It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Return of the IRA?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
Hello - that is not true.

The Basques and Irish are a separate race as geneolgy has shown.

The Brits and other Europeans have a different genetic code.



Genes link Celts to Basques




The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed.

The gene patterns of the three races passed down through the male line are all "strikingly similar", researchers concluded.

news.bbc.co.uk...



IP




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mkiii
 


I would assume that the Guards on the gate were carrying only blanks, as is the case on barracks on the mainland. Live ammo is kept I the guardhouse and is issued when needed.

Why would the Army want to "re-militarise" NI? Why would the Army, which values it's soldiers lives, kill 2 and injure more? Why would a known dissident group claim responsibility if it was an inside job?

You full of it, basically.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
As Samuel L Jackson so well put it in a interview on British tv.

"Thats the problem with you English.. you keep claiming things that don't belong to you and calling them your own".

Reading your comments and justifications on the subject of occupation makes the above statement so true and funny. You just don't see in any way that there could be anything wrong with this idea yet so many of you complain about the actions/violent expansions of Israel and the unfair actions of the Untied States.

Personally, I feel that NI should stay with the UK if the majority of the population want it to but the attitude of most English on the subject wreaks of imperialism and is just plain annoying.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
What a load of rubbish - there is no such thing as a Northern Irish person - they don't exist - they are either Irish or scotch - The scotch are scottish lowlander settlers who planted Ireland to breed the Irish out under a cunning plan developed by the English royalty back in the day.


That's your opinion, but I am sure the people who live there now would disagree that they are "Scotch", as you put it. 68% of the population of NI prefer to remain part of the Union. Whatever spin you put on a case for unification, it matters not.


Originally posted by count66
By the way the scotch settlers already have several terrorist armies (UDA, UVF, LVF, Red Hand Commandos etc) - not one of which has fully decommissioned in ten years of peace - just like the British army hasn't decommissioned.


The British Army will never "decommission", it's an Army for crying out loud. The only bases left in NI are living barracks, storage and logistical centres. There are no more watchtowers, forts or roadblocks.


Originally posted by count66
If the scotch settlers were truly interested in peace they would have asked the scotch terrorist armies to decommission but they didn't. They would also have asked the British army to leave so they could allow the northern enclave of Ireland to self govern with their Irish compatriots but they didn't


Why would the British Army leave bases on British territory? They're not involved with any policing activity, they just have bases there for training. Alot of recruits come from NI, you know. There are bases all over the UK, NI being part of that.


Originally posted by count66
Also how can you expect Irish people to trust the British Army who colluded with scotch terrorist organisations to shoot them, who had paratroopers massacre civilians (Bloody Sunday) and who also were involved in bombing the south (Dublin and Monaghan)


Evidence please....


Originally posted by count66
Leave the policing to the police force (PSNI) get the British army out and live in the real world if you want peace.


They do. The Army hasn't been involved in any policing for ages. Operation Banner ended in 2007, but was winding down for years before that.


Originally posted by count66
Paranoid unionists all over the place is what has kept the war going for so long.


No, refusal by the minority republicans to accept the democratic process has kept this going for so long. A vote in 1973 went 98% in favour of remaining part of the Union. The vast majority support that to this day.



[edit on 14/3/09 by stumason]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo
The fact is that the original problems arose and festered because the British wouldn't give back the north when Ireland won its freedom. You know this.. don't bother disputing it.


Quite, quite wrong. When the Irish free State was declared, NI was originally part of that state, but they voted in an assembly the very next day to remove themselves from the Irish free State and remain within the Union.

What the republicans and their Irish-American boyfriends don't realise is that the vast majority of the population of the North wants to remain British, just like the population of Gibraltar will never accept a return to Spanish rule.

As for the indigineous populations, Dublin and Cork (the two major cities in ireland) were founded by Vikings and the vast majority of the population of Ireland is from recent migration (past 1000 years). They may not like it, but the Irish are the same mongrel race as the English, we're more alike than they care to accept and anyone claiming to be "pure-blood" Irish is lying to you.

EDIT: I agree with the previous sentiment about the English copping all the blame for everything, when in actuality we were overun by Normans and dominated by them, and a reverse takeover by the Scots happened which led to a rapid Imperial expansion blobally. The biggest proponents in british history for colonial expansion have all been Scottish..

I can go into quite alot of detail about how the english are vilified for the actions of the others, but it would derail the thread.

[edit on 14/3/09 by stumason]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Quite, quite wrong. When the Irish free State was declared, NI was originally part of that state, but they voted in an assembly the very next day to remove themselves from the Irish free State and remain within the Union.


You know.. the republican cause keeps that fact pretty well under wraps. I also had a pretty serious republican teacher in secondary school and that was left out of the curriculum. Just goes to show..

TBH, The only part of the republican movement from late last century I ever agreed with was the pushing for equal rights and fair treatment for Catholics. That chapter was pretty much fulfilled with the fallout from the original good Friday agreement.

I understand the reasoning behind the latest attacks but these people are upsetting a happy community for the sake of a fraction of 1% of the population.


Originally posted by stumason
They may not like it, but the Irish are the same mongrel race as the English, we're more alike than they care to accept and anyone claiming to be "pure-blood" Irish is lying to you.


This stemmed from the Cromwell era idea that Irish were no better than Catholic dogs that should be wiped out. You can see how the barriers went up when that idea became widespread.. Back then we were of the same descent.. as now.

Obviously there are many People who could claim their genealogy all the way back to the ancient druids.. no doubt watered down by a hundred generations of mix matching between Celts, anglo saxons, normans etc. I can to be as 'Full Blooded Irish' as can be claimed.. whether thats a good or bad thing is left to opinions



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I myself have Irish ancestors. Some few hundred years back, they came over from Eniskillen to live in Cornwall and married into the Cornish family of Borlace, where my family stems from. Apparently, they were noblemen fleeing some trouble.

They formed the Enice-Borlace family, which eventually branched into mine (Mason - through marriage) and the old Enice-Borlace line which remains in Cornwall today, albeit somewhat deminished due to the lack of male heirs in the early 20th century. Both branches remain in contact though and other branches have emerged as people get married.

Having said that, I still regard myself as English first and foremost but I at least acknowledge the inter-mixing that has taken place.

The vast majority of the population of the British Isles can trace their genetic history back to the original Britons here prior to the Romans. What with all the take overs in history, only the "elite" changed. The common man remained the same throughout time.

To seperate us into "English", "Scots" or what have you is just geographic boundaries drawn up centuries ago when kingdoms rose and fell.

Edinburgh was actually founded by "Englishmen" and was once part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, but ask an Edinburgh native what they are and they'll tell you Scottish and are probably unaware that most "lowlanders" are in fact "English" in descent.

We're all the damn same!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


'Scotch' a legitamate term? Why don't you google it. google ulster scotch and the first thing that will come up is the ULSTER-SCOTS Society. Scotch-Irish and Scots-Irish are both used to identify the same thing, however I mean that Scots or Scottish is more respectful of the Scottish people.

My issue with all the talk about decommissioning of the British Army comes down to one thing and it is this. Republicans have this tendency to compare the British Army to republican terrorist scum. The British Army is not a terrorist or paramilitary organisation.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by june3rd
reply to post by count66
 


'Scotch' a legitamate term? Why don't you google it. google ulster scotch and the first thing that will come up is the ULSTER-SCOTS Society. Scotch-Irish and Scots-Irish are both used to identify the same thing, however I mean that Scots or Scottish is more respectful of the Scottish people.


I broached this with the other poster myself. I've never heard anyone with either an Irish or Scots background describe themselves as 'Scotch' in my life. Funnily enough, I was out with a few Irish people (born both sides of the border) and a guy from Glasgow last night and I asked them about it too. The Scots guy wanted to know did he look like "food and drink"?

I stand by my earlier point that it's invariably North Americans that use the term 'Scotch'. Although I wouldn't be surprised if a 'low post count' poster suddenly appeared to tell me otherwise.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoProvider
 


The idea of the actual celts reaching Ireland has largely been discredited.

There is an acceptance of the adoption of celtic like culture reaching Ireland though.

www.blurtit.com...

"There is little evidence that the Celts came to the British Isles en-masse.

DNA studies have shown that there is no real claim to the idea of Celtic invasions in these islands.
It is much more likely that a material culture based on art work and weaponary filtered through and was introduced both by travellers and visitors and small scale settlement.
The much romaniticised idea of the noble Celt was introduced by Irish, Welsh and some Scottish intellectuals in the late C18 and early C19 was a re-action to what they saw as 'English Imperialism'. This formed a common ond between the so called 'Celtic' nations against a common 'enemy'.
The term Celtic is a convienent one when describing the native languages of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Brittany.

The pre- roman inhabitants of the British Isles would have had no conception of a Celtic nation or brother hood and would have identified each other through their affilication to family and tribal groups"



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I see that being a member and having a low post count seems to mean that I cannot have an opinion - laughable really.

To me it just suggests I have rather more to my life then just surfing the web - but who am I to judge



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
What a truly depressing thread!

No matter the amount of spin applied, people here are still trying to justify terrorism.

First things first, Scotch is a drink, Scots are people, I know countless Scots who, of varying political, religous persuassions who would all unaminously agree with me.

Secondly, the British Army an army of 'occupation'???
Get real, I live very, very close to the largest military base in Europe;
en.wikipedia.org...
Squaddies frequently come into my hometown and some regularly drink in my pub.
They are treat with utmost respect.
I do not consider them to be an occupational force.

There are military garrisons throughout the UK, including Wales and Scotland.
They are not considered 'occupational forces'.

Northern Ireland is currently part of the UK.
Why shouldn't there be a military garrison there as well?
It is no different to any other part of the UK.

Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK as long as the majority of people within Northern Ireland wish to do so.
End of story.
If the majority ever wish to be part of a United Ireland, then so be it.
But until that day, never!

How long must some 'Irish' people harp on about how bad they've been treat?
FFS, we've all be # on for far too long, nobody worse than North East England, I assure you!
But it's about what's happening now, at this very moment.
And the reality of the situation is that for the first time in a very long time the majority of people in Northern Ireland have been allowed to do what they want; just to live their lives like normal everyday people like the rest of us.
They really couldn't give a toss about religion, of any kind and are as unaware of history as the majority of English, Scots and Welsh are.

For too long a very small minority of people, from both sides, have been using 'history' to romanticise notions of an idyllic United Ireland or of King Billy being some sort Knight In Shining Armour saving them from the evil Papists.
It's complete and utter bollocks!
These people exploit the seemingly inherent romantic nature of the 'Irish' people to further their own personal agenda's of control and power.
This is a very, very small minority, but they know exactly which triggers to pull.

The last thing these people want is a United Ireland; where would they get their power and control then?
What about their loss of profits from gun running and drug dealing?

Every decent person in Ireland should stand up against these bullies / terrorists / gangsters and say 'We are not going to allow you to take us to the abyss again'.

[edit on 16/3/09 by Freeborn]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I see that being a member and having a low post count seems to mean that I cannot have an opinion - laughable really.

To me it just suggests I have rather more to my life then just surfing the web - but who am I to judge



No, it appears you give false information that doesnt ring true.....in most cases. I have already pointed out TWO of your error's by providing links [ truth's ], need i point out more............?

IP

[edit on 17-3-2009 by InfoProvider]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoProvider
 


Rubbish - you obviously haven't read the retorts I posted to your links or read the recent documentary blood of the Irish that is available on google as I suggested.

Change your call sign to either dis info provider or I can't be bothered with the truth if it disagrees with my opinion.

Both are rather apt!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by InfoProvider
 


Rubbish - you obviously haven't read the retorts I posted to your links or read the recent documentary blood of the Irish that is available on google as I suggested.

Change your call sign to either dis info provider or I can't be bothered with the truth if it disagrees with my opinion.

Both are rather apt!


I disagree with your opinion because >>>




Originally posted by count66

By the way the British Isles are mainly descended from the anglo saxon races - the celts never made it as far as Britain and Ireland - check it out if you don't believe me.



Highlighted in bold by me.

My response to your above quote was >




In a period of time beginning around 500BC, the Celtic culture which was expanding in central Europe reached the Britain and Ireland. While probably not an invasion as such, the Celts arrived in sufficient numbers to replace the language and culture of Ireland's Bronze Age residents with that of the Celts. The Celts were an Iron Age people, and used iron in addition to bronze to make weapons, cooking utensils and other items. Iron takes more technology to refine, but it also much stronger and more durable than bronze.

The Celts in Ireland divided themselves into over a hundred small kingdoms, or tuaths, each of which was ruled by a king. Sometimes a king had the allegiance of a number of other kings and there were a few kings who had a lot of control. These were kings of provinces. Early maps by Mediterranean sailors and geographers have identified the key tribes in Ireland around the time of Christ and these have been matched with historical evidence and folklore.

The Celtic culture was based around a system of honour, whereby warriors gained honour by valour in battle. Unlike conflicts in later history, it was almost invariably the aristocracy who did the fighting while the peasantry - who often worked like slaves for their king - remained on their farms. The whole system was supported by Brehon Law, a well structured system of justice where most crimes were settled by fines which were related to the status of the victim. There was no death penalty. In terms of religion, the Celts were pagan until the 400s AD, and had a form of bardic religion which involved the worship of natural objects such as trees and rivers. Special carved stones have been found that may have been involved in religious rites.

Around 43AD the expanding Roman Empire conquered Celtic Britain, as it had conquered most of Celtic Europe. Ireland and Scotland remained one the only non-Roman Celtic areas left. Trade continued between Britain and Ireland, but following the decline of the Roman Empire in the 400s AD, the Irish plundered the Britian coast and, later formed colonies in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. All were ultimately defeated by the Britons, except the colony in Scotland (by the Dal Riata tribe) which survived and ultimately formed the basis of the kingdom of Scotland.

Like all peoples, the Celts left ruins in Ireland. Large royal sites such as Emain Macha and Tara seem to have been used for ritual and kingship purposes, while the stone hillforts seem to have had a much more practical defensive purpose. Many of these can be seen today. And, of course, it was the language of the Celts (Q-Celtic) which forms the basis of modern Irish.



Highlighted in boldby me.

What your saying is the Celts never made it to Ireland. Then why does my scource contradict what your saying?

You then went on to say >



The Basques and Irish are a separate race as geneolgy has shown


In which i provided proof >



The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed.

The gene patterns of the three races passed down through the male line are all "strikingly similar", researchers concluded.

news.bbc.co.uk...


So how exactly im i providing False info?

Perhaps your not reading up on what im presenting?

IP

[edit on 18-3-2009 by InfoProvider]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by InfoProvider]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I see that being a member and having a low post count seems to mean that I cannot have an opinion - laughable really.

To me it just suggests I have rather more to my life then just surfing the web - but who am I to judge


Not as laughable as you jumping to a conclusion and misinterpreting the point I was making.


I wasn't referring to you at all. I was pointing to how often, on divisive topics like this, often a 'mystery' posters will suddenly appear just to corroborate something, despite them not having contributed to the thread previously.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Problem-reaction-solution.

IRA "comes back" and is just another terrorist group to spread fear and use as an excuse to deprive people of their freedom. The incidents so far are just the start, expect to see major incidents in the next few months.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Point taken - I misinterpreted what you were saying so on that point I willing to admit my mistake and apologise.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoProvider
 


Again if I misinterpreted what you were saying I take back what I said and apologise.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join