Loyalist groups to march in Dublin

jaqian

ballooba wrote:

It would be a dangerous excercise but I wonder if I could get some of my urine into a few water ballons. Purely in the interests of science.

I'm not particularly republican but this is a bit much.

I see bigotry and intolerence isn't dead in modern ireland

Dave!

^
There's nothing bigoted about it -- the march is clearly an antagonistic nose-thumbing at Republicans, and it shouldn't be allowed to go ahead.

I think the example of the KKK marching through Harlem was given earlier.

I'm all for free speech and all that, but the march will result in violence, so from that perspective it should be stopped.

LovelyHurling

DaveMcG wrote:

^
the march is clearly an antagonistic nose-thumbing at Republicans, and it shouldn't be allowed to go ahead.

I think the example of the KKK marching through Harlem was given earlier.

Dave if they wanted to cause trouble why do you think they decided to wear lillies instead of the sash? Because they want to make their point in as sharp a way as possible but without causing offence to Dubliners. There will be victims of the troubles ie surviving families marching as well. This march isnt the same thing as your average Garvaghy Road situation.

Again, theyre going down 1)to protest at SFIRA involvement in the Dail which occured largely unquestioned here for years. Now that the Irish govt has such an influence in the north its only fair, they feel, that this fact be recognized.

2)Theyre also marching (I think this is why most people want to march actually) to highlight cultural differences between the North and South, hoping it will hinder the current prospect of a United Ireland gaining momentum in the Dublin and gaining plausability in London. i.e. most Northerners are Unionists, etc.

There may be some other reasons why people want to go to Dublin, like I said it's going to be a very broad spectrum of people. I only went through this thread fully last night, and was very surprised at the comments of some, talking about firing urine balloons and stones at the marchers, and referring to Unionists as the KKK or Nazis. I think those are very offensive words to be throwing around about your average run of the mill Unionist workingman and victims of the troubles, who will be your two main categories of people arriving come marching day.

jaqian

So throwing pi$$ed filled balloons isn't intolerant???

If ppl don't like it ignore it but IMO I think the Orange parade could evolve into a proper cultural event without politics f**king it up. I know why it was founded but that’s history, I think to modern unionists/Orangemen it’s an expression of their cultural identity. Don't forget that in the North they are an increasing minority and therefore suffer from the siege mentality and a bit of paranoia fuelled by thugs like Ian Paisley & the UVF etc who have their own agendas. The only way we'll ever have peace on this Island is with respect for each other’s cultures & traditions. I always thought that we were more open-minded and tolerant down here but I see from this thread that we are just bigoted, racist and intolerant as our counterparts in the North.

Btw the march/parade will ONLY result in violence if assh0les like those who’ve posted above show up with their pi$$ed filled balloons and antagonistic attitudes.

Hobbes

LovelyHurling wrote:

Dave if they wanted to cause trouble why do you think they decided to wear lillies instead of the sash?.

From what I have read around in relation to this march the majority are doing it to cause trouble and actually want trouble.

Also KKK and orange order have parallels (or do they allow Catholics to join now?) Trying to tie sectarians to "unionists" is silly but doesn't mean that the majority wanting to march are doing it for noble reasons.

victims of the troubles? So they are letting republicans march side by side then?! I'd agree to that.

jaqian

Anyone got a date for this march? Its sometime in Feb isn't it?

whiskeyman

Saw this idea from another forum...
Basically, everyone should come into town dressed as apples, and gather and the opposite end of O'Connell St, in waiting....
Hardcore......

Lux23

They are marching to remember victims of IRA violence which I have no problem with. But some may be looking to cause, best thing is to ignore the bores.

mise_me_fein_V2

I don't see why they have to do it in Dublin.

Anyway, there will be a united Ireland and it will be a good thing.

All this bullsh!t about what does it mean to be Irish and people born here don't care about a nation of 32 counties. The fact is the majority of people would like to see a united Ireland.

I think unionist will have to see that they too are Irish.
I mean if your born in any part of Ireland you are Irish.

I don't mind the march if it's for IRA victims, the IRA seem to have turned into a pack of scumbags in the last few years anyway.

I'm not gonna preach to people who have lost loved ones for no reason.

Just hope no loyalists provoke coz there'd be an awful riot.

The Real B-man

I Predict a Riot!

gurramok

LovelyHurling wrote:

Dave if they wanted to cause trouble why do you think they decided to wear lillies instead of the sash? Because they want to make their point in as sharp a way as possible but without causing offence to Dubliners. There will be victims of the troubles ie surviving families marching as well. This march isnt the same thing as your average Garvaghy Road situation.

Again, theyre going down 1)to protest at SFIRA involvement in the Dail which occured largely unquestioned here for years. Now that the Irish govt has such an influence in the north its only fair, they feel, that this fact be recognized.

2)Theyre also marching (I think this is why most people want to march actually) to highlight cultural differences between the North and South, hoping it will hinder the current prospect of a United Ireland gaining momentum in the Dublin and gaining plausability in London. i.e. most Northerners are Unionists, etc.

There may be some other reasons why people want to go to Dublin, like I said it's going to be a very broad spectrum of people. I only went through this thread fully last night, and was very surprised at the comments of some, talking about firing urine balloons and stones at the marchers, and referring to Unionists as the KKK or Nazis. I think those are very offensive words to be throwing around about your average run of the mill Unionist workingman and victims of the troubles, who will be your two main categories of people arriving come marching day.

Alot of mis-information there.

Loyalist terror bosses help launched the 'Love Ulster' campaign in Larne and have helped organise various parades in Belfast.
Mainstream unionist opinion have shunned this crowd's rallies, ask yourself wonder why?
There is no need for an Orange sectarian parade at all, that just shows these so-called victims real intentions is to provoke violence as they are associated with loyalist violence.
Leave the Orange parade out, associating themselves with sectarian bigots proves what these marchers really are.
March with normal protest banners with no affiliation to any sectarian or violent organisation and then its a legitimate march.
You mention 'victims of the troubles' yet there have been Catholic victims of IRA violence and these victims are barred from their march, this proves their one-sided bigoted view of things.

phantom_lord

If you are going to Dublin, beware of the west brits from dublin 4. Most of them work for the Sunday Independent and make northern loyalists look as british as Crossmaglen Rangers.

Even the LVF have said in the past, "Steady on lads, you are a little bit too British for our liking!"

I have to say this is a great quote from their website forum...I'm guessing Conor Cruise O'Brien is going to join in the march.

LovelyHurling

gurramok wrote:

Alot of mis-information there.


There is no need for an Orange sectarian parade at all, that just shows these so-called victims real intentions is to provoke violence as they are associated with loyalist violence.
Leave the Orange parade out, associating themselves with sectarian bigots proves what these marchers really are.
March with normal protest banners with no affiliation to any sectarian or violent organisation and then its a legitimate march.

Like I said already Im not a fan of the OO, and Im not saying that there won't be scumbags present, ie the travelling loyalists and travelling nationalists who will sit beside each other on the train into Connolly and fight with each other when they get to Dublin. Will there be Dubs causing trouble? I cant see why because the North doesn't affect people there and they couldnt care, theyre probably wiser for it.

However, all I am saying, is that I know of people planning on going to Dublin for this march, who work with victims and survivors of - yes - republican violence. Victims themselves will also be marching. Republicans who suffered violence at the hands of loyalist paramilitaries should also march for recognition.
Would it be acceptable for Northern nationalists to go to London to protest Ian Paisley's participation at Westmister? Of course it would... and I'd be very surprised if anyone complained or threatened to throw urine filled balloons at them tbh. Even I might join that particular march:D

You know why they want to march, and ignore the bigots in the crowd on both sides... Hopefully the rain will stay off, the visitors will go home happy and the march will have achieved its aims with nobody getting hurt or offended.

Mr.Nice Guy

DaveMcG wrote:

Because it's a term he heard in a lecture and so is regurgitating and pretending he knows what he's talking about.

Good one Dave. I'm impressed! You seem in bad form though. Did you have a nasty encounter with a gypsy?:rolleyes:

Dave McG wrote:

p.s., this post is most likely grammatically flawed -- please do not disregard it for this reason alone!

I think I'll just disregard it as it was an ad hominem attack...

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I have defined it.

No you haven't you said Ireland has been an entity, you've not defined what that entity is. Are you talking culturally? Poltically? Geopgraphically? At what time period did this entity exist.

My argument has been that Ireland has been a united national and cultural entity even when it has been part of the UK,

Really when? At what time period.

which is why the British treated it as distinct when it was part of the State.

And I've pointed out that the British used Mahraja's in Indian. The suggestion that Ireland has always been distinct because of the way the British treated us, ignores the fact that the british has used a variety of different tactics in different countries. So your suggest that because we were treated different therefore are a unique unified nation is utterly moot.

You would do well to stick to the argument at hand and stop veering away from it in order to make your snide remarks at me.

Don't get your knickers in a twist when the gaping holes of your position are made known.

Try and cut out the ad hominem attacks if you can. Cheers.

Oh look mr nice guy is trying to dictate the terms of the debate and demand that other people hold themselves to a standard he can't be bothered holding.

Good one Dave. I'm impressed! You seem in bad form though. Did you have a nasty encounter with a gypsy?

You really are contemptable. I wouldn't object to your snide asides if you weren't demanding everyone stop doing what comprises the whole sum of your argument.

amp2000

DaveMcG wrote:

This is getting embaressing, let's just get back onto the march... Any further news on it?

Well said, any more news?!?

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

No you haven't you said Ireland has been an entity, you've not defined what that entity is. Are you talking culturally? Poltically? Geopgraphically? At what time period did this entity exist.

Um, check the thread. You asked me and I informed you.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

Really when? At what time period.

Did I not give you a clue with my reference to "part of the UK"?

Freelancer wrote:

And I've pointed out that the British used Mahraja's in Indian.

India has nothing to do with our situation. Let it go.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

The suggestion that Ireland has always been distinct because of the way the British treated us, ignores the fact that the british has used a variety of different tactics in different countries.

Yes - different countries. But the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland was meant to be one country yet they still treated us differently! That is my point! How many times must I spell it out for you before it sinks into that skull of yours?

Freelancer wrote:

So your suggest that because we were treated different therefore are a unique unified nation is utterly moot.

It's not moot. The only thing moot is your red herrings in reference to India and God knows where else when these places were never part of the UK like Ireland was! Why don't you throw in Gibraltar while you're at it?:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

Oh look mr nice guy is trying to dictate the terms of the debate and demand that other people hold themselves to a standard he can't be bothered holding.

Yeah I told you not to get your knickers in a twist. Big insult right there. Must have had you in tears. (sigh)

Freelancer wrote:

You really are contemptable.

LOL. More insults. You're showing signs of a man whose argument is collapsing due to the gaping holes of logic and reason.:)

Freelancer wrote:

I wouldn't object to your snide asides if you weren't demanding everyone stop doing what comprises the whole sum of your argument.

You just keep up your insults mate. It's the only thing you're good at...

Flex

Freelancer wrote:

No you haven't you said Ireland has been an entity, you've not defined what that entity is. Are you talking culturally? Poltically? Geopgraphically? At what time period did this entity exist.

Really when? At what time period.

Ireland was a nation for about 2000 years. definition of nation
"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language" The Gaels shared common language, customs, laws, literature, mythology, religion and so on. The timeline Id put on this would be around 500BC-1600AD roughly. Also the island was 'united' (or at least the implication of being 'politically' united was there) under the High Kingship of Ireland which the rulers in Ireland competed for. If it was a collection of seperate svoereign states on this island then why did they bother with such a title as High King of Ireland and why did they fight to have that position?

Freelancer

Um, check the thread. You asked me and I informed you

No you haven't making a claim, that Ireland was a entity, and then not bothering to clarify it isn't an argument.

Did I not give you a clue with my reference to "part of the UK"?

Answer the question. At which time peroid. You're not you're dancing around the issue.

India has nothing to do with our situation. Let it go

No it does. You can't rebutt that point and just claim its irrelevant. Why does the L L prove we are a nation again?

Yes - different countries. But the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland was meant to be one country yet they still treated us differently! That is my point! How many times must I spell it out for you before it sinks into that skull of yours?

But they were all parts of a larger group the british empire. Your refusal to see that is just getting tedious.

It's not moot. The only thing moot is your red herrings in reference to India and God knows where else when these places were never part of the UK like Ireland was! Why don't you throw in Gibraltar while you're at it?

Your entire argument is the manner in which we were treated by the british proves we were a seperation nation does it?

Yeah I told you not to get your knickers in a twist. Big insult right there. Must have had you in tears

No it goes straight the heart of your double standard, you're allowed throw in your "witty" attacks and patronise and demand others do not.

LOL. More insults. You're showing signs of a man whose argument is collapsing due to the gaping holes of logic and reason

Brillant more I'm morally superior from Mr Nice Guy, don't even dare contemplate that you behave in the exact way you admonish other posters for doing.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

No you haven't making a claim, that Ireland was a entity, and then not bothering to clarify it isn't an argument.

But I did clarify it! Reread the thread!

Freelancer wrote:

Answer the question. At which time peroid. You're not you're dancing around the issue.

LOL! ROFL! You don't know when Ireland was part of the UK?! Hilarious!

Freelancer wrote:

No it does. You can't rebutt that point and just claim its irrelevant.

It IS irrelevant. We are discussing Ireland as an entity and its relationship with Britain. India was a country that, unlike Ireland, was not part of the UK.

Freelancer wrote:

But they were all parts of a larger group the british empire.

So what? You're joking at this stage, surely?

Freelancer wrote:

Your entire argument is the manner in which we were treated by the british proves we were a seperation nation does it?

Do you not even listen to what I say? Well?

Freelancer wrote:

No it goes straight the heart of your double standard, you're allowed throw in your "witty" attacks and patronise and demand others do not.

Who said what I commented was "witty"? Why is it highlighted in quotation marks? For the record, you were the one who made the snide remark about my 'specialist subject'. You've a short memory, pal.:)

Freelancer wrote:

Brillant more I'm morally superior from Mr Nice Guy, don't even dare contemplate that you behave in the exact way you admonish other posters for doing.

Freelancer, while you obviously want to goad me into a flame war, I will take the high ground and cling to the hope that you might actually read over what I have been trying to get through to you on these pages.

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

But I did clarify it! Reread the thread!

No you didn't and your weasling is getting tedious.

LOL! ROFL! You don't know when Ireland was part of the UK?! Hilarious!

I'm asking you to define which period over the past what? 800 years, Ireland was single entity. Again more weasling. Was it the moment the LL came forth? That was when we were a united Ireland? What evidence do you offer aside from a English position that hasn't always been there to show we were a united entity? And what do you mean by that.

But you knew thats what I meant, and instead of answering it, you intentially misread it to mean I'm clueless about Irish history, and to suggest I'm an idiot. Oh yeah you have the moral highground. Its lazy cheap ignorant debating on your part.

It IS irrelevant. We are discussing Ireland as an entity and its relationship with Britain. India was a country that, unlike Ireland, was not part of the UK.

No were not, we were citing british control methods as prove of national status. And you still after three pages haven't defined what you mean by "Ireland as an entity"

So what? You're joking at this stage, surely?

Ad Homenien, you've utterly failed to grapple with the point, saying "you're wrong" or "so what" isn't a rebuttal.

Do you not even listen to what I say? Well?

You're not actually saying anything, you've claimed Ireland was a united entity jibbering about the LL, and then dismissed any rebuttal, as being irrelevant. You've not actually responded to any points, just say "No you're wrong" Not a compelling argument for anyone over the age of four.

Who said what I commented was "witty"? Why is it highlighted in quotation marks? For the record, you were the one who made the snide remark about my 'specialist subject'. You've a short memory, pal.:)

Yeah but am I the one admonishing people for their behaviour? When I'm behaving in the exact same manner? You feel free to get in the personal attacks, ad homien attacks, and veiled insults, yet demand other posters hold themselves to a standard you can't even aspire towards. Hyprocrite.

Freelancer, while you obviously want to goad me into a flame war, I will take the high ground and cling to the hope that you might actually read over what I have been trying to get through to you on these pages.

You actually haven't said anything. I mean I've asked you to demostrate what you mean as Ireland as an entity

Me wrote:

No you haven't you said Ireland has been an entity, you've not defined what that entity is. Are you talking culturally? Poltically? Geopgraphically? At what time period did this entity exist.

If you were to take the moral high ground you've show me when you did that. You haven't, you've no understanding of what you're wittering on about, came up with some pretentious comment and have spent the last three pages blathering on with empty air, critizings other posters language while acting in the exact same manner, and filling the air with empty rebuttals.

Another poster pm'd me about this thread

He suggested that I "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you to death with their greater experience"

You're someone who three pages ago said

Mr Nice guy wrote:

the island has always been a single entity

You haven't quantified or defined what you mean by single entity in the following pages, and have just danced another the issue of what you meant by it, because basically you've not got a clue. You can try and claim you said it in the previous pages but anyone who wants to waste several valuable minutes of their lives, can trawl through the craplogy of your last posts and clearly see you haven't. All you've done is danced another the issue, offered thinly veiled insults ad homien attacks, and admonished people who offer you the same.

I think that nice poster who pm'd me has you nailed down to a "T"

sweety4uall

senordingdong wrote:

I'm not insulting, if anything I'm asking for someone to explain it to me.
And why shouldn't I question a unionist loyalty to the the the queen or the UK, how else am I going to understand it? And as we all know, it's a lack of understanding that would casue conflict.

The unionism we know today seems to have alot to do with turning your back on your identity. The nationalism that republicans are proud of is devotion to their own country, not someone elses.

well said.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

Ireland was a nation for about 2000 years. definition of nation
"A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language" The Gaels shared common language, customs, laws, literature, mythology, religion and so on. The timeline Id put on this would be around 500BC-1600AD roughly. Also the island was 'united' (or at least the implication of being 'politically' united was there) under the High Kingship of Ireland which the rulers in Ireland competed for. If it was a collection of seperate svoereign states on this island then why did they bother with such a title as High King of Ireland and why did they fight to have that position?

Ok, so Norway, Denmark and Sweden all share a close common viking history and speak a similar language (Danish and Norwegian are in fact so mutually intelligible that they are even written virtually indentically). Native speakers of all three languages can understand each other. Their scandinavian customs and way of life are also closely related. Going by your 'logic', those three fiercely independent countries should be one 'nation'. What about Germany and Austria? Actually, scratch that because prior the german vowel shift thee was no 'german' language, just a collection of different and completely mutually unintelligble dialects varying wildly between regions of what we now call Germany, Switzerland and Austria, so by your 'logic', Bavaria would be part of Austria and parts of eastern Holland and Belgium would belong to Germany! As for the numerous tribal leaders fighting for the title of High King, that's no different than Napoleon fighting all and sundry to be 'Emperor' of Europe or Adolf Hitler doing roughly he same! Fighting amongst each other by definition renders your idea of political UNITY a complete nonsense. Are you beginning to see the error in your 'logic' yet? They are lines on maps that have become established because the majority of the people on each side of these lines want the lines to remain. GET OVER IT!

murphaph

Freelancer wrote:

You haven't quantified or defined what you mean by single entity in the following pages

Correct. He couldn't define what he meant because it's not possible to do so. You can give up on MNG, he'll just continue with the pantomime type responses ("Oh no he's not!").

This is republicanism's 'dirty little secret'-Ireland was never a politically united island and they hate that because it makes a complete mockery of the idea of a "re-united island". You can't re-unite what was never one.

Had a quick chat about this with 7 colleagues today. Only one was actively in favour of an "all-Ireland" (it wouldn't be united with a sizable minority not wishing to be part of it!) and the others including myself couldn't care for the hassle. Many people just said that there'd b no Sainsbury's in Newry and that's reason enouh to keep the border. In short, with each generation that passes, fewer people in the south even see a aprtition, just 2 countries inhabiting the same island, like Hispaniola or Guinea.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

No you didn't and your weasling is getting tedious.

It's hardly 'weasling' if you refuse to read information presented before you.

Freelancer wrote:

I'm asking you to define which period over the past what? 800 years, Ireland was single entity. Again more weasling. Was it the moment the LL came forth? That was when we were a united Ireland? What evidence do you offer aside from a English position that hasn't always been there to show we were a united entity? And what do you mean by that.

I told you. When we were part of the UK. You do know when that was, don't you? You're aware of when the Act of Union took place? Yes?

Freelancer wrote:

But you knew thats what I meant, and instead of answering it, you intentially misread it to mean I'm clueless about Irish history, and to suggest I'm an idiot. Oh yeah you have the moral highground. Its lazy cheap ignorant debating on your part.

Actually I'm starting to think I gave you too much credit as it's now looking like you don't know when Ireland became part of the UK.

Freelancer wrote:

No were not, we were citing british control methods as prove of national status.

We weren't.

Freelancer wrote:

Ad Homenien,

Ad Homenien?

Freelancer wrote:

you've utterly failed to grapple with the point, saying "you're wrong" or "so what" isn't a rebuttal.

I can't rebut a moot point. I can only point out it's a moot point.

Freelancer wrote:

You're not actually saying anything, you've claimed Ireland was a united entity jibbering about the LL, and then dismissed any rebuttal, as being irrelevant. You've not actually responded to any points, just say "No you're wrong" Not a compelling argument for anyone over the age of four.

LOL. If you have not got the mental capacity to understand my argument then I would guess you aren't that much older than the age of four!

Freelancer wrote:

Yeah but am I the one admonishing people for their behaviour?

Yes. See here Walked into that one didn't you?:)

Freelancer wrote:

Hyprocrite.

Indeed you are.

Freelancer wrote:

You actually haven't said anything. I mean I've asked you to demostrate what you mean as Ireland as an entity

Which I answered.

Freelancer wrote:

Another poster pm'd me about this thread

He suggested that I "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you to death with their greater experience"

Funny because yesterday I got a PM praising me for not listening to the 'west Brit'. Not that I condone that term...

Freelancer wrote:

I think that nice poster who pm'd me has you nailed down to a "T"

Tell Murphaph his opinions mean nothing to me.;)

Murphaph wrote:

Correct. He couldn't define what he meant because it's not possible to do so.

I defined it here. I'm willing to point it out to YOU because you weren't the one who asked the question, got the answer and then wondered what it was again like poor Freelancer...

Murphaph wrote:

This is republicanism's 'dirty little secret'-Ireland was never a politically united island and they hate that because it makes a complete mockery of the idea of a "re-united island". You can't re-unite what was never one

So in your mind, Ireland is still united? LOL. The whole campaign for Irish reunification is because Ireland was united but was split in two.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Ok, so Norway, Denmark and Sweden all share a close common viking history and speak a similar language (Danish and Norwegian are in fact so mutually intelligible that they are even written virtually indentically). Native speakers of all three languages can understand each other. Their scandinavian customs and way of life are also closely related. Going by your 'logic', those three fiercely independent countries should be one 'nation'. What about Germany and Austria? Actually, scratch that because prior the german vowel shift thee was no 'german' language, just a collection of different and completely mutually unintelligble dialects varying wildly between regions of what we now call Germany, Switzerland and Austria, so by your 'logic', Bavaria would be part of Austria and parts of eastern Holland and Belgium would belong to Germany! As for the numerous tribal leaders fighting for the title of High King, that's no different than Napoleon fighting all and sundry to be 'Emperor' of Europe or Adolf Hitler doing roughly he same! Fighting amongst each other by definition renders your idea of political UNITY a complete nonsense. Are you beginning to see the error in your 'logic' yet? They are lines on maps that have become established because the majority of the people on each side of these lines want the lines to remain. GET OVER IT!

Its not my 'logic', its defition of the word nation. Ireland was a nation. GET OVER IT! And the High Kingship is not comparable to Hitler or Napoleon. Is there a list of people who held the title of High King of Europe (or Emperor of Europe or whatever)? Where they indigenious to the area they purported to be 'High King of Europe' of? Did any of the areas he purported to be 'High King of Europe' of recognise the legitamacy of the title? No, because Europe was full of seperate states and seperate peoples. The legitmacy of the High Kingship as being the title of the most supreme ruler in Ireland was recognised by all the rulers of the provinces in the nation of Ireland, hence the reason it was sought after and fought for or defended by those who had it. Thats just the way our ancestors chose to do things; provincial kings subordinate to a High King of the country. I put it in because I was pointing out that if Ireland was nothing but a bunch of seperate states, why was there competition for a title of High King of Ireland, why did the title even exist if that was the case? and why did it exist for well over a thousand years? and why was it sought by all the rulers in Ireland?

I thought by your logic (correct me if Im wrong) (ie. borders are defined by the people who want live within them) that parts of easter Belgium and Holland should be part of Germany and Bavaria would be part of Austria.

All I did was point out that Ireland existed as a (great;) ) nation for thousands of years before British occupation. Whats the problem? Im not using this as an argument to reclaim the north east of the country (although I do consider it valid), I wouldnt accept that logic for Israels claim on Palestinian land so I wont accept it here. As long as a majority want to stay in the UK, so it shall be. But when a majority in the north (and south of course) vote for a united Ireland, then it must happen (unless unionist votes are worth more than nationalist votes?).

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It's hardly 'weasling' if you refuse to read information presented before you.

You've not presented the defintion.

I told you. When we were part of the UK. You do know when that was, don't you? You're aware of when the Act of Union took place? Yes?

So if I have you absolutely clear, Ireland became a unitied ireland when the act of union occured and we got a LL?

Actually I'm starting to think I gave you too much credit as it's now looking like you don't know when Ireland became part of the UK.

Ah oh look more empty waffle?

We weren't.

Uh huh, Nuh huh....Your level of sophistry is astonishing.

Ad Homenien?

Attacking spelling is the lowest form of wit, and still doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

I can't rebut a moot point. I can only point out it's a moot point.

No you can explain why you feel it's moot. Just saying that it's a "moot point" isn't rebutting it. You're like a child who's seen debates but doesn't understand how they work.

LOL. If you have not got the mental capacity to understand my argument then I would guess you aren't that much older than the age of four!

Mr Nice Guy personal attack number 89. You've not made any points. You've just waffled about Ireland as an entity and refused to explain what that means.

Yes. See here Walked into that one didn't you?:)

*L* You were the one preaching and dictating the term of the debate, And demanding people hold themselves to a standard you don't hold yourself to. I just pointed out your hyprocrisy?

Indeed you are.

*sing song voice* "I know you are but what am I"

Are you twelve? seriously?

Which I answered.

No you haven't. If you had you could show us, you've already proved how you'd track down an quote on this thread to prove a point. I submit if you had defined it, you'd have thrown your quote back at me long ago.

Kinda walked into that one didn't you? :rolleyes:

Funny because yesterday I got a PM praising me for not listening to the 'west Brit'. Not that I condone that term...

Oh look using a second hand quote to fling an insult. You're not that moral high ground sorted.

Tell Murphaph his opinions mean nothing to me.;)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50689494&postcount=346

And I answered it and pointed out that at the time of the act of union there was a large body of protestants and presbetarians planted in the north who felt themselves as loyal british subjects, they did not see themselves as Irish, and you've been chosing to ignore that ever since. And in the south the suggestion that the act of union created a race who felt themselves as Irish is profoundly, simplisitic and utterly flawed.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

So in your mind, Ireland is still united?

Geographically, it's as united as it's ever been.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The whole campaign for Irish reunification is because Ireland was united but was split in two.

Ireland was only united politically during the period of british rule throughout the island. Would you like to go back to that? Before the british came here, Ireland was not politically united in the slightest, would you like to go back to waring tribal leaders from each province battling it out? They are the two scenarios which existed previously on this island. You want to create something that has never been before. The island of Ireland was partitioned because it became clear that the majority of the people of the northeast wished to remain in the UK. That is still the case, so trying to create a single nation from these two parts would appear to be silly.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

This is republicanism's 'dirty little secret'-Ireland was never a politically united island and they hate that because it makes a complete mockery of the idea of a "re-united island". You can't re-unite what was never one.

Ireland was a nation though And it was always regarded as a single political entity while it was the Kingdom of Ireland and then regarded as a single entity while it was part of the UK of GB and Ireland. Yes yes ,under British rule but always seen as being 1 country/political entity. Im not interested in it because it was or wasnt united before, Im interested in my fellow Irishmen being given self determination in Ireland. If the majority of Irish people in the north voted to remain in the UK, Id see that as being just as good a solution to the problem as a united Ireland. I dont subscribe (and this isnt aimed at you Murph) to the attitude of "We're nice and comfy down here, so **** you's up there!" Theres a huge number of people who are still living under the rule of a foreign power in Ireland in the north east, and thats unacceptable to me, and I dont think its fair to quantify their right to have the exact same thing we have in money either.

And frankly, this situation might never have happened if unionists hadnt been so damn greedy and insisted upon having "Unionist areas + as much 'nationalist territory' as possible while allowing a big enough majority to discriminate". It should have been only the Unionist areas that comprised NI, which it would have been had they cooperated with the boundary commission or simply drawn the border in the RIGHT place to begin with.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Ireland was only united politically during the period of british rule throughout the island. Would you like to go back to that? Before the british came here, Ireland was not politically united in the slightest, would you like to go back to waring tribal leaders from each province battling it out? They are the two scenarios which existed previously on this island. You want to create something that has never been before. The island of Ireland was partitioned because it became clear that the majority of the people of the northeast wished to remain in the UK. That is still the case, so trying to create a single nation from these two parts would appear to be silly.

Ireland wasnt united and doesnt have th right to exist as a 'country' because despite the fact there was a title of 'High King of IRELAND' in existence, that doesnt count because at various points various parts of Ireland rejected the rule of this High King and fought him? Does that mean the UK doesnt have the right to exist since for most of Ireland's incorporation into it, there was/ has been resisitance to it and desires to leave it?

Freelancer

Folks for those just joining us.

Mr Nice Guy claimed that the "act of union" created Ireland as a separate cultural and national entity.

When I pointed out that there was majority of people who were in the north who felt themselves british, so he was talking out of his arse, he responded with "There were many people down south as well as your point is moot"

How on earth is my point moot? You've just admitted yourself that the bulk of people in the north viewed themselves as british when this act that you say unified us cultural, and you've got on to admit that a portion of people down south viewed themselves as british.

So please explain how can the act of union creat Ireland as a separate nationaly and cultural identity, when by your own admission at the the time of, and after the act, a significant proportion of the people on this Isle viewed themselves as not Irish but, British?

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

Folks for those just joining us.

Mr Nice Guy claimed that the "act of union" created Ireland as a separate cultural and national entity.

Wrong. At what point does the information which enters your brain turn itself into the stuff of fantasy? I claimed that Ireland had been treated as a distinct unit from the rest of Britain even when the Act of Union came along. Putting words in my mouth just shows how desperate you have become.:)

Freelancer wrote:

When I pointed out that there was majority of people who were in the north who felt themselves british, so he was talking out of his arse, he responded with "There were many people down south as well as your point is moot"

How does this mean I'm 'talking out of my arse'?

Freelancer wrote:

How on earth is my point moot? You've just admitted yourself that the bulk of people in the north viewed themselves as british when this act that you say unified us cultural, and you've got on to admit that a portion of people down south viewed themselves as british.

Oh for f*ck's sake. Are you telling me that you couldn't be British and Irish? Your knowledge of history is woeful. Prior to 1916, most of the Irish people felt Irish and British. In other words, they had their own Irish identity under a greater British identity. Same as the Scots for example. It doesn't mean we lacked cultural and national characteristics.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

So please explain how can the act of union creat Ireland as a separate nationaly and cultural identity,

That was never my argument. Is it yours? Or is it another red herring?

Freelancer wrote:

when by your own admission at the the time of, and after the act, a significant proportion of the people on this Isle viewed themselves as not Irish but, British?

Um, I never claimed that! YOU are the one who seems to believe that silly notion. After the Act, you could be British AND Irish.

Seriously, read up on your history mate. The stuff you're coming out with is embarrassing.

entropi

20 pages.. jeez this is a nice long argument :P

Imo, i couldn't care less if they wanna march in Dublin, i might actually go watch to see what all the fuss is about... i mean c'mon ffs it's not like they're gonna turn into a mini occupying force or something.

phantom_lord

Death Sentence wrote:

20 pages.. jeez this is a nice long argument :P

Imo, i couldn't care less if they wanna march in Dublin, i might actually go watch to see what all the fuss is about... i mean c'mon ffs it's not like they're gonna turn into a mini occupying force or something.

Don't give them ideas...

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Wrong. At what point does the information which enters your brain turn itself into the stuff of fantasy? I claimed that Ireland had been treated as a distinct unit from the rest of Britain even when the Act of Union came along. Putting words in my mouth just shows how desperate you have become.:)

No, you've stopped even understanding your own point.

I don't even know if you understand what you're arguing about

you

started with

Mr Nice Guy wrote:

Um, the island has always been a single entity until December 1920 when the British partitioned it. It may have never been an independent united single entity, but it has always been a single entity

I asked you what you meant by this.

You responsed.

I meant as a separate cultural and national entity. I thought that was obvious.

I continued pointing out that a large porportion of this country has for centuries viewed themselves as not Irish but British

you response

We've had loyal crown subjects in the south who felt culturally British too. Moot point.

How does this mean I'm 'talking out of my arse'?

BECAUSE IF A LARGE PORTION OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE VIEWED THEMSELVES AS BRITISH NOT IRISH FOR CENTURIES WE'VE NEVER HAD OR BEEN A UNITED CULTURAL OR NATIONAL IDENTITY

Christ. Explain that. Seriously you've been talking out your arse for pages now.

Oh for f*ck's sake. Are you telling me that you couldn't be British and Irish? Your knowledge of history is woeful. Prior to 1916, most of the Irish people felt Irish and British.

Would have a statistics for that piece of bollocks. Four pages back you produced a stastisic that shot yourself in the foot when it showed a significant majority of people in Nth Ireland view themselves as British, contradicting yourself, so I'd love to know where you're snatching the above from.

In other words, they had their own Irish identity under a greater British identity. Same as the Scots for example. It doesn't mean we lacked cultural and national characteristics.:rolleyes:

And pray tell what were our national characteristics? I'm dying to see you compare and contrast the similarities been a Protestant Banker in Belfast in 1916 and an Aran Fisherman.

That was never my argument. Is it yours? Or is it another red herring?

No you've just being waving the act of union to prove that we're one culturaly idenity, to wit

Um, I never claimed that! YOU are the one who seems to believe that silly notion. After the Act, you could be British AND Irish.

Yes YOU COULD BE BUT MANY CHOSE TO SEE THEMSELVES NOT AS IRISH BUT BRITISH, suggesting that they could be doesn't mean they did.

Seriously, read up on your history mate. The stuff you're coming out with is embarrassing.

Seriously quit with the patronising tone, you've made so much shít up here you're embarssing yourself.

The_B_Man

so have they given a valid reason for marching in dublin yet?

nlgbbbblth

mise_me_fein_V2 wrote:

I think unionist will have to see that they too are Irish.
I mean if your born in any part of Ireland you are Irish.

Exactly!

Now can someone please tell those guys who'll turn up wearing Celtic jersies as a badge of their republicanism that Glasgow is not part of Ireland.

Wear a Shamrock Rovers, Bohemians, Derry City top etc if you want to get your point across.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

BECAUSE IF A LARGE PORTION OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE VIEWED THEMSELVES AS BRITISH NOT IRISH FOR CENTURIES WE'VE NEVER HAD OR BEEN A UNITED CULTURAL OR NATIONAL IDENTITY

You don't understand the political situation of this island one bit. The Easter Rising was the event that led to a rethinking of the Irish national psyche. Prior to that event, it was perfectly acceptable to be BOTH Irish and British. Understand so far? Good. However, the 1916 Rising led to calls of Irish separatism which meant people had to make a CHOICE between Irishness and Britishness. Thus, when you say in front of all of us:

a large portion of this country have viewed themselves as British not Irish for centuries

YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE. Because it was 1916 which forced people to make a choice between Britishness and Irishness because the two could no longer co-exist as they once did. If unionists had viewed themselves as British and not Irish, why didn't they demand to have the island partitioned sooner? Because they DID regard themselves as Irish up until moments like 1916 changed what Irishness meant.

You have alot to learn about Irish politics. Do you think the Dubliners who spat on the Easter Rebels disregarded their Britishness?

Get a clue.

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously you've been talking out your arse for pages now.

No, on the contrary I've tried to educate you on matters you clearly do not understand. The fact that you highlight your sentences in gigantic sizes and choose to lash out at me with insults is proof of your erratic behaviour which stems from your historical inaccuracies being brought to light.

Freelancer wrote:

Would have a statistics for that piece of bollocks.

Charming language. My my, you are struggling.:) You want statistics? I'll go one better. There was no political party in Ireland which demanded complete separation from the UK prior to 1916. Why? The goal was Home Rule within the UK.:)

Freelancer wrote:

Four pages back you produced a stastisic that shot yourself in the foot when it showed a significant majority of people in Nth Ireland view themselves as British, contradicting yourself, so I'd love to know where you're snatching the above from.

I didn't shoot myself in the foot. What makes you say such a bizarre thing like that? Why would I use a statistic to make my own argument look bad? Dear me, you're losing it my good man!

Freelancer wrote:

And pray tell what were our national characteristics? I'm dying to see you compare and contrast the similarities been a Protestant Banker in Belfast in 1916 and an Aran Fisherman.

How about I let Herbert Asquith, British Prime Minister speaking in Dublin in 1912, explain it:

"You can no more split Ireland into two parts than you can split England or Scotland into parts. Ireland is a nation; not two nations, but one nation. There are few cases in history, and, as a student of history in a humble way, I myself know of none, of a nationality at once so distinct, so persistent, and so assimilative as the Irish."

Freelancer wrote:

Yes YOU COULD BE BUT MANY CHOSE TO SEE THEMSELVES NOT AS IRISH BUT BRITISH, suggesting that they could be doesn't mean they did.

Show me statistics to back up your claims please.:)

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously quit with the patronising tone, you've made so much shít up here you're embarssing yourself.

LOL. I won't take advice on debating etiquette and 'embarrassment' from a guy who resorts to telling the person he's arguing with they are 'talking bollocks', 'talking out of their arse' and who feels the need to make his point in big bold letters like a little child throwing a hissy fit!

Seriously read up on the issues if you wish to be taken seriously.

Freelancer

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You don't understand the political situation of this island one bit. The Easter Rising was the event that led to a rethinking of the Irish national psyche. Prior to that event, it was perfectly acceptable to be BOTH Irish and British.

Proof, facts evidence? Because see the orange lodges pre date that, as do several rising between the date of the act of union. Or the anti catholic laws discriminating aganist one group of our national entity, and favouring the other? Thats proof of a society that felt this dual nationality?

In short there are plenty examples of massive inequality, groups announcing their preference to remain British citizens, and Irishmen struggling for independence, in this period were you say it was "perfectly acceptable" to be both irish and british. Also interesting choice of words, "perfectly acceptable"

a post ago it was;

Prior to 1916, most of the Irish people felt Irish and British.

now its was perfectaly acceptable interesting to see how your position will erode on this.

Understand so far? Good. However, the 1916 Rising led to calls of Irish separatism which meant people had to make a CHOICE between Irishness and Britishness. Thus, when you say in front of all of us:

Crap, theres not another word to describe your argument. Parts of this country have been trying to throw of the yokel of British rule for 800 years, For years after the act of union catholics were 2nd class citizens in this country. The orange order were orginally founded in the late 18th century, could in no way be seen as a celebration of irishness, and you dare to presume that the order felt both British and Irish? That Catholic Potato farmers starving and oppressed felt both British and Irish?

All you have is presumption, you've no proof.

YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE. Because it was 1916 which forced people to make a choice between Britishness and Irishness because the two could no longer co-exist as they once did. If unionists had viewed themselves as British and not Irish, why didn't they demand to have the island partitioned sooner? Because they DID regard themselves as Irish up until moments like 1916 changed what Irishness meant.

Utter complete and total tosh, you're now trying to tell me you understand the psyche of the unionists born 150 years ago? The reasons the unionists didn't vote for seperation is because they felt the whole island belonged to britain, and in fact fought in the 1st world war to try and kibosh the whole home rule and have the situation remain the same. They fought to keep Ireland in the union, they didn't want their own state, they were British and wanted to keep Ireland British. Thats the historical accepted position of Unionism. You're taken an enormous leap of inane logic there.

You have alot to learn about Irish politics. Do you think the Dubliners who spat on the Easter Rebels disregarded their Britishness?

Again supposition and daring to presume the mindset of ever person in irish history, many of them were angry at the damage to their city and loss of life I imagine.

Get a clue.

Me? you're the one daring to presume the mindset of everyone from James Willison to a Dublin fishmonger. :rolleyes:

This is it? This is all you've got? some wishy wash unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that until the rising everyone in ireland felt british and irish? Are you making this up as you go along?

No, on the contrary I've tried to educate you on matters you clearly do not understand. The fact that you highlight your sentences in gigantic sizes and choose to lash out at me with insults is proof of your erratic behaviour which stems from your historical inaccuracies being brought to light.

Which historical inaccuracies? And how is "talking out of your arse" worse than "don't get your knickers in a twist". Mr Nice guy's famous double standard strikes again......

Charming language. My my, you are struggling.:) You want statistics? I'll go one better. There was no political party in Ireland which demanded complete separation from the UK prior to 1916. Why? The goal was Home Rule within the UK.:)

And what does that have to do with the price of pie? Theres a variety of reasons for that, not least of which is that complete seperation was not seen as possible by politcal means, which is why groups like Pearse set about in secret planning for revolution. Demanding complete seperation would have been akin to, or actually treason, so of course no politcal party would suggest it, it was in the realms of revolutionary talk. Thats why groups like the invincibles murdered one of aides of your LL in 1882, in the cause of Irish nationalism, it was through violence that they only saw they could achieve their aims. But hey I'm sure they felt themselves as British and Irish too :rolleyes:

I didn't shoot myself in the foot. What makes you say such a bizarre thing like that? Why would I use a statistic to make my own argument look bad?

One cannot fathom the way your mind works. You presented a statistic which you claimed that supported your idea that most people in NI thought themselves as Irish, I just don't think you read it properly, and quietly dropped it when I pointed out it said the opposite. You sulked away from the argument for a while after my post.

Dear me, you're losing it my good man!

You are one patronising..... Getting patronised by someone who's clearly making up so much stuff as he goes along ignores so much, and who cannot argue rationally, is just a tremendously surreal experience.

How about I let Herbert Asquith, British Prime Minister speaking in Dublin in 1912, explain it:

"You can no more split Ireland into two parts than you can split England or Scotland into parts. Ireland is a nation; not two nations, but one nation. There are few cases in history, and, as a student of history in a humble way, I myself know of none, of a nationality at once so distinct, so persistent, and so assimilative as the Irish."

Well lets see a quote taken from a british politcian without giving context or the full text, oh yes thats better than a stastistic any day :rolleyes:

Show me statistics to back up your claims please.:)

You made this claim about their status the onus is on you to support it, demanding I find a stastistic to disprove it isn't the way an argument works. Dear me old boy you're really struggling now. :rolleyes:

LOL. I won't take advice on debating etiquette and 'embarrassment' from a guy who resorts to telling the person he's arguing with they are 'talking bollocks', 'talking out of their arse' and who feels the need to make his point in big bold letters like a little child throwing a hissy fit!

When you refuse to address the points, forcing me to extreme measures to get you to acknowledge them, when you make up statsitics and presume to understand the psyche of everyone in this Isle 100 years ago, I'll call a spade a spade.

Seriously read up on the issues if you wish to be taken seriously.

Yeah and right. The sweeping issues you either don't know about or choice to ignore is staggering. As if everyone in Ireland was celebrating St Paddys day waving british flags, until Pearse came along with the rising*

*this is sarcasm, but it's a fair anology.

Mr.Nice Guy

Freelancer wrote:

Proof, facts evidence?

Um, what exactly do you disagree with?

Freelancer wrote:

Because see the orange lodges pre date that,

Uh, the Orange Order runs throughout the island. The Grand Lodge is actually called the Grand Lodge of Ireland so you show your ignorance by bringing them up.:D

Freelancer wrote:

Or the anti catholic laws discriminating aganist one group of our national entity, and favouring the other?

Since when is Catholicism a group of our national entity? You haven't a clue.:)

Freelancer wrote:

In short there are plenty examples of massive inequality, groups announcing their preference to remain British citizens,

What groups? Name them.

Freelancer wrote:

in this period were you say it was "perfectly acceptable" to be both irish and british. Also interesting choice of words, "perfectly acceptable"

"now its was perfectaly acceptable interesting to see how your position will erode on this."

Could you clarify what you're trying to say here?

Freelancer wrote:

Crap, theres not another word to describe your argument.

Only because it destroyed your flawed disasterpiece. Sorry about that.:)

Freelancer wrote:

The orange order were orginally founded in the late 18th century, could in no way be seen as a celebration of irishness,

Why not? They run on an all-Ireland basis to this day. You are clueless.:D

Freelancer wrote:

and you dare to presume that the order felt both British and Irish?

Well they still style themselves as being 'of Ireland'. Your thoughts on that?

Freelancer wrote:

That Catholic Potato farmers starving and oppressed felt both British and Irish?

Well I didn't see them organising a separatist movement to break free of Britishness prior to 1916 as they did with the Land League.

Freelancer wrote:

The reasons the unionists didn't vote for seperation is because they felt the whole island belonged to britain, and in fact fought in the 1st world war to try and kibosh the whole home rule and have the situation remain the same. They fought to keep Ireland in the union, they didn't want their own state, they were British and wanted to keep Ireland British. Thats the historical accepted position of Unionism. You're taken an enormous leap of inane logic there.

That's great and all but what has this got to do with the piece I wrote which you quoted?

Freelancer wrote:

Me? you're the one daring to presume the mindset of everyone from James Willison to a Dublin fishmonger. :rolleyes:

LOL. You are the one who thinks the Orange Order is an anti-Irish organisation. It's actually anti-Catholic. Big difference.

Freelancer wrote:

This is it? This is all you've got? some wishy wash unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that until the rising everyone in ireland felt british and irish?

Unsupported claim? You'll find it in every history book around the country mate. Trust me. Do tell us though your perspective on things. I can't wait to hear this.:)

Freelancer wrote:

Which historical inaccuracies?

See above.

Freelancer wrote:

Theres a variety of reasons for that, not least of which is that complete seperation was not seen as possible by politcal means,

That's funny because I recall many IRB members like Michael Davitt supporting the idea of IRB members supporting the Home Rule movement and the Fenians gave support to Charles Stewart Parnell. Of course I'm probably 'making that up' too.:rolleyes:

Freelancer wrote:

which is why groups like Pearse set about in secret planning for revolution.

They planned revolution when they saw that the unionists, through threatening force via the UVF, were getting results.

Freelancer wrote:

Thats why groups like the invincibles murdered one of aides of your LL in 1882, in the cause of Irish nationalism, it was through violence that they only saw they could achieve their aims. But hey I'm sure they felt themselves as British and Irish too :rolleyes:

Yeah all nationalists supported violence? O'Connell, Redmond, they were both strong supporters of violent methods?:rolleyes: Dear oh dear. Such ignorance...

Freelancer wrote:

One cannot fathom the way your mind works.

It works on logic and reason. Don't worry, you'll figure it out yourself some day I hope...

You presented a statistic which you claimed that supported your idea that most people in NI thought themselves as Irish, I just don't think you read it properly, and quietly dropped it when I pointed out it said the opposite. You sulked away from the argument for a while after my post.

That's a lie but I'm not surprised at the lengths you would stoop to. YOU claimed that people classed themselves as British OR Irish and the survey I revealed showed that it was more complex than that. See here Now we all know you're a liar as well as ignorant!

Freelancer wrote:

You are one patronising..... Getting patronised by someone who's clearly making up so much stuff as he goes along ignores so much, and who cannot argue rationally, is just a tremendously surreal experience.

What I find surreal is that someone who has been shown to be wrong on countless occasions, i.e. you, can still keep coming back like a glutton for punishment. I have on this post alone proved you wrong on the Orange Order. What would you like help with on your next post?:D

Freelancer wrote:

Well lets see a quote taken from a british politcian without giving context or the full text, oh yes thats better than a stastistic any day :rolleyes:

I thought you would have been well aware of this speech since it came from a rare visit to Ireland by a British politician. It was in 1912 as I said, in the run-up to the proposed Home Rule bill and Asquith was giving his suport to the idea that Ireland was ONE ENTITY.

Gee, I wonder why you would play dumb on a point that SHATTERS your argument, seeing as you disputed my claims that the British treated Ireland as a distinct cultural and national unit?!

Keep digging though. It's hilarious!

Freelancer wrote:

You made this claim about their status the onus is on you to support it, demanding I find a stastistic to disprove it isn't the way an argument works. Dear me old boy you're really struggling now. :rolleyes:

Translation: You want me to back up my claims while you will make no effort whatsoever to back up YOURS and yet you had the audacity earlier to claim that I was making stuff up as I went along!

LOL. Unreal.

Freelancer wrote:

When you refuse to address the points, forcing me to extreme measures to get you to acknowledge them,

LOL. You illustrate how much you're struggling.:)

Freelancer wrote:

Yeah and right. The sweeping issues you either don't know about or choice to ignore is staggering. As if everyone in Ireland was celebrating St Paddys day waving british flags, until Pearse came along with the rising*

*this is sarcasm, but it's a fair anology.

LOL. That's your problem. You can't wrap your head around the idea that things aren't black and white when in reality, they were decidedly grey. You want to sum up Irish history in neat little packages to make your views easier to digest. When the complex issues are pointed out to you, you cannot take it and you start throwing around insults and belittling others. For shame.

Since I don't personally want to try the moderator's patience with any more gigantic posts, I would ask you to sum up what your basic point is. You seem to take issue with what I say without actually pointing out what your point is or if you even have one!

What is your position? Clarify it and I'll deal with it. (If you can do so without snide comments I'd be even more impressed;))

murphaph

Flex wrote:

Ireland wasnt united and doesnt have th right to exist as a 'country' because despite the fact there was a title of 'High King of IRELAND' in existence, that doesnt count because at various points various parts of Ireland rejected the rule of this High King and fought him? Does that mean the UK doesnt have the right to exist since for most of Ireland's incorporation into it, there was/ has been resisitance to it and desires to leave it?

No, because the UK exists in it's present incarnation because that's the way most of the people (democracy) living within it wish it to be. This principle, first accepted by an irish government at the signing of the AIG in 1985 was further enshrined in the GFA, an agreement that an overwhelming majority of the population of island of Ireland (ie, your idea of the irish nation) supported in referenda. No, either you accept the democratic wish of 85%+ of the island's population or you don't, which is it?

Flex

murphaph wrote:

No, because the UK exists in it's present incarnation because that's the way most of the people (democracy) living within it wish it to be. This principle, first accepted by an irish government at the signing of the AIG in 1985 was further enshrined in the GFA, an agreement that an overwhelming majority of the population of island of Ireland (ie, your idea of the irish nation) supported in referenda. No, either you accept the democratic wish of 85%+ of the island's population or you don't, which is it?

Im well aware of the GFA, I was asking hypothethically. If Ireland doesnt have the right to exist as a country because at various points various parts of the nation rejected and resisted the rule of the character who was supposed to represent central authority, then the UK shouldnt have the right to exist because at various points in history Irelands incorporation/annexation into it was resisted and the central authority (British parliament) was rejected or defied..... Hypothethical situation. Being a nationalist who wants a unted Ireland, I absolutely do support the GFA, and I completely do support the princible of consent, always have; for so long as a majority choose the UK, it must remain that way, but when a majority of Ireland in both jurisdictions support reunification, that must happen.

And democracy didnt exist back in Ireland during the times of the High Kingship. That was how our ancestors chose to run the place; Kings under a High King; and Ireland was a nation. Why is it people are so against the idea of Ireland existing before British occupation as a nation? Why must it always be tribal savages battering each other and raping and pillaging as if there was nothing but fighting? We produced great historical tales and legends and literature, were regarded as the land of saints and scholars where nobles and scholars came to study, defended the nation from Viking and Norse incursions to ensure Gaelic cultures supremacy.... Dont get me wrong, Im well aware of inter-provincial wars that were occurring and so on, bt its not as if Britains "arrival" saved us from barbarism and ushered civilised society to Ireland for the first time in our history or something.

And Iv said already Im not using the fact Ireland was a nation for around 2000years as a means of claiming the north east, because the whole loyalist argument of 'Ireland was never united' holds little (if any) water with me either. Neither argument makes much ofa difference to the political status of any part of Ireland, only the will of the majority matters where thats concerned. Im just pointing it out; IRELAND WAS A NATION

LordSutch

I dont see a problem with Northern Unionists/ Orange people marching in Dublin, and to be honest I think the march is long overdue, but what I do have a problem with is last years "Sinn Fein/IRA" March-Rally in Dublin - now that really was a disgrace. The reason for this (2006 March) is to remember those who died in the Troubles, and to bring home the message to the South who the real victims were (The vast majority of victims being from the British/Orange/Uniomist community)! we should all be giving our support to the Marchers instead of having a go at them, lets face it, during the Troubles 99.9% of people down here were against IRA Bombings/ Shootings/ Knee Cappings/ Murders, so why shouldnt we support the victims? As for the Union Flag being flown 'Fair enough' after all, we do own one third of it!

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

I dont see a problem with Northern Unionists/ Orange people marching in Dublin, and to be honest I think the march is long overdue, but what I do have a problem with is last years "Sinn Fein/IRA" March-Rally in Dublin - now that really was a disgrace. The reason for this (2006 March) is to remember those who died in the Troubles, and to bring home the message to the South who the real victims were (The vast majority of victims being from the British/Orange/Uniomist community)! we should all be giving our support to the Marchers instead of having a go at them, lets face it, during the Troubles 99.9% of people down here were against IRA Bombings/ Shootings/ Knee Cappings/ Murders, so why shouldnt we support the victims? As for the Union Flag being flown 'Fair enough' after all, we do own one third of it!

MY ASS :mad: 'Real' victims of the troubles? They were on both sides. People were murdered by the IRA, and people were murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries and British army. It was nearly 50-50 between both communities. You contradiceted yourself in that statement saying

"""The reason for this (2006 March) is to...bring home the message to the South who the real victims were (The vast majority of victims being from the British/Orange/Uniomist community)"""

THEN you say

"""99.9% of people down here were against IRA Bombings/ Shootings/ Knee Cappings/ Murders"""

Why do they need to remind us who the '''real''' victims were (who you think were mainly Loyalists) if '99.9%' of people down here were against the IRA and what they were doing?????

Oh, and why was it again that the IRA gained so much support from northern (and for a while southern) nationalists again? Was it the 50 years of discrimination topped off by the brutal state response to the Civil Rights campaign (where those uppity taigs asked for British rights for British citizens) which culminated in 13 unarmed protestors being murdered in broad daylight???? I know for your bretheren it would be wonderful to think aul Paddy and Seamus met in Belfast and said they were bored so decided to start the Troubles and have guerilla war for no reason, but sadly the blame lay with the Stormont government and how they alienated those people.

If its to remember victims of the troubles, then I have absolutely no problem with them marching to show thier grievances, but what the Hell is the orange order marching for? How many marchers are gonna be relatives of victims and how many orange order? I think I read about 250 relatives of victims and 700 or so orange order bigots. Strange, if I didnt know better Id swear the whole 'victims being remembered' thing wasnt the real motive for a march in Dublin, seems more like they jus want an orange order parade for whatever reason......

And if you are unaware, we dont 'own' any of that British flag. "As for the Irish flag being flown 'Fair enough' after all, they do own one third of it", so whats the problem?

darkman2

Hi Everyone, it seems this march is going ahead. I believe its to take place on a Saturday. I see this as no more then a trouble making stunt. If these bigots want trouble (the loyalists) ive no doubt they will get it. Still, good i suppose that they see their future Capital and do a bit shopping. I for one have no time for this shower of wasters and I think they will by and large be ignored. Of course that wont suit them as they are coming down to try and 'prove' how intolerant we are. They will do that, ive no doubt, by intentionally causing trouble. Thats all this is, a provocation, and a VERY stupid one at that.

pork99

darkman2 wrote:

They will do that, ive no doubt, by intentionally causing trouble. Thats all this is, a provocation, and a VERY stupid one at that.

That's why I'd say that there will be more Gardai than marchers present.

MY ASS 'Real' victims of the troubles? They were on both sides. People were murdered by the IRA, and people were murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries and British army. It was nearly 50-50 between both communities. You contradiceted yourself in that statement saying

Actually Republican paramilitaries killed more people than all the other parties put together

Organisation_Summary Count
British Security 363
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1020
not known 80
Republican Paramilitary 2055

TOTAL 3523

according to http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html

LovelyHurling

darkman2 wrote:

I see this as no more then a trouble making stunt. If these bigots want trouble (the loyalists) ive no doubt they will get it. Still, good i suppose that they see their future Capital and do a bit shopping

This is the same sort of vomit that has been polluting this argument since page one of what has evolved to 20 pages. People have already said it's not just orangemen who are arriving, explained the seperation between unionism and the orange order, explained the two main reasons for the march and you have just come on here, ignored all previous contributions, too add your small bit of bigotry and ignorance to the mix. I just want to point out one big mistake and thats your "these bigots want trouble (loyalists)" sentance. Bigot = Loyalist???? The term loyalist could be equally applied to the loyal Northern irish catholics who are faithful to their own heritage.

I don't mind you referring to yobs, scumbags, troublemakers, or Ian Paisley as a bigot, but that wasn't what you said here.

whole loyalist argument of 'Ireland was never united' holds little (if any) water with me either

That argument is limited to a few people, as a person whose political feelings would fall under the blanket tag of "unionist", I think thats a very weak argument for seperation. What I do think is an argument for the current partition, is the Northern people who wish to maintain their non-irish heritage in peace and quiet. I dont think the above is a loyalist argument at all tbh its just pedantic.

Im interested in my fellow Irishmen being given self determination in Ireland.

Dont get me wrong, Im from the north and I dont like living in a town where about 35 -40% of the people (Catholics) feel seperated because of their religion... I want to see a solution where both unionists and republicans get to satisfy the preservation of their respective identites - that results in neither a united ireland nor a totally British northern Ireland. Please dont forget the rights of unionists for their own culture and heritage to be respected as well

.

Theres a huge number of people who are still living under the rule of a foreign power in Ireland in the north east

If you replaced that foreign power with the Irish government you would have more than 50 % of the North's population who felt they lived under rule of a foreign power...

And frankly, this situation might never have happened if unionists hadnt been so damn greedy and insisted upon having "Unionist areas + as much 'nationalist territory' as possible while allowing a big enough majority to discriminate". It should have been only the Unionist areas that comprised NI,

As far as I remember 3 men were responsible for the boundary, and didnt the unionist guy quit or something? Leaving only the south african judge and the irishman? That cant equate to Unionists being greedy, and anyway, you cant blame the actions of unionists back then on their grandchildren today just like I cant blame German schoolkids for starting the second world war or a modern Fitzgibbon for the Norman invasion:D

murphaph

Flex wrote:

Im well aware of the GFA, I was asking hypothethically. If Ireland doesnt have the right to exist as a country because at various points various parts of the nation rejected and resisted the rule of the character who was supposed to represent central authority, then the UK shouldnt have the right to exist because at various points in history Irelands incorporation/annexation into it was resisted and the central authority (British parliament) was rejected or defied..... Hypothethical situation.

First of all. You're putting words in my mouth here. I never said "Ireland doesn't have the right to exist as a nation". I merely pointed out that it never existed as a unified political entity before british rule here and because of this fact it is very misleading for republicans to use the term "Irish re-unification" in that context. There never was a united political entity that encompassed the whole island before anglo-norman rule (british) began, so why should there be now? The only 'reason' republicans can give is that Ireland is a single island, ergo it should be a single country, which is a complete nosense as many islands and land masses are broken up into smaller political entities with borders betwixt and between them where the majority of people within those entities wish it to be so, as is the case with Northern Ireland.

Flex wrote:

Being a nationalist who wants a unted Ireland, I absolutely do support the GFA, and I completely do support the princible of consent, always have; for so long as a majority choose the UK, it must remain that way, but when a majority of Ireland in both jurisdictions support reunification, that must happen.

I would be against unification but if a majority in both jurisdictions, independently vote in favour of it then I'd have to go along with democracy.

Flex wrote:

And democracy didnt exist back in Ireland during the times of the High Kingship. That was how our ancestors chose to run the place; Kings under a High King; and Ireland was a nation. Why is it people are so against the idea of Ireland existing before British occupation as a nation? Why must it always be tribal savages battering each other and raping and pillaging as if there was nothing but fighting? We produced great historical tales and legends and literature, were regarded as the land of saints and scholars where nobles and scholars came to study, defended the nation from Viking and Norse incursions to ensure Gaelic cultures supremacy

You are mistaken when you assert that everyone accepted the high king as the supreme ruler of the entire island of Ireland. It's an area of history that has been so abused by republicans that it is regarded as pseudohistory by many historians! Read this extract from Wiki;

Wikipedia wrote:

Link
The High Kingship of Ireland was a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until the ninth century. The traditional list of High Kings of Ireland is thus a mixture of fact, fiction and propaganda, the individuals appearing prior to the fifth century AD are generally considered legendary and the application of the title to individuals before the ninth century being anachronistic. The annalists frequently describe later high kings as righ erenn co fressabra ("Kings Irish with Opposition"), which is a reference to the instability of the kingship of Tara from the death of Mael Sechnaill II in 1022, the last Uí Niall king; who had been restored to the throne following the death of Brian Boru in 1014, who had taken the throne from him in 1002. The example of Brian's coup was followed by numerous other families in the century following 1022, which was effectively ended by the Norman quasi-conquest of Ireland in 1171. The period between 1022 and 1171 is thus sometimes called 'The Great Civil War' while the Irish civil war proper, 1921-1923, is sometimes called 'The Little Civil War' - but this distinction is far from being a standard view of Irish history.

Flex wrote:

.... Dont get me wrong, Im well aware of inter-provincial wars that were occurring and so on, bt its not as if Britains "arrival" saved us from barbarism and ushered civilised society to Ireland for the first time in our history or something.

I never claimed the brits civilised us or anything like it. I merely pointed out that Ireland was a politically divided island, not a single political entity that was to be carved up by british rule. Ireland as always been politically fragmented, just like many parts of Europe.

Flex wrote:

And Iv said already Im not using the fact Ireland was a nation for around 2000years as a means of claiming the north east, because the whole loyalist argument of 'Ireland was never united' holds little (if any) water with me either. Neither argument makes much ofa difference to the political status of any part of Ireland, only the will of the majority matters where thats concerned. Im just pointing it out; IRELAND WAS A NATION

Ireland was and is a single geographic entity, not a single political one. You wouldn't say "Scandinavia was/is a nation" so no need to say "Ireand was a nation". Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

darkman2

LovelyHurling wrote:

This is the same sort of vomit that has been polluting this argument since page one of what has evolved to 20 pages. People have already said it's not just orangemen who are arriving, explained the seperation between unionism and the orange order, explained the two main reasons for the march and you have just come on here, ignored all previous contributions, too add your small bit of bigotry and ignorance to the mix. I just want to point out one big mistake and thats your "these bigots want trouble (loyalists)" sentance. Bigot = Loyalist???? The term loyalist could be equally applied to the loyal Northern irish catholics who are faithful to their own heritage.

I don't mind you referring to yobs, scumbags, troublemakers, or Ian Paisley as a bigot, but that wasn't what you said here.


Somehow I dont think were going to see respectable loyalists on this march. Surley they cant be that thick to march in the heart of nationalism, O Connell St. Ive no problem whatsoever with ppl marching for something worth while. However a pillar of their excuse for marching is 'the interference of the Dublin government'! So they just write off the many ppl in the North that recognise Dublin as thier capital???? Complete and utter BS excuses from this lot who are coming down in an act of provacation. And dont give us this crap about victims. Some may well be well intentioned on that issue however I can gaurantee that for the majority of the shankill toerags that will be present that wont be uppermost in their minds. You and everyone else knows this march is boardering on lunacy and has the potential to cause big trouble on our main street. I do not welcome that:mad:

LovelyHurling

darkman2 wrote:

Somehow I dont think were going to see respectable loyalists on this march. Surley they cant be that thick to march in the heart of nationalism, O Connell St.

Yes O Connell Street is a very sensitive area for foreign political meddling, especially of the unionist variety, I accept that.
Thats exactly why it was chosen, to demonstrate how you feel when the tables are turned. You, I and the garden wall know that there is a push on both in Westmister and Dublin for a united Ireland. Also there is an increased involvement of the southern government in northern affairs, and while the latter is inevitable, people are marching to say hold on, this is how it feels to have somebody (ho was traditionally the enemy)meddle in issues that are important to you.

In any march, loyalist or republican, yobs will be present. They will be there with the marchers and they will be there with the jeerers. That shouldnt mean that well-intentioned unionists who are trying their best not to cause offence should have to stay at home for the sake of the troublemakers.

And dont give us this crap about victims

Thats who came up with the initial idea of the march, surviving victims whose loved ones cannot be present (murdered) will be carrying names and photographs.

I'd like to reiterate the point that Nationalists marching towards Westminster under the same circumstances would be met with courtesy and respect. This is what they would deserve, and is no more than what Unionists are asking for.