93 years today!!

futurehope

jank said:

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.

A nation can be defined anywhere the people who live there want it to be defined. Why don't you check out some historical maps of Europe(or indeed anywhere else for that matter) and see for yourself.

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.

It's good that you can 'see where the Unionists were coming from'. Perhaps you can explain to me why The Catholic population of The NI 'apartheid state' grew from about 33% to 45% whilst The Protestant population of The ROI fell from 11% to 2% in the same time period? If NI was so bad, why did The Catholics stay in such numbers when they could have just moved a few miles south of the border? Something wrong with their legs perhaps?

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.

Why don't you go and do some research mate? Prior to 'the troubles' NI was a net contributor to The UK exchequer. NI's economy was wrecked by The IRA. NI or a smaller version of it could easily survive 'on it's own', it would just go cap in hand to The EU like The Republic did.

futurehope

dlofnep said:

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

Well, that's a very interesting issue isn't it? A short time ago The IRA published their 'book of the dead', claiming as 'volunteers' those who had previously been stated as 'innocent Catholic civilians' when killed. So if my comment was 'absolutely disgusting', then you'd better direct the same abuse at The Provos.

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.

Yes, but as Northern Ireland was internationally recognised as part of The UK (and supported in this by it's people), how the hell could a Republican join the police? Or indeed still join the police? He'd have to be some sort of two faced rat to do that wouldn't he? Catholics, of course, were always welcome, as the figures suggest.

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.

I think you'll find Catholics no longer need Provo permission to join the police, or to do anything else in fact. Those days are over.

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

Absolutely not. I'm certain there was some low level collusion. In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved.

Perhaps you can provide figures on the numbers of RUC/UDR/Army convicted of colluding with Loyalist groups?

Hagar

futurehope wrote: »

Absolutely not. I'm certain there was some low level collusion. In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved.

So you believe the answer to the problems in NI was for the RUC to give names and addresses of anyone they suspected to Loyalist murder gangs operating outside that law? Do away with the rule of law, trials, appeals, justice, human rights. Stunningly simple. Well done.

dlofnep

futurehope wrote: »

Well, that's a very interesting issue isn't it? A short time ago The IRA published their 'book of the dead', claiming as 'volunteers' those who had previously been stated as 'innocent Catholic civilians' when killed. So if my comment was 'absolutely disgusting', then you'd better direct the same abuse at The Provos.

You're going to have to reference this - Show me where the IRA claimed all 14 people killed by the British forces on Bloody Sunday were "volunteers", or the 11 murdered in Ballymurphy were all Volunteers.

It's widely accepted that the people shot and killed in Bloody Sunday were unarmed civilians, and that the British forces even went as far as planting weapons on dead victims to try and give their massacre merit.

futurehope wrote: »

I think you'll find Catholics no longer need Provo permission to join the police, or to do anything else in fact. Those days are over.

Who said anything about "permission". I stated that Sinn Féin's backing of the PSNI, with intent to devolve policing and justice is one of the major reasons for catholics or nationalists supporting fair policing in the North. Why you even attempt to dispute this is beyond me.

futurehope wrote: »

Absolutely not. I'm certain there was some low level collusion. In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved.

"Low level collusion"? What sort of nonsense is that. Mandated British security services aided loyalist terrorists in the murder of civilians.

The fact that you're promoting and endorsing the collusion of British security and loyalist terrorists shows your character very clearly.

futurehope wrote: »

Perhaps you can provide figures on the numbers of RUC/UDR/Army convicted of colluding with Loyalist groups?

I don't have figures off hand, but I can provide you with a few examples. Not that you're worth the actual time at this point, but I'll entertain your question.

In 1975, members of the UDR headed by Robert Nairac (a captain in the British army) murdered 3 civilians in an attempt to frame them for bomb-smuggling in what is now known as the Miami Showband Massacre. They were also members of the UVF.

A declassified document from the British Government stated that up to 15% of UDR members were directly linked with loyalist terrorists. The British Government was also fully aware of supplies of arms to loyalist terrorists by the UDR, but yet nothing was ever done about it.

A vast array of RUC officers, most notably - from the SPG were colluding and aiding with the UVF with the murder of catholics. Billy McCaughey & John Weir from the SPG were convicted in the murder of William Strathearn, and afterwards they stated that they had aided in the murder of 11 catholcis in the north.

Collusion between British security forces and loyalist terrorists is abundantly clear to anyone with a hint of rationality.

And with that, I'll make use of this ignore function that people keep going on about. I don't care to listen to you promote the collusion of security forces and terrorists, or label innocent civilians who were murdered by British troops as anything but.

You're mindframe is disgusting, and thankfully - not all unionists think the same way as you.

sceptre

Guys, I'm pretty sure you can have a rational discussion about an irrational topic without using the word "disgusting" or an equivalent. You may not like what others have to say but some of your forebears died for their right to say it.

(see what I did there?)

Shane-1

futurehope wrote: »

dlofnep said:



Well, that's a very interesting issue isn't it? A short time ago The IRA published their 'book of the dead', claiming as 'volunteers' those who had previously been stated as 'innocent Catholic civilians' when killed. So if my comment was 'absolutely disgusting', then you'd better direct the same abuse at The Provos.



Yes, but as Northern Ireland was internationally recognised as part of The UK (and supported in this by it's people), how the hell could a Republican join the police? Or indeed still join the police? He'd have to be some sort of two faced rat to do that wouldn't he? Catholics, of course, were always welcome, as the figures suggest.



I think you'll find Catholics no longer need Provo permission to join the police, or to do anything else in fact. Those days are over.



Absolutely not. I'm certain there was some low level collusion. In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved.

Perhaps you can provide figures on the numbers of RUC/UDR/Army convicted of colluding with Loyalist groups?

Im delighted to see that we have once again fallen into our usual round in circles like a long playing record, getting no where but farther off topic arguaments!

So I will put this simple question to you in particular Futurehope, without going off on some tangent here answer this - The IRA were reformed and rejuvinated in the 60's in reaction to the treatment of catholics up to that point in the state of northern Ireland. Do you condone the treatment of catholics as a form of second class society by the ruling party of the north from the states inception in the 20's through to the 60's. Had the catholic population not a right to defend themselves against discrimination which operated at almost every level of life for them? Should the catholic population have been ok with gerrymandering which removed their voice from local councils and government, should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of public housing? Should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of gaining employment within the state? Should they have been ok with the leaders of their state saying things such as 'I am an orangeman first and a politician second, all I boast is that we have a protestant parliament and a protestant state'? God even the catholics who wished to remain within the union werent allowed join the unionist party!

Do you condone the violence that the catholic population had to endure, violence from loyalists, from the B specials, and from the main force of the RUC as well? Do you condone the fact that when the catholic population of the north tried to organise themselves in peaceful protest for equal rights their marches and rallies were met with physical vioence - best illustrated when 14 peaceful protestors were shot down in cold blood? You are quick and very articulate when it comes to condemning the IRA campaigns in the north, so please clarify your position on these matters, and indeed share with us how the catholic population, in your view, should have defended themselves from them?

futurehope

Nodin said:

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

Yes, that's right, Catholics in Northern Ireland went to The UK government (and indeed The Unionist Stormount Government) and literally begged them to send The British Army in. I wonder why they didn't go to The ROI for help?

Of course, once the army arrived, it wasn't long before Catholics were putting razor blades in sandwiches and glass in tea was it? Real gratitude for those who saved them from the 'loyalist mobs'.

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

You seem very concerned about any collusion that took place. Again, no IRA campaign - no collusion.

The PIRA were not a "facist" group.

HaHaHa - what would you call a gang of thugs that murdered all round them in an attempt to overthrow the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain in The UK?

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

No, the real question is why a country like The UK cared whether someone like Gerry Adams lived or died. Any thoughts?



The rest of your post was the usual garbage about discrimination excusing The IRA's murder campaign to which no reply is necessary.

asdasd

Do away with the rule of law, trials, appeals, justice, human rights. Stunningly simple. Well done.

Well it worked in the Dublin bombings. Sorta.

Ever notice that when it comes to Terrorism the UVF etc. are not really seen as terrorists. The typical response from Unionist and apologists is to bemoan the fact that "terrorism won" when the IRA were brought in from the cold - this despite the fact that they didnt actually win - because giving in to some Nationalist demands is giving into terrorism. Keeping the Union intact was not giving into terrorism, because the Loyalist paramilitaries were not terrorists. Just killing Paddys and Micks.

In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved.

Generally the British terrorists supported killing Micks randomly, rather than full engaging the IRA. Therefore I am not sure the logic is correct there, because the full "use" of the UVF etc., backed by intelligence from the Police, would have seen the State use a terrorist group to tribally attack one side of the community - aided by the Army and Police so the entire nationalist community would have joined up the IRA.

The existance of pro-Unionist terror groups is always open to question. generally you dont get pro-status quo terrorist groups - there are very few pro-capitalist militants blowing up the place. When that happens, collusion is rightly suspected.

asdasd

I wonder why they didn't go to The ROI for help?

because it wouldnt have worked?

Shane-1

Shane-1 wrote: »

Im delighted to see that we have once again fallen into our usual round in circles like a long playing record, getting no where but farther off topic arguaments!

So I will put this simple question to you in particular Futurehope, without going off on some tangent here answer this - The IRA were reformed and rejuvinated in the 60's in reaction to the treatment of catholics up to that point in the state of northern Ireland. Do you condone the treatment of catholics as a form of second class society by the ruling party of the north from the states inception in the 20's through to the 60's. Had the catholic population not a right to defend themselves against discrimination which operated at almost every level of life for them? Should the catholic population have been ok with gerrymandering which removed their voice from local councils and government, should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of public housing? Should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of gaining employment within the state? Should they have been ok with the leaders of their state saying things such as 'I am an orangeman first and a politician second, all I boast is that we have a protestant parliament and a protestant state'? God even the catholics who wished to remain within the union werent allowed join the unionist party!

Do you condone the violence that the catholic population had to endure, violence from loyalists, from the B specials, and from the main force of the RUC as well? Do you condone the fact that when the catholic population of the north tried to organise themselves in peaceful protest for equal rights their marches and rallies were met with physical vioence - best illustrated when 14 peaceful protestors were shot down in cold blood? You are quick and very articulate when it comes to condemning the IRA campaigns in the north, so please clarify your position on these matters, and indeed share with us how the catholic population, in your view, should have defended themselves from them?

Still awaiting your answer to this question, is it not to your liking? Your silence speaks volumes so it does.

futurehope

Hagar wrote: »

So you believe the answer to the problems in NI was for the RUC to give names and addresses of anyone they suspected to Loyalist murder gangs operating outside that law? Do away with the rule of law, trials, appeals, justice, human rights. Stunningly simple. Well done.

Well, it's an interesting historical and ethical question isn't it? Let's face it, Nationalists were going to be killed. Whilst The IRA onslaught on Ulster continued this was inevitable. The question was, WHICH Nationalists? If The UK state really had trained, armed and directed Loyalist auxiliary forces and provided them with detailed targeting then it might well have been the case that most of those taken out would have been militant Republicans. This would have saved the lives of other Nationalists and the lives of those who said targeted Republicans were set to murder.

You see, when faced with a clandestine insurrectionist enemy who has no intention of observing the rules of war and who deliberately and recklessly targets civilians, the choice is often between 'taking the gloves off' or accepting defeat. Look around the world and tell me where an armed rebellion has been successfully put down without the use of para-legal or extra-legal methods - if you can find one.

futurehope

dlofnep said

You're going to have to reference this - Show me where the IRA claimed all 14 people killed by the British forces on Bloody Sunday were "volunteers", or the 11 murdered in Ballymurphy were all Volunteers.

I didn't say that. What I said was some 'innocent Catholics' killed by Loyalists have since been claimed by The IRA. If you don't believe me ask your local SF hack (unless you're actually him).

It's widely accepted that the people shot and killed in Bloody Sunday were unarmed civilians, and that the British forces even went as far as planting weapons on dead victims to try and give their massacre merit.

Widely accepted by who? I have my own opinions on 'bloody Sunday', but there's no point on expanding on them here, suffice to say that without The IRA campaign there'd have been no 'bloody Sunday'.

Who said anything about "permission". I stated that Sinn Féin's backing of the PSNI, with intent to devolve policing and justice is one of the major reasons for catholics or nationalists supporting fair policing in the North. Why you even attempt to dispute this is beyond me.

You're a comic. The main reason Catholics didn't join the security forces during 'the troubles' was because they feared being shot dead by Republicans if they did. It would appear that that threat has re-emerged.

"Low level collusion"? What sort of nonsense is that. Mandated British security services aided loyalist terrorists in the murder of civilians.

Really. You claim they were civilians - difficult to tell as PIRA didn't clearly identify themselves as The Geneva Convention demanded. No PIRA - no dead Nationalists. Simple.

I don't have figures off hand, but I can provide you with a few examples. Not that you're worth the actual time at this point, but I'll entertain your question.

Well, when you have the actual figures on Army/RUC/UDR convictions for collusion, get back to me. Irish Nationalists have a real love for anecdotal evidence and a real aversion to statistics, I've noticed.

Hagar

Onslaught on Ulster? Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan?

Well you certainly took the gloves off and accepted defeat. The Nationalist voice is being heard, the Unionists are becoming isolated and given time the Nationalist community will outnumber the Unionist community and democracy will take it's course. The Loyalist gerrymandering may slow it a bit but what the hell we've waited this long. Our day will come, make no mistake.

dlofnep

That's Braveheart type stuff Hagar! Tell him boss!

GhostInTheRuins

Such a shame the original intention of this thread has been almost completely ignored because of a very small number of posters.

turgon

Hagar wrote: »

The Nationalist voice is being heard, the Unionists are becoming isolated and given time the Nationalist community will outnumber the Unionist community and democracy will take it's course.

Based on??

Oh wait, stupid me to ask a nationalist for proof

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Such a shame the original intention of this thread has been almost completely ignored because of a very small number of posters.

The original intention??? As in to glorify an armed rebellion that not everyone fully subscribes to??? Although we are all aware that nothing infuriates nationalists more than when some flaw in their ideals are uncovered.

asdasd

As in to glorify an armed rebellion that not everyone fully subscribes to???

People dont always get to vote when leaving Empires. The Boston Tea Party was not taken to a vote.

We

and what is the result? 32 county Ireland? Yay, terrific.. salvation? then what?

Sometimes you come across people who have invested so much of their time and reputation in something, and regardless of how much evidence there is to contradict their beliefs, or how obvious it becomes that the majority just don't care any more, these people still wont let go..

Other times, you come across people who love to harp on about the IRA and relevant topics, but later it becomes obvious that these people have little to no interest in said areas of politics, but merely like representing a certain image. They've seen phrases like 'tiocfaidh ár lá', spray-painted on walls by some scumbag who also wrote 'fúck the guardi' right next to it. The idea of rebellion and patriotism stirs up a bit of excitement, enough for them to start waffling on about some uncle of theirs who is apparently in the IRA, but not enough excitement for them to actually provoke actually learning a bit more about it and maybe putting things in the context of then, and now. This person usually continues to spout ****e about hating 'brits' etc.. but when a hot English girl comes along, opinions are discarded..

These are the two groups that I believe, for the most part, form the modern-day,anti-union,nationalist opinion in Ireland. The rest,and majority of Ireland? Indifferent.. Nobody cares anymore, and rightly so.. For me, the justification of the IRA's violent actions doesn't exist, and neither does it exist for any other violent organisations.

We have our republic, we are seperate from the UK, what else do we need? To claim land that years ago belonged to the people who lived here before us? Not even us, not one of us was alive when this entire island was one and seperate from the UK, so why bother?

Just remember, you are not of 'Irish blood' and you did not grown from the soil of this country. We were not chosen by some higher power to be the people of Ireland.. you are just 1 fúcking sperm, who happened to be born here, rather than elsewhere. It wasn't fate, you didn't choose, it just happened that way. Do you honestly believe that if you happened to be born anywhere else in the world, you would give a shít at all about your beloved 6 counties? You, nor I, have no inheret or 'naturally intended' right to any piece of this earth. Get a fúcking grip and realise that there are bigger bloody issues in the world than a matter of 6 counties, that the majority of people are satisfied with.


note- Havn't read over it, and cba either... such a bull**** topic anyway..

asdasd

note- Havn't read over it, and cba either... such a bull**** topic anyway..

note, this thread is about celebrating the founding fathers of the State, not the modern IRA or Nothern Ireland etc. Sp you didnt even read the first post.

Hagar

turgon wrote: »

Based on??

HM Census Office.
The Taigs are breeding like rabbits.
The Prods are using condoms.
Do the maths. 40 years max.

turgon wrote: »

stupid me .

QFT. No Comment. :pac: No offence, too good to pass up.

futurehope

Shane-1 said:

So I will put this simple question to you in particular Futurehope, without going off on some tangent here answer this - The IRA were reformed and rejuvinated in the 60's in reaction to the treatment of catholics up to that point in the state of northern Ireland. Do you condone the treatment of catholics as a form of second class society by the ruling party of the north from the states inception in the 20's through to the 60's. Had the catholic population not a right to defend themselves against discrimination which operated at almost every level of life for them? Should the catholic population have been ok with gerrymandering which removed their voice from local councils and government, should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of public housing? Should they have been ok with being overlooked in terms of gaining employment within the state? Should they have been ok with the leaders of their state saying things such as 'I am an orangeman first and a politician second, all I boast is that we have a protestant parliament and a protestant state'? God even the catholics who wished to remain within the union werent allowed join the unionist party!

You amuse me - and sicken me. You seem to be suggesting that the social issues you describe were of such a degree to merit the deaths of over 3500 people, the maiming (physically and mentally) of thousands more, not to discount the thousands who rotted in jail for years. Perhaps Protestants in the 'not so' Free State should have started a similar campaign against the discrimination and intimidation they faced there? Perhaps then they wouldn't have been ground down from 11% of the population to 2%? Perhaps today they'd have places reserved for them in The Government of Ireland and in The Garda?

Do you condone the violence that the catholic population had to endure, violence from loyalists, from the B specials, and from the main force of the RUC as well?

And when did all this violence occur? Certainly not prior to 68/69. Northern Ireland was a relatively peaceful place up to that time, despite the attempts of Republicans to inflame tensions, such as in their border campaign. You see Shane, you have an extremely narrow view of what happened at that time, seeing it as a 'pogrom' etc. In fact there emerged severe disorder in and between both communities at that point. You and others like you could do worse than speak to some older Protestants who were actually living in areas like The Shankill when these events took place. You would get a very different story to the one so eagerly regurgitated by Irish Nationalists.

Do you condone the fact that when the catholic population of the north tried to organise themselves in peaceful protest for equal rights their marches and rallies were met with physical vioence - best illustrated when 14 peaceful protestors were shot down in cold blood?

The IRA campaign was already well under way by the time of 'bloody Sunday', in fact 'bloody Sunday' must be seen in that context.

You are quick and very articulate when it comes to condemning the IRA campaigns in the north, so please clarify your position on these matters, and indeed share with us how the catholic population, in your view, should have defended themselves from them?

Oh, I can do that actually. If civil rights were the aim, then The Catholic population should have undertaken a campaign of civil disobedience, adopting a range of non-violent tactics and bringing in the worlds media. They should have denounced any aim of a United Ireland and publicly sworn loyalty to Ulster and The Union. Their marches should have been swamped in Union Flags and above all they should have used trade unions and other links to bring on board at least some working class Protestants who faced many of the same problems. They should have ejected from their organisations anyone who had Republican or Nationalist leanings. This is what the southern blacks (so beloved of Republican rhetoric) did AND THEY WON.

Of course, protesters would still have taken a lot of slaps of the police, as did the southern blacks, but eventually The UK state would have stepped in.

That's what they should have done if the cause was civil rights, but that's not why Mr Sands went to prison was it?

asdasd

Perhaps Protestants in the 'not so' Free State should have started a similar campaign against the discrimination and intimidation they faced there?

they didnt face any. The northern Irish state was sectarian in law - as is the UK to this day - the Irish Republic had protestant schools, Presidents, and even universities.

No comparison to a gerrymandered Sectarian State which had discriminatory laws on the books.

Nodin

futurehope wrote: »

Yes, that's right, (.....) 'loyalist mobs'. .

Again you ignore the time line of (a) the British being attacked first by loyalists and (b) being employed by local authority to attack the nationalist community rather than defend it.

futurehope wrote: »

You seem very concerned about any collusion that took place. Again, no IRA campaign - no collusion. .

futurehope wrote: »

Absolutely not. I'm certain there was some low level collusion. In fact, it's a pity there wasn't a lot more as The IRA would have been smashed earlier and many innocent lives saved. .

So you support the use of loyalist paramilitary death squads. Thats nice.

Heres some sources and figures, which you're asking for even though they've been well publicised and in the public domain for years.....

The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman has identified police, CID and Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists under 31 separate headings, in her report on the murder of Raymond McCord and other matters.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0122/mccordr.html

Documents uncovered in the National Archives have shown for the first time that the government was aware of widespread collusion between Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers and loyalist paramilitaries.
The files - including one headed "Subversion in the UDR" - confirm that Whitehall knew that as many as 15% of the regiment's soldiers were involved in collusion as early as 1973 and suspected that as many as 200 army rifles and sub machine guns had been passed to loyalist groups.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/04/northernireland.northernireland

The latest report, called Stevens Three, found that members of the RUC and Army colluded with the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), to murder Catholics.
Its key findings were:
Actions or omissions by security forces led to deaths of innocent people
Murders of solicitor Pat Finucane and student Adam Lambert could have been prevented.
Collusion in both murders of Pat Finucane and Adam Lambert
Government minister was compromised in House of Commons
Three official inquiries wilfully obstructed and misled

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2955941.stm

futurehope wrote: »

HaHaHa - what would you call a gang of thugs that murdered all round them
.

RUC Special Branch (based on their collusion with loyalist paramiltaries, outlined not too long ago).

futurehope wrote: »

No, the real question is why a country like The UK cared whether someone like Gerry Adams lived or died. Any thoughts?
.

Evading the question. You claimed bullets had been doctored. Wheres your source for this claim?

futurehope wrote: »

The rest (.....)necessary.

You'll find that 40 or 50 years of systematic discrimination have a bad effect on attitudes. Not liking it will not make it go away.

futurehope wrote: »

Oh, I can do that actually. If civil rights were the aim, then The Catholic population should have undertaken a campaign of civil disobedience, adopting a range of non-violent tactics and bringing in the worlds media.
.

They did and were beaten off the streets for their trouble. Rather famously. I find these omissions and gaps of yours hard to understand.

You haven't retracted this slur about the victims of bloody sunday. Why not?

What absolute garbage. When those 'civilians' were killed

futurehope

Hagar wrote: »

Onslaught on Ulster? Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan?

Well you certainly took the gloves off and accepted defeat. The Nationalist voice is being heard, the Unionists are becoming isolated and given time the Nationalist community will outnumber the Unionist community and democracy will take it's course. The Loyalist gerrymandering may slow it a bit but what the hell we've waited this long. Our day will come, make no mistake.

No, The UK didn't take the gloves off - if they had have done most Northern Catholics would have moved to Boston.

As for accepting defeat, wasn't it The IRA who destroyed their weapons? Not exactly the behaviour of a victorious army was it? What would Pearse have said?:D Oh, and do you think Connelly would have had his speeches written by The British?:D

Don't you mean The Catholic community will/might outnumber The Protestant community? You see my Nationalist friend, it's your fellow Catholics who are your problem now (and the ballot box is secret, so Republicans won't be able to 'persuade' them how to vote).

"Our Day Will Come" - shouldn't that be said in a made up language?

Nodin

turgon wrote: »

The original intention??? As in to glorify an armed rebellion that not everyone fully subscribes to??? Although we are all aware that nothing infuriates nationalists more than when some flaw in their ideals are uncovered.

Well the majority of the posts made by that minority have very little to do with the 1916 rising. So far we've had slurs on the victims of bloody Sunday, a rewrite of the introduction of the British army to the north, ignoring the peaceful nature of the original civil rights movement and justification of the use of loyalist paramilitarys as death squads. Seeing as no-one has seen fit to call a halt to it, its hardly to be expected that such things go unanswered.

Nodin

futurehope wrote: »

No, (.....)up language?

Why not answer previous posts and drop the sneering?

asdasd

Indeed. The original post was merely to support the founding fathers of the State we live in.

Then the bat-crazy neo-Unionists took over. It started with a total muppet called Jimmy on page 1.

K-9

futurehope wrote: »

suffice to say that without The IRA campaign there'd have been no 'bloody Sunday'.

Why stop there? If there hadn't have been a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" Bloody Sunday wouldn't have happened, the troops would never have been needed and sure, there would have been no need for the NICRA? Yes?

wolfpawnat

Nodin wrote: »

Well the majority of the posts made by that minority have very little to do with the 1916 rising. So far we've had slurs on the victims of bloody Sunday, a rewrite of the introduction of the British army to the north, ignoring the peaceful nature of the original civil rights movement and justification of the use of loyalist paramilitarys as death squads.

+1, Why are particular posters using this thread to use it as nothing but a way of condoning violence against innocent and peaceful citizens of Northern Ireland regardless of their religious/political leanings, even though this thread was started to ask about 1916. Surely if a poster cannot discuss the topic of the thread they should either not post a comment or start a thread on the topic they want to discuss!:rolleyes:

K-9

Anyway, Futurehope, you had your Protestant state, Unionists messed it up, nobody else.

I always preach! on PIRA threads about taking reponsibility. Seems you can't either.