Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

600lb bomb defused in Forkhill

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Wrong? Not even close. The partition in the Government of Ireland Act occurred against a backdrop of an arms race between two factions, at a time when the British government was ill-equipped to deal with this in a normal way. It was a reasonable solution in its historical context. The boundary commission's evaluations following the signing of the treaty are obviously the issue, but they're an issue attributable to the incompetence of those sent to agree the boundaries from the new free state as well. Whatever about that, partition was a done deal from 1920. The GFA is the only thing since which has allowed the political reversal of the government of Ireland act, and when that comes, you're going to have your own disaffected unionist minority to deal with. How do you propose to entertain their views? The argument that northern Ireland was created by force is useless as well, as all nations except in geographical circumstances are defined by a history of military force. If geography were even the predominant defining mechanism for national boundaries, the Holy Roman Empire would have continued to the present day. The simple fact is that your grievance is with the defining characteristics of modern geopolitical history, with respect only to your own small circumstances. I mean, it was the French who invaded us in the first place. Even to use the term "us" is ridiculous, as I doubt there's a single individual in the country who doesn't have Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman heritage in their history. These same sentiments were expressed since the thirteenth century among the Hiberno-Norman middle nation.

    Revisionist nonsense.

    The partition of Ireland was created under duress, this is a historical fact. The result of which saw decades of civil inequality, upheld by sectarian law enforcement. Under this said state, where civil, social and cultural inequality was rampant - the nationalist community was forced to surrender their political, cultural and social ambitions.

    The fact that you are willing to pass off partition by force as normal and just occurrence, but are unwilling to accept the merit behind nationalist desires in both the north and south of the country says boat-loads.

    It is much easier for you to be passive on the issue, but much less easier for nationalists who are still forced to live under a British banner. But as I have said, all it takes is +1, and the votes reflect the progress towards it.


  • Options
    #93
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Revisionist nonsense.

    The partition of Ireland was created under duress, this is a historical fact. The result of which saw decades of civil inequality, upheld by sectarian law enforcement. Under this said state, where civil, social and cultural inequality was rampant - the nationalist community was forced to surrender their political, cultural and social ambitions.

    The fact that you are willing to pass off partition by force as normal and just occurrence, but are unwilling to accept the merit behind nationalist desires in both the north and south of the country says boat-loads.

    It is much easier for you to be passive on the issue, but much less easier for nationalists who are still forced to live under a British banner. But as I have said, all it takes is +1, and the votes reflect the progress towards it.

    Revisionist me hole. I'm a history student. Partition occurred after home rule was shelved following violent insurrection, against the backdrop of an arms race the government of the day was not equipped to deal with. It was an emergency solution and perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. It made political sense. The boundary commission is responsible for the gerrymandered statelet, in which occurred countless injustices on both sides, but partition was a done deal for several years at this point. I didn't say partition by force was just. It is however the historical norm, across the world, rather than some special circumstance unique to Ireland. I come from a Catholic, nationalist, northern Irish background, and I still see the political and historical circumstances which made the situation for what they are. This is not some overarching conspiracy spanning generations. This is a century long succession of British governments responding to situations. I have not said nationalists do not have valid points, but I do disagree with them on a number of levels with regard to the historical context of events and the role of violence in their political aspirations.


  • Options
    #94
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Revisionist me hole. I'm a history student.

    *golf clap*

    And that excludes you from revisionism because?
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    It was an emergency solution and perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

    Interesting to see that you consider the creation of a sectarian state as "reasonable". Disgusting is probably a more apt adjective.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    It made political sense.

    To who, unionists? It didn't make one iota of sense to the majority of the country. It created a civil war in Ireland, and as documented created a state who's sole intention was to serve unionist demands, and treat nationalists as rats with human features.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    I didn't say partition by force was just. It is however the historical norm, across the world, rather than some special circumstance unique to Ireland.

    You state that, but then you try to validate it because it was the "norm". Racism was the norm in southern USA for the most part of the early 20th century - it didn't make that right either. You're going to have to come from a different angle to be honest. What you are trying to do is remove merit in nationalist desires by casually exclaiming that it was perfectly normal for such a hate-ridden state to be created.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    This is a century long succession of British governments responding to situations.

    Responding to situations? I think you're missing half a sentence there. How about - responding to situations with violence, sectarianism, collusion, murder, gerrymandering and then some. Just because Britain upheld British rule in the North doesn't validate it, nor does it mean that it was neither fair, nor just.


  • Options
    #95
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    *golf clap*

    And that excludes you from revisionism because?



    Interesting to see that you consider the creation of a sectarian state as "reasonable". Disgusting is probably a more apt adjective.



    To who, unionists? It didn't make one iota of sense to the majority of the country. It created a civil war in Ireland, and as documented created a state who's sole intention was to serve unionist demands, and treat nationalists as rats with human features.



    You state that, but then you try to validate it because it was the "norm". Racism was the norm in southern USA for the most part of the early 20th century - it didn't make that right either. You're going to have to come from a different angle to be honest. What you are trying to do is remove merit in nationalist desires by casually exclaiming that it was perfectly normal for such a hate-ridden state to be created.



    Responding to situations? I think you're missing half a sentence there. How about - responding to situations with violence, sectarianism, collusion, murder, gerrymandering and then some. Just because Britain upheld British rule in the North doesn't validate it, nor does it mean that it was neither fair, nor just.

    Good man! You managed to write "iota" without feeling the need to hit caps lock! See if you can do it again.


  • Options
    #96
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Good man!

    Flattery will get you everywhere.

    Might I suggest you bait less, and discuss more? Just a suggestion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Flattery will get you everywhere.

    Might I suggest you bait less, and discuss more? Just a suggestion.

    Yeah, it isn't relevant. I just had it in mind you thought it is an acronym. Or was it my previous pointing out of it to you that made the penny drop?


  • Options
    #98
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    dlofnep wrote: »
    *golf clap*

    And that excludes you from revisionism because?

    It doesn't, but it does mean I spend my days in a library, evaluating historical material on a full-time basis, and therefore have developed my perspective based on that, rather than any emotional leanings towards revisionism.
    Interesting to see that you consider the creation of a sectarian state as "reasonable". Disgusting is probably a more apt adjective.

    In 1920, the partition was to avoid armed insurrection. It was a step designed to aid peace in Ireland, a forefather of the Good Friday Agreement in this respect. The sectarian establishment of unionist majority occurred later on, while partition had been the case for several years. What about that is hard to understand. It was not sectarian in its inception.
    To who, unionists? It didn't make one iota of sense to the majority of the country. It created a civil war in Ireland, and as documented created a state who's sole intention was to serve unionist demands, and treat nationalists as rats with human features.

    You're being emotive and ridiculous here. And you're missing the point that the country did not exist. An island did, but an island is not a country in and of itself, any more than the island next to us is one country.
    You state that, but then you try to validate it because it was the "norm". Racism was the norm in southern USA for the most part of the early 20th century - it didn't make that right either. You're going to have to come from a different angle to be honest. What you are trying to do is remove merit in nationalist desires by casually exclaiming that it was perfectly normal for such a hate-ridden state to be created.

    See my point about the partition not being sectarian in origin. Racism was the norm the world over in the early 20th century, and no, it didn't make it right, but you know what? I don't bow and scrape now for the wrongdoings of generations past, and I get pissed at racism by blacks against whites, and I get pissed at misandry, and I don't accept the excuse that it's as a result of generations of oppression, because that's really not relevant to whether it's correct now; just in the same way, violent nationalism is not justified by a history of oppression.
    Responding to situations? I think you're missing half a sentence there. How about - responding to situations with violence, sectarianism, collusion, murder, gerrymandering and then some. Just because Britain upheld British rule in the North doesn't validate it, nor does it mean that it was neither fair, nor just.

    I missed nothing. The simple fact is that the events that occurred do not stem from partition itself, but from decisions that occurred afterwards. And just because this is one island, does not mean it can't be or shouldn't be comprised of more than one state.


  • Options
    #99
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Yeah, it isn't relevant. I just had it in mind you thought it is an acronym.

    No, that would be silly.


  • Options
    #100
    Terrontress
    Registered Users Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, that would be silly.

    Just puzzled by your previous continued use of capitals for a specific word. Given your "*golf clap*" I thought you were giving up debate in favour of hollow digs so I thought I'd bring up your previous shortcomings for the amusement of others.


  • Options
    #101
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Even to use the term "us" is ridiculous, as I doubt there's a single individual in the country who doesn't have Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman heritage in their history. These same sentiments were expressed since the thirteenth century among the Hiberno-Norman middle nation.

    Quite right. Everyone is mixed, so the concept of a part of the country run for the benefit of those associated with a particular immigration is ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Quite right. Everyone is mixed, so the concept of a part of the country run for the benefit of those associated with a particular immigration is ridiculous.

    Unlike, of course, the government of a statelet created in the manner of all other nation states being run in accordance with the wishes of its majority.


  • Options
    #103
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    In 1920, the partition was to avoid armed insurrection.

    Yeah, that really worked well didn't it? It spawned a civil war, and decades of bitter internal wars - from the border campaigns, to urban conflict which saw the deaths of 1000's of people.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    It was a step designed to aid peace in Ireland

    No it wasn't. It was designed to give Unionists control in the northeastern part of the country. It did not create peace in Ireland. It created the opposite.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    a forefather of the Good Friday Agreement in this respect.

    No, it wasn't. It was the forefather of utter bigotry in Ireland.
    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    The sectarian establishment of unionist majority occurred later on, while partition had been the case for several years. What about that is hard to understand. It was not sectarian in its inception.

    Absolute nonsense. Protestants had been attacking catholics all across the north, especially in Derry and Down. Catholics were burnt out of their homes. Deep entrenched sectarianism existed on the brink of partition and continued through the existence of the state. Moreover, gerrymandering had existed since the inception of the the northern state (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/pdfs/csj84.pdf / http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm).


  • Options
    #104
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Terrontress wrote: »
    Just puzzled by your previous continued use of capitals for a specific word. Given your "*golf clap*" I thought you were giving up debate in favour of hollow digs so I thought I'd bring up your previous shortcomings for the amusement of others.

    Let's discuss the topic at hand. If that's ok with you.


  • Options
    #105
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0908/armagh.html

    What was the reasoning behind this ??

    Local people put at risk for what?

    Looks like some criminals not too happy that their operations were getting disturbed. Fair play to the forces of law and order on both sides for preventing innocent loss of life.

    OK then, getting back to basics, what was the reasoning behind this bomb? and how should the security forces tackle further episodes like the above?


  • Options
    #106
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Camelot wrote: »
    OK then, getting back to basics, what was the reasoning behind this bomb? and how should the security forces tackle further episodes like the above?

    They seem to be handling it fairly well. A bomb of that size would have taken a lot of investment in manhours/cost/logistics so I reckon they have oglaigh na heireann under decent surveilence and were aware it was happening.


Advertisement