93 years today!!

turgon

K-9 wrote: »

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?

I never though about it that way!

I think the double standard lies in thinking culturally unique Ireland should be independent, while culturally unique East Ulster should not.

O'Coonassa

LMaighEo wrote: »

Irish people joined the army in WW1 because they were told to do so

Please, our ancestors hated the fecking Kaiser and thought being in the army was cool, all the girls loving a man in uniform etc etc. Simple as.

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

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

The Boundary Commission would have been interesting if it wasn't gagged.

Could have went either way, more or less land. Jaysus, I could be in NI now! Seriously!

turgon

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Please, our ancestors hated the fecking Kaiser and thought being in the army was cool, all the girls loving a man in uniform etc etc. Simple as.

The biggest motivator for some was probably money. Case in point: Tom Crean. Only joined British army as a job.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

I never though about it that way!

I think the double standard lies in thinking culturally unique Ireland should be independent, while culturally unique East Ulster should not.

I think it's the same point, just differently worded.

That would grate with me though. I think the problem is there are 2 extremes, for manys a reason as we all know, this thread showing why! and until those 2 extremes interact, communicate and work together, an United Ireland is impossible.

futurehope

dlofnep said:

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

Oh dear, let me see.......

Ah, I've got it! The Catholics begged The British Army to come in, but then The IRA campaign began in earnest, creating an atmosphere in which The British Army shot a variety of Catholics, some of whom's friends claim they had nothing to do with The IRA. Is that it?

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.

What absolute garbage. When those 'civilians' were killed in Londonderry, The PIRA campaign was in full swing, creating an environment in which no one was safe. What do you think happened? The Paras came over for a day trip to 'peaceful' old Ulster and just opened fire on a group of nuns?

:rolleyes:

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.

Oh get over it! Do you think Ireland was the only place invaded in the seventeenth century? Europe was swimming in wars and invasions.

As for no United Ireland - I think you'll find that there was no United Kingdom either.

In that case The UK wasn't to blame!

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.

Hilarious!

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

I thought you said The UK didn't exist! As for your centuries of war, ditto the rest of Europe. Big deal.

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.

Sorry, what death and destruction was The British System causing in 1969?

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.

Ye, and apparently half The RCs in Ulster today don't want a United Ireland - I see what you mean. Makes you wonder why The IRA slaughtered over 2000 people.

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.

You amuse me. The reason the problems in Northern Ireland developed were because Northern Nationalists sat outside the system, waiting for 'The House of Cards' to fall. By the time they realised that was never going to happen, the dye was already set. For instance at the start a third of RUC places were reserved for RCs, but not enough stepped forward to fill the posts. As for an 'Orange' police force, try telling that to the thousands of Catholics who passed through it's ranks, despite IRA intimidation.

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.

Really. That's why it's already nearly a quarter Catholic? Are these people planning to resign if policing and justice aren't transferred? Laughable.

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.

Well despite being so biased, The RUC managed to lock up thousands of Loyalists for long prison terms - perhaps they needed to imprison them in order to get some collusion going?

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.

It's really easy to understand. Once you realise there is no need to take Ireland as a unit, everything else falls into place. Just try visualising the concept for a few minutes.

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.

Again, all you have to realise is that no nation now, or ever, has set boundaries. If they did, Texas would be part of Mexico. Think it through.

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?

Britain wanted home rule, it was those actually living in the six northern counties who wanted partition.

K-9

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Please, our ancestors hated the fecking Kaiser and thought being in the army was cool, all the girls loving a man in uniform etc etc. Simple as.

Bloody Wimminz. The downfall of many a good man! :pac:

K-9

Jaysus, this ignore function is handy.

O'Coonassa

turgon wrote: »

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

I think it was because the landlord and gombeen class finally decided independance would bring profits. So they hijacked the concerns of the burgeoning labour movement and portryed those concerns as being British in origin. The ordinary working/farming people of the early 1900's were cheifly economically motivated. They feared poverty not the Brits, indeed they were acting against the bosses and not the Brits in their actions. The 1913 lockout is one example. The anger was growing. Then it was subverted into a national struggle. That's how I see it anyhow.

Grudaire

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, this ignore function is handy.

You're a Genius!!!!!!!!!


This is the first time trying it - and - well it's just beautiful!

futurehope

turgon wrote: »

I never though about it that way!

I think the double standard lies in thinking culturally unique Ireland should be independent, while culturally unique East Ulster should not.

Got it in one.

Ireland is just a country. Throughout history countries borders have changed. When Ireland went independent, the borders of The UK changed. There is absolutely no reason why The ROI should occupy the entire island of Ireland any more than The UK should occupy The British Isles. In fact, there is no reason why greater Dublin couldn't declare itself independent and apply for a UN seat.

jank

turgon wrote: »

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

Yes, it was but where to you draw the line of a nation state. Should each county be its own country? Ireland for hundreds of years was a entity of its own. That much is true.

I completely understand where the Unionists were coming from. However, history tells what living as a catholic in NI was. It was an apartheid state. The fact that the N.I government was devolved and direct rule from Westminster began again shows what a failure the N.I state was.

Even today it is bankrolled by the Britain. It could never survive on its own, much like County Galway or Mayo could never survive on its own. Therefore the logical conclusions would have been was to unite with Ireland more so from an economic point of view.

O'Coonassa

turgon wrote: »

The biggest motivator for some was probably money. Case in point: Tom Crean. Only joined British army as a job.

But sure you nearly only do anything as your job if you know what I mean. Money was surely important but the notion of Irishmen being 'told what to do' as the OP was suggesting really isn't how it was. Sure there were economic reasons for joining but men still loved the idea of having a uniform and a gun.

I think of Crean as part and parcel of the dodgy Empire that was built by such Irishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Englishmen. I don't think of him as at all reluctant in the role.

turgon

jank wrote: »

It was an apartheid state.

And do you think that a majority Catholic country would have been a paradise for these unionists to live in? Methinks not.

jank wrote: »

Even today it is bankrolled by the Britain.

But thats only because of the conflict in fairness.

Grudaire

turgon wrote: »

And do you think that a majority Catholic country would have been a paradise for these unionists to live in? Methinks not.

I don't think that the South was THAT bad for Protestants now - the Protestant schools got Special funding.

Hell there's even an Orange Order Parade every year:rolleyes:

O'Coonassa

futurehope wrote: »

In fact, there is no reason why greater Dublin couldn't declare itself independent and apply for a UN seat.

Exactly and I believe there a few counties up in Ulster that should declare themselves a Republic by that same token you endorse. But a proper Republic, and then the 26 could declare themselves to be a part of that. lol it might even be such a good Republic that not only do the remaining few counties in Ulster want to join it, but the Scots and the English and the Welsh and the Manx and Cornish too. That's what Cromwell wanted, and it's what the Fenians wanted lol

dlofnep

futurehope wrote: »

What absolute garbage. When those 'civilians' were killed in Londonderry, The PIRA campaign was in full swing, creating an environment in which no one was safe. What do you think happened? The Paras came over for a day trip to 'peaceful' old Ulster and just opened fire on a group of nuns?

More revisionist nonsense. Trying to make out the civilians to be more than just civilians. Absolutely disgusting comment.

futurehope wrote: »

Oh get over it! Do you think Ireland was the only place invaded in the seventeenth century? Europe was swimming in wars and invasions.

That's neither here nor there. I was outlining the foundation to the conflict. Given the fact that you've placed the sole blame of the conflict on the PIRA. Pardon me for interjecting with a bit more scope.

futurehope wrote: »

In that case The UK wasn't to blame!

Nope, but England was.

futurehope wrote: »

Hilarious!

Don't worry, I'm finding you just as amusing.

futurehope wrote: »

Sorry, what death and destruction was The British System causing in 1969?

Interesting you pick 1969. In 1969, the RUC was aiding the unionists in attacks against the nationalists. It took a year or two before the British forces started to gun down nationalists in their dozens.

futurehope wrote: »

You amuse me. The reason the problems in Northern Ireland developed were because Northern Nationalists sat outside the system, waiting for 'The House of Cards' to fall. By the time they realised that was never going to happen, the dye was already set. For instance at the start a third of RUC places were reserved for RCs, but not enough stepped forward to fill the posts. As for an 'Orange' police force, try telling that to the thousands of Catholics who passed through it's ranks, despite IRA intimidation.

Nonsense. Well over 90% of the RUC was unionist/protestant. It was most certainly by all means, an orange police force. As far as catholics go - I have already stated that catholicism does not equal republicanism.

futurehope wrote: »

Really. That's why it's already nearly a quarter Catholic? Are these people planning to resign if policing and justice aren't transferred? Laughable.

Yes, it is nearly a quarter catholic because it has received support from SF, the largest nationalist party in the North. If you think this has no bearing on policing, then you're categorically deluded.

futurehope wrote: »

Well despite being so biased, The RUC managed to lock up thousands of Loyalists for long prison terms - perhaps they needed to imprison them in order to get some collusion going?

Are you suggesting that the RUC did not collude with loyalists? If so, more lies and more revisionism.

sceptre

Ah, 93 years, eh? And how we've grown.

jank

turgon wrote: »

And do you think that a majority Catholic country would have been a paradise for these unionists to live in? Methinks not..

Did you read my post? I said "I completely understand where the Unionists were coming from"
However, the British government did try to get an agreement with the Unionists regarding local taxes, veto's, etc and so on but they were having none of it. They did try to reach out but it was a failure.

All one has to do is compare the 2 governments and their track records. The free state comes out light years ahead of the N.I. government regarding the treatment of minorities. The free state wasn't perfect by any means but look at the north and tell me was it anyway as bad.

turgon wrote: »

But thats only because of the conflict in fairness.

Well its over the last 10 years now and I haven't seen N.I shift from its over reliance on public sector jobs and its not going to change anytime soon. My point still very much stands. The British would love to get rid of N.I as its a burden on them. If Ireland was united the north would bankrupt it, so thats a no no as well. So where is NI now? Unionist and nationalists will have to get over the Bull$hit and start doing business with the rest of the world.

Scofflaw

jank wrote: »

Yes, it was but where to you draw the line of a nation state. Should each county be its own country? Ireland for hundreds of years was a entity of its own. That much is true.

Although not in the sense that England was England. Ireland was never a unitary state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gurramok

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although not in the sense that England was England. Ireland was never a unitary state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Huh?

We had our own parliament for the island in the 1700's!

It was under British rule but we ran our own affairs on this island by ourselves even though it was a Protestant Ascendancy parliament!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although not in the sense that England was England. Ireland was never a unitary state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cornwall?

jank

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What are you on about?

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or indeed from anywhere over fifty miles away without a fight.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although not in the sense that England was England. Ireland was never a unitary state.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree it was never a state in modern terms per say until that is the english arrived. The idea of a nation state is still a modern one. It was still its own unique entity from a language, culture, trade, etc point of view that given other circumstances have led to a united state.

Italy was never a unitary state (unless you count roman times) until recently as they were made up of city states but because they had so much in common they joined to become the nation as know today as Italy.

Nodin

futurehope wrote: »

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

The British presence was originally to keep catholic communities from being burnt out by loyalist mobs.

futurehope wrote: »

So it appears that Republicans were responsible for twice as many deaths as Loyalists. Doesn't appear that Republicans were on the defencive does it?

See above. Also, the northern state was institutionally discriminatory against Catholics.

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.

O....so its ok for them then, is it? Because they got annoyed....

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. .

Discrimination for decades = civil rights movement - police and loyalist violence = IRA campaign.

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. .

The PIRA were not a "facist" group. Secondly, those officers were supporting a sectarian state.

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

No, the civil rights movement gave way to the physical force movement because of the violent reaction of the authorities in the north. When you meet peaceful protests with batons and stones, there's bound to be a back lash.

futurehope wrote: »

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

It's clear I'm referring to the use of the British Army as a blunt instrument. Please don't be obtuse and use my statements to launch some attempt at getting a dig in.

futurehope wrote: »

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?

To preserve the cloak of respectability. The real question is why they didn't arrest them before they shot.

futurehope wrote: »

given the fact the bullets used had been doctored to reduce their penetrative power

Source?

futurehope wrote: »

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

Another cogent point.

futurehope wrote: »

What absolute garbage. When those 'civilians' were killed

It's widely accepted by both sides that they were indeed civillians. Please withdraw that remark.

O'Coonassa

jank wrote: »

I agree it was never a state in modern terms per say until that is the english arrived.

The Normans turned Ireland into a feudal tithe-paying state on the orders of the Pope who wanted 'a penny from every hut'. There were some English amongst them but mostly they were Welsh and Flemish.

People say Ireland wasn't a united state (and England was) but really that argument is just one that is used to justify the terrible crime of us being made into Roman Catholics lol

AFAIK England was really only properly united by the same Norman invaders that did the job here, sure it was united in name around 927 but that 'unity' is akin to that which was acheived by Brian Boru at Clontarf.I don't think that 100 year difference really counts for much, unity of both islands was driven by the Catholic Church and it's Norman attack-dogs.

dlofnep

Still waiting on FutureHope to comment on the following.

futurehope wrote:

What absolute garbage. When those 'civilians' were killed in Londonderry, The PIRA campaign was in full swing, creating an environment in which no one was safe. What do you think happened? The Paras came over for a day trip to 'peaceful' old Ulster and just opened fire on a group of nuns?

Care to expand upon your disgusting comments?

K-9

Cliste wrote: »

I don't think that the South was THAT bad for Protestants now - the Protestant schools got Special funding.

Hell there's even an Orange Order Parade every year:rolleyes:

Parades actually!

dlofnep wrote: »

Still waiting on FutureHope to comment on the following.



Care to expand upon your disgusting comments?

Considering that tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, some still maintain the original police/Sun line. It's amazing how far some will go to justify their belief bigotry.