93 years today!!

turgon

futurehope wrote: »

Where was it written that a county by county vote was the most democratic? Perhaps it should have been a province by province vote - that would have meant all 9 Ulster counties staying in The UK.

No it wouldnt have. Taken as 9 counties NI would have been at the best only marginally unionist. Thats is why only 6 counties were taken.

gurramok

futurehope wrote: »

I'm sorry you find The Union Flag so offencive and indeed I'm surprised given how many Southern Irishman fought and indeed died under it in WW1 (whilst Pearse was being spat at by women in Dublin).

One of those 'Southern Irishmen' was my grandfather. He did not fight for the Union Jack, he fought on the holow promise from Redmond of Home Rule for his country(Ireland).

Of course you may spout nonsense like saying he was a loyal Brit etc...then kindly explain why he joined the IRA (that you despise) in 1917 to fight British soldiers in the War of Independence?

And to add, thousands like him did the above and we are proud of what they and their predecessors(Pearse) did 93 years ago this easter.

futurehope

Nodin said:

Nationalist hostility to British soldiers came due to them being placed under local control.

In that case The IRA campaign would have been wound up in 1972 with the introduction of direct rule. :rolleyes:

Ahh yes, that was where under cover police (and not the army, afaik) were available to seal off the road after the attack and apprehend the attackers. What a stroke of luck they just happened to be there, on the street, at that time, to swing into action.

But according to you my friend, the security forces were knee deep in collusion with Loyalist volunteers, so why the hell would they want to arrest those who tried to kill Gerry Adams? Give them a medal perhaps, but not arrest them surely. Having said that though, someone in The Security Forces didn't want Adams to die on that day, given the fact the bullets used had been doctored to reduce their penetrative power - why would The British state do something like that? :rolleyes:

....none of which ameliorates the large scale and proven collusion between both organisations and Loyalist paramilitaries.

Understandable collusion (low level as it was) given the savagery of The IRA onslaught. But then Republicans were always good at giving, not so good at taking, hence their eventual surrender.

turgon

LMaighEo wrote: »

I can assure you that fighting under that flag probably made them sick to the bone as it makes me looking at that rag.

Because the British Government has personally hurt you I suppose?

futurehope

LMaighEo wrote: »

Too right. The union jack doesn't belong here, it's insulting and is there only to start a fight.
Anyway, seen as we're talking of the 1916 Rising, I believe until Northern Ireland wins its freedom there'll never be total peace up there. I think it's crazy that it hasn't already happened.

I guess Ulster Loyalists are harder to kick around than teenage girls in The Magdalene laundries.

futurehope

LMaighEo wrote: »

Someone should really go over their history. Irish people joined the army in WW1 because they were told to do so in order to please the British and get their promise of home-rule. I can assure you that fighting under that flag probably made them sick to the bone as it makes me looking at that rag.

Oh dear, I think it's you who should go over their history. Home rule wasn't independence, Ireland would have still been in The UK (as Scotland is now) and very much still in The British Empire - complete with The Union Flag. :rolleyes:

O'Coonassa

futurehope wrote: »

Where was it written that a county by county vote was the most democratic?

Never mind county by county, democracy works person by person, each one is sovereign. Or do you not believe that?

futurehope wrote: »

Perhaps it should have been a province by province vote - that would have meant all 9 Ulster counties staying in The UK.

If it had been on a province by province basis then 6 of 9 counties had a nationalist majority, Ulster would be out of the UK.

dlofnep

futurehope wrote: »

Whatever happened on either of these occasions happened because of the ongoing PIRA campaign. No PIRA campaign - no British Army presence. Simple.

And earlier you stated that the British army came in to protect nationalists. Which is it? Make your mind up.

And the existence of the PIRA had absolutely nothing to do with the brutal murders of those innocent civilians in Ballymurphy and Derry. Shame on you for trying to pass the buck. The only people responsible are the British soldiers on those days, who showed no respect for human life and opened fire on unarmed civilians, including a man who waved a white flag to try and aid a dieing man.

Once again, more revisionist hogwash from you.

futurehope wrote: »

You amuse me. How far back in history do you want to go? The plantation perhaps? Perhaps we should redraw the map of Europe as it existed in 1641 - no Germany, no Italy etc - oh, and no United Ireland either - we had to wait for The British to bring that about.

I like to go back far enough to show exactly what started the conflict, and why it occured, including the underlying foundation that was set - which lead to the divide in peoples.

As for no United Ireland - I think you'll find that there was no United Kingdom either. And the lack of an Island-wide rule does not mean that Ireland wasn't united. It was united in principle, united in culture and united in language - much the same as any many other nations at the time.

It still doesn't excuse Britain from coming over, instilling hate, removing rights from the native population and causing centuries of war.

futurehope wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure there was some collusion between UK forces and Loyalist militants, you can hardly blame either side for that, given the death and destruction Republicans were causing.

Oh, I can hardly blame it now, can I? Why, because it's the British side and you give them room for excuse? By that logic, then we can hardly blame the Republicans for their attacks, "given the death and destruction" that the British system and forces were causing.

futurehope wrote: »

Again, none of that would have happened without The IRA campaign. The IRA were at the root of the problem, no one else.

Maybe in your skewed world. But then again, I'd expect you to be biased. Sure the British forces and their blatant disregard for civil rights or human rights was not to blame? Or the division of a nation by the British system of another nation? Or the murder of civilians by mandated British forces wasn't to blame?

futurehope wrote: »

You're quite dismissive of those Catholic police officers who stood shoulder to shoulder with their Protestant comrades in the face of IRA fascism - many of them paying with their lives. I can assure you without IRA intimidation the figure would have exceeded 8%, as it does now, of course.

I don't doubt that there was a very small portion of catholic officers who made up the RUC, but catholicism does not make someone a nationalist, and protestantism does not make someone a unionist. Why, the first IRish nationalists were infact protestant.

And you can "assure" me, now can you? As if your word is the be all and end all of the debate. He's a clue for you - The reason that nationalists did not support the RUC, is because they systematically abused their rights, colluded with loyalist terrorists, supported internment, harassed communities.. But most of all - They were an Orange police-force, enforcing orange policies.

And the ONLY reason that catholics are now starting to jump on the PSNI bandwagon is because of the promise of devolution in policing & justice, with support from Sinn Féin. They remain optimisic that the PSNI can be an impartial police-force, that can cater without bias to both communities, unlike their predecessors - the RUC. And while the PSNI still has issues that have carried over from the RUC, it's a step in the right direction and hopefully will be cemented further as such with devolution.

futurehope wrote: »

No, the 26 counties wanted out of The Union - fair enough, but as they were entitled to self determination, so were the Northern 6 counties. It's called democracy. The fact that the new Southern State laid claim to part of The UK was a disgrace.

The same way the UK laid claim to it? What gave the UK the right to lay claim to the North, instead of allowing the Irish people to control their own destinies? There was nothing democratic about the division of Ireland. Like I said - if you wanted true democracy, each person in Ireland would have been given a 1 man, 1 vote on the future of their country. Let us not forget, at the time - it was still one country under British eyes. And that sir, is true democracy, and not this wishy-washy faux-democracy you keep ranting on about, that was created to give a minority, a majority voice in a small portion of a country.

futurehope wrote: »

Wrong again. You seem to assume that self determination could only have been exercised on an island wide basis. There is absolutely no reason why that had to be the case.

Because you say so? You see - you don't like the idea of democracy in action on an Island-wide basis, because it would blow any argument you could muster up out of the water. It was one nation, and it was divided to give a minority a majority voice. That's the cold, hard truth of the matter. You only refer to democracy when it suits you, but it was not a democratic process.

futurehope wrote: »

Wrong again. Britain was in favour of home rule for all of Ireland, but it accepted that democracy demanded the creation of a Northern statelet (or region of The UK, to be more accurate).

Democracy demanded it now, did it? Since when does democracy demand anything? And since when does Britain call the shots on foreign soil? What gives Britain the right to control the future of a country it occupied?

futurehope wrote: »

As for the plantations, they are ancient history and occurred long before The US was settled, any reference to them is laughable.

It's laughable if you want to ignore the real beginning of the whole fiasco. But you'd rather start somewhere in the mid 70's, during the height of the IRA campaign, just so it could suit your argument. Forget about history, and information with merit towards to the understanding of the conflict! :rolleyes:

futurehope wrote: »

Yes, the civil rights movement that was hijacked by The IRA - as it's members at the time have admitted. Isn't it funny that The UK state delivered 'civil rights' in the early '70s but The Provo campaign continued?

Delivered after international pressure after the events of Bloody Sunday perhaps? And still, the RUC was still active in the 70's - There wasn't true civil equality, so let's not pretend that there was.

futurehope wrote: »

But then it was never about civil rights really, was it?

Um, I'm pretty certain that civil rights was only one part of a broader plan of the "Provos" for a united 32 county Irish republic. Why make such a silly statement when you know the true answer?

Grudaire

Futurehope wrote:

I'm sorry you find The Union Flag so offencive and indeed I'm surprised given how many Southern Irishman fought and indeed died under it in WW1 (whilst Pearse was being spat at by women in Dublin).

You're a fan of facts - look over the thread for some of them.

Cliste wrote: »

Look at this post - in it's original form before posting again

Now futurehope - what is your point here? What do you hope to achieve by posting in this thread (And please answer my post for once)

futurehope

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Never mind county by county, democracy works person by person, each one is sovereign. Or do you not believe that?

If it had been on a province by province basis then 6 of 9 counties had a nationalist majority, Ulster would be out of the UK.

Eh? If it was province by province, Unionists had a slight majority in the 9 Ulster counties at that time, so your analysis is......................

:rolleyes:

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

It was united in principle, united in culture and united in language - much the same as any many other nations at the time.

In principle?? As in your principle that it should be?

In language is irrelevant. Germany and Austria have the same language, as does most the states of South America. Should these be united?

In culture is a bit more difficult. True that most of Ireland has the similar culture, although some parts more strong in different places, such as Rugby. But back in the day Ireland probably didn't have a homogeneous culture, and would have had similar cultures with other places.

dlofnep wrote: »

Because you say so? You see - you don't like the idea of democracy in action on an Island-wide basis, because it would blow any argument you could muster up out of the water. It was one nation, and it was divided to give a minority a majority voice.

So maybe we should have EU wide votes on unification????

I assume then, following your principles, that you disagree with Kosavor independence (Majority of Serbians didnt want it)???

And you disagree with Scottish Independence as long as England want it??

Irish dominion over the 6 counties would have been EXACTLY the same as British dominion over Ireland.

futurehope

gurramok wrote: »

One of those 'Southern Irishmen' was my grandfather. He did not fight for the Union Jack, he fought on the holow promise from Redmond of Home Rule for his country(Ireland).

Of course you may spout nonsense like saying he was a loyal Brit etc...then kindly explain why he joined the IRA (that you despise) in 1917 to fight British soldiers in the War of Independence?

And to add, thousands like him did the above and we are proud of what they and their predecessors(Pearse) did 93 years ago this easter.

Well, your dear old Granda didn't seem to know what he was doing, did he? Are you sure he was telling you the whole truth? Half of Ireland had a relative at The GPO apparently!!! Still, he wouldn't be the first Irishman to switch sides - ask Martin and Gerry...

jank

futurehope wrote: »

Hi jank. I wonder could you tell me how a staunch Irish Republican like you feels living under this flag:



Oh, and how do you feel living in a country with QEII as the head of state?

No conflict of interest?

What is the conflict of interest? Seriously what are you on about? If one has a certain view of history then by your terms should not move to another Commonwealth country? Becuase that proves...?? WTF?? What does NZ have to do with this topic?

Do I care that the Queen is the head of state in a country I currently live in.:rolleyes: No, and I don't think most kiwis do either. They get a public Holiday out of it. Thats about it. In a generation or 2 it will probably become a republic as soon as OZ goes the same way but thats another topic.

You see, if you have ever been to NZ, which I doubt you have you will realize that although there are strong links to the UK and Ireland they are in fact Kiwi's. Yea thats right another different and fully independent country that makes it own decisions, its own language, its own culture, it own way of doing things. Much like Ireland actually. Fancy that!!

So I don't know what New Zealand has to do with this topic. Unless you think NZ is still part of the Empire. Say that to that average Kiwi and you will find yourself with a black eye and a bloody nose.

They are a fiercely proud and independent people and if the British messed with NZ the same way they toyed with Ireland regarding Home Rule they would have had a rising of their own.

Empire myopia is something you know a thing or 2 about.

And me a staunch Irish republican...LOL maybe in your eyes!

Whats your point again?:pac:

dlofnep

futurehope wrote: »

Eh? If it was province by province, Unionists had a slight majority in the 9 Ulster counties at that time, so your analysis is......................

:rolleyes:

And your demographic figures for this are?

It's still a moot point, given that Ireland was one nation and the true democratic thing to do would have been a one person - one vote, nationwide to determine the future of Ireland - and not threats of "immediate and severe war" against the Irish people by the British troops if they did not accept a 26 county settlement.

K-9

futurehope wrote: »

Whatever happened on either of these occasions happened because of the ongoing PIRA campaign. No PIRA campaign - no British Army presence. Simple.

It certainly did not. I don't give PIRA excuses the time of day and I will not give Bloody Sunday, Para excuses any either.

futurehope wrote: »

I'm sorry you find The Union Flag so offencive and indeed I'm surprised given how many Southern Irishman fought and indeed died under it in WW1 (whilst Pearse was being spat at by women in Dublin).

With the the promise of Home Rule.

gurramok wrote: »

One of those 'Southern Irishmen' was my grandfather. He did not fight for the Union Jack, he fought on the holow promise from Redmond of Home Rule for his country(Ireland).

Of course you may spout nonsense like saying he was a loyal Brit etc...then kindly explain why he joined the IRA (that you despise) in 1917 to fight British soldiers in the War of Independence?

And to add, thousands like him did the above and we are proud of what they and their predecessors(Pearse) did 93 years ago this easter.

Well said.

The people who died fighting in WW1 certainly do not deserve a slur like the above.

They are the forgotten men as it is, I don't want them remembered for some Agenda either.

dlofnep

turgon wrote: »

In principle?? As in your principle that it should be?

As in, there was great merit for Ireland being a single nation.

turgon wrote: »

In language is irrelevant. Germany and Austria have the same language, as does most the states of South America. Should these be united?

Alone maybe so, but along with culture and kinship - it certainly implies unity of the nation.

turgon wrote: »

But back in the day Ireland probably didn't have a homogeneous culture, and would have had similar cultures with other places.

Eh, Ireland's culture was very distinct.

turgon wrote: »

So maybe we should have EU wide votes on unification????

Not sure what your point is here? The EU isn't as country. Ireland was a country. The people of Ireland were not afforded the right to vote on the future of their country. They were threatened with immediate war if they did not accept 26 counties. Where is the democracy in that?

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

It's still a moot point, given that Ireland was one nation and the true democratic thing to do would have been a one person - one vote, nationwide to determine the future of Ireland

So mob-rule is what you want? If 51% of the country want to kill the other 49% alls grand??? Sure wouldnt the majority want it, so you would to???

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

As in, there was great merit for Ireland being a single nation.

What merit?? Very hairy fairy, methinks

dlofnep wrote: »

Eh, Ireland's culture was very distinct.

Really?

dlofnep wrote: »

Not sure what your point is here?

The point is that you cannot make up electoral boundaries in your head so as to achieve your own result.

SO Ireland gets its own vote. But because East Ulster also has its own distinct culture - the criteria you set out for independence - why should it not get Independence from the rest?

Grudaire

turgon wrote: »

So mob-rule is what you want? If 51% of the country want to kill the other 49% alls grand??? Sure wouldnt the majority want it, so you would to???

Have you read what it was a reply to?

turgon I know that people are seeming very Republican, (with the images etc), but you should read that utter bull that has been posted - sluring Irish nationalism, and Irish people - for no reason.

dlofnep

turgon wrote: »

So mob-rule is what you want? If 51% of the country want to kill the other 49% alls grand??? Sure wouldnt the majority want it, so you would to???

Eh, it was more like 90% / 10%.

I'll break it down for you very simply.

You have a single nation. An overwhelming majority of it want independance, a small minority do not.

The democratic thing to do would be to give everyone a vote to decide what happens to it.

The undemocratic thing to do would be to divide the country against the wishes over the said overwhelming majority, with threats of immediate war if the said majority didn't comply.

Am I getting through to you?

dlofnep

turgon wrote: »

The point is that you cannot make up electoral boundaries in your head so as to achieve your own result.

What are you even talking about? Ireland was ONE country. One single entity. This is even under British rule, it was regarded as ONE country. I'm not making up any boundaries, I'm stating historical fact.

turgon

dlofnep wrote: »

Am I getting through to you?

I see you point of view. Its just why should these "nations", which apparently only you are allow to define, be the only ones to vote? As I said, East Ulster has a distinct culture too, but you are choosing to ignore that completely.

If Ireland is to be separate from UK for certain reasons, why cant East Ulster be separate for exactly the same reasons?

dlofnep wrote: »

Ireland was ONE country. One single entity

As was Serbia, btw

K-9

turgon wrote: »

So mob-rule is what you want? If 51% of the country want to kill the other 49% alls grand??? Sure wouldnt the majority want it, so you would to???

If democracy decides that, so be it.

Unless you have some other better alternative?

dlofnep

turgon wrote: »

I see you point of view. Its just why should these "nations", which apparently only you are allow to define, be the only ones to vote? As I said, East Ulster has a distinct culture too, but you are choosing to ignore that completely.

If Ireland is to be separate from UK for certain reasons, why cant Easy Ulster be separate for exactly the same reasons?

I don't think you do Turgon.

I'm going to ask you a simple question, because I refuse to go around in circles. I was going to bow out of this thread a while back, but our new friend made some points that I felt the need to refute.

Ireland was one single nation at the time of it's division. It had a very small minority who wished to remain apart of the UK. The overwhelming majority did not.

Now - Is it democratic to offer the majority to accept the division of their country, to cater to a small minority who came to be on the Island, from the plantations at the expense of the natives - and IF the majority didn't accept it, it would attack it in a large scale war?

Please, listen to what I'm asking. I think you've already picked a side on this before even trying to understand what we are discussing.

In my opinion, and I'm not alone on this - the democratic thing to do would have been to give everyone a vote on the issue, and not to threaten the nation with a large scale war. If that happened in today's society, we would be furious! Think about it.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't think you do Turgon.

I'm going to ask you a simple question, because I refuse to go around in circles. I was going to bow out of this thread a while back, but our new friend made some points that I felt the need to refute.

Ireland was one single nation at the time of it's division. It had a very small minority who wished to remain apart of the UK. The overwhelming majority did not.

Now - Is it democratic to offer the majority to accept the division of their country, to cater to a small minority who came to be on the Island, from the plantations at the expense of the natives - and IF the majority didn't accept it, it would attack it in a large scale war?

Please, listen to what I'm asking. I think you've already picked a side on this before even trying to understand what we are discussing.

In my opinion, and I'm not alone on this - the democratic thing to do would have been to give everyone a vote on the issue, and not to threaten the nation with a large scale war. If that happened in today's society, we would be furious! Think about it.

The problem I would have with that (and yes I accept your general point) is, would a 32 county Ireland been a wise thing at the time?

I think we all know democracy isn't perfect, Lisbon being an example (54% were wrong!:p), but it isn't necessarily the be all and end all.

If we'd a referendum on the Budget, would it pass?

We really are going OT now, though thinking about it, we aren't.

1916 would have not have had democratic support, yet I'm sure you agree it was right?

jank

To say that partition was the "democratic" thing to do in 1921 is utter bull. The unionists held the British to ransom with a gun and they won. They feared living in a minority and threatened war if they didn't get their own say.

The British tried to give them loads of reinsurance's but they were also fecked about by promises that never materialized so thereby hardening their attitudes over time.

Many historians argue that if Ireland was granted home rule the first or even the 2nd time around that partition wouldn't have occurred as Unionist were a) not organized to resist and b) weren't as entrenched in their views.

Continuing messing about by Westminster to the Irish question hardened both nationalists and unionists where a rising was almost inevitable.

But that is all if's and but's.

Of course popular revisiont bull$hit thinking is just to blame the rising for all the ills of Ireland.:pac:

turgon

K-9 wrote: »

Unless you have some other better alternative?

Try to accommodate the opposing view of each person. For example the majority dont smoke. But that doesnt mean the rest cant smoke either.

dlofnep wrote: »

Now - Is it democratic to offer the majority to accept the division of their country, to cater to a small minority who came to be on the Island, from the plantations at the expense of the natives - and IF the majority didn't accept it, it would attack it in a large scale war?

Your getting too muddled by history. Like it or not, the Unionists are here. It doesnt matter if theyre here 200 years, 2000 years or 7000 years, one has to deal with the fact they see Ireland as their homeland.

Now want Ireland independent because of culture n language. View it this way: culturally East Ulster is relatively homogeneous - Union Jack, Queen etc. Language: they see only one language: English. SO why should they be denied the right to self-governance that you see all Ireland as having??

I am pro Irish Independence. This is because I believe the vast majority of Ireland wants to rule itself, and should be. But I recognize that the vast majority of East Ulster wants to rule itself and should also be allowed.

So you believe Kosovo should stay in Serbia, right?

turgon

jank wrote: »

They feared living in a minority and threatened war if they didn't get their own say.

But wasnt the whole reason for Irish Independence THE EXACT SAME??? In that the Irish feared living in a minority amongst British???

gurramok

futurehope wrote: »

Well, your dear old Granda didn't seem to know what he was doing, did he? Are you sure he was telling you the whole truth? Half of Ireland had a relative at The GPO apparently!!! Still, he wouldn't be the first Irishman to switch sides - ask Martin and Gerry...

Oh yes, he knew what he was doing. He and thousands of Irishmen like him enlisted at Redmonds encouragement(like helping little Catholic Belgium) to fight for Britain so as Britain would give home rule as a reward.

Its just that the 'little Catholic Belgium' was also a cruel colonial oppressor in Africa.

Regarding GPO, what happened at the GPO inspired these trained soldiers to fight for their own country instead of fighting in a colonial power war. If they had an ounce of loyalty to Britain, they would of fought off the rebels and i would of probably been a flag waving loyalist instead

turgon wrote: »

I see you point of view. Its just why should these "nations", which apparently only you are allow to define, be the only ones to vote? As I said, East Ulster has a distinct culture too, but you are choosing to ignore that completely.

If Ireland is to be separate from UK for certain reasons, why cant East Ulster be separate for exactly the same reasons?

If East Ulster was separate, would their inhabitants accept a significantly reduced NI?

In their view, they might feel more secure with a thumping majority in the 2 counties(Down & Antrim or borders dividing counties?), but their tiny state would not be viable.

Benefits would be Nationalists in 4 majority counties having their wishes granted to join us and a con would be Nationalists left behind in this new state.(same for loyalists left behind)
Just cannot see it happen as it would cause too many tears on both sides.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Try to accommodate the opposing view of each person. For example the majority dont smoke. But that doesnt mean the rest cant smoke either.

I see your point. There is a double standard in support of the Easter Rising which was a minority opinion and then arguing for a 32 county Ireland, ignoring a minority opinion?

Ach, it's an Irish solution to an Irish problem!

FF have thrived on it.