Time to prepare for a United Ireland even if it does not happen?

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

Yes so you keep saying, but I think his words speak for themselves.

Do you have something to support the idea that this isn't what Sinn Fein envision a United Ireland to be?


No I'm saying that the Sinn Fein wish that eventually Northern Ireland will be absorbed into the rest of the Republic becoming the same as say Kerry or Limerick.

All this talk about an "agreed Ireland" is simply window dressing. It is like saying we are for democracy. Just because someone supports democracy doesn't mean they agree with every opinion. They continue to support what they believe in. Sinn Fein won't support an "agreed Ireland" they don't agree with.

I think your problem is that you think you know what SF mean by National Republic and you quite simply don't.
You seem to believe that when SF say national republic that they mean a country with no place for the Unionist tradition that I don't believe is the case .

Liam Byrne

Wicknight - all I can say is "kettle, pot".

You imply that you can't see how Unionists wouldn't resort to violence, while at the same time you say that people don't give "republicans" credit for taking the peaceful route, saying people "underestimate how progressive republicans can be" ?

Firstly, that depends on your definition of a "republican"; like I said, I'd kinda view myself as one, but I've always been a lot more progressive than some psycho with a bomb who's suddenly realised that that approach is ill-advised, destructive and turns people against you. If, however, you're using SF's version of the word - i.e. that it describes them and their views only, then you may have a point, but that's from hindsight and the fact that they were previously so bad. Do we worship them for finally giving up doing things that they shouldn't have been doing in the first place ?

The worst thing is, though, that you don't seem to be open enough to accept that Unionists might have at least the same level of "integrity and progressiveness" that SF and co seem to think they have. If SF & their crowd have improved from being neanderthal psycho criminals, why can't you acknowledge that the Unionists might too ?

I'd view either "side" as a lot more progressive if they/their associates had never murdered anyone innocent - that'd mean they were progressive without having anything to progress from, but hey; it'd mean they were a lot more respectable and worthwhile....

Sinn Fein won't support an "agreed Ireland" they don't agree with.

It's not up to them; if they are indeed supporting democracy, then they should support whatever is agreed by the entire country.

If Sinn Fein want to be a proper political party, they have to show that they're capable of being open to the fact that they don't hold a monopoly on what it means to be Irish.

A Dub in Glasgo

Voipjunkie wrote:

I think your problem is that you think you know what SF mean by National Republic and you quite simply don't.

Nail on the head

GabharBrean

ArthurF wrote:

. . .

Being British can be very hard to define, and there are many definitions of being British . . . but suffice to say, if you are British you know you are, and you proclaim it without hesitation.

Being British can mean many things to many people. . .

Adams as far as I am aware enjoys all the benefits of that British system, yet still, he hates everything British while at the same time he asks for more money off the British chancellor Gordon Brown! Sir Reg & Paisley profess to being totally 'British' to the core, whilst still being Irish.

Convenient. British is all things to all people. It's a broad based term welcoming all its kindred children with open hands. Hallelujah, we've reached the promised land.

On the other hand, I remember the statement that 40 million Americans believed they were Irish being greeted with snorts of derision. These people weren't Irish. People will define such vague terms as Irish or British to suit their needs.

As far as Adams "enjoying" the fruits of the British system, I can not speak for him. Speaking for myself, I'd dearly like to be given the opportunity not to "enjoy" them anymore.

Ulster9

Liam Byrne wrote:

Wicknight - all I can say is "kettle, pot".

You imply that you can't see how Unionists wouldn't resort to violence, while at the same time you say that people don't give "republicans" credit for taking the peaceful route, saying people "underestimate how progressive republicans can be" ?

Please dont selectively quote me, i wasnt implying that republicans should be given credit for taking the peaceful route

Firstly, that depends on your definition of a "republican"; like I said, I'd kinda view myself as one, but I've always been a lot more progressive than some psycho with a bomb who's suddenly realised that that approach is ill-advised, destructive and turns people against you. If, however, you're using SF's version of the word - i.e. that it describes them and their views only, then you may have a point, but that's from hindsight and the fact that they were previously so bad. Do we worship them for finally giving up doing things that they shouldn't have been doing in the first place ?

The worst thing is, though, that you don't seem to be open enough to accept that Unionists might have at least the same level of "integrity and progressiveness" that SF and co seem to think they have. If SF & their crowd have improved from being neanderthal psycho criminals, why can't you acknowledge that the Unionists might too ?

I'd view either "side" as a lot more progressive if they/their associates had never murdered anyone innocent - that'd mean they were progressive without having anything to progress from, but hey; it'd mean they were a lot more respectable and worthwhile....

Harping on about the past when you know it was a conflict with more than one warring side.[/B]

It's not up to them; if they are indeed supporting democracy, then they should support whatever is agreed by the entire country.

Terribly written post what are you trying to say,include quotations so we know who and what you are responding to

If Sinn Fein want to be a proper political party, they have to show that they're capable of being open to the fact that they don't hold a monopoly on what it means to be Irish.

Please provide examples as to show how Sinn Fein claim to hold a monopoly on being Irish.Its a ridiculous statement.

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

So you see no difference in an agreed Ireland were the majority of people in the six counties agree to an All Ireland state and the situation that existed before

No idea what that comment is referring to, but my point was that any time there has been significant moves that Unionists feel will lead to a United Ireland, there has been unionists violence. There is little reason to believe that won't happen again, at least for the small minority of violent terrorist Unionists.

It seems to simply be wishful thinking on your part that this won't happen

Voipjunkie wrote:

They can be Unionist and not agree with the use of violence it can be unacceptable without the resort to violence just as the SDLP were nationalist without the resort to violence

They can be. That doesn't mean they will. History suggests they won't be

Voipjunkie wrote:

Isn't the DUP telling us all the time that they are democrats and they and the UUP represent 90% plus of the unionist people

And you already have hard line Unionists leaving the DUP because they say they have given up to much. And these are the public politicians, not the silent terrorist thugs. And the DUP themselves are still dead set against a United Ireland.

The idea that every hardline unionists will embrace a United Ireland with open arms just because you explain to them that this is what the majority of the population want is ridiculous.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Whilst they are still in the Union there is something to protect once they are outside of it that no longer exists just as the Unionists in the 26 counties did not launch into a terrorist campaign because that ship had sailed there was no going back.

The Real IRA and Republican Sinn Fein are after something that does not exist. They fail to recognize the Irish Republic. To them there is no legitimate government on this island.

Its all complete nonsense, but it doesn't stop them believing in it or carrying out terrorist actions in its name

There is little reason to think that hardline Unionists won't fall into the same fantasy land that hardline Republicans live in.

You talk about these people as if they are pillars of rational thought and argument.

Voipjunkie wrote:

It was clear in regards that the objective was reunification with the other part of the Island where a majority of people supported reunification ( that does not mean they supported the methods)

My point was that didn't stop them killing and attacking the very people they claimed to want to be unified with.

You think the Unionists won't do anything because the UK will have turned their back on them? That didn't stop groups like the Real IRA, who failed to recognize the Irish government.

The hardline Unionists I would imagine will simply not recognize any law that removes N.I from the UK or that unites Ireland.

Voipjunkie wrote:

( Again that does not mean that the Irish people supported their methods)

That is a pretty important point if you are trying to claim that terrorists groups listen to the democratic wishes of the people.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Now in the scenario of a United Ireland that has the agreement of the majority of the people in the North and the South and the Brits have shown that they would drop the north in a heartbeat given half a chance.

None of which hardline Unionists will accept.

The 1999 referendum that stated that only democratic means can be used to achieve a united Ireland isn't respected by fundamentalists Republicans such as the R-IRA. They don't even recognise that the government is constitution is legitimate.

Hardline terrorists never let little things like the democratic wishes of the people get in their way. The vast majority of people on this island never supported IRA violence to achieve a united Ireland. You think the IRA or Sinn Fein gave a crap about that back in the 70s and 80s?

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that terrorists do what the people want them to do? They do what they want to do

Voipjunkie wrote:

The simple fact is that Unionist would have nowhere to go and a terrorist campaign would have zero possibility of any kind of success

Thats never stopped a terrorist organization yet. You think the Real IRA have some where to go?

Voipjunkie wrote:

Iam afraid it is you are using the threat of possible unionist violence to try and persuade people that a united Ireland would be a bad idea that is giving into the threat of violence and subverting democracy

Well luckily for me I'm not. I'm using the threat of probable Unionists violence to point out that a United Ireland will not significantly boost Irish tourism, as has been claimed a number of times on this thread. Quite the opposite in fact

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

You seem to believe that when SF say national republic that they mean a country with no place for the Unionist tradition that I don't believe is the case .

"Unionists tradition" has very little to do with this discussion.

No I seem to believe when Sinn Fein say National Republic they mean rule from the Oireachtas. I believe that because its what they do actually want. Sinn Fein do not want Ireland to be partitioned again into devolved areas. They have stated this a number of times.

National Self Determination - 1997
"Sinn Féin seeks the establishment of a 32 county unitary state."



SF have repeatably called for elected MPs in the North to be able to sit in the Dail. They have repeatably called for the North to be able to elect members to the Senate. Their paper on the their website about Unification calls for this.

SF are all for local government, but that isn't the same thing at all. They would not support the North being partitioned again as a separate devolved state.

If you disagree with this assessment of what Sinn Fein envision a United Ireland to be this please I'm all ears.

Where do Sinn Fein say they want a devolved government in Northern Ireland separate from the Dail?

Zombrex

Liam Byrne wrote:

Wicknight - all I can say is "kettle, pot".

You imply that you can't see how Unionists wouldn't resort to violence, while at the same time you say that people don't give "republicans" credit for taking the peaceful route, saying people "underestimate how progressive republicans can be" ?

I don't remember ever saying that (progressive republicans), and it certainly doesn't sound like something I would say ....

Liam Byrne

Ulster9 wrote:

Please provide examples as to show how Sinn Fein claim to hold a monopoly on being Irish.Its a ridiculous statement.

One example: They are the only group that I know that wave (abuse?) the Irish flag at elections and SF rallies, apparently forgetting that the white between the green and orange represents peace.

They have also successfully claimed the word "republican" and blurred it by associating it with the so-called "republican movement", meaning that normal people can't claim to be republicans without risking being associated with violence and extremism and anti-British views.

Last time I looked, the Republic of Ireland is the country to which I, and others, belong and are proud of.

My apologies to Wicknight - the quote claiming that "republicans were progressive" was from Ulster9.

Ulster9

Liam Byrne wrote:

One example: They are the only group that I know that wave (abuse?) the Irish flag at elections and SF rallies, apparently forgetting that the white between the green and orange represents peace.

They have also successfully claimed the word "republican" and blurred it by associating it with the so-called "republican movement", meaning that normal people can't claim to be republicans without risking being associated with violence and extremism and anti-British views.

Last time I looked, the Republic of Ireland is the country to which I, and others, belong and are proud of.

My apologies to Wicknight - the quote claiming that "republicans were progressive" was from Ulster9.

All the parties have used the tricolour at rallies or at Ard Fheiseanna and commerations.Sinn Fein are as entitled to this as any other party.
Fianna Fail pride themselves on being the republican party.
What do you mean normal people, are the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who support Sinn Fein not normal.I am a Sinn Fein supporter and i am neither extremist or a holder of anti-british views.
I dont know what you are trying to say with your last point.Sinn Fein are a true republican party in my view because they are the only party that continues to persue the goal of a 32 county republic that was the aim of those who originally developed the concept.How can Fianna Fail claim to be republican when they dont organise north of the border?

oscarBravo

Ulster9 wrote:

Sinn Fein are a true republican party in my view because they are the only party that continues to persue the goal of a 32 county republic that was the aim of those who originally developed the concept.

...and yet, Arthur Griffith's original vision was of a dual monarchy, with an Irish parliament pledging alliegance to a British monarch. Funny how things change.

Liam Byrne

Ulster9 wrote:

I am a Sinn Fein supporter and i am neither extremist or a holder of anti-british views.

Then fair play to you; I cannot claim to understand how, considering the effect many of Gerry Adams' statements have on me, and he's the president/representative of the party. If he did some basic things like condemn the murders of Gerry McCabe, etc, then maybe I could see how you could manage that, but I could not support the party given some of their inexplicable stances on major issues. And since "normal" people don't support murders by criminals robbing their money from banks, that is the context in which I used the phrase; as one of those, I could not support someone who has no problem not condemning major stuff like this.

And I'm not being blindly anti-Sinn Fein here - I can't support Bertie or Fianna Fail because of their stance on corruption, or the PDs because of their "privatise everything and screw essential public services" approach, but both of those are further down the scale of my disgust than passively condoning cold-blooded murder.

Ulster9 wrote:

How can Fianna Fail claim to be republican when they dont organise north of the border?

Erm....maybe, just maybe, because the republic doesn't extend north of the border, so being "republican" refers to supporting the "republic" ?

If and when the border is extended, fair enough, and in the meantime FF can offer as much support as they can to Irish people who are currently - for better or worse, whether you or I approve or not - outside the republic.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

"Unionists tradition" has very little to do with this discussion.

No I seem to believe when Sinn Fein say National Republic they mean rule from the Oireachtas. I believe that because its what they do actually want. Sinn Fein do not want Ireland to be partitioned again into devolved areas. They have stated this a number of times.

National Self Determination - 1997
"Sinn Féin seeks the establishment of a 32 county unitary state."



SF have repeatably called for elected MPs in the North to be able to sit in the Dail. They have repeatably called for the North to be able to elect members to the Senate. Their paper on the their website about Unification calls for this.

SF are all for local government, but that isn't the same thing at all. They would not support the North being partitioned again as a separate devolved state.

If you disagree with this assessment of what Sinn Fein envision a United Ireland to be this please I'm all ears.

Where do Sinn Fein say they want a devolved government in Northern Ireland separate from the Dail?

Well Iam not here to defend Sinn Fein but they also say no where that I can find or have seen that they would want the northern institutions closed down in the event of a United Ireland and the whole country ran from Leinster House but if you can find that anywhere then fine in the mean time you are interpretating that is what SF mean because that is your idea of a unitary state.
Ireland can be a unitary state and still have all the institutions of the GFA just that the buck would stop in Dublin not London.

LordSutch

Ulster9 wrote:

All the parties have used the tricolour at rallies or at Ard Fheiseanna and commerations.Sinn Fein are as entitled to this as any other party.
Fianna Fail pride themselves on being the republican party.
What do you mean normal people, are the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who support Sinn Fein not normal. I am a Sinn Fein supporter and i am neither extremist or a holder of anti-british views.
I dont know what you are trying to say with your last point.Sinn Fein are a true republican party in my view because they are the only party that continues to persue the goal of a 32 county republic that was the aim of those who originally developed the concept.How can Fianna Fail claim to be republican when they dont organise north of the border?

Not a holder of Anti-British views?
Interesting indeed and very welcome if its true ~ so gone are the days of burning the Union Jack & chants of "Brits out" ringing in Paisleys ears.

Good news indeed if its true? and if it is true and the old Mantras have finally gone for good, then it can only be Good News for all.

Ulster9

Liam Byrne wrote:

Then fair play to you; I cannot claim to understand how, considering the effect many of Gerry Adams' statements have on me, and he's the president/representative of the party. If he did some basic things like condemn the murders of Gerry McCabe, etc, then maybe I could see how you could manage that, but I could not support the party given some of their inexplicable stances on major issues. And since "normal" people don't support murders by criminals robbing their money from banks, that is the context in which I used the phrase; as one of those, I could not support someone who has no problem not condemning major stuff like this.

And I'm not being blindly anti-Sinn Fein here - I can't support Bertie or Fianna Fail because of their stance on corruption, or the PDs because of their "privatise everything and screw essential public services" approach, but both of those are further down the scale of my disgust than passively condoning cold-blooded murder.

Erm....maybe, just maybe, because the republic doesn't extend north of the border, so being "republican" refers to supporting the "republic" ?

If and when the border is extended, fair enough, and in the meantime FF can offer as much support as they can to Irish people who are currently - for better or worse, whether you or I approve or not - outside the republic.

I understand your point regarding Gerry McCabe but i see it different to you.Rather than taking it in isolation i see it directly related to the conflict in the North.Now Sinn Fein has never condoned this.I am appalled by what happened on that day and many republicans were also.To look at it selfishly this murder did huge damage to republicans.I believe that a discision must have been made to stick by the men eventhough many in the republican movement would have thought F**K them.I think this would have been done in order to maintain the loyalty of hardliners in order to bring the whole movement away from armed struggle.These are just my views on the matter.

Regarding Fianna Fail having no presence in the North.There is nothing stopping them organising there.The border is no inhibiting factor.

Ulster9

oscarBravo wrote:

...and yet, Arthur Griffith's original vision was of a dual monarchy, with an Irish parliament pledging alliegance to a British monarch. Funny how things change.

You are inaccurate here, Dual monarchy yes like two seperate Kingdoms but no pledging loyalty to British monarch.It would have been a shared monarch.This was only a half baked proposal that was trying to explore ways of separatism from Britain.

Liam Byrne

Ulster9 wrote:

I understand your point regarding Gerry McCabe but i see it different to you.Rather than taking it in isolation i see it directly related to the conflict in the North.

I don't see how that makes it any different; in fact, relating it to the North is what causes the problem in most people's minds. If it WEREN'T related to the North, it couldn't be used as a stick to beat the republicans with; at one stage, I think Adams & Co even tried this, saying it was a robbery for personal gain.

But if it was - and as you've admitted that you see it as such - related to the North, then that's where people have a problem; anyone who might have wanted, in some way, a United Ireland becomes sickened by the tactics of robbery and murder.

What do you think would happen if a member of FF or FG was proven to be involved in an armed robbery where a Garda was murdered ?

Regardless of whether Bertie "sanctioned" it (and that's assuming that he had some God-given right to sanction it which superceded the laws of the land and the will of the people :rolleyes: )

And if the boss didn't sanction it (as Adams claims), you can be damn sure that he'd expel those involved, disassociate them from the party, and publicly condemn the event; if he didn't, he could expect a hell of a backlash from the public.

So why do Sinn Fein view themselves as different ? Why are they surprised when the public's stance on this and other events like the Northern Bank Robbery or the McCartney murder is completely consistent with how they react to other major crimes ?

I've seen SF people cry wolf that they're being singled out in this regard; boo-hoo. I also nearly threw up last night when I went on to another board while researching the topic a little more and read what some SF/IRA supporters think of the Gardai and murders, etc.

One poster on that board said that given the choice of "kill or be killed", the "volunteers" were perfectly entitled to shoot the Garda! They implied that they had no choice! No suggestion that they shouldn't try a robbery, no suggestion that they shouldn't have illegal loaded guns, no suggestion that they should have driven away, no suggestion that they should have surrendered. So basically, no suggestion that the individuals were in any way responsible; BUT the same people, when talking about a British soldier being shot in the North, will gladly blame the British since "they started it by invading". Talk about a biased and inconsistent opinion! Either events are caused by the initial aggressor or they're not, but these individuals and supporters can't see that.

And that's where I think the problem lies; I would assume (and I've regularly hoped and prayed) that Gerry Adams doesn't think like these psychos, and has turned the corner to peaceful means; that HIS double-speak is an effort to genuinely trying to drag the neanderthals along with him; unfortunately, he (and the Irish Government, IMHO) have been doing this by appeasing them and not condemning their actions - a bit like an American-style new age parenting course - don't give out or condemn, just encourage and tell kids how great they are for not burning down the house or stabbing granny. Problem is, the first time you do criticise is then such a shock that you risk releasing a complete psycho.

So despite my attempted leap of faith in Adams, I still doubt his motives and agenda; this isn't helped when he defends the indefensible or condemns EVERYTHING the unionists do but condemns NOTHING the "republicans" do - even if they are an exact mirror image! :rolleyes:

While I can gloss over this to trust him while dealing with his own kind - after all, he has experience of it while I have never negotiated with a psychotic killer, I cannot and will not accept that he (or his equivalent) is suitable to be in Government here in the Republic, or as Minister for Justice.

Up North, well they landed themselves in that and there are no middle ground parties left who can do the job, so that's a different story, but down here, until crimes are described as such and the perpetrators punished without prospective TDs having their photos taken with them and trying to defend their actions, no thanks.

Either they want the support of the remaining extremists and are happy to be apologists and defenders for them, or they want my support. They can't have it both ways.

LordSutch

Ulster9 wrote:

I understand your point regarding Gerry McCabe but i see it different to you.Rather than taking it in isolation i see it directly related to the conflict in the North. Now Sinn Fein has never condoned this. I am appalled by what happened on that day and many republicans were also. To look at it selfishly this murder did huge damage to republicans. I believe that a discision must have been made to stick by the men eventhough many in the republican movement would have thought F**K them. I think this would have been done in order to maintain the loyalty of hardliners in order to bring the whole movement away from armed struggle.

Would you also have been appalled at the murder of Policemen North of the Border?

Just Curious ..............

Ulster9

Liam Byrne wrote:

I don't see how that makes it any different; in fact, relating it to the North is what causes the problem in most people's minds. If it WEREN'T related to the North, it couldn't be used as a stick to beat the republicans with; at one stage, I think Adams & Co even tried this, saying it was a robbery for personal gain.

But if it was - and as you've admitted that you see it as such - related to the North, then that's where people have a problem; anyone who might have wanted, in some way, a United Ireland becomes sickened by the tactics of robbery and murder.

What do you think would happen if a member of FF or FG was proven to be involved in an armed robbery where a Garda was murdered ?

Regardless of whether Bertie "sanctioned" it (and that's assuming that he had some God-given right to sanction it which superceded the laws of the land and the will of the people :rolleyes: )

And if the boss didn't sanction it (as Adams claims), you can be damn sure that he'd expel those involved, disassociate them from the party, and publicly condemn the event; if he didn't, he could expect a hell of a backlash from the public.

So why do Sinn Fein view themselves as different ? Why are they surprised when the public's stance on this and other events like the Northern Bank Robbery or the McCartney murder is completely consistent with how they react to other major crimes ?

I've seen SF people cry wolf that they're being singled out in this regard; boo-hoo. I also nearly threw up last night when I went on to another board while researching the topic a little more and read what some SF/IRA supporters think of the Gardai and murders, etc.

One poster on that board said that given the choice of "kill or be killed", the "volunteers" were perfectly entitled to shoot the Garda! They implied that they had no choice! No suggestion that they shouldn't try a robbery, no suggestion that they shouldn't have illegal loaded guns, no suggestion that they should have driven away, no suggestion that they should have surrendered. So basically, no suggestion that the individuals were in any way responsible; BUT the same people, when talking about a British soldier being shot in the North, will gladly blame the British since "they started it by invading". Talk about a biased and inconsistent opinion! Either events are caused by the initial aggressor or they're not, but these individuals and supporters can't see that.

And that's where I think the problem lies; I would assume (and I've regularly hoped and prayed) that Gerry Adams doesn't think like these psychos, and has turned the corner to peaceful means; that HIS double-speak is an effort to genuinely trying to drag the neanderthals along with him; unfortunately, he (and the Irish Government, IMHO) have been doing this by appeasing them and not condemning their actions - a bit like an American-style new age parenting course - don't give out or condemn, just encourage and tell kids how great they are for not burning down the house or stabbing granny. Problem is, the first time you do criticise is then such a shock that you risk releasing a complete psycho.

So despite my attempted leap of faith in Adams, I still doubt his motives and agenda; this isn't helped when he defends the indefensible or condemns EVERYTHING the unionists do but condemns NOTHING the "republicans" do - even if they are an exact mirror image! :rolleyes:

While I can gloss over this to trust him while dealing with his own kind - after all, he has experience of it while I have never negotiated with a psychotic killer, I cannot and will not accept that he (or his equivalent) is suitable to be in Government here in the Republic, or as Minister for Justice.

Up North, well they landed themselves in that and there are no middle ground parties left who can do the job, so that's a different story, but down here, until crimes are described as such and the perpetrators punished without prospective TDs having their photos taken with them and trying to defend their actions, no thanks.

Either they want the support of the remaining extremists and are happy to be apologists and defenders for them, or they want my support. They can't have it both ways.

I just dont think we will agree on this one. At least we can agree that it was an appalling killing/murder.You come from a school of thought that believes the Norths political problems are unrelated to this state.You also somehow seem to portray that it was a member of Sinn Fein that was involved and that Adams sanctions people to do certain things.
Regarding condemning wrongdoing, fair enough but condemning people has never solved any problem.The people shouting from the sidelines condemning this and that never had the courage to do anything constructive regarding Northern Ireland.

Ulster9

ArthurF wrote:

Would you also have been appalled at the murder of Policemen North of the Border?

Just Curious ..............

Well i know what you re getting at here ArthurF.You see what you have when people start selecting certain events you have opportunists like yourself trying to criminalise the armed struggle.People are entitled to their views and i will always try and explain were i m coming from.The RUC were a brutal police force not just police force with a few bad apples.They were involved in systematic collusion that involved supply of intelligence to loyalists to supply of clean weapons to carry out murder.
I m not saying they were all bad people but they were rotten with collusion from the top down.

Liam Byrne

Ulster9 wrote:

You come from a school of thought that believes the Norths political problems are unrelated to this state.

That's an incorrect assumption on your part. I do, however, come from a school of thought that believes that crimes are not the answer. I have a grey(ish) area where the crimes or violence are against a direct aggressor, but the Gardai and the Irish people whose money and property were at risk are not an aggressor.

You also somehow seem to portray that it was a member of Sinn Fein that was involved and that Adams sanctions people to do certain things.

At the very least, he gets his photo taken with them. If someone around here murdered a Garda or robbed a bank, I certainly wouldn't want to appear in a newspaper photo beside them! And this isn't anti-SF, as you think; I wouldn't agree to appear beside Bertie with his backhanders or Noel Dempsey with his "let the U.S. use Shannon" stance either.

Regarding condemning wrongdoing, fair enough but condemning people has never solved any problem.The people shouting from the sidelines condemning this and that never had the courage to do anything constructive regarding Northern Ireland.

Partially true; all we ask is that they acknowledge that it was wrong and accept that they have to be punished as a direct result of their actions. If someone goes around campaigning for their release or whatever, then they are explicitly saying to me that they disagree with me on a major issue and therefore I have no interest in electing them.

And again, this isn't anti-SF; if Bertie calls around I'll gladly tell him that I don't agree with his taking cash from people or his eulogy on Haughey, and that as a result of his decisions and stance on those, I don't want him elected.

Voipjunkie

Liam Byrne wrote:

At the very least, he gets his photo taken with them. If someone around here murdered a Garda or robbed a bank, I certainly wouldn't want to appear in a newspaper photo beside them! And this isn't anti-SF, as you think; I wouldn't agree to appear beside Bertie with his backhanders or Noel Dempsey with his "let the U.S. use Shannon" stance either.



.

Well at least you are being consistent one thing that annoys me is people who only see selective wrongs they condemn the murder of Jean McConville and rightly so but their morals take a funny direction when it comes to Shannon or Tony Blair or Dubya they can jump up and down about Saddam or Iran but never seem that bothered when the west is killing the people of those countries.

Sorry rant over

Zambia

Ulster9 wrote:

Well i know what you re getting at here ArthurF.You see what you have when people start selecting certain events you have opportunists like yourself trying to criminalise the armed struggle.People are entitled to their views and i will always try and explain were i m coming from.The RUC were a brutal police force not just police force with a few bad apples.They were involved in systematic collusion that involved supply of intelligence to loyalists to supply of clean weapons to carry out murder.
I m not saying they were all bad people but they were rotten with collusion from the top down.

Good response but I think Arthur was looking for a yes or no answer.

RUC Policemen where in prison for pure sectarian murder as well as Republican Volunteers along with loyalist Volunteers. Everyone at the time belived what they did was right or necessary. We all know the past of 35 years ireland is riddled with people who may never see heaven.

I would have to say Arthur I am appaled by the murders of Policemen either side of the border , but there is a lot of things appaling in history. However these sort of questions are nothing new in Northern Ireland.

In essence these direct questions are one side trying to prove to the other that they where right and force the other to eat crow. The quicker we move away from this the better.

LordSutch

Ulster9 wrote:

Well i know what you re getting at here ArthurF.You see what you have when people start selecting certain events you have opportunists like yourself trying to criminalise the armed struggle.People are entitled to their views and i will always try and explain were i m coming from.The RUC were a brutal police force not just police force with a few bad apples.They were involved in systematic collusion that involved supply of intelligence to loyalists to supply of clean weapons to carry out murder.
I m not saying they were all bad people but they were rotten with collusion from the top down.

Me, Criminilise the IRA Armed struggle, never ~ However, I do think the History books will look differently on the recent thirty year "Terrorist" campaign, even if Republicans protest & try to recall History in a typical Republican 'Retro' fashion ..............

Ulster9

ArthurF wrote:

Me, Criminilise the IRA Armed struggle, never ~ However, I do think the History books will look differently on the recent thirty year "Terrorist" campaign, even if Republicans protest & try to recall History in a typical Republican 'Retro' fashion ..............

What was the purpose of the Peace Process?ArthurF maybe you should look at the history of your own beloved British empire.Many things to be ashamed off.

LordSutch

The provisional IRA declared War on the Good British peoples of Northern Ireland & Great Britain, and anybody else for that matter that got in their way (biting my lip now) and steam coming out of my ears!

Anybody reading Ulster9's posts would be forgiven for thinking that the teaching & actions of the IRA were akin to that of the Boy Scouts.

I could go on, and on for pages, but I shall restrain myself before I blow a fuse :mad:

Zambia

ArthurF wrote:

The provisional IRA declared War on the Good British peoples of Northern Ireland & Great Britain, and anybody else for that matter that got in their way (biting my lip now) and steam coming out of my ears!

You mean like the IRA did in order to form the Irish Republic?

In you opinion why do you think the IRA was re-formed in the North after its almost complete obscurity after irish independance?

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

The provisional IRA declared War on the Good British peoples of Northern Ireland & Great Britain, and anybody else for that matter that got in their way (biting my lip now) and steam coming out of my ears!

Anybody reading Ulster9's posts would be forgiven for thinking that the teaching & actions of the IRA were akin to that of the Boy Scouts.

I could go on, and on for pages, but I shall restrain myself before I blow a fuse :mad:

You seem to be suffering amnesia. The IRA did not declare war first - in case you think they did. In the late 60's the IRA was all but gone. Same as today. Unfortunatley Unionists in their wisdom in the North embarked on a path of ethnic cleansing when Nationalists were being torched and burned out of thier homes when we had to setup refugee camps for them. They needed protection rightly or wrongly and since this state did not have the backbone at the time it was up to the IRA to defend their communities. I fully believe that the IRA were right to exist during that period because there was no other option for Nationalists and Catholics. As for their methods and existence in the late 70's onwards well thats different matter.

Ulster9

ArthurF wrote:

The provisional IRA declared War on the Good British peoples of Northern Ireland & Great Britain, and anybody else for that matter that got in their way (biting my lip now) and steam coming out of my ears!

Anybody reading Ulster9's posts would be forgiven for thinking that the teaching & actions of the IRA were akin to that of the Boy Scouts.

I could go on, and on for pages, but I shall restrain myself before I blow a fuse :mad:

Get real.You mean the gerrymandered undemocratic state of Northern Ireland that was designed for the "Law abiding good protestant folk" who hated Catholics so much they couldnt stomach them about the place.The mask has slipped ArthurF and you have revealed your true self.

LordSutch

I have no mask to slip, I am well known on these boards for my forthright Unionist opinions.