• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




UK Govt: Irish Terror Threat "Substantial"



Jakey

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
160
Irish terror threat? Isn't Northern Ireland part of the UK? Aren't the 'dissident' groups based there? That makes it a domestic or UK terror threat.
Not you as well. We get enough of this bizarre logic from johndodger. He spent an entire thread arguing that PIRA are in fact "British". If you apply the same logic to 1916, we end up with the ludicrous claim that the rebels were "British" freedom fighters. You might not like the dissidents or agree with them, but denying their Irishness is simply absurd.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,702
So you acknowledge that you're a Paddy and not a Brit. We've made a breakthrough! Good for you, I'm delighted for you...
you need to read up on the principles of Linnaeus Taxononomy :)

Family - British
Genus - Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh

Geography - British Archipelago.
Two biggest Islands - Gt Britain and Ireland.

Of course we are Irish - and British and European .....

Grand orange Lodge of Ireland ring any bells ? ;)
 

picador

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
21,047
Right. Good of them to get the Lithuanians in on it too right? :rolleyes:
The cigarette smuggling republican who is currently on trial in Lithuania has been in prison there for a number of years. MI5 were onto him from the start.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,091
you need to read up on the principles of Linnaeus Taxononomy :)

Family - British
Genus - Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh

Geography - British Archipelago.
Two biggest Islands - Gt Britain and Ireland.

Of course we are Irish - and British and European .....

Grand orange Lodge of Ireland ring any bells ? ;)
Awww shame, you were soooo close. Perhaps I pushed to quickly to get you from denial to acceptance without going through the anger and grief stages. Mea culpa...
 

picador

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
21,047
Not you as well. We get enough of this bizarre logic from johndodger. He spent an entire thread arguing that PIRA are in fact "British". If you apply the same logic to 1916, we end up with the ludicrous claim that the rebels were "British" freedom fighters. You might not like the dissidents or agree with them, but denying their Irishness is simply absurd.
I suppose he thinks Port Laoise is full of northerners.
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
you need to read up on the principles of Linnaeus Taxononomy :)

Family - British
Genus - Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh

Geography - British Archipelago.
Two biggest Islands - Gt Britain and Ireland.

Of course we are Irish - and British and European .....

Grand orange Lodge of Ireland ring any bells ? ;)
Irish and British? You can claim the two are compatible until hell freezes over.

That isn't going to make it true.

The only British people on the island of Ireland are either recent immgrants or the descendent of colonists who still want Ireland or parts of it to be ruled by the British state.

What are colonists? People who settle on land stolen from other people.

Some of the descendents of colonists made up for their ancestors thievery by working and fighting for Irish freedom - a pity more of them didn't follow the example of these brave men and women.
 

louis bernard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,716
“Dissident groups” isn’t it just amazing how “republicans” can hang quasi respectable names on murderous thugs who actually think that exploding bombs in letter boxes to murder children (Warrington) and mass murder (Omagh) is going to bring about a United Ireland.
 

Cabbage/Turnip

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,414
I'm not saying they are compatible.

I'm stating a fact.

Ireland is part of the British Isles :)
Who decided that? i know its a fact and books but who actually decided thats what its called, Ireland shouldnt have to accept that label? although it doesnt bother me really
 

sondagefaux

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
15,682
Wikipedia :)
I thought you were intellectually lazy, now I know it for a fact.

Dismissing a well referenced article merely because it's published on Wikipedia is one of the classic signs of intellectual laziness.

"Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';..." The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996

Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490-1700. (London: Penguin/Allen Lane, 2003): "the collection of islands which embraces England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales has commonly been known as the British Isles. This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands, and a more neutral description is 'the Atlantic Isles'" (p. xxvi).

"...I have called the Atlantic archipelago – since the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Pocock, J.G.A. [1974] (2005). "British History: A plea for a new subject". The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

"...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a politically incorrect term." Finnegan, Richard B.; Edward T. McCarron (2000). Ireland: Historical Echoes, Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, p. 358.

"In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located off the northwest coast of continental Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago..." Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217.

"..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular, for whom the Irish Sea is or ought to be a separating rather than a linking element. Sensitive to such susceptibilities, proponents of the idea of a genuine British history, a theme which has come to the fore during the last couple of decades, are plumping for a more neutral term to label the scattered islands peripheral to the two major ones of Great Britain and Ireland." Roots, Ivan (1997). "Union or Devolution in Cromwell's Britain". History Review.

The British Isles, A History of Four Nations, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006, Preface, Hugh Kearney. "The title of this book is ‘The British Isles’, not ‘Britain’, in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwined histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’. As Seamus Heaney put it when he objected to being included in an anthology of British Poetry: 'Don’t be surprised If I demur, for, be advised My passport’s green. No glass of ours was ever raised To toast the Queen. (Open Letter, Field day Pamphlet no.2 1983)"
Do those sources meet your, no doubt, exacting standards?
 

dublincitizen

Active member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
266
I don't know who decided it.
But if Ireland as a nation objects to it, why continue to use the term when referring to Ireland? Why not respect the wishes of the Irish people who don't want to be considered part of the 'British Isles'?

Or do you just not give a sh*t?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top