Oh fecking grow up you spastic or I will go down there and choke you with a haddock
Northern Ireland Thread
- Thread starter Gaz.
- Start date
Oh fecking grow up you spastic or I will go down there and choke you with a haddock
Oh fecking grow up you spastic or I will go down there and choke you with a haddock
I prefer a bit of whiting.
Sinn Fein told nationalist not to join the PSNI fairly recently, like within the last two years recent iirc.
Soldiers and police are still being targeted today, though rather this time they are largely targeting catholic 'traitors'.
I'm not really a fan of any political party having ties with paramilitary organizations and being allowed to hold office that gets to make any decisions on my life. But in that regard Sinn fein are no worse than the DUP, the UUP and all the other 54 UP's
Soldiers and police are still being targeted today, though rather this time they are largely targeting catholic 'traitors'.
I'm not really a fan of any political party having ties with paramilitary organizations and being allowed to hold office that gets to make any decisions on my life. But in that regard Sinn fein are no worse than the DUP, the UUP and all the other 54 UP's
Sinn Feinn are just scumbags without balls.
Personally, I think both sides are retarded. The IRA had the moral high ground, but they threw it away. The fact of the matter is The United Kingdom had no business invading Ireland over 800 years ago. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it, they had to right to invade a foreign country.
However, 800 years on is over 10 generations of people who now call themselves ''Northern Irish'' and it isn't exactly fair to tell them to leave what they perceive as their rightful home. At the end of the day, it isn't, but it's too far gone.
The Loyalists need to understand this, that it never should of happened, that the Irish were in-face the victims of a cruel and torturous regime led by the people who you look up to as a group.
The fact that the Catholics are predominantly Republican, and the Protestants mostly Unionists, means less then nothing to me, nor should it to any Republican worth his salt.
To quote one of my favorite Republican heroes, who was also a Protestant, Wolfe Tone.
Ahh lads this took ages.
Ive read some crazy shit on this forum (and this thread) but that is up there with the best of it.
Well in the same way many consider Gerry Adams to be a terrorist, Nelson Mandela may, wrongly be also viewed in the same light.
Neither are for me.
Terrorism is the use of violent acts to invoke terror, perpetrated for a religious, policitical or idealogical goal.
Yep, it's crazy shit to say Nelson Mandela and Gerry Adams/IRA were terrorists. What exactly were they then?
Freedom fighters
Even if that is accepted, they used terror as their means of fighting for freedom. The two aren't exclusive. A freedom fighter can be a terrorist, if terror is the means to the end. In both these cases it was. Ergo....
If you were in their shoes how would you have gone about attempting to acheive aims?
Very strange that a serving British Prime Minister would be part of the party that unveiled a statue to a “terrorist” in the shadow of their Houses of Parliament, don’t you think?
When can we expect the one of Gerry to go up?
This isn't a question of what other individuals would or wouldn't do, it's a question of definitions. Whether you agree with the end aim, or the means to achieve that end don't matter. If terror and acts of violence to invoke terror are the means to an end, then those engaged in that form of campaign are terrorists.
As I said, being a terrorist and being a freedom fighter, separatist, revolutionary, guerrilla etc aren't exclusive.
Why would the British Prime Minister give a feck? Mandela didn't terrorise the British establishment, he terrorised the South African establishment.
Have I said I disagree with the cause Mandela was fighting for? It doesn't mean he wasn't involved in acts of terrorism, and is therefore a terrorist.
You are aware of the terror campaign, which caused the deaths of a number of innocent civilians, carried out by Mandela and his organisation, aren't you?
Was invading the Falklands a terror campaign?
Dunno. Was it?
Perhaps because someone in a position of power such as the British PM should not be seen to be erecting statues to a "terrorist" no matter where they are from? Or do you think this is not the case and it is ok in certain cases as long as its not on your doorstep?
So you agree with terrorism under certain circumstances?
I am. But history will undoubtedly judge him as anything but a terrorist.
Anyway all this Mandela chat derails the thread somewhat.
It could be argued the British Empire was built on terrorism. Do you think they rocked up to all those countries and said “Would you mind ever so kindly if we took over your country?”
Of course they didn’t, they waltzed right in there and butchered people and took it over by force. True terrorism there.
Where have I said I agreed with any of the actions committed by Britain, or disagreed with the aims of Mandela?
It doesn't matter what you think of his aims, the means to achieve them were the use of terrorist acts, right or wrong?
You were the one that reckoned saying a man who committed acts of terrorism was a terrorist was crazy shit. Some of the craziest you'd seen on here, no less.
I ask again, since you never bothered to answer. What was Mandela, if not a terrorist? And what tag would you instead give to the acts of terrorism committed by him and his organisation?
It doesn't matter what you think of his aims, the means to achieve them were the use of terrorist acts, right or wrong?
You were the one that reckoned saying a man who committed acts of terrorism was a terrorist was crazy shit. Some of the craziest you'd seen on here, no less.
I ask again, since you never bothered to answer. What was Mandela, if not a terrorist? And what tag would you instead give to the acts of terrorism committed by him and his organisation?
No. To clarify I said to classify Nelson Mandela as a terrorist was crazy and history will undoubtedly judge him otherwise. But off you go......
You can to and fro back and forward with other people all day long if you wish but Im not going to waste my time.
Yeah, which is what I said you said. Calling Nelson Mandela, a man who himself and the organisation he co-founded committed terrorist acts, some of which lead to innocent civilians dying, a terrorist was crazy shit.
It doesn't matter how history views him, it doesn't matter what his aims were, or whether we agree with those aims or not. The act of using acts of terror as the means to the end makes him a terrorist. Crazy I know, but there is a clue in the name.
I see you ignored that question again. Funny that.
The guy was a terrorist by definition. Not all terrorists are suicide bombers from Al Qaeda. Whether people agree with his views/cause/actions or not is completely irrelevant. It seems to be quite a pointless debate, when you get around to establishing whether he was or he wasn't, there isn't going to have been a purpose for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20903960
Eight officers have been injured after police came under attack from a crowd throwing petrol bombs and other missiles in east Belfast.
Eight officers have been injured after police came under attack from a crowd throwing petrol bombs and other missiles in east Belfast.
Scumbags
Oh..and irishcelt do one te little scrote
Oh..and irishcelt do one te little scrote
More choppers in the sky tonight. Jordan would love it.
When will the wankers pack it in and wise up? I hope they don't cave in and give them what they want. What abou as a compromise they agree to put up a Union Jack every day of he year but set fire to it each day. Everyone's a winner.
When will the wankers pack it in and wise up? I hope they don't cave in and give them what they want. What abou as a compromise they agree to put up a Union Jack every day of he year but set fire to it each day. Everyone's a winner.
I'd love to see the Alliance offices if that was offered as a compromise.Also, I can't see them giving in to the shit pricks. Why would they? The balance of power lies with the Alliance party and I can't see them being willing helpers after all this shite.
Or what about an actual northern irish flag, but maybe a different one
A "terrorist" is somebody who doesn't have a sovereign state to hide behind when he/she starts a war. Nelson Mandela fight was as justified as people fighting against Hitler in my opinion. His actions where a lot more honourable than many actions carried out by many leaders of sovereign states. If a political process isn't available to somebody like Mandela then he is justified in fighting. He didnt have any alternative to change South Africa. What did you expect the suppressed majority to do? Sit down and take it for ever?
Im not saying all people who are branded terrorists are right but clearly some are. Anyway nobody bar a few white extremists would consider him to be a terrorist.
If that's the case then anyone who was involved in violence is a terrorist, but that's just pedantics.
While it would be hard to stomach for many if it is achieved by democratic means it has to be accepted.
The people killed defending the state of NI ie the security forces where defending the rule of law. They were defending the wishes of the majority to remain British. If by the rule of law ie the GFA the people decide on a UI then that is completely fair. The fact that it was an aim of a terrorist organisation is neither here nor there. Not a very nice thing to have to stomach if you're a unionist but it would be moving the goal posts to suggest that nationalists don't have a right to Unity by democratic means. Why should a constitutional nationalist(who was never a terrorist) not have a right to try for a UI? Its not their fault that their political aim was given a very bad name by a tiny minority.
Campaigning for a United Ireland now is cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's simply impractical and would be a decision born out of hatred and intolerance in my opinion.
As a constitutional nationalist I would disagree.
How would it be born out of hatred and intolerance?
Because there is no practical reason for it. For me it would be simply because people are unwilling to leave the past in the past.
Yet on a practical level so many things are run on an All-Ireland basis. Its madness to have so much duplication on a small Island of less than 6 million people.
What is the practical need to change to a United Ireland?
The current flag situation IS a comprise, the flag is up on official days (I think ~30 per year) and look how that's going down.
If we removed the terrorists or the terror affiliated from NI politics, we wouldn't have very many.
If we removed the terrorists or the terror affiliated from NI politics, we wouldn't have very many.
That's completely wrong. Supporting the unification of Ireland is a perfectly legitmate belief to have. It's no different in moral terms to you wanting to stay in the union.
There's a practical reason to remain in the union. That being economical.
TN isn't saying that a democratically made decision to change is wrong. He was responding to somebody saying it would be an affront to the memories of those who fought to not continue the push for a UI.
Jake nothing you said is wrong but it was 800 years ago, I'd say take it up with the Queen but even she is barely related to the guy that invaded Ireland then.
The 'Irish' didn't invent Ireland, there was tribes of Picts, Celts and Vikings that sailed back an forth fecking each other up for generations before hand, Dublin is a viking town and before you dismiss that a ridiculous statement the viking era was only 200 years before hand and they hadn't exactly left.
Once we go a few hundred years into the past it becomes rather ridiculous to try and hold the moral high ground on any basis or side of an argument of who should 'go home' today. Unless you can follow your ancestry back to the first guy to feck a potato on these green shores, it's very blurry.
The Irish didn't invent Ireland....!
Thats a new one for me!
Who invented Britain?
Thats a new one for me!
Who invented Britain?