A Call to KevinB - Come and enlighten us.

J

jimuk80

Guest
Hahaaaa "Blacks in America" & "Catholics in NI" brothers in arms.

If only MLK had known, think of the funding!!! I'm going to chuckle myself to sleep tonight people.

I HAVE A DREAM!!!
 
KevinB said:
cbgramc said:
He avoids it because he is a coward who refuses to face up to or take responsibility for his actions. He is still the same old KevB who was hounded out of the site as a supporter of murdering scum. As you can see from his posts on this thread he is an intellectually challenged moron. Coming from me I think this show how thick I think KevB is. I now feel it is time to close the thread he was given every chance to put his point across he failed to even attempt to do so but relied on others to argue his case, he has tried to deflect the questions with questions which when answered he refuses to come back and even attempt to counter.

He says he is busy with his new life in American politics but he still has time to post his poison on other threads. Bin the thread and bin him.

He also changed the above post from “ I am not emotional “ to what it now says
That is ridiculous, cbgramc. I have explained time and time again how and why I became involved in SF, what I thought its weaknesses were and why I stayed with it, even though I didn't approve of some of what the RA did.
Another cop out answer
 
Bugsy said:
What are you doing, Markintime? Why are you drawing conclusions about my attitude that are impossible to infer from what I wrote? In addition to attributing statements to me which I never made. It was you who decided to veer off and compare the struggle of the blacks in America with the Catholics in Norn Iron, without even mentioning the totally different dynamics and conditions at play.

Furthermore, you posed the question: if the blacks did it without the violence, why couldn’t the Catholics? That may be highly interesting as a subject of hypothetical conjecture on a long winter evening, but for the purposes of the present discussion, it’s totally irrelevant. Or how many avenues of “what-if” scenarios would you like to explore until we decide we’ve completely lost the plot and the original subject of the thread appears only in an occasional footnote?

Let’s just accept that the blacks in America did it one way and the Catholics in Norn Iron decided on another (not particularly inspiring) method. All this pseudo-intellectual bollix is not really helping the debate forward, is it? Why don’t we stick with the facts of the discussion?

MsG
I was merely replying to the points you made in your post Bugsy. I was not drawing any conclusions about your attitude. You said there was no basis for comparrison I was countering that there were similarities, that is all.
It would have been nice to hear from KevinB that he wished the NI Catholics had taken a more peaceful path. His saying that African Americans had white support is true in some states but not in Georgia and Alabama where every ounce of oficialdom including the National Guard was pitched against peaceful civil rights protests.
Many, many soldiers who patrolled NI had enormous sympathy for the everyday Catholics. They looked upon the (especially inner city) conditions that they lived in and empathised with their plight. Had protests been carried out in a dignified and peaceful fashion then the Army would have been able to concentrate on controlling the Protestant extremists. Had the Catholic community gone to great lengths to demonstrate to the Protestant population that they had nothing to fear from an emancipated Catholic community the eyes of the world would have looked very favourably upon their plight.
Right from word go we have been told by members, in this thread, how important the history of Ireland is with regards to NI. Now, because modern history has shown that the thugs and murderers were allowed to gain the ascendancy and probably prolongued the civil rights struggle by decades we are told by virtually those same posters that history is bunk.
Perhaps Bugsy, if more Catholics had engaged themselves in 'psuedo-intellectual bollix' rather than murder and organised crime the history of unrest in NI might have been a lot shorter than it was and thousands of innocents on all sides would be contibuting to a happy, integrated and civilised peace. There again history is really only there to show how bad the British were isn't it?
 
Well put.

I can appreciate how patience with peaceful means came to be exhausted - and aware of the folklore about the defence of the Catholic community - but it's a great shame that the moral high ground was conceded.

As you say you have to wonder whether this did not ultimately just prolong things.
 
KevinB said:
Moodybitch said:
KevinB said:
Bugsy said:
...In addition, the blacks in America had the priceless advantage of having a couple of highly charismatic leaders; not the least being Martin Luther King. The only one doing anything like that in Norn Iron was Big Ian, and he was on "the other side".

This isn't a simple game of substitution, whereby only the players and/or the nation concerned are changed according to taste. The dynamics of both cases were wholly different. Much too different for such a simplistic analogy. Just imagine the sheer scale of the problem in America. If things had kicked off there, it would've made the Los Angeles riots look like a dowager's tea party. That's why the white ruling classes were anxious to find a solution as quickly as possible. That never happened in Norn Iron to that extent.

MsG
Very good points, and also remember that the American blacks had the support of many many progressive whites who worked and marched with them - while we did not have this from the loyalists, who obstructed our peaceful attempts every step of the way and whom RUC sided with.
Why do you avoid the emotive comments?
Because I tend towards the analytical and logical, not the emotional.
So you state that your support of IRA / SF murderers was based on analytical and logical thought. Then you cannot pretend that you did not know where the money you willingly collected for them was going and what it was to be used for. You knew you were helping people commit murder and you wanted them to do it, or you would have stopped acting as an enabler for them.

By the way if you knew someone was doing the same as you, but in support of bin Laden, would you approve?
 
My apologies to all who might have looked for my reply - finding spare time at this time of year is nigh on impossible for me. I apologise for the length, and for the truly bad html -I haven't much of a clue how to work the quote function on this site - and am embarrassingly inept with technical things.

“gallowglass” said:
I note that Morrigana has been congratulating herself on her articulate "deconstruction of my post", which she tells us (in case we weren't paying attention or couldn’t understand) is "well substantiated and rooted in academic literature and both current and historical political thought". To which my immediate response is so you say, followed by self-praise is no praise, and a question – is your trumpeter dead? I should also add that that gem is one of the more outstanding examples of intellectual pea-cockery I have encountered. Since you have seen fit to wave your academic credentials in all our faces and have obviously in your own mind confused verbal articulation with condescension, I feel compelled to lay my own cards on the table.
Despite the fact that you yourself have attempted to laud your qualifications, the only time I mentioned supposedly being articulate was in direct reference to someone calling my character into question, seemingly because others had begun to make noises about ‘intellectuals‘ and the use of ‘flowery words‘. Since you claim that I have “waved my academic credentials” in your face, then proceed to ask questions which I answered in the only paragraph mentioning said credentials, you ought to have noticed that I did so in direct response to being questioned on what my credentials were - which is the only reason I gave a vague outline. Whether you chose to deliberately distort the facts of this or leapt at the opportunity to counter-laud yourself , I have no idea. Perhaps both. As a rule, I prefer to take the view that one’s words and behaviour ought to be the only measure by which we are judged in a forum such as this. I recognised that in this site, people might (as has been seen) become uneasy if there was no apparent reason for my being here, and as such, I agreed to relinquish some details.

As for my referring to your eloquence, it was not at all intended as insult, but by way of aiming a pleasantry at you since you seemed to have been under the sadly inaccurate impression that I had labelled your previous post “incoherent” (your quote) when I had done quite the opposite. One would be tempted to question your entire ability to comprehend my argument on the basis of such gross misinterpretation. I can’t imagine why you would apparently choose to misquote me when my words in that post were brief and clear. Since your entire post adopts a derogatory tone that never refrains from the opportunity to cast aspersions, I can only assume it is part of your strategy for ‘winning’ a supposed discussion - a discussion that you seem to have pinned an inordinate amount of pride on.

You seem to wish to play the ‘I’m more Irish than you’; ‘my wife is more qualified’ card . Suffice to say that while I am not at all comfortable in entering what I feel borders on a very childish game of one-upmanship, my academic qualifications at least equal yours. My father was Irish, born and raised, as were his parents and their parents-and so on. You presumably get the gist. He was also Professor of Irish History at a very prestigious academic institution, and very much involved, at one time, in Irish diplomatic processes. He was ‘undiluted’ Irish Catholic (unlike my Mother who was Anglo-Irish Protestant), and served in the British army prior to his academic pursuits. My Mother’s Father, and Uncle, who were entirely Irish and Catholic, were killed fighting in the British Army in WWII. I have spent many, many years both in childhood and as an adult (but not my entire life) in Ireland, having spent some years flitting back and forth between Ireland, England and Australia, only to now live in Oxford. I live here because my husband was offered a chair here (not as a Professor of History - his talents run to the maths/sciences) and, subsequently because one of my daughters has been in the most seriously fragile health for some years and Oxford, medically speaking for her condition, is the best place for her to be. If you think this makes you more Irish or your opinion counts more, then good luck to you. On the contrary, I think it an appalling defence.

“gallowglass“ said:
you are trying to gather respectability unto Irish Republicanism by trying to link it in with the greater body of political thought and theory in the context of wider republicanism, in the hope that the grubby reality will be overlooked. However, despite the high-flown waffling of Tone and other 'Irishmen' at the time (whose Irishness was what might be termed of 'recent vintage' ), the fact remains that the republicanism which appeared in Ireland in the late 1700s was a rather simplistic version of the violent creed then holding sway in France – or do you imagine that the incompetents who led tens of thousands of illiterate Catholic Irish peasants to their deaths in 1798 were fully au fait with Machiavelli et al?“
Again, it seems important to you that you prove how Irish you are. The credibility of the premise upon which Irish republicanism was born remains intact. If you are asserting that I seek to excuse the murder of innocent civilians or the vicious brutality waged upon another human being, then I have already stated repeatedly that I vehemently condemn any such act whether it emanates from Republicans, Loyalists , police, military or indeed any human being. I have made this quite clear and wonder why you would make such an inaccurate assertion. It remains, however, that the tenets of Irish Republicanism were rooted in what I would argue were admirable ideals, their aims being to establish democracy, equality for all and religious harmony. The fact that you continue to rubbish this with total disregard for established historical fact and tendency quite betrays your vehement partisanship, despite your protests to the contrary. It’s not really good enough to belittle any point that you don’t like with a dismissive “oh, not that old tale again!”, when it’s backed up by hundreds of years worth of fact and endeavour, is it? You’re quite happy to place “legitimacy” on “facts” which as a basis have far less historical significance and recognition. Let us not pick and choose, indeed.

This extracted declaration makes the goals of the Irish Republicans in those very early days, implicitly clear.

The Declaration, Resolutions, and Constitution of the Societies of United Irishmen 1797
In the present era of reform, when unjust governments are falling in every quarter of Europe, when religious persecution is compelled to abjure her tyranny over conscience, when the rights of men are ascertained in theory, and theory substantiated by practice, when antiquity can no longer defend absurd and oppressive forms, against the common sense and common interests of mankind, when all governments are acknowledged to originate from the people, and to be so far only obligatory, as they protect their rights and promote their welfare, we think it our duty, as Irishmen, to come forward, and state what we feel to be our heavy grievance, and what we know to be its effectual remedy. We have no national government, we are ruled by Englishmen, and the servants of Englishmen, whose object is the interest of another country, whose instrument is constitutionally, efficaciously, by the great measure, essential to the prosperity and freedom of Ireland, an equal representation of all the people in parliament.
Impressed with these sentiments, we have agreed to form an association, to be called the Society of United Irishmen, and we do pledge ourselves to our country, and mutually to each other, that we will steadily support, and endeavour by all due means to carry into effect the following resolutions:
lst. Resolved, That the weight of English influence in the government is so great, as to require a cordial union among all the people of Ireland, to maintain that balance which is essential to the preservation of our liberties, and extension of our commerce.
2nd. That the sole constitutional mode by which this influence can be opposed is by a complete and radical reform of the representation of the people in parliament.
3rd. That no reform is practicable, efficacious, or just, which shall not include Irishmen of every religious persuasion.
Satisfied, as we are, that the intestine divisions among Irishmen have too often given encouragement and impunity to profligate, audacious, and corrupt administrations, in corruption, and whose strength is the weakness of Ireland; and these men have the whole of the power and patronage of the country, as means to seduce and subdue the honesty of her representatives in the legislature. Such an extrinsic power, acting with uniform force, in a direction too frequently opposite to the true line of our obvious interest, can be resisted with effect solely by unanimity, decision, and spirit in the people, qualities which may be exerted most legally, measures which, but for these divisions, they durst not have attempted, we submit our resolutions to the nation, as the basis of our political faith. We have gone to what we conceived to be the root of the evil. We have stated what we conceive to be remedy. With a parliament thus formed, everything is easy - without it, nothing can be done - and we do call on, and most earnestly exhort our countrymen in general to follow our example, and to form similar societies in every quarter of the kingdom, for the promotion of constitutional knowledge, the abolition of bigotry in religion and politics, and the equal distribution of the rights of man throughout all sects and denominations of Irishmen. The people, when thus collected, will feel their own weight, and secure that the power which theory has already admitted as their portion, and to which, if they be not aroused by their present provocations to vindicate it, they deserve to forfeit their pretensions for ever.


An address by Edward Roche, one of the Commanders of the Insurrection reaffirms these ideals, along with the exhortation against cruelty and bigotry towards the opposition but further entreating understanding and tolerance across all faiths:

ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND
Your patriotic exertions in the Cause of your Country have hitherto exceeded our most sanguine expectations, and in a short time must ultimately be crowned with success. Liberty has raised her drooping head. Thousands daily flock to her standard. The Voice of her children everywhere prevails. Let us then in the moment of Triumph return thanks to the Almighty Ruler of the Universe that a total stop has been put to those sanguine measures which of late were but too often resorted to by the creatures of Government to keep the people in slavery.
Nothing now, my Countrymen, appears to be missing to secure the conquests you have so bravely won but an implicit obedience to the commands of your Chiefs, for through a want of proper subordination and discipline all must be endangered.
At this eventful period all Europe must admire and posterity will read with astonishment the heroic acts achieved by the people, strangers to military tactics, and having few professional commanders, but what power can resist men fighting for Liberty!
In the moment of triumph, my countrymen, let not your victories be tarnished with any wanton acts of cruelty. Many of those unfortunate men now in prison were not your enemies from principle. Most of them, compelled by necessity, were obliged to oppose you. Neither let a difference in religious sentient cause a difference amongst the people. Recur to the debates in the Irish House of Lords of the 19th February last, you will see therein a patriotic and enlightened Protestant Bishop of Down, and many of the lay Lords with much eloquence pleading for Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary reform, in opposition to the haughty arguments of the Lord Chancellor and the powerful opposition of his fellow Courtiers.
To promote a mission of brotherhood amongst our countrymen of all religious persuasion has been our principal object. We have sworn in the most solemn manner, here associated for this laudable purpose, and no power on earth shall shake our resolution.
To my Protestant soldiers I feel much indebted for their gallant behaviour in the field, where they exhibited signal proofs of bravery in the Cause.

EDWARD ROCHE
Wexford, June 7, 1798.


The Insurrection of 1798 was indeed an abysmal point in Irish history. Some of your facts may be a little dated (more recent research suggests that the peasantry was a lot more disciplined, organised and clear in its political goals than previously recognised) but the fact remains that in terms of deaths, reprisals and achievement of goal, the insurrection was an unmitigated disaster. However, your sweeping assertion that Irish Republicanism, at this time, was simplistic, is hugely inaccurate. These leaders sought a social and political revolution the like of which had been accomplished in France. It is arguable that their aims were even greater, because the French, unlike the Irish Republicans, did not seek to enfranchise all citizens, such as non taxpayers. The magnitude of their revolutionary goals were what succeeded in drawing vast numbers of supporters across the religious divide - it is easy to surmise that only a goal of this scale would have proved able to unite Catholics and Protestants toward a common goal.

I do not disagree with these Irishmen fighting for sovereignty of their land and an end to the cruelty and abolition of human rights and freedom at the hands of the British and I would call into question anyone but the most ardent pacifist and conscientious objector if they denied they would act in similar manner, ill advised or not. I suppose they could have formed pressure groups and written nice letters to request that the British behave in civilised and Christian manner. In fact, as many such as Wolfe Tone initially were, but these measures don’t ever seem to have proven effective. I note that you don’t reserve any of your vitriol for the British when according responsibility. While the great majority of Irish have nothing but the deepest condemnation for the IRA of recent decades, myself included, you are the only Catholic Irishman I have encountered who has failed to acknowledge the part of the British throughout. Certainly, there were a good deal of British who were appalled to learn of what was happening in Ireland and sought to effect a change through diplomatic channels, throughout the centuries. In later years, for instance, King George V himself was a most vocal critic of the Black and Tans. Unfortunately successive governments proved disappointingly resistant to such men and women of conscience.

It is quite clear that the Irish philosophers, political activists and their peers at the forefront of the Insurrection were as intellectually capable and well-versed in those philosophies as any other educated person in Europe. The leaders of the Insurrection of 1798 were wise in their aims of uniting all creeds of Irishmen in the cause of equal representation, freedom and democracy. The French Revolution was certainly influential, not least for the fact that in learning of events in France, Catholics discerned that they no longer needed to look to the aristocracy to lead them, and Protestants surmised that Catholics were not necessarily slaves to the Pope, as was generally assumed.

In an Address from the United Irishmen of Dublin to the English Society of the Friends of the People, in 1792, we find the following description of the state of representation:

"The state of Protestant representation is as follows: 17 boroughs have no resident elector; 16 have but one; 90 have 13 electors each; 90 persons return for 106 rural boroughs - that is 212 members out of 300 - the whole number; 54 members are returned by five noblemen and four bishops; ...
With regard to the Catholics, the following is the simple and sorrowful fact: Three millions, every one of whom has an interest in the State, and collectively give it its value, are taxed without being represented, and bound by laws to which they have not given consent."


Later in the same address, it was claimed that Ireland and England themselves would develop a harmonious relationship if they were left to their own devices and Ireland was granted independence. Ireland, at this time, was ruled by a handful of Anglicans and the 3 million Irish Catholics had neither vote, rights nor freedom, yet were taxed for this privilege. It was the belief and hope of the early Republicans, that given full rights and representational equality, the citizens of a Republic of Ireland would eventually grow to live in harmony. Popular demand for political literature and pamphlets throughout the 1790's evidences the widespread influence of these ideas. More than two hundred thousand copies of Paine’s ‘The Rights of Man’, advocating an Irish Republic and arguing against hereditary monarchy, were circulated to the point that it was claimed that Paine‘s pamphlets were the subject of conversation from the old, to the young.

This was just Paine’s paper alone.

Thus, I believe your claims that the peasantry had no understanding of the tenets of Republicanism and what they were fighting to achieve are gross misrepresentation. If you were bored with Tone, one isn’t surprised that you seem to be unaware of the influence of people such as Thomas Russell, renowned for his organisational competence- his paper advocating the liberation of the 3,000,000 slaves in Ireland was very well received amongst the populace, as was the Declaration in support of the French Revolution, published in the Dublin Chronicle of 1791. William Thompson, credited with the first documented usage of the word, ’socialist’ influences both Marx and the modern Irish republican movement. Of course the lower echelons of society might not be as au fait with the more subtle philosophical tenets, although the goals and ideals were clearly being published in newspapers and pamphlets. Are you claiming that the average French peasant storming the Bastille, or cheering on Madame la Guillotine were astonishingly well educated and undercover ‘movers and shakers’ in the world of philosophy and politics?



“gallowglass” said:
I made the point – which you have sought to distort – that Irish Republicanism was and is distinctly different to the republicanism of the Ancient and Renaissance era, and present-day France

For someone so keen to criticise what you consider to be excess information, your entire paragraph on Irish Republicanism being different to the political theories of the Italian states, ancient Greece and Rome is , I believe, indulgent, and the only reason I sought to counter. As you now acknowledge, the difference between expounding the lofty political philosophies and theories, be they Roman, Greek or those of the Enlightenment from Descartes to Voltaire, and applying them, be they in the form of the French Revolution or Irish Insurrection - the difference is entirely physical, practical in its application and far removed from the theoretical. An obvious point but an important one. One which, in your haste to condemn the Irish republicans, you initially failed to make.

“gallowglass" said:
You're engaging here in what I might term the 'hidden history' school of thinking, as evidence by your line "the average person was loathe to invite such attentions and thus, support for republicanism was not overtly or tangibly displayed" – that's a hell of a sweeping statement to make, based, I imagine on what you want to believe as opposed to any actual evidence, followed by the equally impressive "ince this resistance to British rule lasted centuries, tacit, but staunch support most clearly did exist" – I know you want to believe this, but I note a distinct lack of factual proof for this wishful thinking. Again, a rather threadbare attempt to portray Republicanism as the consistent and ancient thread in Irish history.


Where on earth have I stated that I felt Republicanism was an ancient thread in Irish history? Where have I said that Republicanism was flawlessly consistent? I documented instances when activity waned and, in turn, when popular support waned. That the Republican movement gained such steady momentum, followed by overwhelming support at a most pertinent point in history is substantiated in the election results I quoted, along with the reason for this overwhelming support. It was you, I recall, who made such sweepingly ridiculous statements to wit:

“gallowglass” said:
These recent and foreign origins of Irish Republicanism partly explain the consistent failure of the Irish people to wholeheartedly support it; historically, it is an alien mindset at odds with the mainstream of Irish history. Deep down - in parts of their psyche that they don't like to venture into”

“Republicans can be extraordinarily ignorant about Ireland and Irish history”
Coming from someone who hinges his reasoning of the brutality evidenced on both sides of the divide on the Irish possessing deep, dark traits in their psyche and Republicans having a hidden, megalomaniacal agenda, this is a little rich, in fact, it’s worrying. I’m not writing a paper for publication here, If I were to add footnotes and bibliography, it would take more time than I have to spare, but I have referenced. If you consider this so crucial, why have you not done this yourself?

“gallowglass” said:
Morrigana said:
gallowglass said:
Deep down - in parts of their psyche that they don't like to venture into - Republicans know this, which is one of the reasons they can be so vicious in their dealings with fellow Irish people.
I would posit that the remarkable Brehon Laws would suggest otherwise. Indeed, the Irish rejected capital punishment from very early on in their history, seeking justice through adherence to law, not physical retribution. This is in direct contrast to most other cultures.
Jesus, if I've heard this once, I've heard it a thousand times – another laughable attempt to appropriate the Gaelic Brehon Laws into the service of justifying Republicanism.
No. I used the fact that the Brehon Laws eschewing capital punishment from very early on as evidence against your ludicrous, sweeping and again unsubstantiated assertion that the Irish are historically and inherently given to violence but just don’t want to admit it to themselves.


“gallowglass” said:
Ironically, Republicans can be
extraordinarily ignorant about Ireland and Irish history, but then the Republican Cause has traditionally recruited its membership from the lower orders or fringe elements of society, with a sprinkling of middle-class wannabes and the (very) odd aristocratic renegade. Personally, I'm of the opinion that one would have to be almost utterly devoid of any real knowledge of Irish history (not to mention common sense) to adhere to Republicanism. Irish Republicanism can only exist in a vacuum - be that moral or intellectual
“Morrigana” said:
Why would that be? You didn't expound on your reasoning. Personally, I've always found the average Irish person comparatively well informed and while there has been an increase in proportional working class membership since the 60's, since they would have been the most affected by the Troubles, your purported "fringe elements" are very rare indeed and the averagely intelligent Republican can give you a far more accurate analysis of their history than you have. Whether one subscribes to the Republican ethos has as much to do with one’s political outlook as one’s understanding of history.

“gallowglass” said:
You are here implying – deliberately – that the 'average Irish person' adheres to Republicanism, or more plainly that an Irish person is automatically a Republican by dint of the fact that they are Irish.
I am most certainly not implying any such thing. Read again.

“Morrigana” said:
Any political movement or indeed the army itself will attract its minority share of gung-ho idiots, people who haven't a clue what they are fighting for and criminal elements who are there to satisfy their bloodthirsty proclivities, etc. The Republican movement is no different, but this does not detract from the deeply intellectual and historical rationale behind the movement or the integrity of the cause itself.
“gallowglass” said:
This is pure moist-eyed belief, and the suggestion that there is or was a "deeply intellectual and historical rationale behind the movement or the integrity of the cause itself" is nonsense.
It is a huge weakness to find oneself unable to acknowledge the strengths of one’s enemy. Many Republican leaders have been highly intelligent and espoused very high ideals as I have shown. That does not mean all Republican leaders. I have - repeatedly - already said that I have no admiration for the modern IRA. I’m not entirely sure why you insist on trying to persuade people that I do. You make all-encompassing, sometimes contradictory statements with no reference points and attempt to denigrate without rationale. Your whole argument boils down to “I’m more Irish than you and this is rubbish”.
We can all deny that the world is round and make a few pithy comments to this effect - but it doesn’t make it true, and it doesn’t make your efforts in this vein any more credible. And those who are convinced by them? Well, you‘re preaching to the choir.

“gallowglass” said:
Thank you for waving the Penal Laws in my face – which was inevitable in light of your dredging up the Brehon Laws. I'm aware of why the majority of Irish emigrants to America were poorly-educated peasants; my point was to highlight the fact that (as opposed to the reasons why) they were, and how this will have influenced their image of Ireland and that which they handed down to their Irish-American descendants. Again, you’re falling back on the misty-eyed sentimentality – "wearing green, singing Irish songs…speaking Irish" – that characterises the Republican/Irish-American view of Ireland and Irish history. Many – if not most – Irish people find Irish-Americans acutely embarrassing because of just such thinking. And no, I'm not suggesting you're an Irish-American, but there are similarities in thinking.
You seem intent on portraying the Irish emigrants as not only uneducated, but unintelligent. Of course the infamous Penal Laws were crucial to people‘s perceptions and reactions, as were the widely published tenets of early Republicanism. Acknowledging this for the sake of people in this forum who perhaps have little knowledge of these Laws has nothing to do with sentimentality. I note you chose not to quote this part: “the prohibition of Catholics from Parliament, religious worship, buying land, practising law, holding office in central or local government, the right to vote”. It’s very telling. Certainly, there will always be that wistful element in any diaspora, but it is misleading to fail to acknowledge the significant influences I documented previously whilst seeking to pin Irish-American perceptions as being entirely a result of ignorance and overt sentimentality. There are enough well educated, intelligent, informed Irish-Americans who support Republicanism either on principle or in its more heinous, extreme form, who would prove otherwise.

There’s a lot of misty-eyed sentimentality regarding the more recent history of the 9/11 atrocities, and I’m sure the facts bear me out in saying that the collective armed forces of the United States swelled with enlistments in the aftermath. The atrocities committed by some of those young men in combat in Iraq , or in the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay does not denigrate the initial offensive undertaken in Afghanistan, the ‘cause’, the whole reason for intervention. Or is it different when the shoe is on the other foot?

“Morrigana” said:
Since you seem fond of discussing the historical motivations of the Irish, I wonder why here you don't use the historical fact that the Irish were adept at the oral tradition of recording history? Indeed, their tradition has proven, according to learned scholars, remarkably accurate. I suppose that the centuries-long injustices of the British towards these peasants and their ancestors wouldn’t have influenced them at all? The fact is that…
“gallowglass” said:
Why are you bringing up the oral tradition in Irish history?
No sense of humour, either, it would seem. It was a direct poke at your fondness for dredging up ancient history when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn’t. If, as you wish to believe, the Irish behave viciously toward each other because of something unacknowledged buried deep within the national psyche, then I flippantly suggested their famed talent at the oral tradition would suffice to counterbalance your claim that the history the emigrants handed down was necessarily inaccurate. In short, your make claim was so ludicrous, I felt that it didn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

“Morrigana” said:
Irish opposition to British rule has taken many forms, I can't imagine who would seek to deny it, or for what reason. Republicanism has been seen as the most powerful, organised means of effecting a change.
“gallowglass” said:
Again, you seek to distort my words – I did not seek to 'deny' Irish opposition to British rule, but rather to demonstrate that Republicanism is but a proportionally small part of that opposition. Republicanism has been the most effective, but my contention is that this has been too high a price for the Irish people.
Precisely as I said- Republicanism has been the most influential means of effecting change. I would agree that it has been a very high price for the Irish to have paid, but I wonder where they would be without it, for the fact that you are yet to acknowledge is that there has been, since the advent of Republicanism in Ireland, until comparatively recently, very little reason or alternative, other than to accept the status quo. Britain was hardly showing itself eager to bend to the diplomatic process. It would be unwise to forget that, just as the British authorities were effective in convincing others of their righteousness and the evils of the Republicans, back then, they have proved equally disingenuous in modern times. And had the Irish done nothing at all, but merely sat back and been accepting of the status quo - would you be as scathing of the British today, for their having invaded in the first place and foisting rule on a ‘peaceful people’? I quite doubt it, somehow. You seem to reference the Irish psyche at will but have made no mention of the peculiar British psyche towards Ireland - I doubt a Gandhi-esque sustained peaceful protest would have had quite the same impact here.

I don’t seek to distort your words at all. I did not make any snide remarks as to your background or persona and neither do I seek to score points on false premises. I find it both disappointing and distasteful that you have, despite this.

“gallowglass” said:
As regards attempts to stifle study, let's see – the decades long indifference to, and denigration of, Irish service in the British Army at an official level as practised by the oft-governing Fianna Fáil party – this has only recently changed.
It should be easy to understand why Fianna Fáil , given its historical origins, would be hostile, whether you agree with their views or not. I am glad to hear that this has changed, albeit recently. Given this change, I wonder why you initially claimed:

“gallowglass” said:
“hence the increasing attempts to stifle the study or even discussion of such things.”
It was this statement which led me to query what these “increasing” attempts to
“stifle study or discussion of such things” might be. Yet you furnish an example you say used to be stifled but now isn’t. I wouldn’t exactly describe that as “increasing” - so why would you? A further attempt at distortion?


“gallowglass” said:
Nonsense, pure and simple, and proof that Republicans still refuse to recognise and accept the Irish State as constituted and existant. For Republicans it's always 1918, they have their own comic-opera 'constitution', and everyone is out of step except them. As they see it, the Irish State a traitorous affront to their pure understanding of history. Whether they consider the laws of the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland 'illegally imposed' or not is irrelevant – the Irish State exists and is recognised and accepted by the its people. They went against the democratically expressed will of the Irish people in 1922, and they are still of that mindset. They think they know best – apparently you share their thinking.
I was asked by a surprising number of people to contribute to this thread in the hope that I might be able to give an insight as to why people supported Republicanism and the IRA. I have participated as time allowed, sincerely and almost entirely without being rude or unkind or casting inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions on those who disagree with me. I have tried to give as full an account of a very complex history as briefly as possible. Whether you or I agree with what has been done in the name of Irish freedom does not detract from the fact that what I outlined in my previous post, the history of the country, of Republicanism and the IRA, is the most significant motivation for many. The entire point of this thread, as I interpreted it, was to try to give some insight as to why KevinB donated money to NORAID.

“gallowglass” said:
The anti-Treaty IRA may have regarded themselves as the 'Irish Army' but the reality – and the democratically expressed wish of the Irish people - was that they were not then and are not now. My grandfather - an officer of the Free State Army by way of the Indian Army - was one of those who had to make this point to them through the medium of an 18 pounder artillery piece opposite the Four Courts in 1922. The anti-Treaty IRA lost the vote on accepting the Treaty and then lost the Civil War, both of which renders their belief that they are the legitimate Óglaigh na hÉireann null and void, and also explains why they have had no qualms about killing Irish soldiers and police when it has suited them.
I understand that viewpoint. I think the reality is far more complex than you portray, not least because the delegation was instructed by its leaders not to accept the treaty because of the overwhelming vote of the Irish people for Sinn Fein, a vote itself which was interpreted as a mandate in support of the view that Ireland should become a Republic. In the light of history, it is easy to say that those continuing their anti-Treaty sentiment were wrong. At the time itself, after centuries of oppression, after coming so close to attaining their goals, it is not difficult for me to understand why their outrage and disappointment was so strong and why they continued their opposition - why, after all these years, when fellow Republicans seceded to the British program of partial rule they were viewed as traitors to the cause . It is not difficult at all for me to understand why a united Ireland is a goal many hold dear. I am one of those people. That is not to say that I agree with the methods employed to attain that goal in more recent decades, nor do I think the British government has been at all honourable or honest throughout much of the history of it all.

“gallowglass” said:
Are you simply cutting and pasting your lecture notes? Please, spare me. Subsequent actions of the IRA showed that these 'orders' in relation to actions against 26 county forces' were not adhered to, such as when two idiots blew themselves to pieces whilst attempting to plant a bomb in the Officers' Married Quarters of McKee Barracks Dublin in the early 1960s – I know this because my parents were living there at the time.
Of course there were incidences of non adherence - just as you get in any organisation, legal or non. Do I condone it? No. Have I seen you condemn anything the British authorities visited upon innocents? No. Does your stance strike me as insupportable and profoundly biased? Yes.

“gallowglass” said:
I don't know what Irish history you've studied, but it's not one familiar to me. You honestly believe that the post-independence Irish State and Irish people were "indifferent to religious differences"? Really? Ever heard of the Ne Temere decree, which saw the Protestant population decrease dramatically, or the official and unofficial bias against the Protestant population in such areas as education and employment? – this following upon the pogrom of Protestants and ex-servicemen in places such as Cork during the period 1919-23. Post-independence Ireland was a chronically poor place, not helped by DeValera's moronic decision – in the national interest no doubt – to institute an economic war against Britain; this in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression.
It would be sheer idiocy to argue that there was no fallout, political, religious , economic or social in the aftermath of such a divisive rift. It’s not black and white, despite your attempts to portray otherwise. In terms of addressing why the Republic of Ireland is markedly different from Northern Ireland over the last few decades - which is how I interpreted the question asked, for their was a quite obvious “spillover” before this - I would reiterate what I said. Whether the authorities instituted and/or prolonged such differences, there was and is a very clear difference between interaction between Catholic and Protestants, Republican and Monarchist etc in the Republic of Ireland compared to Northern Ireland and it has very little to do with the reasons you gave. I believe that the Republic of Ireland has evolved precisely as predicted in the aforementioned Address form the United Irishmen - that is, once civil rights and equality were established, the people of the Irish Republic live in relative harmony with each other, whatever their creed, the British and Irish governments also.

“gallowglass” said:
The "modern Irish Republican movement is rooted in these past five hundred years of national history and not at all indebted to foreign political movements or philosophy"– are you serious? Irish Republicanism arose in the late 1700s, by way of those influenced by the French Revolution, and yet you somehow think that it is "rooted" as far back as the 16th century. That is laughable and historically dishonest, pure and simple. Those Irish who fought to expel English/British influence from the island in the 1500s and 1600s would have been utterly baffled and repelled by Republicanism, or do you imagine that the earls of Tyrone and Desmond, and later Owen Roe O'Neill, not to mention Patrick Sarsfield and the Jacobites were secretly all proto-republicans? Again, you are desperately trying to find historical roots and legitimacy for Irish Republicanism.
My wording was indeed, in that paragraph, quite careless. That the Irish Republican movement was first organised, however, because its leaders drew inspiration from the French and American revolutions has already been acknowledged, but to ignore the prior historical and political influences leading to the perceived need for such a movement would be wrong. Similarly, it would be wrong to deny that its leaders were not also significantly influenced by Irish philosophers, whose thinking was influential in the later Socialist movement, and that the initial tenets of Republicanism did not, arguably, have higher ideals then the French, given that the French did not consider it important to accord ’equality’ to all members of their society as the Irish did.

“Morrigana” said:
Equally absurd is the suggestion that there will be no contentment amongst the Irish people should the six counties of Northern Ireland be reunited under one state with the rest of Ireland because of supposed "hidden" megalomaniac goals of Republicans (lest we forget to mention the propensity of the Irish people towards the dark recesses of the psyche!).
“gallowglass” said:
Well, what do you think is the long term aim of Sinn Féin/PIRA, an organisation which keeps its more radical Socialist agenda under wraps lest it frighten people? Do you honestly believe that 'the Movement' will simply disband in the event of a United Ireland becoming a reality? Why don't you start with their economic policies – I hear that redistribution of wealth and a special tax on foreign companies are favourites of theirs. It's the propensity of Irish Republicans towards violence and ideological extremism that concerns me.
The Sinn Féin manifesto is published and easy to access, the original aims and socialist tenets of Irish Republicanism remain. Why are you surprised that SF have a political ideology? As I have already shown, political goals were clearly defined from the earliest times, despite your claims to the contrary. The Irish Republican movement has long held socialist ideals. I cannot imagine SF would gain much support from anyone if they sought to institute whatever alarming thing you fear based on whatever hearsay evidence you have to support this rather reactionary claim. If, as you claim, only the unintelligent, uneducated ‘non’ Irish, who support any heinous act because of their nonsensical “misty-eyed sentimentalism” in their hopes for a united Ireland are the Republicans only supporters, then once this has been achieved, there seems little to worry about.

“gallowglass” said:
It's clear that you believe all that you write…
You write what you believe is untruthful?

“Morrigana” said:
Finally, I doubt I shall comment on this thread again. One could write dissertations over the finer points of this long and intricate history but I think all that can be efficiently said has been and there is little more that I can do to offer a balanced perspective - the opportunity for further research is freely available to all should any truly wish to do so. If any wish to PM me over a particular point, that's fine, but, for now, I'll just thank everyone for the discussion and the kindnesses shown here and in PM's.

“gallowglass” said:
If I didn't know better, I might be forgiven for imagining that you adopt this combination of the rebuffed believer and the schoolmistress-like tone for when things don't quite go your way and someone stands up to challenge your sweeping assertions and hectoring manner.

Just in case you are in any doubt – I regard Republicanism as an insult to Irish people, history, and culture, and an aberration. Republicans have murdered Irish people – the very people they have claimed to represent in their own distorted worldview – and sought to impose their understanding of Irishness on the island for generations. For many years they made the word Irish a byword for terrorism, and therefore in my view are not fit to call themselves Irish men and women.
Just in case you are in any doubt - I believe that it is unintelligent, immoral and cowardly to discuss this issue whilst failing to acknowledge that there are great areas of shame and wrongdoing across the board. In not one instance have you criticised the British government’s role in this sorry history and yet you expect to be taken seriously.

Just in case you’re in any doubt, I can’t imagine any intelligent Irish imbued with a sense of propriety NOT supporting Irish Republicanism in its original form. A political philosophy espousing freedom, equality, civil and religious tolerance and harmony, is one to be admired. Under the historical circumstances I would view anyone not supporting those early Republicans as deeply suspect in motivation. Why would you support the British usurpers’ enforced slavery, their greed and cruelties ? Why would you support their immoral laws?

Of course, I’m dwelling on these early Republicans by means of answering your repeated insistent claims such as:

“gallowglass” said:
Irish Republicanism was and is still essentially a blunt instrument with little or no thinking behind it beyond 'f*ck the Brits', swiftly followed by 'f*ck anyone who doesn't agree with us'. “
“Irish Republicanism is at essence a 'theory' based almost entirely on the physical force tradition. It almost entirely lacks a coherent philosophy – certainly not one known to its adherents – and certainly lacks the sophistication of the other forms of republicanism I have mentioned
While I feel that Irish Republicanism very much lost its way for some decades, and that significant elements behave abominably, I believe the ethos upon which the movement was founded were sound and were the only effective means of achieving equality for all in Ireland.

That you lash out with such unpleasantry and insult, and exhibit entrenched bitterness whilst not once admitting that there was a perception of a very real need to change a desperate situation - a situation, which despite diplomatic approach and lobbying, was unlikely to change - is revealing. While most people would condemn the insupportable acts of murder, violence and brutality the modern IRA has been guilty of, you condemn every single aspect of the Republican movement itself, whilst turning a blind eye to crucial aspects of history, and equally murderous brutalities enacted by Loyalist terrorists and the authorities. That you have written reams and reams and yet have evaded these significant factors speaks volumes about your partiality. Such entrenched bias has no place in rational discussion of an issue of this magnitude - it merely adds to the problem.
 
As to why the black people of the United States did not respond in kind to hundreds of years of entrenched slavery, I cannot provide nearly the response that the question deserves. I am no student of American history, nor have I personally read widely enough on the subject to do it the justice it deserves. I imagine that the essence of an answer would boil down to several factors: one, the scale of organisation that would be required to co-ordinate such a movement across such vast population and terrain; two, the deep psychological divide between several sectors of America - religious and non, North and South, the Civil War, and again the impossibility of co-ordinating coherent civil or military movement between these both in terms of the physical and ideology; three - that military movement was not cohesive across the whole of the US until after the war of independence; four, the relative degree of independence that States enjoy under Federal government in terms of legislature and budget, and how this relates to discrimination laws, and fifth, the ‘melting pot’ that the US was and remains meant that many minority communities felt hugely discriminated against. It wasn’t just “us and them” - it was “us and them and them and them”, and whilst certainly there were hundreds of years worth of oppression , it didn’t extend to half a centuries worth and have the same sustained mass psychological impact that can be created over half a century. In historical and relative terms, the racial inequalities in the US were redressed, at governmental level, rather efficiently.

Why does one country riot and not another? What is it about the French that they have seen fit to have several incarnations of revolution, yet could not find it within themselves to grant Algeria the same rights of independence until they had suffered the political and economic consequences of sustained warfare? Why did the British capitulate relatively easy to Indian independence and not Irish? Why would the method that India adopted in the pursuit of independence have not proved nearly so fruitful in Ireland? Why is China so ideologically hung-up on Tibet? There are few, if any, easy answers here whatsoever - the answers lay somewhere in the economic, strategic, psychological and personal factors of each case, and not one is a blanket statement for the other.

We must not, of course, forget the Black Panthers, Brown Berets, Young Lords - all movements incorporating violence as tactics . I also think it often proves most valuable to consider a question from an inverted perspective. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association quite consciously emulated itself in the fashion of the US civil rights movement. They demanded such things as an end to discrimination in local government and housing, the abolition of gerrymandering, used to minimise the Catholic vote, and the disbanding of the B Specials, a wholly sectarian, Protestant police reserve.

The Irish have oft had term “White niggers”, used as a method of describing their plight. You may draw your own conclusions in comparing the granting of civil rights in Ireland with the US government’s granting civil rights to its African American citizens.

If, as seems likely, I do not have the opportunity to comment further until at least the New Year, by which time I imagine this thread might well have died out, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy, healthy and Peaceful New Year.
 
Morrigana said:
As to why the black people of the United States did not respond in kind to hundreds of years of entrenched slavery, I cannot provide nearly the response that the question deserves. I am no student of American history, nor have I personally read widely enough on the subject to do it the justice it deserves. I imagine that the essence of an answer would boil down to several factors: one, the scale of organisation that would be required to co-ordinate such a movement across such vast population and terrain; two, the deep psychological divide between several sectors of America - religious and non, North and South, the Civil War, and again the impossibility of co-ordinating coherent civil or military movement between these both in terms of the physical and ideology; three - that military movement was not cohesive across the whole of the US until after the war of independence; four, the relative degree of independence that States enjoy under Federal government in terms of legislature and budget, and how this relates to discrimination laws, and fifth, the ‘melting pot’ that the US was and remains meant that many minority communities felt hugely discriminated against. It wasn’t just “us and them” - it was “us and them and them and them”, and whilst certainly there were hundreds of year’s worth of oppression, it didn’t extend to half a centuries worth and have the same sustained mass psychological impact that can be created over half a century. In historical and relative terms, the racial inequalities in the US were redressed, at governmental level, rather efficiently.

Why does one country riot and not another? What is it about the French that they have seen fit to have several incarnations of revolution, yet could not find it within themselves to grant Algeria the same rights of independence until they had suffered the political and economic consequences of sustained warfare? Why did the British capitulate relatively easy to Indian independence and not Irish? Why would the method that India adopted in the pursuit of independence have not proved nearly so fruitful in Ireland? Why is China so ideologically hung-up on Tibet? There are few, if any, easy answers here whatsoever - the answers lay somewhere in the economic, strategic, psychological and personal factors of each case, and not one is a blanket statement for the other.

We must not, of course, forget the Black Panthers, Brown Berets, Young Lords - all movements incorporating violence as tactics. I also think it often proves most valuable to consider a question from an inverted perspective. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association quite consciously emulated itself in the fashion of the US civil rights movement. They demanded such things as an end to discrimination in local government and housing, the abolition of gerrymandering, used to minimise the Catholic vote, and the disbanding of the B Specials, a wholly sectarian, Protestant police reserve.

The Irish have oft had term “White niggers”, used as a method of describing their plight. You may draw your own conclusions in comparing the granting of civil rights in Ireland with the US government’s granting civil rights to its African American citizens.

If, as seems likely, I do not have the opportunity to comment further until at least the New Year, by which time I imagine this thread might well have died out, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy, healthy and Peaceful New Year.
You are right; the African Americans did set up isolated movements who tried to use violence as a means towards an end. However the extraordinary dignity of people like Irene Morgan, Sarah Louise Keys and Rosa Parks and the example that they set overshadowed those who sought violent means. The majority of the African American community were a deeply religious and peace loving people who saw that there were avenues to achieving their goals which would bring those elements in American society along with them.
Civilised America began to see as grossly unfair the way African Americans were treated in some States and to hold a great deal of sympathy for their plight and admiration for the peaceful way that they set about their aims.
It is hard to sympathise with the plight of a people who see blowing up women and children as the means towards and end. When bombs were going off around Britain in the name of NI Catholics do you think anyone felt sorry, or even cared about their plight? In my personal experience many people said they should all rot in hell and no ground ever given in to them. Just as the Nazi Blitz of WW2 cemented the resolve of the British people so it cemented their resolve not to give in to the murderers and the people they represented, almost unchallenged it would seem too many people.
If attempts had been made by peaceful means to highlight the plight of the NI Catholics and work on the abundant sympathy and empathy of the British people the 'Troubles' may have ended far sooner than they did. A peaceful approach to peace would also have allowed the US and indeed the Pope to place moral and diplomatic pressure on the UK Government to find a solution.
Historically British actions in Ireland were appalling but they happened in a time when mass communication was not possible and where the only media was the newspaper and they weren’t in the hands of people sympathetic to the Irish people.
Citing historical British oppression of the Irish shows us how the partition of Ireland came about; it doesn’t explain why the Catholic people of NI supported mass murder as a means to emancipation. It is right and fair to say that not every Catholic supported the terrorists but there certainly wasn’t sufficient numbers of Catholics to stand up and say ‘Not in my Name’ early enough to prevent the terrorist ascendancy.
It is my understanding that ‘White Niggers’ was an American expression, I am not aware of it being widely used in the UK. However it may well have found favour in that section of the magnificently ignorant that believe a person of another race, creed, religion or colour is good or bad based on those demographics alone.
Neither Morrigana nor anyone who has not served in NI can have any idea as to the depths that the IRA plumbed in the seventies and eighties to keep their own community in check. Kneecappings were more often part of turf wars and to keep control of illegal money made from gangsterism. Women brutally raped and murdered because they smiled at a soldier or cast an admiring glance. One woman that I personally know of who was crucified upside down to a snicket gate with petrol poured into her vagina to eat its way out from the inside. Children as young as ten kneecapped. Sons and husbands murdered in front of their mothers/wives/children on the flimsiest of pretexts, sometimes because they didn’t show enough ‘respect’ to the local commander rather than betraying the terrorist cause to the Army. If you had walked a mile in our shoes in those dark days you might find it hard to rationalise through ancient history, no matter how bad the British had been in 1798 what was carried out in the name of the Catholics in NI within the last 40 years.
Every time that a soldier was involved in an incident of any kind the Catholic population would set to work; weapons carried by dead terrorists would be removed, clothing doctored, bodies washed and suddenly hundreds of people who ‘saw it all’, how the wicked soldier killed an innocent man who had only ever had the goodness of the Lord in his heart. Uppermost in most soldier’s minds was that, if they opened fire to defend themselves, they had to be doubly sure because they stood a good chance of ending up in jail once the ‘witnesses’ had all sworn to God that he was a cold blooded murderer.
History has its place and it indeed shows us how a situation was arrived at in the first place but it does not excuse the excesses of Britain up to Irish independence and it certainly doesn’t mitigate the wholesale murder carried out by the terrorists on both sides.
I wish you a happy and peaceful Christmas Morrigana and wish for a speedy recovery for your daughter. If there are things we may wish to disagree on that is acceptable, that we both wholeheartedly condemn terrorist violence is mandatory. God speed.
 
Well, more impressive contributions.

Your serve Gallowglass, should you wish to continue the marathon contest.

What I think - in oversimplified terms - from the last 2/3 posts is the harmful disconnect between idealism, and the practical methods utilised to carry it out. The illustrations are many e.g prevent the spread of communism/spray the place with agent orange.
 
What is amazing is the way that two indivs can both manipluate the same history to produce different ideals, rather than look to the future to produce a common goal.
the real tragedy is (and i suspect has always been) that Ireland North South East and West is a diverse, fascinating and stunningly beatiful country - everywhere except where large groups of people live.
 
rather than look to the future to produce a common goal.
The point of the thread was not to look forward but, in fact, to look back at the history and the attitudes and motivations that created the situation in the first place.... But we concur, it's interesting how the same history is viewed slightly differently yet it makes a huge difference in the result.
 
Boredcivvy, are you going to bother posting any comments regarding that video?

Any opinions? Any reason to dig a thread up from six weeks ago?
 
Any reason to dig a thread up from six weeks ago?
Probably didn't want to leave a fucking crab with the last word... :wink:
 
boredcivvy said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeK2PWqyGLQ
So what's the actual point of this? Did you think you were divulging something new, or what?

It's notable that you just chopped in the vid and never bothered to leave a comment on it. So what's the crack, Jack?

MsG
 
He hasn't got one, he's a sensitive crab wannabe and a bit of a buttock
 
Mighty_doh_nut said:
He hasn't got one, he's a sensitive crab wannabe and a bit of a buttock
I think its Kevbs other name I have read some of his posts he too is fuckwit whats wrong kev no one playing with you murdering scum but sshhhh
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top