More sectarian attacks in East Belfast

junder

woodoo wrote: »

Your lot really should have taken Ireland out of the name to avoid all confusion.

My lot?

woodoo

junder wrote: »

My lot?

Yeah Carson and co and your unionist brethren who set up Northern Ireland.

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

Erm I call it northern Ireland, which 'factually' speaking is it's name

Norn iron

Alopex

did anyone notice the TG4 presidential debate presenter referred to northern ireland as 'the 6 counties' ?

thought you irish folk had softened up?

junder

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah Carson and co and your unionist brethren who set up Northern Ireland.

Sorry mate but am far to Young to have been involved in the Setting up of Northern Ireland

KeithAFC

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan were too Catholic for you bigots that you didn't want them so I'm afraid what you refer to is not Ulster.

Yes but the other 6 counties are still Ulster. So I call it Ulster sometimes.

Lonesome Boatman

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes but the other 6 counties are still Ulster. So I call it Ulster sometimes.

Ulster is a part of Ireland, so the 6 counties are still Ireland. That makes you Irish, your family will have been in Ireland for generations.

junder

Lonesome Boatman wrote: »

Ulster is a part of Ireland, so the 6 counties are still Ireland. That makes you Irish, your family will have been in Ireland for generations.

Yawn

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

Yawn

Just what I was thinking. Almost as if they are trying to use a nationality as an insult.

RMD

Alopex wrote: »

did anyone notice the TG4 presidential debate presenter referred to northern ireland as 'the 6 counties' ?

thought you irish folk had softened up?

Most have, I think it's pretty cringeworthy hearing some refer to the North as "the 6 counties", "occupied 6" etc. It was on an Irish speaking channel, occasionally staff will be attracted who think in the mindset.

Tiocfaidh Armani

RMD wrote: »

Most have, I think it's pretty cringeworthy hearing some refer to the North as "the 6 counties", "occupied 6" etc. It was on an Irish speaking channel, occasionally staff will be attracted who think in the mindset.

Oh the shame of it all, a republican working on TV. Won't somebody think of the children...:rolleyes:

RMD

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Oh the shame of it all, a republican working on TV. Won't somebody think of the children...:rolleyes:

I have no problem with a Republican working on TV, someone who can't face fact though and refers to the North as the "6 counties", well it's a bit embarassing for a national channel.

junder

LaBaguette wrote: »

What ? I might be mistaken, but from what I've read online, and given that it amended the Bunreacht, I believe the GFA has force of law.

If that's the case, people can't decide not to abide by it just because they did not vote for the parties who signed it, or even worse because they changed their minds about the party or the agreement. Respecting the majority decision is one of the basis of democracy, whatever one thinks about that kind of government.

As for sectarian and, more broadly, religious schools funded by the state, it's an absolute disgrace in 2011.

The gfa was passed because a majorty of people supported it,however it value is also determined by those people who voted for it, as long as the majorty support it then yes it has the force of law, and the force of law, however if the majorty of people rejected the gfa then it becomes valueless, the gfa in fact even the law you mentioned require the majorty of people to acquiesce to it to have value. Pre revolution Russia had much of it's law tied on with it's monarchy the revolution came along and those laws became valueless and new laws took thier place

Wolfe Tone

RMD wrote: »

I have no problem with a Republican working on TV, someone who can't face fact though and refers to the North as the "6 counties", well it's a bit embarassing for a national channel.

Perhaps he was being a decent interviewer and using the language of the man who he was interviewing to set him at ease and have a non combative debate unlike the one on RTE.

SleepAtNight

RMD wrote: »

Most have, I think it's pretty cringeworthy hearing some refer to the North as "the 6 counties", "occupied 6" etc. It was on an Irish speaking channel, occasionally staff will be attracted who think in the mindset.

What's really cringeworthy is seeing Irish people quite content to accept as legitimate imperial rule on this island.

SleepAtNight

junder wrote: »

The gfa was passed because a majorty of people supported it,however it value is also determined by those people who voted for it, as long as the majorty support it then yes it has the force of law, and the force of law, however if the majorty of people rejected the gfa then it becomes valueless, the gfa in fact even the law you mentioned require the majorty of people to acquiesce to it to have value. Pre revolution Russia had much of it's law tied on with it's monarchy the revolution came along and those laws became valueless and new laws took thier place

I'm open to correction here but the only part I think that is legal is the part signed by the two states involved, southern Ireland and Britain. The part signed by the parties of the 6 Counties doesn't have as much weight. Like for instance the agreement on the Irish Language Act, the DUP can block this without any trouble because it's not legally binding.

KeithAFC

SleepAtNight wrote: »

What's really cringeworthy is seeing Irish people quite content to accept as legitimate imperial rule on this island.

"Imperial rule" which is wanted by the majority of people in that country. That is the way it is. It would be better if Republicans realised that, hopefully sooner rather than later.

SleepAtNight

KeithAFC wrote: »

"Imperial rule" which is wanted by the majority of people in that country. That is the way it is. It would be better if Republicans realised that, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Sorry Keith that's a lie. The majority of Irish people want a free and independent Ireland, a unionist minority say no. The Irish people are continually denied their right to full national sovereignty, and to vote as one, by partition imposed by a state with imperial motives.
The last time Irish people got a choice in this their democratic will was ignored and so started the Tan War. The country was then undemocratically partitioned to form a unionist majority on the island in the north east....the Irish people as a whole did not get to choose on this and partition was implemented under threat of the British gun. I was maintained by threat of violence thereafter. That is the nature of imperialism....a larger power trying to influence and control smaller nations.
The British state has geopolitical strategic reasons for being on this island for centuries. The main reason initially was because Ireland could be used as a back door for poor old Britannia to be invaded. British, and English before that, rule didn't come here to promote enligthenment or tolerance or modernity. It was selfish military strategy. And the loyalist population was an essential part in exercising some control over a hostile island. The British did not partition the island for the good of unionists. It was purely strategic and especially after WW1 when they realised that control of Ireland was so important for control of the seas after being cut off from continental Europe. They knew it would be essential to maintain a presence there if war were to break out again....in the end they had to settle for the north eastern corner of the isle.

RMD

SleepAtNight wrote: »

It was purely strategic and especially after WW1 when they realised that control of Ireland was so important for control of the seas after being cut off from continental Europe.

The return of the treaty ports in 1938 somewhat refutes that point considering most people knew war was on the doorstep. The past aside, the majority in the North want to retain the union unfortunately, the 94% of people who voted yes on the GFA agreed the only way that will change is democratically. Not really "imperial" rule when both countries voted in a landslide win to recognize it's status and future.

steddyeddy

RMD wrote: »

The return of the treaty ports in 1938 somewhat refutes that point considering most people knew war was on the doorstep. The past aside, the majority in the North want to retain the union unfortunately, the 94% of people who voted yes on the GFA agreed the only way that will change is democratically. Not really "imperial" rule when both countries voted in a landslide win to recognize it's status and future.

In fairness Churchill wanted the treaty ports back. He even promised to return to north for them. An offer which dev refused,.

KeithAFC

RMD wrote: »

The return of the treaty ports in 1938 somewhat refutes that point considering most people knew war was on the doorstep. The past aside, the majority in the North want to retain the union unfortunately, the 94% of people who voted yes on the GFA agreed the only way that will change is democratically. Not really "imperial" rule when both countries voted in a landslide win to recognize it's status and future.

There is no point in actually pointing out these facts though. It has been said time and time again. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain in the Union.

It really doesn't matter what the Irish people think in the Republic or even in Northern Ireland as they don't hold the majority in N.I.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is no point in actually pointing out these facts though. It has been said time and time again. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain in the Union.

It really doesn't matter what the Irish people think in the Republic or even in Northern Ireland as they don't hold the majority in N.I.

You may be right for now. But there are a sizable number of people north and south that will continue with the aim of unification. That will not go away no matter how much you wish to pretend they don't matter. Your country will always live with that cloud over it until unification happens. Doesn't matter if its 10 years, 100 years or X number of years.

KeithAFC

woodoo wrote: »

You may be right for now. But there are a sizable number of people north and south that will continue with the aim of unification. That will not go away no matter how much you wish to pretend they don't matter. Your country will always live with that cloud over it until unification happens. Doesn't matter if its 10 years, 100 years or X number of years.

That is fine. The PUL people will be here too and will be ready. No one is saying it is wrong for people to aspirations for a UI. We just need to make sure we all understand the facts.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is fine. The PUL people will be here too and will be ready. No one is saying it is wrong for people to aspirations for a UI. We just need to make sure we all understand the facts.

I agree and a peaceful and agreed UI should be the only way.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is no point in actually pointing out these facts though. It has been said time and time again. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain in the Union.

It really doesn't matter what the Irish people think in the Republic or even in Northern Ireland as they don't hold the majority in N.I.

Can I point out Kieth the good friday agreement which dictated the future of your country was partly decided by the Irish.

The second statement that "it doesnt matter what Irish think in the republic or northern ireland" is an attitude that has seen your community "pul" as you put it painted as the bad guys. Its an attitude which casues your community to score countless own goals against your cause holy cross, burning catholics out of their homes and this recent sectarian attack. A bit of free advice keith your attitude is what will reduce the numbers of pul in the north.

steddyeddy

woodoo wrote: »

I agree and a peaceful and agreed UI should be the only way.

Well then techincally you dont agree keith always talks about potential war when ireland is reunified.

woodoo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then techincally you dont agree keith always talks about potential war when ireland is reunified.

We'll not be long interning the participants in his violent rebellion

RMD

woodoo wrote: »

We'll not be long interning the participants in his violent rebellion

Why should we stoop to the levels the British did when we have a chance to act above them?

woodoo

RMD wrote: »

Why should we stoop to the levels the British did when we have a chance to act above them?

A secret state hit squad then.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can I point out Kieth the good friday agreement which dictated the future of your country was partly decided by the Irish.

The second statement that "it doesnt matter what Irish think in the republic or northern ireland" is an attitude that has seen your community "pul" as you put it painted as the bad guys. Its an attitude which casues your community to score countless own goals against your cause holy cross, burning catholics out of their homes and this recent sectarian attack. A bit of free advice keith your attitude is what will reduce the numbers of pul in the north.

The GFA just about got a majority from the Unionist community. A lot of people in the Unionist community did say no to it. You can bring Holy Cross into it but lets not go down the whataboutery route.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

The GFA just about got a majority from the Unionist community. A lot of people in the Unionist community did say no to it. You can bring Holy Cross into it but lets not go down the whataboutery route.

Its not even about whataboutery. I could be refer a lack of respect from any community towards another and the effects it can have on those communities.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its not even about whataboutery. I could be refer a lack of respect from any community towards another and the effects it can have on those communities.

No one brought respect into it for any community. It was about pointing out that the majority in N.I want to remain in the Union. When words such as imperial come into it, then some one has to point out the truth and try to get a bit of reality back into the thread.

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can I point out Kieth the good friday agreement which dictated the future of your country was partly decided by the Irish.

The second statement that "it doesnt matter what Irish think in the republic or northern ireland" is an attitude that has seen your community "pul" as you put it painted as the bad guys. Its an attitude which casues your community to score countless own goals against your cause holy cross, burning catholics out of their homes and this recent sectarian attack. A bit of free advice keith your attitude is what will reduce the numbers of pul in the north.

I would say that to all tense and purposes the vote in the republic was irrelevant. Tokenism really. The vote that mattered was between the nationalist / republicans and unionists / loyalists of northern Ireland. Parhaps if people in
The republic had voted no then maybe it could have put a spanner in The works put that was never really going to happen.

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

I would say that to all tense and purposes the vote in the republic was irrelevant. Tokenism really. The vote that mattered was between the nationalist / republicans and unionists / loyalists of northern Ireland. Parhaps if people in
The republic had voted no then maybe it could have put a spanner in The works put that was never really going to happen.

Junder the point about the vote in the republic quite possbily could have been tokenistic but It was important that the mainland britian and the republic of ireland show a sign of willingness to support peace in northern ireland.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

No one brought respect into it for any community. It was about pointing out that the majority in N.I want to remain in the Union. When words such as imperial come into it, then some one has to point out the truth and try to get a bit of reality back into the thread.

I was refering to the part when you said it doesnt matter what the irish in northern ireland think.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was refering to the part when you said it doesnt matter what the irish in northern ireland think.

Well when it comes to the national question at the minute, it really doesn't.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well when it comes to the national question at the minute, it really doesn't.

Of course it does keith the only time it wouldnt is if they hadnt a vote at all.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Of course it does keith the only time it wouldnt is if they hadnt a vote at all.

Yes but a nationalist vote for a UI would never pass as a majority. So it wouldn't mean anything in terms of the national question.

glic71rods46t0

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes but a nationalist vote for a UI would never pass as a majority. So it wouldn't mean anything in terms of the national question.

A majority vote on the 32 counties would pass quite easily Keith. And soon, a majority of a gerrymandered statelet will be achievable too.

I included the gerrymandered statelet as that is what is required in the international agreement aka the Good Friday Agreement;)

KeithAFC

rzqbna3gh1di42 wrote: »

A majority vote on the 32 counties would pass quite easily Keith. And soon, a majority of a gerrymandered statelet will be achievable too.

I included the gerrymandered statelet as that is what is required in the international agreement aka the Good Friday Agreement;)

The Good Friday Agreement says it requires a majority in Northern Ireland. Not the Irish Republic.

glic71rods46t0

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement says it requires a majority in Northern Ireland. Not the Irish Republic.

maybe you should phrase your posts a bit better Keith - but dont worry the demographics suggest that the majority is not too far off;)

KeithAFC

rzqbna3gh1di42 wrote: »

maybe you should phrase your posts a bit better Keith - but dont worry the demographics suggest that the majority is not too far off;)

Which demographics is this?

glic71rods46t0

KeithAFC wrote: »

Which demographics is this?

Don't worry about it Keith. Its a big word, so don't worry it will come to you soon! It relates to population growth. Basically nationalists have more kids and emigrate less than unionists - resulting in more nationalist voters;)

KeithAFC

rzqbna3gh1di42 wrote: »

Don't worry about it Keith. Its a big word, so don't worry it will come to you soon! It relates to population growth. Basically nationalists have more kids and emigrate less than unionists - resulting in more nationalist voters;)

The old Catholics have more kids nonsense. As if all Catholics are Republicans. When if you look at the facts, there is more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

SleepAtNight

RMD wrote: »

The return of the treaty ports in 1938 somewhat refutes that point considering most people knew war was on the doorstep. The past aside, the majority in the North want to retain the union unfortunately, the 94% of people who voted yes on the GFA agreed the only way that will change is democratically. Not really "imperial" rule when both countries voted in a landslide win to recognize it's status and future.

Giving back the Treaty Ports was folly from a British military point of view and the military prostested vigourously against. However, still having control of the north east was essential. As later transpired Derry was to prove critical as a naval and air base (there were more in other parts of the 6 Counties) for the US and British, after both allies had been completely cut off from mainland Europe and US vessels were struggling to make British shores. The availability of bases further west of Britain in north east Ireland began to turn the tide in the war. The combination of suitable bases in the north of Ireland and the setting up of training facilities there gave the advanatge to the US/British military alliance. Without the north of this country Britain would probably have joined France eventually in falling to German miltary might.

SleepAtNight

KeithAFC wrote: »

The old Catholics have more kids nonsense. As if all Catholics are Republicans. When if you look at the facts, there is more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

What facts? NIO statistics? Hardly reliable data. Going by that SF shouldn't be able to get half the number of votes they're getting. And I don't know anyone that's ever been surveyed. And anyways Keith you should know, northerners never tell the truth in surveys;)

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

The old Catholics have more kids nonsense. As if all Catholics are Republicans. When if you look at the facts, there is more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

Unemployed people have more kids.

glic71rods46t0

KeithAFC wrote: »

The old Catholics have more kids nonsense. As if all Catholics are Republicans. When if you look at the facts, there is more Catholic Unionists than Protestant Republicans.

Read my post again Keith. You seem to be mixing up catholics and protestants for nationalists or unionists. I didnt mention religious persuasion at all, I simply mentioned politicial persuasion.
Your reply is a lame duck! Try harder;)
Nationalist vote is increasing - no one, except religious bigots, cares if they are catholic or protestant

KeithAFC

rzqbna3gh1di42 wrote: »

Read my post again Keith. You seem to be mixing up catholics and protestants for nationalists or unionists. I didnt mention religious persuasion at all, I simply mentioned politicial persuasion.
Your reply is a lame duck! Try harder;)
Nationalist vote is increasing - no one, except religious bigots, cares if they are catholic or protestant

So what if it is increasing? The working class Loyalist vote is down because the DUP and UUP don't represent them well and the PUP is a bit of a disaster at the moment.

The percentage of people who voted in the last general election was a very poor turn out by the electorate. The days in which large numbers of people vote seem to be over. Unless a referendum was called.

Your argument is actually very weak and doesn't have a lot of facts to back it up.

RMD

rzqbna3gh1di42 wrote: »

Don't worry about it Keith. Its a big word, so don't worry it will come to you soon! It relates to population growth. Basically nationalists have more kids and emigrate less than unionists - resulting in more nationalist voters;)

Can you not hold a debate with resorting to petty remarks? He clearly knows what demographics means, it just makes you look childish. The demographics wont change significantly for a few decades unfortunately, although the nationalist vote is increasing, it wont tip in the favor of a UI for quite a while.

Us taking on the North within the next 10-20 years doesn't make much sense either, an economically nonviable country taking on an economic parasite is a disaster. Not to mention, the Loyalists will not take it sitting down, they've shown in the past they can be clever and barbaric when they're not getting their way, our army and Garda wont be capable of dealing with a guerrilla war by the Loyalists, they wont be prepared for it at all.