Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Where were you born? What country are you from?

I've answered the question above.

I never claimed the term has never been used. I claimed I never remember hearing it outside the examples I gave. Again you are twisting what was said.

If you're not claiming the phrase hasn't been used, then you're not refuting what I said, so I'm at a loss as to what your point was.

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've answered the question above. If you're not claiming the phrase hasn't been used, then you're not refuting what I said, so I'm at a loss as to what your point was.

lol oh my god! ok I'll assume you were born in Northern Ireland. If you can point out where you have said otherwise then please accept my apology for getting it wrong, is that fair?
My point was that I have heard it but not often and not as you said "Well, I guess if you've never seen or heard the term used, it has never been used." does that clear it up?

gurramok

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you that knows me better than I know myself: what's my opinion on Bloody Sunday? How do I feel about security force collusion with loyalist terrorists?

Don't care is your view. Which is extremely unfair as you are very fast to condemn one side only.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're correct that I'm more vocal in my criticism of republican terrorists, because they impinge more directly on me. Republicans, not loyalists, use weasel words to pretend that the country of my birth doesn't exist, or is illegitimate. Republicans, not loyalists, repeatedly put my father's life at risk when he was defending the security of my state while I grew up. Republicans, not loyalists, are sitting in my national parliament, hypocritically lecturing the government about its treatment of the Irish people.

Out of all that it must be personal as you certainly did not have love for the founding fathers of our state in debates on 1916, Home Rule and the British Commonwealth. And if its personal(for whatever reason), the DUP can put past differences aside for the greater good, take a leaf out of their book.

Ghandee

oscarBravo wrote: »

I actually don't think the Geneva Conventions apply to the IRA, because they were not at war. As far as I'm concerned they're not war criminals; they're just criminals. I only brought up the GC to point out that it's awfully convenient to claim that the IRA were an army at war, when that "army" ignored the laws of war to their heart's content.

In answer to your question: I'm sure there are no shortage of examples of national armies breaking the Geneva Conventions. I'm on record, for example, as describing the bombing of Dresden as an inexcusable act of mass murder and a war crime.

Someone really should have been good enough to have told the British Govt and army that there was 'no war' raging in the north for the guts of 40 years then.

If they had of done, they would not have felt the need to station so many war trained troops in our country. All armed to the teeth, all ready and willing to open fire at a moments notice.

They would not have had to confiscate land from citizens in order to build military barracks and helicopter bases.

They would not have needed to send the various machines of war, including armoured cars, saracens, helicopters and spy planes to the north.

There was a time I recall it was next to impossible, definitely unusual if we could travel from A~B without coming upon, or in some cases (in our fields at night) into an army checkpoint.

Sometimes these army checkpoints involved English/Welsh/Scottish soldiers, ofttimes it included a gang of local loyalist thugs wearing uniforms with UDR badges on them. I have no doubt in many cases, after taking our names, DOB/Adresses/Car details and registration details, these got passed to the local OC of a loyalist paramilitary wing in the local loyalist bar at a later date. (The RUC told my father his life was in danger on a number of occasions)

The SAS have been deployed in the north on numerous occasions, the elite of the British army rarely get sent to places not considered 'warzones'.

Slightly off-topic, but I'll risk askimng you this anyway.

What are your opinions on the recent conflicts in the Arab world?

Was Gaddafi (for example) overthrown by 'terrorists' or would you consider the rebel army who helped overthrow his regime a legitimate force?

I grew up in South Derry, child of the mid-seventies, believeyou me that Thatcher was considered an evil dictator and tyrant to many folk in my village/county and indeed few of us will find room for remorse in our hearts when her passing comes.

In every conflict/war there will ususaly be two opposing forces, in the conflict in the north it generally consisted of Republicans, whose general aim was that of a united Ireland, the other being forces of/or 'loyal' to the crown.

The fact that you consider the IRA the 'bad guys' in that conflict, is irrelevant, and does not mean the war/conflict didnt happen.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough: you can hold yourself to one standard, and demand that others hold themselves to a different one. There's a word for that.

Taoiseach

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

I refer you to the last line of your own post. From the constitution of the sovereign country of my birth: "Éire is ainm don Stát nó, sa Sacs-Bhéarla, Ireland." / "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." No siree bob, nothing derisive there.

Believe it or not, a desire not to see a United Ireland is a legitimate view to hold. You don't have to like it.

You conveniently forget to mention that when that was written the constitution claimed the entire island as it's territory.

SoulandForm

gurramok wrote: »

Out of all that it must be personal as you certainly did not have love for the founding fathers of our state in debates on 1916, Home Rule and the British Commonwealth. And if its personal(for whatever reason), the DUP can put past differences aside for the greater good, take a leaf out of their book.

The DUP doesnt have exactly clean hands itself, in its heart of hearts it knows that its condemnation of the Provos is hypocritical which is why it can work them so easily in a way that I dont think the UUP could (this isnt a defense of the UUP).

I dont think that either Sinn Fein or the DUP are working for a greater good, having said that they are a real improvement on the old Unionist Party.

It would be good to have the old Irish Independence Party back.

gurramok

SoulandForm wrote: »

The DUP doesnt have exactly clean hands itself, in its heart of hearts it knows that its condemnation of the Provos is hypocritical which is why it can work them so easily in a way that I dont think the UUP could (this isnt a defense of the UUP).

I dont think that either Sinn Fein or the DUP are working for a greater good, having said that they are a real improvement on the old Unionist Party.

What i was saying was that they are working together with SF for stability leaving the past behind working for a better future despite the hate(they wont derail powersharing over a flag despite their recent rhetoric), certain posters here still cannot move on.

SoulandForm wrote: »

It would be good to have the old Irish Independence Party back.

Care to elaborate?

Godge

GRMA wrote: »

How is it derisive?

When one thinks of Ireland as a single nation it is necessary to come up with a way to differentiate between the British controlled territory and the rest to avoid confusion. 26 counties and 6 counties is an easy way to do such... "Ireland" is not, and has never been, just the 26 counties, although I appreciate that that may be hard to accept for partitionists like yourself

There are people living in what you call the "26 counties" who are happy with "Ireland" consisting of "26 counties". The denial of that reality by "32 county Ireland" aspirants is similar to the way the republican community in the North denied the reality of the unionist aspiration for decades and prolonged the conflict unnecessarily.

All aspirations must be recognised and given expression. Saying that "Ireland" is not, and has never been, just the "26 counties" denies the legitimacy of those who are happy and content with the status quo.

SoulandForm

gurramok wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Independence_Party

I believe that English/"British" Imperialism/Colonialism is a problem in Northern Ireland and is preventing the place from reaching its full potential, of course there are other problems as well. Sinn Fein whether you want to admit or not are a tribal party in Northern Ireland, yet for all their "Republicanism" they welcome foreign companies coming in and even didnt oppose the creation of a huge MI5 base which the SDLP to its credit did.

I would like a non-tribal party that is for Irish Independence and a socially just Republic for everyone- rather than one focused on the needs of the "Nationalist community" within Northern Ireland.

GRMA

Godge wrote: »

There are people living in what you call the "26 counties" who are happy with "Ireland" consisting of "26 counties". The denial of that reality by "32 county Ireland" aspirants is similar to the way the republican community in the North denied the reality of the unionist aspiration for decades and prolonged the conflict unnecessarily.

All aspirations must be recognised and given expression. Saying that "Ireland" is not, and has never been, just the "26 counties" denies the legitimacy of those who are happy and content with the status quo.

The island is called Ireland? The southern state is called Ireland... the Irish nation is called Ireland, which is the entirety of people on the island, people of all allegiances.

Can you not see how confusing things would get if republicans didnt use 26 and 6?

Ghandee

SoulandForm wrote: »

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Independence_Party

I believe that English/"British" Imperialism/Colonialism is a problem in Northern Ireland and is preventing the place from reaching its full potential, of course there are other problems as well. Sinn Fein whether you want to admit or not are a tribal party in Northern Ireland, yet for all their "Republicanism" they welcome foreign companies coming in and even didnt oppose the creation of a huge MI5 base which the SDLP to its credit did.

I would like a non-tribal party that is for Irish Independence and a socially just Republic for everyone- rather than one focused on the needs of the "Nationalist community" within Northern Ireland.

What's this now?

SoulandForm

Ghandee wrote: »

What's this now?

http://www.u.tv/News/SDLP-and-Sinn-Fein-in-MI5-row/227d1749-6131-4ff4-b4e7-870a1736dc95

Offy

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.u.tv/News/SDLP-and-Sinn-Fein-in-MI5-row/227d1749-6131-4ff4-b4e7-870a1736dc95

After reading that artical and living in NI for just over a year I would have to agree with SF. How many PSNI people are ex RUC people that took the big handout and were re-hired? Is it 60% What kind of a scam was that? The PSNI needs to be disbanded. If the rioters in Belfast (the flag crowd) were catholic how many rubber bullets would have been used? But because they were protestant they were allowed riot by the PSNI.

SoulandForm

Offy wrote: »

After reading that artical and living in NI for just over a year I would have to agree with SF. How many PSNI people are ex RUC people that took the big handout and were re-hired? Is it 60% What kind of a scam was that? The PSNI needs to be disbanded. If the rioters in Belfast (the flag crowd) were catholic how many rubber bullets would have been used? But because they were protestant they were allowed riot by the PSNI.

15 per cent of MI5's money is on Northern Ireland. Im not sure all that money is spent on "Republican dissidents" (as far as I can gather while many might sympathize with them extremely few want a return to an unwinable war). Also the RUC was much more eager to catch and imprison Loyalists than the British Army was- and there was much more collaboration between Loyalists and the BA than between Loyalists and the RUC. The RUC was far more being the sectarian monolith some Republicans painted it as- that it is not to say that it has clean hands.

SoulandForm

http://sluggerotoole.com/2009/05/25/mi5-is-spending-40m-a-year-in-counter-terrorist-operations-in-northern-irel/

GRMA

On the one hand FG get the kicks into Dessie Ellis over something long known to the public - he was in the IRA and made bombs and may have killed people - and demand "truth" and on the other they continue to cover up loyalist bombings.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belturbet-bombing-735795-Dec2012/?utm_source=twitter_self

SoulandForm

My view of the PIRA is that some were noble patriots, some were murderous tribal scum and some were just people caught up in a horrible situation and some of course were a combination of all three. God will judge them all ultimately.

Im not sure if the "Long War" campaign achieved anything good that couldnt have been achieved by other means, and I think that it in many ways it made matters worse by driving the Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots further into the Unionist/Loyalist camp.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

lol oh my god! ok I'll assume you were born in Northern Ireland. If you can point out where you have said otherwise then please accept my apology for getting it wrong, is that fair?

I've quoted from the constitution of Ireland, which was a 26-county republic when I was born in it, and which I voted - along with an overwhelming majority of my compatriots - to reaffirm as the full extent of our territory.

gurramok wrote: »

Don't care is your view. Which is extremely unfair as you are very fast to condemn one side only.

Are you saying my view is that I don't care about Bloody Sunday, or about security force collusion with loyalists? Because that's a pretty downright nasty thing to say without a shred of evidence other than your own prejudices. Or are you saying that you don't care what my view is? In which case, why are you trying to make this debate about me?

Out of all that it must be personal as you certainly did not have love for the founding fathers of our state in debates on 1916, Home Rule and the British Commonwealth.

It's true that I've been explicit in my condemnation of the instigators of the bloodshed of 1916. Again, that's a perfectly legitimate view to hold, and it takes a particularly bloody-minded form of republican fascism to hold that it's unpatriotic to be opposed to the idea of starting wars.

Ghandee wrote: »

Someone really should have been good enough to have told the British Govt and army that there was 'no war' raging in the north for the guts of 40 years then.

If they had of done, they would not have felt the need to station so many war trained troops in our country. All armed to the teeth, all ready and willing to open fire at a moments notice.

They would not have had to confiscate land from citizens in order to build military barracks and helicopter bases.

They would not have needed to send the various machines of war, including armoured cars, saracens, helicopters and spy planes to the north.

There was a time I recall it was next to impossible, definitely unusual if we could travel from A~B without coming upon, or in some cases (in our fields at night) into an army checkpoint.

Sometimes these army checkpoints involved English/Welsh/Scottish soldiers, ofttimes it included a gang of local loyalist thugs wearing uniforms with UDR badges on them. I have no doubt in many cases, after taking our names, DOB/Adresses/Car details and registration details, these got passed to the local OC of a loyalist paramilitary wing in the local loyalist bar at a later date. (The RUC told my father his life was in danger on a number of occasions)

The SAS have been deployed in the north on numerous occasions, the elite of the British army rarely get sent to places not considered 'warzones'.

All of which is predicated on the rather bizarre assumption that a sovereign government will never, ever use its own troops to quell an armed insurrection on its own soil; and that the deployment of troops automatically constitutes a declaration of war.

Again, you are free to believe whatever narrative helps to prop up your worldview, but don't ask me to buy into it.

The fact that you consider the IRA the 'bad guys' in that conflict, is irrelevant, and does not mean the war/conflict didnt happen.

The fact that you persist in the convenient fiction that I consider the IRA the only "bad guys" in the conflict is an invention of yours that I have no interest in supporting.

GRMA wrote: »

The island is called Ireland? The southern state is called Ireland... the Irish nation is called Ireland, which is the entirety of people on the island, people of all allegiances.

Can you not see how confusing things would get if republicans didnt use 26 and 6?

They could always use the phrases "the Republic" and "Northern Ireland", but for some reason those phrases are far too factual for their taste.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

On the one hand FG get the kicks into Dessie Ellis over something long known to the public - he was in the IRA and made bombs and may have killed people - and demand "truth" and on the other they continue to cover up loyalist bombings.

Let's suppose they released the files in question, and a loyalist figure who was implicated shrugged and said "I don't want to comment on anything said by the Irish. I wouldn't be bothered." Would you say "fair enough, there's an end to the matter"?

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've quoted from the constitution of Ireland, which was a 26-county republic when I was born in it, and which I voted - along with an overwhelming majority of my compatriots - to reaffirm as the full extent of our territory.

Are you saying my view is that I don't care about Bloody Sunday, or about security force collusion with loyalists? Because that's a pretty downright nasty thing to say without a shred of evidence other than your own prejudices. Or are you saying that you don't care what my view is? In which case, why are you trying to make this debate about me? It's true that I've been explicit in my condemnation of the instigators of the bloodshed of 1916. Again, that's a perfectly legitimate view to hold, and it takes a particularly bloody-minded form of republican fascism to hold that it's unpatriotic to be opposed to the idea of starting wars.

All of which is predicated on the rather bizarre assumption that a sovereign government will never, ever use its own troops to quell an armed insurrection on its own soil; and that the deployment of troops automatically constitutes a declaration of war.

Again, you are free to believe whatever narrative helps to prop up your worldview, but don't ask me to buy into it. The fact that you persist in the convenient fiction that I consider the IRA the only "bad guys" in the conflict is an invention of yours that I have no interest in supporting.

They could always use the phrases "the Republic" and "Northern Ireland", but for some reason those phrases are far too factual for their taste.

Apparently the term Northern Ireland is ok now since with the last census figures showing quite alot of people defining themselves as 'northern Irish' republicans have now decided that the 'northern Irish' are now Infact 'Irish' dispite the fact that by using the term 'northern Irish' is a defacto recognition of Northern Ireland

Offy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've quoted from the constitution of Ireland, which was a 26-county republic when I was born in it, and which I voted - along with an overwhelming majority of my compatriots - to reaffirm as the full extent of our territory.

Are you saying my view is that I don't care about Bloody Sunday, or about security force collusion with loyalists? Because that's a pretty downright nasty thing to say without a shred of evidence other than your own prejudices. Or are you saying that you don't care what my view is? In which case, why are you trying to make this debate about me? It's true that I've been explicit in my condemnation of the instigators of the bloodshed of 1916. Again, that's a perfectly legitimate view to hold, and it takes a particularly bloody-minded form of republican fascism to hold that it's unpatriotic to be opposed to the idea of starting wars.

All of which is predicated on the rather bizarre assumption that a sovereign government will never, ever use its own troops to quell an armed insurrection on its own soil; and that the deployment of troops automatically constitutes a declaration of war.

Again, you are free to believe whatever narrative helps to prop up your worldview, but don't ask me to buy into it. The fact that you persist in the convenient fiction that I consider the IRA the only "bad guys" in the conflict is an invention of yours that I have no interest in supporting.

They could always use the phrases "the Republic" and "Northern Ireland", but for some reason those phrases are far too factual for their taste.

Why are you so anti a 32 county Ireland? Irish Heros like Michael Collins, Eamon De Valera, Charles Parnell, Patrick Pearse, Seán MacBride, to name but a few all wanted a united Ireland. You dont. Why not?

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Apparently the term Northern Ireland is ok now since with the last census figures showing quite alot of people defining themselves as 'northern Irish' republicans have now decided that the 'northern Irish' are now Infact 'Irish' dispite the fact that by using the term 'northern Irish' is a defacto recognition of Northern Ireland

People can describe themselves as Northern Irish, want to remain in the Union for whatever reason, and still hate "Prods". The Provisionals were and are very Norn Iron.

RayserSharp

Our parliament is a cesspit of tax dodgers, backhand merchants, dodgy dealers, parish pump politicians, strokers and cute hoors, and the first time a political party openly challenges and tries to expose the chancers who have got this Country into the mess it's in, and the dirty tricks department swings into action. Does anyone here who is old enough to remember the troubles really believe a word that comes out of the British Government? Does anyone remember the days of the FG Cosgrave Government here that effectively suspended justice and human rights here to secure conviction and appease their British overlords?

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

People can describe themselves as Northern Irish, want to remain in the Union for whatever reason, and still hate "Prods". The Provisionals were and are very Norn Iron.

I really don't care how people define themselves, it personnel choice but stick around and wait for the republicans to tell me I am Irish because they say so, even though I personly do not accept the idenity of 'Irish' as my own. Anyway back to my initial responce the terms 'northern Ireland' and 'northen Irish' where anathema to republicans that is until the recent census figures where released

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose they released the files in question, and a loyalist figure who was implicated shrugged and said "I don't want to comment on anything said by the Irish. I wouldn't be bothered." Would you say "fair enough, there's an end to the matter"?

Easy way to find out, the files should be released. Do you think they should be?

Joey the lips

Jesus folks this is just so boring. Desire Ellis does more for flinglass ballymun then most so to be honest I just don't cre.

oscarBravo

Offy wrote: »

Why are you so anti a 32 county Ireland?

Because the vast majority of the effort towards achieving it has been through violence and terrorism, and I want no part of something that can't be achieved by peaceful means. If and when a united Ireland is something that can be achieved by consensus, and if at that time there is nobody left who's trying to achieve it through bloodshed, I'll be happy to accept it.

Irish Heros like Michael Collins, Eamon De Valera, Charles Parnell, Patrick Pearse, Seán MacBride, to name but a few all wanted a united Ireland. You dont. Why not?

Of all of those, none are heroes to me but Parnell, who didn't want a "united" Ireland (a term that would have been meaningless at the time), but an independent one, and who was committed to non-violent means of achieving it.

Again, I'm aware that I'm committing a mortal sin against the religion of republicanism by refusing to worship its prophets such as Pearse; I don't care whether or not it offends you that I don't hero-worship the same people you do.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

Easy way to find out, the files should be released.

Nice dodge.

Do you think they should be?

I have no personal issue with their release, but I'm sure the Department of Justice has its reasons for refusing to do so.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

I really don't care how people define themselves, it personnel choice but stick around and wait for the republicans to tell me I am Irish because they say so, even though I personly do not accept the idenity of 'Irish' as my own. Anyway back to my initial responce the terms 'northern Ireland' and 'northen Irish' where anathema to republicans that is until the recent census figures where released

You live in Ireland and I presume your family have deep roots here.

Northern Ireland's tragedy is that in someways its continuation of the rest of Ireland and in someways its not. In someways its a continuation of Scotland and in someways its not.

Frankly its "Republicans" saying that the Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots are NOT Irish that scares me. I know what is implied there-"Planters out".

ardmacha

If and when a united Ireland is something that can be achieved by consensus,

A partitioned Ireland was achieved by much violence, quite the opposite of consensus. Why are you so happy for this to remain?

This is the typical snapshot hypocrisy. A man breaks into your house an beats up all the occupants, but you don't agree with throwing him out as this would not be a "consensus" act.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

A partitioned Ireland was achieved by much violence, quite the opposite of consensus. Why are you so happy for this to remain?

Because it's been the status quo for my entire lifetime, and for fifty years before that. A united, independent Ireland existed for a grand total of two days in 1922, and has existed only in the fevered imaginations of various delusional republicans since then.

If you're going to argue for a rollback to pre-partition times, then argue for Ireland to rejoin the United Kingdom. The call for an independent 32-county Irish republic is a call for something that has never existed, and it's intellectually dishonest to present it as the natural state of affairs.

This is the typical snapshot hypocrisy. A man breaks into your house an beats up all the occupants, but you don't agree with throwing him out as this would not be a "consensus" act.

Nobody broke into my house. I was born in a 26-county house. There's nobody to throw out.

SoulandForm

Look Junder if the figures saying that more people regard themselves as Northern Irish were accompanied by a decrease in sectarian tensions than I would say thats a great thing- but you know that sectarian is pretty high in many places, and that there is a lot of bullying, general nastiness and violence on both sides.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nice dodge. I have no personal issue with their release, but I'm sure the Department of Justice has its reasons for refusing to do so.

Yes, I am sure they do have reasons.... you seem quite accepting of them which is not all together surprising. You give out about doublethink and double standards, but you are quite adapt at those things yourself.

ardmacha

Frankly its "Republicans" saying that the Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots are NOT Irish that scares me

"Republicans" rarely say this, it is the "Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots" who say this.

The call for an independent 32-county Irish republic is a call for something that has never existed, and it's intellectually dishonest to present it as the natural state of affairs.

It didn't exist because the imperial power did not allow it to exist. This is a bit like saying that a slave should not be free because he has never been free. No doubt people with a similar blinkered approach to you have made such arguments.

Nobody broke into my house. I was born in a 26-county house.

Really. I thought you did throw out the British, you just took a I'm alright Jack approach to the rest of the house. A bit like saying that crime is OK in Darndale, as long as it doesn't come on the south side.

SoulandForm

ardmacha wrote: »

"Republicans" rarely say this, it is the "Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots" who say this.

Are you seriously telling that there are no "Republicans" out there who consider the Scotch Irish "British" and want them out of Ireland?

GRMA

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you seriously telling that there are no "Republicans" out there who consider the Scotch Irish "British" and want them out of Ireland?

None that I know want anything other than the British establishment and govt out of Ireland, certainly not ordinary people.

Offy

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are you seriously telling that there are no "Republicans" out there who consider the Scotch Irish "British" and want them out of Ireland?

Theres me As I previously stated I want to see a 32 county Ireland, that does not mean I want anyone 'evicted' no matter what their religious beliefs are. Theres me As I previously stated I want to see a 32 county Ireland, that does not mean I want anyone 'evicted' no matter what their religious beliefs are. I certainly consider myself a republican, that does not mean Im a militant. At the end of the day a republican is an advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law.

SoulandForm

GRMA wrote: »

None that I know want anything other than the British establishment and govt out of Ireland, certainly not ordinary people.

Where do you live? You dont have to answer that here but just pause for a moment. Just because you havent meet them doesnt mean that they dont exist or that many people in typical Norn Iron fashion can speak different things out of two sides of their mouth. There is an ugly tribal undercurrent to a lot of Republicanism in Northern Ireland that I think a lot of southern Republicans refuse to see.

I also want the British state out of Ireland as soon as possible. I would like to see a genuine peace process also not between politicians but between communities so that we could have an Ulster where everyone within reason is and feels safe.

ardmacha

Are you seriously telling that there are no "Republicans" out there who consider the Scotch Irish "British" and want them out of Ireland?

Some so called "Republicans" are head the balls, so I certainly cannot say what they all think. Apart from anything else if someone declares themselves British then the question can reasonably be asked as to why exactly they want to stay here causing trouble rather than than just go to Britain.
But nationalists generally want planters to take root rather than leave. I don't want all smokers to leave Ireland, but I would be happy to see them stop smoking.

SoulandForm

Offy wrote: »

Theres me As I previously stated I want to see a 32 county Ireland, that does not mean I want anyone 'evicted' no matter what their religious beliefs are. Theres me As I previously stated I want to see a 32 county Ireland, that does not mean I want anyone 'evicted' no matter what their religious beliefs are. I certainly consider myself a republican, that does not mean Im a militant. At the end of the day a republican is an advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law.

To be honest its Loyalists and Unionists who are much more hung up about religion. The Catholic hierarchy regularly condemned the Provos while the DUP was full of Protestant Ministers. Religion fueled the Unionist/Loyalist side more than it did the Nationalist/Republican side- but Loyalists reflected their side onto the other side believing that they must be same.

GRMA

SoulandForm wrote: »

Where do you live? You dont have to answer that here but just pause for a moment. Just because you havent meet them doesnt mean that they dont exist or that many people in typical Norn Iron fashion can speak different things out of two sides of their mouth. There is an ugly tribal undercurrent to a lot of Republicanism in Northern Ireland that I think a lot of southern Republicans refuse to see.

I also want the British state out of Ireland as soon as possible. I would like to see a genuine peace process also not between politicians but between communities so that we could have an Ulster where everyone within reason is and feels safe.

On the border.


I've spent a lot of time in different places and know republicans of all different types and generations - none has ever stated that they want ethnic cleansing as you describe, the removal of people who say they are British. Such an act would go against everything Irish republicanism stands for - the uniting of Orange and Green.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

You live in Ireland and I presume your family have deep roots here.

Northern Ireland's tragedy is that in someways its continuation of the rest of Ireland and in someways its not. In someways its a continuation of Scotland and in someways its not.

Frankly its "Republicans" saying that the Scotch Irish/Ulster Scots are NOT Irish that scares me. I know what is implied there-"Planters out".

And there we have it. For the record if somebody born in Northern Ireland (or anywhere for that matter) decided to define themselves as Martian and thier relgion as Jedi, while I would personnly feel it was a little odd, if that's how they wanted to define themselves as then I say crack on. Same applys to people born in Northern Ireland who define themselves as Irish, or somebody born and raised in England to Irish parents wants to define themselves as Irish (think dermont o'leary) again crack on. Personnly I don't see myself as being born in Ireland, (nor do I use the term island of Ireland) I was born in Northern Ireland, I see my idenity as northern Irish ( ulster - scot as opposed to the Americanism scotch - Irish ) and my citizenship as British. Although in terms of idenity for me the terms ulster - scot, northern Irish and British are interchangeable. I see idenity as a personnel thing and its not for you, me or anybody else to tell somebody what or who they are

Offy

GRMA wrote: »

the uniting of Orange and Green.

Well said, for me thats what its all about.

GRMA

junder wrote: »

And there we have it. For the record if somebody born in Northern Ireland (or anywhere for that matter) decided to define themselves as Martian and thier relgion as Jedi, while I would personnly feel it was a little odd, if that's how they wanted to define themselves as then I say crack on. Same applys to people born in Northern Ireland who define themselves as Irish, or somebody born and raised in England to Irish parents wants to define themselves as Irish (think dermont o'leary) again crack on. Personnly I don't see myself as being born in Ireland, (nor do I use the term island of Ireland) I was born in Northern Ireland, I see my idenity as northern Irish ( ulster - scot as opposed to the Americanism scotch - Irish ) and my citizenship as British. Although in terms of idenity for me the terms ulster - scot, northern Irish and British are interchangeable. I see idenity as a personnel thing and its not for you, me or anybody else to tell somebody what or who they are

Why dont you use the term Ireland to describe the island? What do you call it then?

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to argue for a rollback to pre-partition times, then argue for Ireland to rejoin the United Kingdom.

Why should he?

The call for an independent 32-county Irish republic is a call for something that has never existed,

A curious line of argument against it's creation. THE USA didn't exist prior to 1776. Single German and Italian states didn't exist until the second half of the 19th century. East Timor didn't officially appear until 2002 (self-declared independence in 1975). What's seemingly wrong with wanting or desiring something that hasn't existed before?

and it's intellectually dishonest to present it as the natural state of affairs.

Nope. It's based on a difference of opinion. You don't think it's natural. Others do.

I was born in a 26-county house.

With violent "foundations" if you'll excuse the obvious pun.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

On the border.


I've spent a lot of time in different places and know republicans of all different types and generations - none has ever stated that they want ethnic cleansing as you describe, the removal of people who say they are British. Such an act would go against everything Irish republicanism stands for - the uniting of Orange and Green.

I have met a few, even read some posts on
This very site that said as much and even dev himself said it, don't have the quote to hand but will post it when I return home from visiting inlaws

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

And there we have it. For the record if somebody born in Northern Ireland (or anywhere for that matter) decided to define themselves as Martian and thier relgion as Jedi, while I would personnly feel it was a little odd, if that's how they wanted to define themselves as then I say crack on. Same applys to people born in Northern Ireland who define themselves as Irish, or somebody born and raised in England to Irish parents wants to define themselves as Irish (think dermont o'leary) again crack on. Personnly I don't see myself as being born in Ireland, (nor do I use the term island of Ireland) I was born in Northern Ireland, I see my idenity as northern Irish ( ulster - scot as opposed to the Americanism scotch - Irish ) and my citizenship as British. Although in terms of idenity for me the terms ulster - scot, northern Irish and British are interchangeable. I see idenity as a personnel thing and its not for you, me or anybody else to tell somebody what or who they are

Scotch Irish is not an Americanism. Its a label that people took to America. Its a label I proudly bare.

What exactly does British mean? Wales could be one of the most wealthy countries in the EU and instead its one of the poorest, with all the wealth of its natural resources in English bank accounts. Think of the Scots been robbed of their oil and natural gas.

Clearly also Northern Irish and British are NOT interchangable because some people ticked one box and some people ticked both.

Offy

junder wrote: »

And there we have it. For the record if somebody born in Northern Ireland (or anywhere for that matter) decided to define themselves as Martian and thier relgion as Jedi, while I would personnly feel it was a little odd, if that's how they wanted to define themselves as then I say crack on. Same applys to people born in Northern Ireland who define themselves as Irish, or somebody born and raised in England to Irish parents wants to define themselves as Irish (think dermont o'leary) again crack on. Personnly I don't see myself as being born in Ireland, (nor do I use the term island of Ireland) I was born in Northern Ireland, I see my idenity as northern Irish ( ulster - scot as opposed to the Americanism scotch - Irish ) and my citizenship as British. Although in terms of idenity for me the terms ulster - scot, northern Irish and British are interchangeable. I see idenity as a personnel thing and its not for you, me or anybody else to tell somebody what or who they are

Interesting post and it raises a question I hope you can answer. If Scotland do leave GB would you still use the Ulster Scot phrase? Technically it would be accurate but I wonder how Ulster Scots feel about Scotland leaving GB? From my little experience of living in NI I get the impression for the people that I work with, and I might be getting the wrong impression, that being British is a huge thing to them. These chaps also like to talk about their Scottish ancestry, if the Scottish no longer want to be British where does that leave their loyalty?

GRMA

junder wrote: »

I have met a few, even read some posts on
This very site that said as much and even dev himself said it, don't have the quote to hand but will post it when I return home from visiting inlaws

Its certainly not part of republican policy or ideology... you always get gob****es unfortunately.

junder

ardmacha wrote: »

Some so called "Republicans" are head the balls, so I certainly cannot say what they all think. Apart from anything else if someone declares themselves British then the question can reasonably be asked as to why exactly they want to stay here causing trouble rather than than just go to Britain.
But nationalists generally want planters to take root rather than leave. I don't want all smokers to leave Ireland, but I would be happy to see them stop smoking.

And there you have it, veiled of course but essentially it's there, why is it a reasonable question to ask somebody why they should remove themselves from the country they where born in just because they have loyalties and a idenity different to
Your own? Is it any less reasonable to ask somebody who sees themselves irish to move over the border, only if, at the end of the day you still regard the former as foreign