McDowell calls for 12 July to be public holiday in Ireland

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Imagine that on an Irish politics forum!?! People analysing the motivation of dissidents. Whatever next?

Does trying to figure out NAMA make you a Fianna Fail supporter?

Rationalisation leads to normalisation, and hence justification.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Rationalisation leads to normalisation, and hence justification.

Analysis leads to undestanding leads to a more likely possibility of stopping them.

What you are in effect arguing is that anyone who disagrees with you is dangerous and should not be allowed do so. Which is fascism.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What you are in effect arguing is that anyone who disagrees with you is dangerous and should not be allowed do so. Which is fascism.

Straw man. Nobody's arguing that people who disagree with them are dangerous; we are arguing that people who plant bombs in residential areas are dangerous, and should not be allowed to do so.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Analysis leads to undestanding leads to a more likely possibility of stopping them.

What you are in effect arguing is that anyone who disagrees with you is dangerous and should not be allowed do so. Which is fascism.

There is a difference between analysing their behaviour - which one might argue stems from divisions at home which lead to terrorist activity, or which one may conclude that some people are utter scumbags and maniacs and a complete waste of oxygen.

Rationalisation and analysis are two different beasts, as you aim to rationalise their behaviour and thus present it as ordinary and orthodox, while the reality is that they are fascist scum.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

Straw man. Nobody's arguing that people who disagree with them are dangerous; we are arguing that people who plant bombs in residential areas are dangerous, and should not be allowed to do so.

Who is arguing they are not?

Yourself and Denerick have been pushing the line that they are bloodthirsty scumbags and thats all there is to it. Which was exactly the analysis of the Brits 40 years ago. Some of us are simply probing it a bit more with a view to not having another 40 years of it.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yourself and Denerick have been pushing the line that they are bloodthirsty scumbags and thats all there is to it.

They are bloodthirsty scumbags with an agenda. They are using the end to justify the means. Same thing terrorists everywhere do.

Which was exactly the analysis of the Brits 40 years ago. Some of us are simply probing it a bit more with a view to not having another 40 years of it.

We've already had the simplistic suggestion that we can solve the terrorism problem by giving the terrorists what they want. Has your in-depth analysis come up with a more constructive plan than that?

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

They are bloodthirsty scumbags with an agenda. They are using the end to justify the means. Same thing terrorists everywhere do.

If thats as insightful you can get, I would respectfully suggest that you are a political illiterate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've already had the simplistic suggestion that we can solve the terrorism problem by giving the terrorists what they want. Has your in-depth analysis come up with a more constructive plan than that?

Yes. I think it very interesting that Adams has opened a dialogue with the C-IRA, and the British government are making similar noises. Deal head on with the social disadvantage that is in areas like Ardoyne. Remove the last sectarian RUC types from service in these areas - the complaint levels are appaling. Thats a start - remove the victimhood element that still exists.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If thats as insightful you can get, I would respectfully suggest that you are a political illiterate.

OK, enlighten me. What will they achieve through terrorism that they couldn't achieve through moral and legal avenues?

Deal head on with the social disadvantage that is in areas like Ardoyne. Remove the last sectarian RUC types from service in these areas - the complaint levels are appaling. Thats a start - remove the victimhood element that still exists.

None of which will be achieved without the threat of mass murder?

hitbit

Denerick wrote: »

How were we 'enslaved' by the British Empire? The Liberal British Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech for a wide range of extreme publications, Republicans among them. Its hardly a slave relationship when the dominant State is subsidising land redistribution from its dominant and most loyal class to a generally disloyal peasantry and who allowed the likes of D.P. Moran to publically publish seditious tracts calling for an overthrow of the State.

I almost feel I have to post this disclaimer, judging by the ill thought passions that run amock in this thread - I am not a Unionist, a Nationalist or a Republican. I am just an Irishman able to see bull**** when its staring right back at me.

Redistributing what they stole when they invaded this country murdering everyone who stood in their way in the process.
The said loyal class were mostly greedy Englishmen who were gifted land in Ireland by the invader. The rightfukk owners, the Irish people were militarily and or financially forced from their land so as to facilitate this "gifting"
Guaranteed freedom of speech so long as it was what they wished to hear. That which they did not want to hear they labelled treason.
It was in deed a slave relationship. They invaded this country, butchered many residents who oppossed them while selling thousands more into foreign slavery.
Sedition was the invaders opinion of Moran's demands that they return Ireland to its rightfull owners, the Irish people.

Keep waving that Union Jack.

hitbit

Denerick

Will a mod please sort out that post above me.

Thanks.

oscarBravo

If you have a problem with a post, report it using the button. If we see fit, we'll act on the report.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, enlighten me. What will they achieve through terrorism that they couldn't achieve through moral and legal avenues?

Well the Provos achieved civil rights and tore down Stormont.

I assume they believe that the British are sick and tired and don't have the stomach for 40 more years. I believe they are wrong on that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

None of which will be achieved without the threat of mass murder?

I don't defend them one bit, but I think its a serious enough issue that we could go a bit deeper than 'they are scum'

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Well the Provos achieved civil rights and tore down Stormont.

What, like Padraig Pearse achieved a republic - more than thirty years later?

You don't terrorise your way to civil rights. If anything, the provos delayed the development of Northern Ireland into a normal society, and the current bunch of sociopaths will delay it still further.

I assume they believe that the British are sick and tired and don't have the stomach for 40 more years. I believe they are wrong on that.

If they think they can force a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland through terrorism, they're not merely wrong, but deeply stupid.

I don't defend them one bit, but I think its a serious enough issue that we could go a bit deeper than 'they are scum'

But they are scum. They're scum who clearly believe in what they are doing, but so were the scum who flew planes into the WTC.

junder

hitbit wrote: »

Redistributing what they stole when they invaded this country murdering everyone who stood in their way in the process.
The said loyal class were mostly greedy Englishmen who were gifted land in Ireland by the invader. The rightfukk owners, the Irish people were militarily and or financially forced from their land so as to facilitate this "gifting"
Guaranteed freedom of speech so long as it was what they wished to hear. That which they did not want to hear they labelled treason.
It was in deed a slave relationship. They invaded this country, butchered many residents who oppossed them while selling thousands more into foreign slavery.
Sedition was the invaders opinion of Moran's demands that they return Ireland to its rightfull owners, the Irish people.

Keep waving that Union Jack.

hitbit

Don't worry mate I will indeed keep the union flag flying although I would like to know were this wealth I am supposed to have stole has got to, certinly not in my pocket. As for stolen land well I was born in northern Ireland so I don't know what land I am supposed to have stolen even the house I live in is owned by the council.

Iwasfrozen

junder wrote: »

Don't worry mate I will indeed keep the union flag flying although I would like to know were this wealth I am supposed to have stole has got to, certinly not in my pocket. As for stolen land well I was born in northern Ireland so I don't know what land I am supposed to have stolen even the house I live in is owned by the council.

Don't worry about him. He's living in the past. He probably blames modern Germans for Nazi war crimes.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Rationalisation leads to normalisation, and hence justification.

TBH I do not think anyone here, certainly I don't, feel that the dissidents are justified. Its just not that hard to understand why they are doing what they are. It is not mindless.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't terrorise your way to civil rights.
.

Well its considered good form to ask first, then protest. I believe both occurred in that order and - the latter having been met with force - the inevitable occurred.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If anything, the provos delayed the development of Northern Ireland into a normal society,
.

It was the delay in developing NI into a normal society that fuelled the Provos.

pajero2.8

all i can say is one mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter

Wolfe Tone

Anyway, to get vaguely back on topic the UVF band has been banned from marching.

junder

Sure we knew that days ago

Red_Marauder

hitbit wrote: »

Redistributing what they stole when they invaded this country murdering everyone who stood in their way in the process.

This has already been done, and in fact most of it was done before 1916, when Irish land was repatriated through the Land Acts. You could say that the Land Commission finished the job, but you could equally say that the land commission as established under the Irish Government was actually guilty of the same sort of 'gifting'.

On "Slavery"

The said loyal class were mostly greedy Englishmen who were gifted land in Ireland by the invader

Whether they were greedy or not is irrelevant. They were getting the land anyway and it has nothing to do with slavery, whose definition you might wish to take another look at.

Guaranteed freedom of speech so long as it was what they wished to hear. That which they did not want to hear they labelled treason.
It was in deed a slave relationship.

First of all, there was widespread freedom of speech - moreso than most places in the world at that time and moreso than many places in the world today.

Secondly, even an outright ban on freedom of speech is not slavery.

This talk of slavery is something that really bugs me about Ireland's colonial past; for much of the time in our history under British rule, Irish people were quite happy to remain that way - rebel songs and minor uprisings notwithstanding. most people were quite content and british rule was not one of their main day to day concerns. They were not 'slaves'.

sensibleken

Red_Marauder wrote: »

This talk of slavery is something that really bugs me about Ireland's colonial past; for much of the time in our history under British rule, Irish people were quite happy to remain that way - rebel songs and minor uprisings notwithstanding. most people were quite content and british rule was not one of their main day to day concerns. They were not 'slaves'.

We were actually. There is plenty of writtings on the slave trade where the irish were shipped off to the west indies and america in the aftermath of the cromwellian invasion.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT


TG4 did a fantastic documentary called the 'Redlegs' which is available on their website

Red_Marauder

sensibleken wrote: »

We were actually. There is plenty of writtings on the slave trade where the irish were shipped off to the west indies and america in the aftermath of the cromwellian invasion.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT


TG4 did a fantastic documentary called the 'Redlegs' which is available on their website

You're quoting an article from the Catholic Weekly?

What you're talking about are indentured servants. That type of worker/ petty criminal is well known - they are not slaves, they were often English, and they were always 'freed' from their sentence after they had paid for their crimes by working as servants. Most people would have chosen to go and work as servants rather than rot or be executed here in Ireland (or England, for that matter), actually.

Fratton Fred

sensibleken wrote: »

We were actually. There is plenty of writtings on the slave trade where the irish were shipped off to the west indies and america in the aftermath of the cromwellian invasion.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT


TG4 did a fantastic documentary called the 'Redlegs' which is available on their website

Redlegs did/does not specifically refer to Irish indentured servents, just "White" people working in the West Indies, be they slaves, indentured servents or deported criminals.

TG4 likes to consider them all to be Irish because it fits into the "the Irish were treated worse than the Jews" mindset, but it simply isn't true.

Google "Redlegs" and see what results you get.

You also have to take it into the context of the day. Indentured servents in the west Indies would have included British, Irish, Dutch, French and Belgians. it was not a practice being used solely by the British.

essentially, back in the day, if you were poor you were shat on by the wealthier classes regardless of your religion or nationality.

sensibleken

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You're quoting an article from the Catholic Weekly?

What you're talking about are indentured servants. That type of worker/ petty criminal is well known - they are not slaves, they were often English, and they were always 'freed' from their sentence after they had paid for their crimes by working as servants. Most people would have chosen to go and work as servants rather than rot or be executed here in Ireland (or England, for that matter), actually.

I did not say they were exclusively Irish. and i dont see why the article being hosted on a catholic site is of any importance, i selected this due to convenience but it is by no means the only account

They were indentured and forced to work with the promise that they would get land at the end of it. the problem was that not only was the term outside the life expectancy of those who arrived but the promise failed to materialise. Some certainly did go on to freedom but the majority worked to the end of their lives without pay, this is slavery. their 'crime' was not theiving but offering resistance to the new model army.

sensibleken

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Redlegs did/does not specifically refer to Irish indentured servents, just "White" people working in the West Indies, be they slaves, indentured servents or deported criminals.

TG4 likes to consider them all to be Irish because it fits into the "the Irish were treated worse than the Jews" mindset, but it simply isn't true.

Google "Redlegs" and see what results you get.

You also have to take it into the context of the day. Indentured servents in the west Indies would have included British, Irish, Dutch, French and Belgians. it was not a practice being used solely by the British.

essentially, back in the day, if you were poor you were shat on by the wealthier classes regardless of your religion or nationality.

Im aware that redlegs refers to other whites and that other whites were slaves in the west indies and i couldnt agree more with your last sentence.

that does not take away from the fact that after the cromwellian invasion an enormous amount of people were shipped off from Ireland as indentured labour where they worked without pay but on the promise that they would be. this promise failed to materialse and this is slavery by any definition.

anyway,this in no way relates to what were talking about which is the current situation northern ireland any more than laudabilliter does

junder

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Who is arguing they are not?

Yourself and Denerick have been pushing the line that they are bloodthirsty scumbags and thats all there is to it. Which was exactly the analysis of the Brits 40 years ago. Some of us are simply probing it a bit more with a view to not having another 40 years of it.

3 children hurt in a bomb blast over the weekend, whats your analysis of that?

Wolfe Tone

junder wrote: »

3 children hurt in a bomb blast over the weekend, whats your analysis of that?

A disgraceful attack which helps no one. Important though to remember that they were targeting the PSNI, or else you run the danger of rushing down the sensationalist rag route perfectly demonstrated by the Irish News front page today which reads "They're targeting kids"

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A disgraceful attack which helps no one. Important though to remember that they were targeting the PSNI, or else you run the danger of rushing down the sensationalist rag route perfectly demonstrated by the Irish News front page today which reads "They're targeting kids"

They might as well be. You can 'target' the PSNI but there is a still a very large chance they will kill innocents. They know it, I know it, you know it. Don't make excuses for fascist scumbags with no respect for human life, human rights, or the democratic consensus.

I really really hope these men burn and die in hell, in twisted and contorted agony for eternity.

sensibleken

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

A disgraceful attack which helps no one. Important though to remember that they were targeting the PSNI, or else you run the danger of rushing down the sensationalist rag route perfectly demonstrated by the Irish News front page today which reads "They're targeting kids"

they may have been targeting PSNI. but they left a bomb which had a high probability of killing anyone in its proximity! it hurt kids. it could have killed kids. the fact that the kids were lucky will not deter them from trying again and i think that attitude is the most telling

this is the whole thing as far as im concerned. i could not, no matter how much i believed in any cause leave a device which could kill innocent people just lying there in the hope it will reach someone i consider a 'legitimate target'. thats what makes them monsters, what they intended is neither here nor there

OhNoYouDidn't

junder wrote: »

3 children hurt in a bomb blast over the weekend, whats your analysis of that?

Pointless and very nearly another Omagh.

What else did you think I would say?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Pointless and very nearly another Omagh.

What else did you think I would say?

Do you think your strong support of the Dissident's position invariably leads and hence justifies such attacks?

The support for the dissidents, however inchoate, only strengthens their hand. These scum - and utter absolute scum, I might add - need to be shunned, they need to be made an example of by the civilised community. They are surplus to humanitie's requirements, the filth on the bottom of my boot. They are thugs with a cause. A stupid cause at that. If they grew up in any English city they would be common crooks and murderers - since they are Irish, they are elevated to the level of freedom fighter (By some)

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

They might as well be. You can 'target' the PSNI but there is a still a very large chance they will kill innocents. They know it, I know it, you know it. Don't make excuses for fascist scumbags with no respect for human life, human rights, or the democratic consensus.

I really really hope these men burn and die in hell, in twisted and contorted agony for eternity.

I am not making excuses, I am simply pointing out the truth. Some people, that paper I referenced earlier included, state that children where the targets, which as we all know, they were not. Do you agree? The police were. A few hours later shots where fired at the PSNI in a Lurgan estate.

The mind boggles at the attack though, even if you try to look at it from the presumed attackers pov. Why would they place a bomb in a nationalist stronghold like Lurgan near a school, with the possibility of children being killed? Absolutely disgraceful on every level. With any luck the bombers will think twice before setting up any more bombs after this. I have my doubts though. Good to see though that the attack has had quite widespread condemnation.


Although I wonder if we can rule out that this is a Loyalist attack? Not beyond the realms of possibility. Personally though I reckon it was an IRA one.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Do you think your strong support of the Dissident's position invariably leads and hence justifies such attacks?

You really are one of the most infuriatingly arrogant posters on this site.

At no point have I offered any support whatsoever for them, merely tried to analyise WHY there are a generation of young men willing to fight on beyond the insightful 'they are scum' position put forward by yourself.

Stop puttiig words in peoples mouths and trying to pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you as a terrorist.

Jaap

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You really are one of the most infuriatingly arrogant posters on this site.

At no point have I offered any support whatsoever for them, merely tried to analyise WHY there are a generation of young men willing to fight on beyond the insightful 'they are scum' position put forward by yourself.

Stop puttiig words in peoples mouths and trying to pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you as a terrorist.

I don't see how you can analyse the reason why dissidents are coming close to murdering children...causing riots in areas where people don't want them...attempting to murder police officers.

They do not have any reason to be attempting to murder or terrorising mostly their own communities through petrol bombing etc!!!

What is there to analyse???

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

Do you think your strong support of the Dissident's position invariably leads and hence justifies such attacks?

I dont recall seeing him say he supported them?

The support for the dissidents, however inchoate, only strengthens their hand.

Obviously.

These scum - and utter absolute scum, I might add - need to be shunned, they need to be made an example of by the civilised community.

I disagree. These people need to be engaged with. Shunning them, or ramping up a police crackdown, or bringing the army onto the streets is what they want. If backed into a corner they will resort to "spectaculars" and no one wants that. What do you suggest the "civilized community" do? Would it not be better to address the roots of this problem? For every volunteer that is arrested more will take his or her place.

A stupid cause at that.

I do not think its stupid. It is stupid the way they are trying to achieve it though. They are not even attempting to drive the Brits out here, it is an attempt to "smash the myth of normalization"

If they grew up in any English city they would be common crooks and murderers

Thats rubbish. They would not be doing what they are doing where they English. They are not simply common crooks and should not be treated as such. That was tried with the PIRA and that never worked. Dialogue is the only answer here, something that Martin McGuinnesss says they are currently engaged in. The first step is to establish a cease fire.

- since they are Irish, they are elevated to the level of freedom fighter (By some)

No, since they are Irish and reject the authority of Britain in their native land and demand self determination for this island they are elevated to the level of freedom fighters by some very disillusioned souls.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Do you think your strong support of the Dissident's position invariably leads and hence justifies such attacks?

I've looked back over his posts and see no evidence of this. Please provide quotes and links to back up that assertion.

the_dark_side

McDowell made this suggestion to divert public attention from the glaringly more important issues facing the country at the minute. This announcement serves as a smoke screen to hide the impending financial mega tsunami about to obliterate the country from December onwards. McDowell knows that this issue would be like a red rag to a bull in the eyes of many thousands of people... it is a simple but effective way of diverting public anger, and it seems alot of people have fallen for it

lugha

the_dark_side wrote: »

McDowell made this suggestion to divert public attention from the glaringly more important issues facing the country at the minute. This announcement serves as a smoke screen to hide the impending financial mega tsunami about to obliterate the country from December onwards. McDowell knows that this issue would be like a red rag to a bull in the eyes of many thousands of people... it is a simple but effective way of diverting public anger, and it seems alot of people have fallen for it

And why would he want to do that? What would he gain?

Wolfe Tone

lugha wrote: »

And why would he want to do that? What would he gain?

He isn't in the government any more, or even a TD.

OhNoYouDidn't

Jaap wrote: »

I don't see how you can analyse the reason why dissidents are coming close to murdering children...causing riots in areas where people don't want them...attempting to murder police officers.

Are you for real? If John Major or Tony Blair took that line, the Provo's would still be going strong.

What a surreal thing to post on an internet discussion forum. "Please stop discussing something as I disagree with you"

Jaap wrote: »

They do not have any reason to be attempting to murder or terrorising mostly their own communities through petrol bombing etc!!!

I agree.

Jaap wrote: »

What is there to analyse???

These people are doing what they do for a reason. Lets try and find out what that reason is and from that deduce a way to get them to stop, whether that be dialogue, isolating them within their community or a crackdown.

OhNoYouDidn't

Nodin wrote: »

I've looked back over his posts and see no evidence of this. Please provide quotes and links to back up that assertion.

Just to echo that. Its an outrageous allegation. Back it up or withdraw it please denerick.

Edit----

In one of those "you couldn't make it up" episodes, I've been ticked by a mod for personalising things against Denerick.

Really into the realm of the surreal now.

Cú Giobach

IRB/Irish Volunteers---Decried, called murdering scum not fit to live. >>

"The Old" IRA----SPLIT----Free state Army & IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live)

IRA

---

SPLIT

---

Official IRA (workers party) & Provisional IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live) >>

Provisional IRA----SPLIT

---

Many now in Powersharing & Real/Continuity IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live).

Real/C IRA----> ?????????(up to us)

[Note; very basic (slightly inaccurate) and not a representation of the full complexity, just a quick sketch to make a point.]

The wheel still turning, will the circle stay unbroken.

We need only look at the past to see what works and what doesn't.

[any posts saying I am sympathising will be ignored because I Am Not.]

Wolfe Tone

Cú Giobach wrote: »

IRB/Irish Volunteers---Decried, called murdering scum not fit to live. >>

"The Old" IRA----SPLIT----Free state Army & IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live)

IRA

---

SPLIT

---

Official IRA (workers party) & Provisional IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live) >>

Provisional IRA----SPLIT

---

Many now in Powersharing & Real/Continuity IRA (decried, called murdering scum not fit to live).

Real/C IRA----> ?????????(up to us)

[Note; very basic (slightly inaccurate) and not a representation of the full complexity, just a quick sketch to make a point.]

The wheel still turning, will the circle stay unbroken.

We need only look at the past to see what works and what doesn't.

[any posts saying I am sympathising will be ignored because I Am Not.]

You forgot OnH in there, they split from either the CIRA or the RIRA I can't remember which. Think it was RIRA.

sensibleken

This is all getting a bit mad!

I think people are confusing understanding with empathising. To understand something is to know its cause. I think we can all agree that we need to understand a problem before we tackle it right?

There are two schools of thought here. One, treat them like common criminals and throw them into jail. Thats been criticised as the attitude led to an increase in IRA activity in the past.

But the conditions have changed dramatically so it is only so usefull to use that. They were at the time still seen as having a legitimate cause due to the civil rights movement, internment etc. What could be the justification for carrying out a violent campaign now (with reference to specifics)

Cú Giobach

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You forgot OnH in there, they split from either the CIRA or the RIRA I can't remember which. Think it was RIRA.

Don't want to make alphabet soup trying to keep it simple(ish)

Kept thinking of the Monty Python Life of Brian sketch "Peoples Front of Judea, Judeans Peoples Front etc" writing that post.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I disagree. These people need to be engaged with. Shunning them, or ramping up a police crackdown, or bringing the army onto the streets is what they want.

I agree that shunning them is probably not the way forward, but discuss what exactly with them?

What happens when the next group want to usurp the democratic process and get to the negotiating table, how many bombs do they have to place before they get an invite?

What if they don't want to talk, what then? if their only objctive is "Brits Out" how do we go about that?

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

What could be the justification for carrying out a violent campaign now (with reference to specifics)

One word.......Occupation

As long as the 6 counties are part of the UK there will always be an element who will justify using violence "against the occupation", then if there is a vote for a United Ireland there will always be another element who will justify using violence against that "occupation".
This is the reality of the situation and no amount of "forum bickering" will change that.
Looking at world history it seems the solution will only come when a bigger threat threatens and the 2 sides will fight together against that (whatever and whenever that will be).

sensibleken

Cú Giobach wrote: »

One word.......Occupation

Not enough. Occupation is an emotive word. It is not occupation for the Loyalist citizens of NI.

Please explain why the situation today warrents violence

Cú Giobach wrote: »

As long as the 6 counties are part of the UK there will always be an element who will justify using violence "against the occupation", then if there is a vote for a United Ireland there will always be another element who will justify using violence against that "occupation".

So perhaps the UK should have a vote to just be friends with the north and the south can do the same

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

Not enough. Occupation is an empotive word. It is not occupation for the Loyalist citizens of NI.

Please explain why the situation today warrents violence

How the f**k am I supposed to do that. I'm only stating that is the reason that will be given.
Did you actually read my post? Try reading again.

For the proper answer to that question you would need to ask someone who actually believes violence is the answer.

So perhaps the UK should have a vote to just be friends with the north and the south can do the same

I actually said in the previous post how I believe the situation will resolve. And I truly believe that.