PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 8, 2017 20:17:42 GMT
Lmfao ethnically cleanse? Uhhhhh, yes. Any solution to enage in an armed campaign against the political will of the majority of people living in your community requires an ethnic cleansing program to remove them in order to give you what you want. Otherwise, if you thought you could persuade them to change to your way of thinking, then why would you engage in an armed campaign in the first place? I thought you terrorist sympathisers understood something as basic as this. Don't you usually try to justify it by dehumanising your 'enemy' and pretending they are not part of your community? Are you seriously suggesting I support deporting all unionists? I am dumbfounded by your bullsh't. You sound like those skinhead loyalists who scream about how Sinn Fein is taking away "their culture". Define terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 8, 2017 20:39:20 GMT
Are you seriously suggesting I support deporting all unionists? Of course not! Where's the fun in engaging in an armed campaign if you don't kill a number of them along the way? The ones that you don't manage to kill or get to surrender abjectly would probably be forced to flee the country of their own accord anyway. www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 8, 2017 21:57:55 GMT
Are you seriously suggesting I support deporting all unionists? Of course not! Where's the fun in engaging in an armed campaign if you don't kill a number of them along the way? The ones that you don't manage to kill or get to surrender abjectly would probably be forced to flee the country of their own accord anyway. www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorismLmfao where are you from? I am guessng you are from England, lots of lies about the war are told there. If we are going by definition number 1 then yes the IRA, INLA etc would be terrorists but so would George Washington or The Allies in WW2. If that is the definition we are going by then terrorism is not neccesarily unehtical. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 8, 2017 22:56:50 GMT
You're not normally a fan of democracy. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. That's democracy. Your solution? Kill innocent children and hope that changes people's minds somehow. The majority of people in London voted against Brexit. Should the EU invade London, occupy it and claim ownership over it? No my solution was to enage in an armed campaign against British imperialism in Ireland in order to bring about the liberation of the Irish people from British rule. Also you're poisoning the well by the way. What? That's a terrible analogy. The majority of people in London voted against leaving the EU and the result was that the majority have accepted it and a few people are peacefully campaigning against the result. WTF has "armed" anything got to do with it? Or any part of the EU for that matter? You really haven't got a clue what democracy means have you? |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 8, 2017 22:59:45 GMT
Of course not! Where's the fun in engaging in an armed campaign if you don't kill a number of them along the way? The ones that you don't manage to kill or get to surrender abjectly would probably be forced to flee the country of their own accord anyway. www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorismLmfao where are you from? I am guessng you are from England, lots of lies about the war are told there. If we are going by definition number 1 then yes the IRA, INLA etc would be terrorists but so would George Washington or The Allies in WW2. If that is the definition we are going by then terrorism is not neccesarily unehtical. I'm going with your definition of terrorism where it's an acceptable "sacrifice" to kill other people's children in the name of your cause rather than sacrificing anything of your own. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 9, 2017 19:19:20 GMT
The majority of people in London voted against Brexit. Should the EU invade London, occupy it and claim ownership over it? No my solution was to enage in an armed campaign against British imperialism in Ireland in order to bring about the liberation of the Irish people from British rule. Also you're poisoning the well by the way. What? That's a terrible analogy. The majority of people in London voted against leaving the EU and the result was that the majority have accepted it and a few people are peacefully campaigning against the result. WTF has "armed" anything got to do with it? Or any part of the EU for that matter? You really haven't got a clue what democracy means have you? Exactly the majority of people voted against staying in the EU, would you support the EU invading and occupying London because they voted in favor of EU memebership? if so then why do you support the same thing being done in the island of Ireland? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 9, 2017 19:22:19 GMT
Lmfao where are you from? I am guessng you are from England, lots of lies about the war are told there. If we are going by definition number 1 then yes the IRA, INLA etc would be terrorists but so would George Washington or The Allies in WW2. If that is the definition we are going by then terrorism is not neccesarily unehtical. I'm going with your definition of terrorism where it's an acceptable "sacrifice" to kill other people's children in the name of your cause rather than sacrificing anything of your own. I dont have a definition of terrorism, I tend to stay away from the word, it is kind of meaningless. It's just used to demonise people some dont like. Why do you keep bringing up children I and other republicans dont condone killing children. How do you know I havent sacrificed anything? |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 9, 2017 22:53:06 GMT
What? That's a terrible analogy. The majority of people in London voted against leaving the EU and the result was that the majority have accepted it and a few people are peacefully campaigning against the result. WTF has "armed" anything got to do with it? Or any part of the EU for that matter? You really haven't got a clue what democracy means have you? Exactly the majority of people voted against staying in the EU, would you support the EU invading and occupying London because they voted in favor of EU memebership? if so then why do you support the same thing being done in the island of Ireland? Your metaphor really doesn't work. I think I see what you're trying to say (that the only reason that the people who want to remain in the UK are in Northern Ireland is because they're occupying it by force?) but that's not applicable to London/EU - EU nationals didn't get to vote in the referendum so the people that voted for it were British. Which, as it happens, is the same situation you have in Northern Ireland - the people that are there voting to stay in the UK didn't arrive as part of an occupying force - they're just people who live there and have the right to vote. Why do you have such a problem with admitting that you are happy to ignore the democratic wishes of people and advocate violence to try to achieve your aim? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 23:58:15 GMT
It's threads like this that make me glad the IRA was defeated.  |
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 10, 2017 6:03:38 GMT
Opie said this: This is the dishonest part, always has been and always will be, and I'm surprised you would think that I wouldn't think this is a ridiculous statement even if you're fine with it. Atheists are more than welcome to run for office in Kentucky, whether there is a law in the books or not. I was being nice by ignoring the example that I assume was chosen since it's the state I live but was also either a sign of desperation of woeful ignorance.Let's make this clear - Because the USA is not a sucky country and you can do whatever you want in relation to belief or nonbelief a person CANNOT be stopped from running for office regardless of the state law that no one pays attention to. You are being dishonest in suggesting that KY recently made this a rule unless you can find a link. I couldn;t even find a place where they had the law 100 years ago much less "recently".
The bigger problem with atheists and running for office deals with their own cowardice by not bothering to run. In any event, let's assume that no one likes an atheist. Not being liked is not the same as being forced to do anything. It takes no special bravery to be an atheist nor to challenge religious groups online or anywhere else. I have no issues with whiny dishonest atheist blabbering on since I can either easily counter them or easily ignore them. However, people like that should be honest in saying they are doing so simply because they want to. There are no real issues between the religious and non-religious. Are there pockets of conflict? Of course, but who cares if the majority of people are living their day fine and it is a lie to say most aren't. It's already happening in far greater ways than with atheists by redistricting and disqualifying people from holding office when job changes conflict with their beliefs. You don't see me raising a stinking about that. I don't usually respond to everything because I focus on the nugget and/or real information. I am spending this time right now talking about it because I have an hour to kill that I normally don;t have at any given time. There has nevver been anything you or others said that if brought up over and over again, I won't eventually address some day. This isn't an issue. Look, a person has the right to disagree, insult, make fun of, & dismiss any ideal they want to. That does not in any way mean the person being insulted is persecuted which is why it is perfectly acceptable for whiny atheist to not leave the religious alone. Barring a sucky country example, the point I'm making is that a person who pretends that they are compelled to attack Christians on the basis of the persecution they face is a liar. It's that simple. It is time for what are probably some grumpy white dudes with high IQ's and above average income (According to atheist stats floating around here) to grow up and have fun with their hatred of religion rather than blame me for that hatred as of I would actually want them coming to my church with that lousy attitude. I am perfectly fine with them remaining wicked with no planned Crusades in Lexington at least. Missing the point in many ways there. His wording left things open as to whether he meant all or a subgroup. I took it as a subgroup, considering what else he wrote. That you took it as a generality is fine, but do you then really not see the hypocrisy in addressing that and ignoring the generality in the subject line? Principle isn't hard. Nor is it hard to put one forward. The example of atheists being barred from running for public office in Kentucky was chosen because it's odious and a strike at the most basic principles of representation. Also, because I knew it offhand, having a cousin who teaches there and that came up in conversation, not that I pretend to have followed things there. But again, you're showing an utter lack of principle. That the constitution prevents racial discrimination doesn't mean you'd give a pass to a racial test to run for office. Would you then just be talking about not being liked as if that were what was on the table? Is there any reason you can't address what I'm specifically talking about? A law barring you from running from office is persecution by definition, not just people not liking you nor just being insulted. www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/in-seven-states-atheists-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html?_r=0Redistricting is not barring blacks or women from holding office. I'll ask again: Would you consider such minor if they barred Christians or blacks or women from holding public office? You seem to be responding to a strawman. I'm against attacking any group by group, so there's no reason to go on about that rather than to what I've actually written, which is about the hypocrisy of addressing one group differently rather than offer a principle. This is why I could never live in the States. Everyone seems to just be out for themselves, with absolutely no principles. Oh, that sounds overarching? Well, I figured you should get an equivalent to your "hatred of religion" nonsense. As I've pointed out countless times, the majority of atheists belong to a religion. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 10, 2017 16:17:50 GMT
Exactly the majority of people voted against staying in the EU, would you support the EU invading and occupying London because they voted in favor of EU memebership? if so then why do you support the same thing being done in the island of Ireland? Your metaphor really doesn't work. I think I see what you're trying to say (that the only reason that the people who want to remain in the UK are in Northern Ireland is because they're occupying it by force?) but that's not applicable to London/EU - EU nationals didn't get to vote in the referendum so the people that voted for it were British. Which, as it happens, is the same situation you have in Northern Ireland - the people that are there voting to stay in the UK didn't arrive as part of an occupying force - they're just people who live there and have the right to vote. Why do you have such a problem with admitting that you are happy to ignore the democratic wishes of people and advocate violence to try to achieve your aim? What on earth? Your rational for British imperialism in Ireland is that the majoirty of people in "Northern Ireland" support the occupation of our country. I am saying since London voted to remain you should be ok with the EU invading, occupying and claiming ownership over London. "Northern Ireland" aka the 6 Irish counties in the north-east of Ireland should not be subject to British imperialism the same reason London shouldnt be subject to EU imperialism, the reason being the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit just like the majority of the people on the island of Ireland oppose British rule in their country. I dont how much clearer I can make this. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 10, 2017 23:15:56 GMT
Your metaphor really doesn't work. I think I see what you're trying to say (that the only reason that the people who want to remain in the UK are in Northern Ireland is because they're occupying it by force?) but that's not applicable to London/EU - EU nationals didn't get to vote in the referendum so the people that voted for it were British. Which, as it happens, is the same situation you have in Northern Ireland - the people that are there voting to stay in the UK didn't arrive as part of an occupying force - they're just people who live there and have the right to vote. Why do you have such a problem with admitting that you are happy to ignore the democratic wishes of people and advocate violence to try to achieve your aim? What on earth? Your rational for British imperialism in Ireland is that the majoirty of people in "Northern Ireland" support the occupation of our country. I am saying since London voted to remain you should be ok with the EU invading, occupying and claiming ownership over London. "Northern Ireland" aka the 6 Irish counties in the north-east of Ireland should not be subject to British imperialism the same reason London shouldnt be subject to EU imperialism, the reason being the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit just like the majority of the people on the island of Ireland oppose British rule in their country. I dont how much clearer I can make this. What makes it "their country"? What connection do the people in Cork or Galway have to the people in Belfast? Other than happening to be on the same island? There's been a long history of people in the west of Scotland and the north of Ireland migrating back and forth between the two and they share more in common with each other than (in many ways) than they do with the rest of Ireland. You're just drawing arbitrary lines on a globe that suit your agenda and picking pieces of history that suit your agenda. The bottom line is that unlike London and the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is a separate legal entity to Republic of Ireland. And the people there don't want to be forced to join the Republic of Ireland. And whilst London has accepted that it can't whine it's way out of the fact that it lost the vote there are elements in Ireland that can't accept similar outcomes and think the next logical step is to murder children. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 11, 2017 9:35:32 GMT
What on earth? Your rational for British imperialism in Ireland is that the majoirty of people in "Northern Ireland" support the occupation of our country. I am saying since London voted to remain you should be ok with the EU invading, occupying and claiming ownership over London. "Northern Ireland" aka the 6 Irish counties in the north-east of Ireland should not be subject to British imperialism the same reason London shouldnt be subject to EU imperialism, the reason being the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit just like the majority of the people on the island of Ireland oppose British rule in their country. I dont how much clearer I can make this. What makes it "their country"? What connection do the people in Cork or Galway have to the people in Belfast? Other than happening to be on the same island? There's been a long history of people in the west of Scotland and the north of Ireland migrating back and forth between the two and they share more in common with each other than (in many ways) than they do with the rest of Ireland. You're just drawing arbitrary lines on a globe that suit your agenda and picking pieces of history that suit your agenda. The bottom line is that unlike London and the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is a separate legal entity to Republic of Ireland. And the people there don't want to be forced to join the Republic of Ireland. And whilst London has accepted that it can't whine it's way out of the fact that it lost the vote there are elements in Ireland that can't accept similar outcomes and think the next logical step is to murder children. History and culture. Irishmen and women whether they are from Belfast, Cork, Galway etc have fought against imperialism. The Nine Years war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_(Ireland)) was led by men from what is known as "Northern Ieland". For example the leader of the resistance was from Tyrone. The people from "Northern Ireland" have always been bound politically and culturally in history. For example the medievil kingdom of Tyrconnell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrconnell) covered parts of Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal which is in what today is known as the Republic of Ireland. It also covered parts of County Derry, County Tyrone and County Fermanagh which is in "Northern Ireland". There is also the ancient kingdom of Ulster which covered all counties in "Northern Ireland". Today is known as a province. How many seperate countries do you know of where there are provinces overlapping? It wasnt until the Plantations and scottish, english etc landowners came was there even a doubt by any person on the island of Ireland that the island of Ireland was its own country and that foreign invaders had no place there. These are just a couple of examples. Here is more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Irelanden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_RepublicThe obvious example of cultural ties is the Irish language. Until the English invasion of Ireland everyone whether you lived in what would later become Belfast, Cork or Dublin spoke Irish. The Irish language is indigenous to the island of Ireland. The only ties are that some of their ancestors where scottish. That is not enough to constitute a country. Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people have ties since they are all celtic nations but that doesnt make them a country. People North and South of the border have been migrating back and forth for years as well. My ancestors are from the north. Many people in the South have family ties in the North. Ironically my Great, great, great grandfather William Robinson was a member of the protestant ascendancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Ascendancy) who lived in the unionist heartland of Comber in County Down. WHy does it matter if it is a legal entity? Also why do you keep bringing up murdering children? |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 11, 2017 22:22:37 GMT
What makes it "their country"? What connection do the people in Cork or Galway have to the people in Belfast? Other than happening to be on the same island? There's been a long history of people in the west of Scotland and the north of Ireland migrating back and forth between the two and they share more in common with each other than (in many ways) than they do with the rest of Ireland. You're just drawing arbitrary lines on a globe that suit your agenda and picking pieces of history that suit your agenda. The bottom line is that unlike London and the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is a separate legal entity to Republic of Ireland. And the people there don't want to be forced to join the Republic of Ireland. And whilst London has accepted that it can't whine it's way out of the fact that it lost the vote there are elements in Ireland that can't accept similar outcomes and think the next logical step is to murder children. History and culture. Irishmen and women whether they are from Belfast, Cork, Galway etc have fought against imperialism. The Nine Years war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_(Ireland)) was led by men from what is known as "Northern Ieland". For example the leader of the resistance was from Tyrone. The people from "Northern Ireland" have always been bound politically and culturally in history. For example the medievil kingdom of Tyrconnell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrconnell) covered parts of Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal which is in what today is known as the Republic of Ireland. It also covered parts of County Derry, County Tyrone and County Fermanagh which is in "Northern Ireland". There is also the ancient kingdom of Ulster which covered all counties in "Northern Ireland". Today is known as a province. How many seperate countries do you know of where there are provinces overlapping? It wasnt until the Plantations and scottish, english etc landowners came was there even a doubt by any person on the island of Ireland that the island of Ireland was its own country and that foreign invaders had no place there. These are just a couple of examples. Here is more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Irelanden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_RepublicThe obvious example of cultural ties is the Irish language. Until the English invasion of Ireland everyone whether you lived in what would later become Belfast, Cork or Dublin spoke Irish. The Irish language is indigenous to the island of Ireland. The only ties are that some of their ancestors where scottish. That is not enough to constitute a country. Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people have ties since they are all celtic nations but that doesnt make them a country. People North and South of the border have been migrating back and forth for years as well. My ancestors are from the north. Many people in the South have family ties in the North. Ironically my Great, great, great grandfather William Robinson was a member of the protestant ascendancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Ascendancy) who lived in the unionist heartland of Comber in County Down. WHy does it matter if it is a legal entity? Also why do you keep bringing up murdering children? But why stop there with the history lesson? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UlaidIf you go back a little further it was an independent state. Until the rest of Ireland conquered it in an imperialistic fashion. Fascist oppressors that they are... And you're the one that's repeatedly said that murdering innocent children is a perfectly acceptable "sacrifice" (your word - not mine) to try to achieve your political aims. I just think that's absolutely abhorrent and there's no way anyone should ever let you forget that. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 11, 2017 22:45:54 GMT
History and culture. Irishmen and women whether they are from Belfast, Cork, Galway etc have fought against imperialism. The Nine Years war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_(Ireland)) was led by men from what is known as "Northern Ieland". For example the leader of the resistance was from Tyrone. The people from "Northern Ireland" have always been bound politically and culturally in history. For example the medievil kingdom of Tyrconnell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrconnell) covered parts of Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal which is in what today is known as the Republic of Ireland. It also covered parts of County Derry, County Tyrone and County Fermanagh which is in "Northern Ireland". There is also the ancient kingdom of Ulster which covered all counties in "Northern Ireland". Today is known as a province. How many seperate countries do you know of where there are provinces overlapping? It wasnt until the Plantations and scottish, english etc landowners came was there even a doubt by any person on the island of Ireland that the island of Ireland was its own country and that foreign invaders had no place there. These are just a couple of examples. Here is more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Irelanden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_RepublicThe obvious example of cultural ties is the Irish language. Until the English invasion of Ireland everyone whether you lived in what would later become Belfast, Cork or Dublin spoke Irish. The Irish language is indigenous to the island of Ireland. The only ties are that some of their ancestors where scottish. That is not enough to constitute a country. Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Breton people have ties since they are all celtic nations but that doesnt make them a country. People North and South of the border have been migrating back and forth for years as well. My ancestors are from the north. Many people in the South have family ties in the North. Ironically my Great, great, great grandfather William Robinson was a member of the protestant ascendancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Ascendancy) who lived in the unionist heartland of Comber in County Down. WHy does it matter if it is a legal entity? Also why do you keep bringing up murdering children? But why stop there with the history lesson? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UlaidIf you go back a little further it was an independent state. Until the rest of Ireland conquered it in an imperialistic fashion. Fascist oppressors that they are... And you're the one that's repeatedly said that murdering innocent children is a perfectly acceptable "sacrifice" (your word - not mine) to try to achieve your political aims. I just think that's absolutely abhorrent and there's no way anyone should ever let you forget that. lol please read your own links. Your own links shows that it inclued parts of County Down, the whole of county Antrim, a little bit of armagh (all of which are North of the border) while also including county Louth and parts of county cavan which are in the south! Not only that but it didnt even cover half of the territory of what is commonly called today northern ireland! You couldnt fall flat on your face any harder. Thank you for further proving my point. Your historical revisionism is failing. Quote me where I said that. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 12, 2017 0:29:29 GMT
But why stop there with the history lesson? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UlaidIf you go back a little further it was an independent state. Until the rest of Ireland conquered it in an imperialistic fashion. Fascist oppressors that they are... And you're the one that's repeatedly said that murdering innocent children is a perfectly acceptable "sacrifice" (your word - not mine) to try to achieve your political aims. I just think that's absolutely abhorrent and there's no way anyone should ever let you forget that. lol please read your own links. Your own links shows that it inclued parts of County Down, the whole of county Antrim, a little bit of armagh (all of which are North of the border) while also including county Louth and parts of county cavan which are in the south! Not only that but it didnt even cover half of the territory of what is commonly called today northern ireland! You couldnt fall flat on your face any harder. Thank you for further proving my point. Your historical revisionism is failing. Quote me where I said that. Borders change over time. There isn't a single country in Europe that's kept the same borders over hundreds of years. So trying to claim that just because it's geography's shifted a bit negates Ireland's own Imperial past is somewhat pathetic. But I can see that you have no interest in reasoning this out. As far as you're concerned it's one rule you/Ireland and another for everyone else. So we'll just end up going round and round in circles... It was on imdb 1.0. Are you going to lie and deny that you said that it was an acceptable sacrifice? Because if you are, this would be an excellent time for you to condemn the IRA as murderers for killing innocent children... |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 12, 2017 8:40:59 GMT
lol please read your own links. Your own links shows that it inclued parts of County Down, the whole of county Antrim, a little bit of armagh (all of which are North of the border) while also including county Louth and parts of county cavan which are in the south! Not only that but it didnt even cover half of the territory of what is commonly called today northern ireland! You couldnt fall flat on your face any harder. Thank you for further proving my point. Your historical revisionism is failing. Quote me where I said that. Borders change over time. There isn't a single country in Europe that's kept the same borders over hundreds of years. So trying to claim that just because it's geography's shifted a bit negates Ireland's own Imperial past is somewhat pathetic. But I can see that you have no interest in reasoning this out. As far as you're concerned it's one rule you/Ireland and another for everyone else. So we'll just end up going round and round in circles... It was on imdb 1.0. Are you going to lie and deny that you said that it was an acceptable sacrifice? Because if you are, this would be an excellent time for you to condemn the IRA as murderers for killing innocent children... And your evidence for Ireland's imperial past is what? There was once a state called Ulaidh that included some of the territory of what is known today as northern Ireland (less then half I might add) and some of the territory of what is known today as the republic of ireland? Youre a joke. Even if Ulaidh as a state covered all of northern ireland and nothing else that wouldnt prove anything. Scottish tribes have conquered eachothers lands for hundereds of years and you wouldnt say the north of scotland isnt part of scotland and is its own country just because it was conquered by southern scotland would you? Also Ulaidh is Irish btw which is further proof of the cultural ties. The IRA never intentionally killed children. In wars there are always going to be unavoidable and accidental causualties. The children killed in the warrington bombing are examples of that. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 12, 2017 15:10:26 GMT
Borders change over time. There isn't a single country in Europe that's kept the same borders over hundreds of years. So trying to claim that just because it's geography's shifted a bit negates Ireland's own Imperial past is somewhat pathetic. But I can see that you have no interest in reasoning this out. As far as you're concerned it's one rule you/Ireland and another for everyone else. So we'll just end up going round and round in circles... It was on imdb 1.0. Are you going to lie and deny that you said that it was an acceptable sacrifice? Because if you are, this would be an excellent time for you to condemn the IRA as murderers for killing innocent children... And your evidence for Ireland's imperial past is what? There was once a state called Ulaidh that included some of the territory of what is known today as northern Ireland (less then half I might add) and some of the territory of what is known today as the republic of ireland? Youre a joke. Even if Ulaidh as a state covered all of northern ireland and nothing else that wouldnt prove anything. Scottish tribes have conquered eachothers lands for hundereds of years and you wouldnt say the north of scotland isnt part of scotland and is its own country just because it was conquered by southern scotland would you? Also Ulaidh is Irish btw which is further proof of the cultural ties. The IRA never intentionally killed children. In wars there are always going to be unavoidable and accidental causualties. The children killed in the warrington bombing are examples of that. Well they're clans, not tribes. But to answer your question - I wouldn't say that because I don't have an issue with the fact that hundreds of years ago things happened and there's not a great deal of point in generations now trying to re-fight battles fought by people who are long since dead. I try to deal with the real world and the here and now rather than blaming all my failings on history. But as you feel so aggrieved by the English occupation of Ireland, do you feel the same about all acts of imperialism? Do you feel that all the non-native Americans should return their stolen lands to the indigenous peoples there? If you think the English treated the Irish badly, it's nothing compared to how they were treated... Or would that be a little awkward for you seeing as how much money comes from America to fund the IRA? War?!? In war targets are picked because they are strategically or militarily important. Yes - there are occasionally civilian causalities. But the IRA selects targets to instil terror and specifically to inflict civilian causalities. Like the Enniskillen bombing. They don't want to go after military targets because they know that the military will fight back and the IRA are cowards, which is why they don't actually fight like an army, they plant bombs like terrorists. The only people that don't think they're murders are people like you - the rest of the world knows the truth. And why are you backing away from your statement from imdb 1.0 where you said that dead children was an acceptable sacrifice? Does it sicken you too now? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 12, 2017 19:42:53 GMT
And your evidence for Ireland's imperial past is what? There was once a state called Ulaidh that included some of the territory of what is known today as northern Ireland (less then half I might add) and some of the territory of what is known today as the republic of ireland? Youre a joke. Even if Ulaidh as a state covered all of northern ireland and nothing else that wouldnt prove anything. Scottish tribes have conquered eachothers lands for hundereds of years and you wouldnt say the north of scotland isnt part of scotland and is its own country just because it was conquered by southern scotland would you? Also Ulaidh is Irish btw which is further proof of the cultural ties. The IRA never intentionally killed children. In wars there are always going to be unavoidable and accidental causualties. The children killed in the warrington bombing are examples of that. Well they're clans, not tribes. But to answer your question - I wouldn't say that because I don't have an issue with the fact that hundreds of years ago things happened and there's not a great deal of point in generations now trying to re-fight battles fought by people who are long since dead. I try to deal with the real world and the here and now rather than blaming all my failings on history. But as you feel so aggrieved by the English occupation of Ireland, do you feel the same about all acts of imperialism? Do you feel that all the non-native Americans should return their stolen lands to the indigenous peoples there? If you think the English treated the Irish badly, it's nothing compared to how they were treated... Or would that be a little awkward for you seeing as how much money comes from America to fund the IRA? War?!? In war targets are picked because they are strategically or militarily important. Yes - there are occasionally civilian causalities. But the IRA selects targets to instil terror and specifically to inflict civilian causalities. Like the Enniskillen bombing. They don't want to go after military targets because they know that the military will fight back and the IRA are cowards, which is why they don't actually fight like an army, they plant bombs like terrorists. The only people that don't think they're murders are people like you - the rest of the world knows the truth. And why are you backing away from your statement from imdb 1.0 where you said that dead children was an acceptable sacrifice? Does it sicken you too now? Of couse I do, I am an anti-imperialist. I oppose it no matter whoever does it. The "Republic of Ireland" is gulity of supporting imperialism. Shannon airport in Ireland is used by US troops to fly to the middle east where the US can pursue their imperialist agenda. Native americans and those descended from European immigrants are all the same nationality so no but if it was proven that native americans werent american but their own nationality then I would support that. The Irish where and are treated worse by the native americans. For 800 years the British/English government have terrorised the Irish people. When Cromwell invaded Ireland in the 17th century he killed over 200,000 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. The native americans arent the only ones who lost their land, the Irish people where kicked off their land and forced to become tennants to British landlords. See this link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland. Its nothing but propaganda to paint the IRA as nothing but common criminals hell bent on murdering innocents to further their agenda.. Here is the IRA's actual strategy. "A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country. To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers" link here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#The_.22Long_War.22That is nonsense the IRA were certainly not scared of the British army. In 1979 the IRA ambushed the British army and killed 18 British soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrenpoint_ambush). In 1988 the IRA bombed a bus carrying British soldiers, killing 8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballygawley_bus_bombing). There are many more examples but we would literally be here all day if I were to type them out. As for Eniskillen that was a mistake. The target was security forces not civilians. That is nonsense if only I supported the IRA then Sinn Fein would not have gotten 24% of the vote in the election over a week ago. I never distanced myself from that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 12, 2017 22:44:21 GMT
Well they're clans, not tribes. But to answer your question - I wouldn't say that because I don't have an issue with the fact that hundreds of years ago things happened and there's not a great deal of point in generations now trying to re-fight battles fought by people who are long since dead. I try to deal with the real world and the here and now rather than blaming all my failings on history. But as you feel so aggrieved by the English occupation of Ireland, do you feel the same about all acts of imperialism? Do you feel that all the non-native Americans should return their stolen lands to the indigenous peoples there? If you think the English treated the Irish badly, it's nothing compared to how they were treated... Or would that be a little awkward for you seeing as how much money comes from America to fund the IRA? War?!? In war targets are picked because they are strategically or militarily important. Yes - there are occasionally civilian causalities. But the IRA selects targets to instil terror and specifically to inflict civilian causalities. Like the Enniskillen bombing. They don't want to go after military targets because they know that the military will fight back and the IRA are cowards, which is why they don't actually fight like an army, they plant bombs like terrorists. The only people that don't think they're murders are people like you - the rest of the world knows the truth. And why are you backing away from your statement from imdb 1.0 where you said that dead children was an acceptable sacrifice? Does it sicken you too now? Of couse I do, I am an anti-imperialist. I oppose it no matter whoever does it. The "Republic of Ireland" is gulity of supporting imperialism. Shannon airport in Ireland is used by US troops to fly to the middle east where the US can pursue their imperialist agenda. Native americans and those descended from European immigrants are all the same nationality so no but if it was proven that native americans werent american but their own nationality then I would support that. The Irish where and are treated worse by the native americans. For 800 years the British/English government have terrorised the Irish people. When Cromwell invaded Ireland in the 17th century he killed over 200,000 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians. The native americans arent the only ones who lost their land, the Irish people where kicked off their land and forced to become tennants to British landlords. See this link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland. Its nothing but propaganda to paint the IRA as nothing but common criminals hell bent on murdering innocents to further their agenda.. Here is the IRA's actual strategy. "A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country. To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers" link here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#The_.22Long_War.22That is nonsense the IRA were certainly not scared of the British army. In 1979 the IRA ambushed the British army and killed 18 British soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrenpoint_ambush). In 1988 the IRA bombed a bus carrying British soldiers, killing 8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballygawley_bus_bombing). There are many more examples but we would literally be here all day if I were to type them out. As for Eniskillen that was a mistake. The target was security forces not civilians. That is nonsense if only I supported the IRA then Sinn Fein would not have gotten 24% of the vote in the election over a week ago. I never distanced myself from that statement. That's a laugh. People can say anything they want to, it doesn't make it true. Brexit campaigned promising £350m a week to the NHS knowing that wasn't true. But it did encourage millions of people to vote for them. So argumentum ad populum seems a little desperate if that's your justification. Actions speak louder than words. You have listed some examples (and I freely admit there are more) of them bombing or ambushing soldiers. There are also many, many examples of them bombing or ambushing civilians. Look at all the pub bombings. The very fact that your "army" feels the need to hide in the shadows and cover their faces is another indication that they're not "proud soldiers" but common criminals. We're not going to get anywhere with this so I'm going to call it a day. I'm just glad that you've admitted that they do kill innocent children in the name of their "cause". |
|
