Questions for demon

[Shane Costello]

Since I didn't want to derail the mercenaries thread any further I thought I'd start a new thread since demon seems to have had some problems answering a few straightforward questions.

1. Considering that the IRA's campaign lacked popular approval by majority of the Catholic community in the North, do you consider that their's was a legitimate campaign?

2. Do you believe that the IRA is correct in denying the legitimacy of the Republic of Ireland? Do you accept their line that the only legitimate basis for any government on this island is the 1916 proclaimation of independence?

3. Please detail how the media establishment is spinning a confection of half-truths and lies about the history and politics of Northern Ireland?

I will not condemn anyone who takes up arms when confronted with oppression of this kind. If being on the receiving end of violence allows you to condemn the violent, then why doesn't it allow you to strike back when you are on the other side?

So why did the IRA target so many innocent people? How is murdering children in Cheshire an act of self defence?

It was legitimate and yes it was a struggle of liberation. That`s based on the simple fact that Great Britains ownership of Ireland was based on armed conquest.

How was it legitimate when it was repudiated by the majority of the very community to purported to "liberate"? How do you reconcile your view of the IRA campaign as one of liberation with armed robberies and the murders of policemen in the Republic of Ireland?

Sinn Fein/IRA are not the same thing, despite their connections they are separate entities. Lumping them together all the time is a Paisleyite tactic permitted by an anti republican media. If you have a problem with the people in either of those movements wanting to participate in marxism explain why, in reasonable language without all the crass Loyalist propaganda used in your original post.

Are you accusing democratically elected politicians in the Republic of Ireland of "paisleyite" tactics? Again, who are the "anti-republican" media? Please give examples of where I failed to use reasonable language to explain my position? Please give examples of where "crass loyalist propoganda" propoganda has been employed?

I was quite content with the discussion about mercenaries until the pub commentators got rowdy, went home and came back with their flutes and drums.

Is this to imply that anyone who condemns IRA violence is sympathetic to the worst manifestations of loyalist intolerance? Is there an inherent contradiction in condemning IRA violence and being an Irish patriot?

In the thread "Bush backs Sharon Peace Proposal" you wrote:

This is such a depressing state of affairs, this numbskulled attack on the Muslim world by a murder of idiot crows running the US, the UK and sundry craven satellites. If you have any time for the Palestinians at all then we should feel sad and deeply ashamed by the US and UK complicity in this.

If this is how you genuinely feel then how can you disparage those of us who felt sympathy with innocent people, who had no knowledge, interest or part in Ireland or it's affairs, murdered by the IRA? Is it really strange that we should feel shame that these acts were committed in our name and under our flag?

In the thread "Italian hostage killed - Aljazeera TV" you wrote:

I hope it will help America wake up to the bloodthirsty fanatical thugs who are dragging what`s left of your country`s good name through the dirt.

So did the bloodthirsty, fanatical thugs who slaughtered innocents in the name of Ireland drag my country's good name through the dirt?

Will you answer these questions without recourse to terms like "paisleyite", since this has absolutely nothing to do with me or where I'm coming from?

 

[Jon_in_london]

What mercenaries thread?

Nevermind- found and bumped. Jeez- leave the forum for a few days miss all the action!

 

[Graham]

Bumped with flutes and drums on . . .

 

[Jon_in_london]

What most people fail to realise of course, is that the majority of NIers want to remain British. This being Ulster's raison d'etre in the first dingity-dang case.

I guess thats just too complicated for some people to understand though.

 

[Graham]

What most people fail to realise of course, is that the majority of NIers want to remain British. This being Ulster's raison d'etre in the first dingity-dang case.

I guess thats just too complicated for some people to understand though.

The borders of NI trace exactly the county divisions.

When the seperation of the country was first agreed, IIRC, this was intended to be a temporary setup, with a redrawing of the lines to be carried out later on cutting out as many as possible of the Irish nationalist areas and handing them over to the new-born Republic.

As it turned out, that never happened. I often wonder what would have happened if it had though.

Graham