93 years today!!

K-9

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.

5th October 1968 changed that forever. The worlds media watched with disgust too. People knew when Gerry Fitt (hardly a threat to NI) gets attacked, the NI state had no respect for peaceful protest. Respect? They were a jumped up minority to be crushed by the "Protestant defence forces".

What happened after that is irrelevant. That was the time to act and be seen as a fair state. They didn't.

O'Coonassa

futurehope wrote: »

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

Do you know of a language that wasn't made up? Ullans perhaps?

futurehope

Nodin said:

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

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

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

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

Sorry Nodin, which bit of the word CONVICTIONS can't you understand?

wolfpawnat

asdasd wrote: »

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.

+1 And now we are stuck with another one who is disputing every other post on the thread and taking it completely off topic by bringing the thread forward to the latter half of the 20th century!:mad::rolleyes:

futurehope

K-9 wrote: »

They did.

5th October 1968 changed that forever. The worlds media watched with disgust too. People knew when Gerry Fitt (hardly a threat to NI) gets attacked, the NI state had no respect for peaceful protest. Respect? They were a jumped up minority to be crushed by the "Protestant defence forces".

What happened after that is irrelevant. That was the time to act and be seen as a fair state. They didn't.

If you're going to quote me, do it in full. Then and only then can you say:

THEY DID

Otherwise people might see you as some sort of brain washed Irishman, twisting the facts and mouthing clichés about DA NORTH.

Shane-1

futurehope wrote: »

Shane-1 said:



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?

Well then Futurehope, fair play to ya, you have managed to try and get around the main point of my post while still trying to put together some class of reply. A good effort.

First off I want you to check back over my post to you and tell me where exactly did I try and use any sort of justification for 3500 deaths? I dont believe that I ever did utter any such thing, rather I was trying to play 'Devils advocate' here in this arguament and gauge what your opinion is on the discrimination of the catholic minority in the 6 counties. This is an opinion that you have failed to give. So again, do you condone the actions of the unionist leadership in relation to the catholic people of the north? Its just that you have so much to say on the wrongdoings of the IRA that I felt it would be interesting to see what you had to say about the wrongdoings from the orange/unionist side, which of course predated the IRA reaction.

With regards to your 11% protestant population, these people have never been actively discriminated against. There was little violence against them, there were no government moves to ACTIVELY discriminate against them, in most cases these protestants have emmigrated, had smaller families etc. There was some discrimination against them unfortunately, but not a patch on that in the north. Most of the discrimination against them was passive, and through the powerful position of the Catholic Church in the Free State creating a very church orientated state.

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.

Have you ever heard of RUC/ B Special discrimination? Have you ever heard of the Special Powers Act of 1922, an 'emergency' legislation renewed each year to legalise discrimination. Internment without trial, banning of any meetings/ demonstrations etc. Police commonly used very violent tactics against the catholic population, especially the B Specials whose actions were essentially those of a legalised militia.

With regards the where is the violence I mention? You tell me I have a narrow point of view, well if you even read page one of a northern history book you would see that in the very first two years of the states existance there was 557 people killed, and who were the majority? Dead right, got it in one - catholics. Countless more were forced from their houses, particularily in Belfast. There you go, from the very start the state was built on the discrimination of the catholic minority. I am very sorry for any of the older residents of the Shankill if they are now feeling the guilt of their states active discrimination.

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

I am sure that many more people on here are waiting with baited breath to hear how you will defend an army massacre of innocent peaceful protestors? Bloody Sunday must not be viewed in any other way than how it is, a sickening act that I cant believe that anyone would attempt to defend. Even if there was an active IRA campaign at the time, does that mean that the army can come in and open fire with live ammunition on people who are showing no signs of violence or aggression?

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.

Well here comes your narrow minded vision of history kicking you in the arse again, because in the above paragraph you have described the catholic civil rights movement to a tee. The rights movement concentrated on peaceful protests, completely non violent, and the protests did draw the attention of the world media. The protesters were not concerned with the idea of a united Ireland, they wished for equality and fair treatment within the northern state.

And what reaction did this get? Violence broke out at several Civil Rights marches when Protestant loyalists attacked civil rights demonstrators with clubs. The ruc, almost entirely Protestant, was widely viewed by nationalists as supporting the loyalists and of allowing the violence to occur. On 5 October 1968, a Civil Rights march in Derry was banned by the Northern Ireland government, who let an apprentice boys march take place instead. When Civil Rights activists defied the ban, they were attacked by the RUC, leading to three days of rioting. On 4 January 1969, a People's Democracy march between Belfast and Derry was repeatedly attacked by loyalists and off-duty police. At Burntollet bridge it was ambushed by ~200 loyalists armed with iron bars, bricks and bottles. The police did little to protect the march.

Im sure you will jump in again now with your speil about viewing all this in terms of IRA campaign etc etc, in fact the attack mentioned above there at Burntollet bridge is regarded by many as being the start of the troubles

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.

Are you serious? These people were marching to demand even the most basic human rights that they were entitled to, rights denied to them by the northern state, and you are honestly suggesting that they should have brought along union jacks! Would you celebrate a state which discriminates against you to this level? Would your southern blacks have brought along a few confederate flags?

And would you blame a person for holding republican or nationalist feelings when you cant get your kids into a decent school, cant get a job, get interned without trial and without reason.. do I need to continue?

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?

Mr Sands was not connected to the civil rights movement, you are getting confused here. The civil rights movement was seperate from the IRA, Im sure if you dont have the narrow minded view of history you accuse me of holding then you know this already.

So once again Futurehope, how about you answer the simple question, do you condone the treatment of the catholic minority in the north since the establishment of the state?

jank

futurehope wrote: »

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. .

Yea, so why wouldnt the north be United with the rest of Ireland given other circumstances.Scots are Scottish, Welsh are Welsh, NI people are...British? Most of the countries after the fall of the Austrian- Hungrain empire were divided into nation states where similar culture and ethnicitity were the main reasons to draw the borders. Of course minorities were exposed hence the blood letting of WWII and later the balkins.

futurehope wrote: »

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?.

Because they were sent to the Gas Chambers in dingle!:D

Do a serach in this board and you will find the answer to this. Also there is a thing called demographs? Have you heard of that? Catholics werent allowed to have condems and the like. The birth rate on the Catholic side was usually much higher.

futurehope wrote: »

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.

Well why hasnt the economy recovered in the last 10 years? Can you name a country that has survived on its own like NI?

dlofnep

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

Probably worth reading if you're interested in a documented account of collusion in the North, in a statement made by convicted murderer and RUC officer, John Weir.

3. I recall that in 1970 or 1971, while I was serving as a young constable, aged 20, in Strandtown there was an arms amnesty in which members of the public handed in substantial quantities of guns and ammunition of different types. Many of these guns were then given out by RUC officers to local members of a Loyalist paramilitary organization, the Ulster Defence Association, with the knowledge of the senior officers in my station. On one occasion I was ordered by Inspector Don Milligan to remove a number of rifles which had been handed in under the amnesty, and place them in the boot of his car. I do not know where he took them but it was common knowledge among my colleagues that such weapons were being given to Loyalists whom my colleagues supported.

jank

futurehope wrote: »

No PIRA - no dead Nationalists. Simple.

futurehope wrote: »

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

How about no Unionists - No problems or troubles.

Get a grip on reality please.
What you are saying is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

No Jews - No Holocaust:eek:

Cop the **** on!

Hagar

futurehope wrote: »

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

So the goal was to drive the Catholics out not Nationalists?

futurehope wrote: »

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

They stood in front of their foe unarmed and defied them to do the same.

Pearse would have said "Fuck off, you poxy bigoted troll" or so I am informed by a medium friend of mine. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that message as I myself am not psychic.

Connolly was a Scot so if he he wrote his own speeches I suppose you could claim that his speeches were written by a Briton.

futurehope wrote: »

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).

God bless your innocence, the ballot box was always secret, that was how it could be cheated by the powers that be.

futurehope wrote: »

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

I'll do better, I'll say it in a language that is older than Greek or Latin. A language that is older than your Germanic derived babble. A language that for centuries was thought in our schools while your people were dying their skins blue with woad.
Tíocfaidh ar lá. Our day will come. We have the patience of the stones.

K-9

futurehope wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, do it in full. Then and only then can you say:

THEY DID

Otherwise people might see you as some sort of brain washed Irishman, twisting the facts and mouthing clichés about DA NORTH.

They did not.

See, I can do that too.

Fair play to yas for sorting out Gerry Fitt, that great threat to Unionism.

The Protestant state for a Protestant people was its own downfall. It was so brainwashed, it couldn't accept things moved on.

Proof? Internment. The final nail in the coffin.

Your Protestant state defence forces brought about the Protestant States downfall.

Westminster, yes Westminster couldn't trust yas anymore.

jank

futurehope wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, do it in full. Then and only then can you say:

THEY DID

Otherwise people might see you as some sort of brain washed Irishman, twisting the facts and mouthing clichés about DA NORTH.

Lads don't feed the troll. I'm just going to ignore him as he has no intention of a reasonable discussion. I suggest you all do the same. Where is the modding of this thread!!??:mad:

Grudaire

jank wrote: »

Lads don't feed the troll. I'm just going to ignore him as he has no intention of a reasonable discussion. I suggest you all do the same. Where is the modding of this thread!!??:mad:

I don't know I reported a post a while ago now.

The ignore function works a treat to be fair...

Scofflaw

Just a reminder - there's a moratorium on back-seat modding. If you don't like what someone is saying, ignore them. Nobody has to be here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Exile 1798

futurehope wrote: »

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?

Perhaps, but they where too busy leading normal prosperous lives indistinguishable from their Catholic neighbors who they had a pennant for marrying.

futurehope wrote: »

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.

Well if you're unaware of anti-Nationalist violence in the 6 Counties from the establishment of the state then you're don't know anything.

As for the old buggers on the Shankill, I'm quite sure they have a different version of events. What does that proove? Loyalists still reguard their attack on Ardoyne as a great thing. "The Night We Burned Ardoyne."

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 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?

Very amusing.

Meanwhile in the real world...

jank

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just a reminder - there's a moratorium on back-seat modding. If you don't like what someone is saying, ignore them. Nobody has to be here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Since this topic is waaaay off topic maybe we can lock this thread. By the way I did use the report function.

Shane-1

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Perhaps, but they where too busy leading normal prosperous lives indistinguishable from their Catholic neighbors who they had a pennant for marrying.



Well if you're unaware of anti-Nationalist violence in the 6 Counties from the establishment of the state then you're don't know anything.

As for the old buggers on the Shankill, I'm quite sure they have a different version of events. What does that proove? Loyalists still reguard their attack on Ardoyne as a great thing. "The Night We Burned Ardoyne."




Very amusing.

Meanwhile in the real world...

It is very amusing, whats even more amusing is that Im still waiting for him to answer the very first question I asked him, it was very simple, does he or does he not condone unionist discrimination of the catholics of the north. He is successfully managing to avoid this question with waffle like that above there, I see a bright future for him in unionist politics! Sure didnt the likes of Craig et al keep their people happy by spouting nothing but bigoted waffle as well!

K-9

Shane-1 wrote: »

It is very amusing, whats even more amusing is that Im still waiting for him to answer the very first question I asked him, it was very simple, does he or does he not condone unionist discrimination of the catholics of the north. He is successfully managing to avoid this question with waffle like that above there, I see a bright future for him in unionist politics! Sure didnt the likes of Craig et al keep their people happy by spouting nothing but bigoted waffle as well!

The silence speaks volumes.

Know your place young man, don't question your betters!

Shane-1

My favourite bit of discrimination is the fact that catholics couldnt join the unionist party, so if even we decided to 'drink the soup' we still couldnt get a fair deal.

Unionists for the most part dont even know what they are loyal to, many a time in history they have rejected and resented British interjections in the running of their state, they are clearly not loyal to some notion they have of being British. They are loyal to themselves and their own preservation. I think it was put best in the phrase 'loyal to the half-crown, not to the crown'

K-9

Shane-1 wrote: »

My favourite bit of discrimination is the fact that catholics couldnt join the unionist party, so if even we decided to 'drink the soup' we still couldnt get a fair deal.

Unionists for the most part dont even know what they are loyal to, many a time in history they have rejected and resented British interjections in the running of their state, they are clearly not loyal to some notion they have of being British. They are loyal to themselves and their own preservation. I think it was put best in the phrase 'loyal to the half-crown, not to the crown'

Nah, planning was given to a GAA pitch, either Lurgan or Craigavon.

The council insisted a 15 ft. wall would be built around it.

God forbid the natives would see the game. Might make them turn.

Shane-1

If twasnt all so tragic twud be hilarious! I know I am going back in time a bit with this one but what about lord brookeborough (or whatever that spelling is) and his business on the side of smuggling cattle over the border. Discrimination against the catholics and the south didnt extend as far as affecting good old lord B's pocket. Plenty of profiting from the Fenian Friesians, the catholic cows were more than welcome up north in Brookys eyes, if only the same treatment was extended to their owners

gurramok

Cliste wrote: »

But it is clear that such bigoted and clearly racist organisations such as the Orange Order which upheld the disgraceful establishment up North which has rightly been compared to Hitler.

Imagine if the OO was banned like in the mid 19th century by th British govt?

NI as it is now would of been a more secular place with hardly any bigotry at all. It ain't a coincidence that all the tension and hate happens around July 12th yet all is peaceloving and tolerance at any other time of the year.

TomRooney

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, planning was given to a GAA pitch, either Lurgan or Craigavon.

The council insisted a 15 ft. wall would be built around it.

God forbid the natives would see the game. Might make them turn.

natives dont you mean planters, they are about as native to Ireland as Pamela Izevbekhai.

K-9

TomRooney wrote: »

natives dont you mean planters, they are about as native to Ireland as Pamela Izevbekhai.

There is no need for points like that.

The Protestant states treatment of its minority needs no grandishment.

It speaks for itself.

wolfpawnat

futurehope wrote: »

wolfpawnat said:
Why are you talking for two forum members wolfpawnat? Are you and Shane-1 the same person?

I just realised this post now, no Shane-1 and I are not the same person, but he is my OH so sometimes he borrows my laptop of which I am permanently sign in and forgot to log me out and sign himself in for the post you responded to.

O'Coonassa

TomRooney wrote: »

natives dont you mean planters, they are about as native to Ireland as Pamela Izevbekhai.

You mean like the Doyles, D'Arcy's and the Brennans?

Shane-1

Here we go again

More of those cutting, insightful unionist arguaments.

Brace yourselves!

Acacia

futurehope wrote: »

So the best equivalent to routine Irish chauvinism you could come up with is The BNP? Speaks volumes.

:rolleyes:

Dear god, is that the best you can do? You asked to find an example of British people wanting the Empire back and I gave you one. You were trying to make out that only Irish people seem to care what the neighbors think, and you're clearly wrong.

Do you know what chauvinism actually means, by the way? I don't think anybody here has demonstrated that.

O'Coonassa

Cliste wrote: »

All Unionists are scu m.

I've met ones that aren't and that genuinely despise the tactics employed by their 'defenders'. It don't think it is fair to call an entire political position by the actions of it's fanatic element...if y'kno what I mean

TomRooney

O'Coonassa wrote: »

You mean like the Doyles, D'Arcy's and the Brennans?

no i mean like anybody claiming any part of Ireland to be non Irish.
namely Planters who have deluded themselves into thinking the north east of Ireland is actualy the UK, they have not been without help from some of there fellow eqauly deluded west brit partners.