs and INLA murdering thugs?

by Republican - Royal Flying Automobile Club Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:22

Well the IRA killed the most MPs: Bradford, Gow, Berry. But the INLA killed Airey Neave in the grounds of the House of Commons.

by Copwatch Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:13

Noel has exposed his true nature. In his view its alright for the State Armies to slaughter civilians. If you hit back you are a terrorist.

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:10

you are the one who needs to chill out. i am pointing to the usual hypocrisy that is carried on regarding "terrorist" actions.

would you refer to the ruc & brit army as murdering thugs?

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:05

Hey Pat, take a pill big man.

I wasn't comparing IRA with HM forces.
I wasn't comparing Hamas murderers with IDF soldiers.

No Pat, I was wondering about this elusive difference between the IRA murdering thugs and the INLA murdering thugs?

Got it?

by pat c Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:57

"One bunch of murdering thugs are the same as the other bunch of murdering thugs.

Or is there something more subtle which escapes me?"

Yes Noel there is. If you shoot unarmed demonstrators then you are a paratrooper, a loyal member of the State forces. If you kill an armed paratrooper then you are a terrorist.

The same holds true for Occupied Palestine. If you kill 3 armed Israeli soldiers you are a terrorist. If an IDF pilot fires a missile that kills 15 children then it is collateral damage.

Got it now?

by Noel Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:48

"we aren't surprised that to E-Bay, one Irish Republican is just like any other".

Unfortunately, the majority of Irish people are as dim-witted as E-Bay.
One bunch of murdering thugs are the same as the other bunch of murdering thugs.

Or is there something more subtle which escapes me?

by Tom Cat Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:44

Becuase only Brit loving anti-Irish scum like you equate republican resistance with the Nazis.

by Cathal Brugha Thu Sep 23, 2004 02:59

I would imagine that this ban extends to pictures of Michael Collins. Or copies of the 1916 Proclamation. Or even recordings of Dev's famous reply to Churchill's attempt to intimidate us into handing over our ports to the royal navy. Or perhaps even the National Flag.
Why not just ban everything Irish?

by another ex-stick Thu Sep 23, 2004 00:11

A Frank Ryan bier stein; a Peadar O'Donnell tee shirt (proudly made in the USA)...

I've yet to hit the Seamus Costello link. Perhaps there'll be a mouse mat.

Is this what the IRSP has become? Sad really, they were once a real alternative.

by Countess Mark O'Spitz Wed Sep 22, 2004 22:02 aaaa at aaaa dot com

This kind of filth should be removed from eBay. If there's a ban on Nazi items why shouldn't the IRA and INLA be banned on the same terms.