David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Seriously? If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here, the IRA set the nationlist movement back decades and mabey forever, if we take the total casualties of the troubles at around 3000 and though the IRA killed over half of that total many IRA victims were Catholic so say about 1500 Catholics died in the troubles can you not imagine Hitler making that number seem tiny? Every traveler family for a start.

Remember the British army totaled 300 kills during the troubles, in context that number is tiny and on the whole shows the British army were not the blood thirsty monster's you paint them as, by no means perfect but I cant imagine many other armys coming out of a bloody civil war with that low number of kills. Over 20,000 dead in a short period in syira for example.

Again, I am not saying the BA were perfect, bloddy sunday etc but to say Hitler invading and ruling would be better????????

Oppression is oppression, doesn't much matter who is doing it.

And I think you really need to look at a history book. The quaint spin from Unionists that the IRA just emerged out of the mists for no reason is a little bit tired at this stage along with the notion that the British where not propping up a discriminatory and fascist statelet.
The Nazis attached great importance to flags and symbolism too.

Lingua Franca

Please SHARE a little Irish humour about serious issues:-

Also, you will hopefully 'Like' my page (pun intended)...

---

This is for the benefit of all my friends and good people out there who could be confused or alarmed by recent images broadcast around the world in relation to my absolutely lovely wee homeland – yes yes we know we're now 15 years into a so-called peace process but hey-ho, we're Irish...

The capital of Ireland is Dublin. It has a population of roughly a million people, many of whom will be shopping in Newry city this afternoon. They travel to Newry because it's in the North, which apparently isn't part of Ireland and definitely not the Euro currency zone. That said, it does take payment in Euros. The North's currency is United Kingdom Sterling as is England's but, despite this England refuse to accept payment in Sterling notes printed in the North.

Under the Irish constitution, the North (aka Northern Ireland) used to be in Ireland. However, following a 30-year campaign of violence for Irish unity it's now definitely in the United Kingdom. Had the campaign of violence lasted any longer the North might well have ended-up in France.

Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland; locally pronounced 'norn iron'. It has a population of over half a million, half of whom own houses in Donegal.

Donegal is in the north but not in the North, it's in the South. No, not the south, the South. Oh and the most northern towns in Ireland are not in the North, they're in the South. No not the south, the South (Slievebawn is in Donegal in the South).

There are two parliaments in Ireland . The Dublin Parliament is called the Dáil, (sometimes pronounced "Dowel"), an Irish word apparently defined as a place where banks receive taxpayers' money. The Parliament in Belfast is called Stormont, an Anglo-Saxon word meaning 'placebo', or intentionally an ineffective drug.

The respective jurisdictions of these territories is defined by a 'border' line on a map, the only purpose of which seems to be is to identify to fuel launderers where to dump their chemical waste and bi-products. Protestants are in favour of this imaginary border which generates millions of pounds in smuggling for Catholics, whereas Catholics are totally opposed to it. Travel between these 2 'states' can be confusing because Ireland is the only country in the world with two M1 motorways. The one built in the North goes west to avoid the South and the one in the South goes north to get away from the South's shocking price of drink!!!

The island of Ireland for a long time had two very different types of democracy. The Dublin Irish democracy works by holding a referendum and then allowing the Government to determine the result. If it thinks the result was wrong, it declares the referendum invalid and obliges the people to cast a further vote. Twice in recent years the Government declared the people's choice wrong and ordered a new referendum. In Belfast, the British system of democracy has a long history of operating in an entirely differently manner. Namely, since creation of an enforced 'Protestant Parliament For A Protestant People' it's Parliament ensued it had no real opposition. Consequently, its Government was always right, and understandably this system generated tremendous envy across the worlds major capitals, including in Dublin... though times are-a-changing in wee norn-iron still cries of “No Surrender” and “Rule Britannia” can still often be heard in the ghettos.

Ireland has three economies - northern, southern and black. Only the black economy is in the black. The other two are in the red.

Paramilitaries - All versions of the IRA claim to be the real IRA but only one of them is the Real IRA. The North's biggest industry is the production of IRA's. Consequently, to-date we've had the IRA, Official IRA, Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, Dissident IRA and Real IRA, plus at sometime inbetween the Irish Rates Association. Anyway, the Real IRA is presently the most popular among young graffiti writers because, it's the easiest to spell – in Northern Ireland a similar history exists with regard to Protestant “Ulster” paramilitaries but that's a whole other story.

Flags / Flegs - The official state flag of Ireland is the Tricolour; green, white and orange - the green represents the Gaelic Irish tradition, the Orange represents the Protestant aka “Orange” tradition and the White represents peace between them. Despite the latter, Unionist Orangemen can often be seen burning the Tricolour.

Union Flag – the Norths religiously bigoted members within the British Protestant faith insist that all public buildings (plus their homes and virtually every lamppost in the North) display a Union fleg. This is despite the fact, the Union fleg was originally designed by Roman Catholic King James Vi in 1601 and the only addition to this fleg since is the adding of Saint Patrick's Cross to represent Roman Catholic Ireland.

Ulster Flag - The former all-Ireland's most northern province of Ulster was reduced from 9 to 3 counties when the invading British eventually used its 6 of its counties to create 'Northern Ireland' i.e. the new state created for the immigrants The British planted en mass and otherwise known as Loyalists / Unionists / Protestants / Orangemen. However, the aforementioned community in the North whom pledge allegiance to the British crown have eversince called themselves 'Ulstermen' and can often be heard to shout “for God and Ulster” while waving what they claim is their 'Ulster fleg' but in fact is/was the official fleg of the state the British crown named 'Northern Ireland'.

National Identity – Unionists born and raised on the island of Ireland often contend their national/country identity is that of “Ulsterman” but if challenged resort to contending they're 'British” albeit neither of these is actually a national/country identity. To-date, the obvious continues to elude Unionists even when one explains to them that those British subjects living in Britain and Great Britain are either Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen and Unionists are manifestly none of those... all that remains to be said on this subject is, sing; if you're Irish and you know it clap your hands!!!

Fighting Irish - The Irish in the North are fighting Irish in the North, and the “British” in the North are fighting “British” in the North. You see, the occupied north-eastern region Irish are fighting with Irish who somehow still imagine their national/country identity is British, and these same “British” are fighting Irish whom they imagine must submit to being British, despite they all live and were born on the island of Ireland in a state named Northern Ireland – meanwhile the real Brits are far away across the Irish Sea in England laughing their asses off at the Irish because they started all this ****.

I hope this has clarified things and answered finally many unanswered questions for all you good, sane folk out there in the real world :-)

Go n-eiri an t-adh leat.
Good luck.
….....................


From here: http://www.facebook.com/NorthernIrelandNationalIdentity/posts/134809206681033

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

Seriously? If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here

So wrong.

If it hadn't been for Unionist/Loyalist state and sate facilitated violence (up to murder and ethic cleansing) against the CNR community then the BA might not have ended up on the streets. They came initially to protect Catholics from Unionists/Loyalists.

Dubhlinner

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So wrong.

If it hadn't been for Unionist/Loyalist state and sate facilitated violence (up to murder and ethic cleansing) against the CNR community then the BA might not have ended up on the streets. They came initially to protect Catholics from Unionists/Loyalists.

That's a myth. They came over because the RUC were in no position to cope with levels of violence and riots going on.

This was around the same time the tories had election posters saying "if you want a n*gger for a neighbour vote liberal or labour" - do you really think they could give a damn about the taigs across the water?

It is documented that the army were initially seen by nationalists as better to deal with but that does not mean they were sent in to protect them.

Ethnic cleansing? for the love of sweet jesus.... its actually no secret the nationalist community has been on the rise the last few decades

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So wrong.

If it hadn't been for Unionist/Loyalist state and sate facilitated violence (up to murder and ethic cleansing) against the CNR community then the BA might not have ended up on the streets. They came initially to protect Catholics from Unionists/Loyalists.

You dramatise, ethic cleansing? ?? To listen to you you would think the cnr community were oppressed innocents, they also attacked and the BA were keeping the peace between both sides, they stayed in greater numbers because the IRA went on a murderous campaign that the numbers would suggest made things worse for the CNR community.

Iwasfrozen

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Please SHARE a little Irish humour about serious issues:-

Also, you will hopefully 'Like' my page (pun intended)...
From here: http://www.facebook.com/NorthernIrelandNationalIdentity/posts/134809206681033

Jeez, biased much?

Chuck Stone

Dubhlinner wrote: »

That's a myth. They came over because the RUC were in no position to cope with levels of violence and riots going on.

Said as if the RUC were some sort of peace keeping force rather than a Unionist militia that had a penchant for beating and murdering Catholics.

14 July 1969 Francis McCloskey (67) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died one day after being hit on head with batons during street disturbances, Dungiven, County Derry.

17 July 1969 Samuel Devenny (42) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died three months after being badly beaten in his home, William Street, Bogside, Derry. He was injured on 19 April 1969.

14 August 1969 John Gallagher (30) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Special Constabulary (USC)
Shot during street disturbances, Cathedral Road, Armagh.

14 August 1969 Patrick Rooney (9) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home, during nearby street disturbances, St Brendan's Path, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Hugh McCabe (20) Catholic
Status: British Army (BA), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
On leave. Shot during street disturbances while on the roof of Whitehall Block, Divis Flats, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Samuel McLarnon (27) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot at his home during nearby street disturbances, Herbert Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

15 August 1969 Michael Lynch (28) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Shot during street disturbances, Butler Street, Ardoyne, Belfast.

01 December 1969 Patrick Corry (61) Catholic
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
Died four months after being hit on the head with batons, during altercation between local people and Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) patrol, Unity Flats, off Upper Library Street, Belfast. Injured on 2nd August 1969.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

Protestants and RUC/B-Specials attacking Catholic areas in Belfast (RTE).

Ethnic cleansing? for the love of sweet jesus.

Are you denying the well established fact that there were loyalist pogroms and hundreds of burned out Catholics living in refugee camps south of the border?

Bombay Street attack by Loyalists (courtesy of RTE)



Is this speech by Jack Lynch part of some sort of grand conspiracy you've conjured?

the present situation is the inevitable outcome of the policies pursued for decades by successive Stormont Governments. It is clear, also, that the Irish Government can no longer stand by and see innocent people injured and perhaps worse.

Speech by Jack Lynch, Irish Taoiseach, following violence in Derry,
13 August 1969

gallag wrote: »

You dramatise, ethic cleansing? ?? To listen to you you would think the cnr community were oppressed innocents

The CNR community's seeking of equal political and civil rights was brutally oppressed by the RUC and the RUC's complete lack of ability to be an impartial civilian police force. The RUC did nothing as loyalists attacked civil rights marches.

they also attacked and the BA were keeping the peace between both sides,

Eventually they did start attacking the BA, yes, but that was after the BA had proved itself to be little more than back-up for the Unionist/loyalist junta.

they stayed in greater numbers because the IRA went on a murderous campaign

They stayed because Unionists/loyalists chose to live with a brutal conflict rather than have a taig about the place. How many of the people out rioting and protesting over nothing the flag issue would happily accept the re-militarisation of the north in return for flag and marching dominance and SF out of power?

Quite a few I'd say.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

You dramatise, ethic cleansing? ?? To listen to you you would think the cnr community were oppressed innocents, they also attacked and the BA were keeping the peace between both sides, they stayed in greater numbers because the IRA went on a murderous campaign that the numbers would suggest made things worse for the CNR community.

I can´t see any "dramatisation" because the one on here twisting history that it suites is you. I would even go that far to say that it was the intention of the Unionists from the very outset of their own "Ulster State" to drive the Catholics out of NI to have the whole of their state for themselves.

There plenty evidences to this and the way the RUC treated the Catholics is a story of the disgrace of the RUC. The BA has been sent to NI to protect the Catholics in the first place and it was the oppression of the Civil Rights Movement in NI by the Stormont Regime that triggered the "revival of the IRA" because the IRA at the time of the late 1960s was almost dead.

This unjustice done to the Irish people in NI by the Stormont dictatorship in the first place with the lack of propper protection and guarenteeing civil rights by the British Government, responsible for the whole of the UK is a ever lasting shame on its history.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

... Not when I read something like this anyway and think of what else is to come as the secrets come out about what went on when they had the power to stop the carnage and put the lid back on. This is stuff that affected REAL Irish people, approved by a government some would want governing them.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2013/0119/1224329033796.html

Thanks for the link to that interesting article about the insight of British Warfare tactics in NI. Very interesting in there are the parallels of some "colonial style" tactics to fight the IRA.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Thanks for the link to that interesting article about the insight of British Warfare tactics in NI. Very interesting in there are the parallels of some "colonial style" tactics to fight the IRA.

Expect a lot more, as pertinent official papers are released and remember there is certainly much much more that has been suppressed.
Would you ever hear a Unionist even try to emphatise with how it must have felt to be treated in this way? Nationalists had been saying that this was what was happening for years but it fell on the deaf ears of the Irish government (hoodwinked by the conniving British again) and the partitionists, who, happy in what they had got, turned a blind eye to what was really going on.
The guilt they feel about that cripples them now, but the same kind of guilt, crippled the post Famine generations, but eventually we came to deal with that guilt and embraced what happened.
That is why I have every fate that those who stood up and where counted will be eventually be honoured by their fellow Irish. Then we will have an appetite for a united Ireland.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Expect a lot more, as pertinent official papers are released and remember there is certainly much much more that has been suppressed.

I look forward with interest to learn more about these revelations.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you ever hear a Unionist even try to emphatise with how it must have felt to be treated in this way? Nationalists had been saying that this was what was happening for years but it fell on the deaf ears of the Irish government (hoodwinked by the conniving British again) and the partitionists, who, happy in what they had got, turned a blind eye to what was really going on.

I know and such occations are rather rare. Regarding the Irish government it has been a very difficult situation for them to react at all during the troubles. In the RTÉ documentary series "Seven Ages" it is stated that they even wasn´t aware of all the unjustice and discrimation of the Irish people in NI at that time.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The guilt they feel about that cripples them now, but the same kind of guilt, crippled the post Famine generations, but eventually we came to deal with that guilt and embraced what happened.
That is why I have every fate that those who stood up and where counted will be eventually be honoured by their fellow Irish. Then we will have an appetite for a united Ireland.

It only cripples them now because they are not in absolute power anymore, otherwise it wouldn´t scratch their conscience. Time will show us whether you´re right. I may be wrong but I put more expectations into the referendum about Scotlands independence next year, because its result might have an decisive impact on British politics also towards NI and the chances for a United Ireland in the end.

What does a Unionist when the UK ceases to exist? I didn´t get a proper answer from that side yet. Probably they even don´t know it themselves. Making a fuss about the Union Flag seems in such an event as pure anachronism, using a symbol from the past of a non-existing state. I´ve often imagine that, but I also think that there would be some replacemant quickly found because one can´t live without a flag. The white Flag would suite at best for such an occation with the shortened slogand "Surrender".

Thomas_I

And it goes on and on ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21135829

Lingua Franca

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Jeez, biased much?

Yes. Because it is a collection of jokes. You understand what jokes are, right?

Did you honestly take a word of that seriously? :pac:


And to clarify: I didn't write that, it cropped up in my facebook feed which is why I credited it.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yes. Because it is a collection of jokes. You understand what jokes are, right?

Did you honestly take a word of that seriously? :pac:


And to clarify: I didn't write that, it cropped up in my facebook feed which is why I credited it.

They gave me some good laughs and partly reminded me on "Puckoon by Spike Milligan".:D

Thomas_I

NIMAN wrote: »

Many of you may have heard about the Nolan Show debacle the other night, which frankly shows NI up in a very bad light.

In case anyone wants to see the 50mins of mayhem, you can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc5L5p6aYyM

I´ve watched this with interest and first it seemed to me as if the audience was of more Unionists than others and the Mr Nolan had some difficulties to moderate the show because of the audience. At least some reasonable people came up with some facts, but less of these were from the Unionists.

The intruduction has that old woman shouting "No Surrender" behind a closed door. It looked like taken from a bad film and rather funny.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Said as if the RUC were some sort of peace keeping force rather than a Unionist militia that had a penchant for beating and murdering Catholics.



Protestants and RUC/B-Specials attacking Catholic areas in Belfast (RTE).



Are you denying the well established fact that there were loyalist pogroms and hundreds of burned out Catholics living in refugee camps south of the border?

Bombay Street attack by Loyalists (courtesy of RTE)



Is this speech by Jack Lynch part of some sort of grand conspiracy you've conjured?





The CNR community's seeking of equal political and civil rights was brutally oppressed by the RUC and the RUC's complete lack of ability to be an impartial civilian police force. The RUC did nothing as loyalists attacked civil rights marches.



Eventually they did start attacking the BA, yes, but that was after the BA had proved itself to be little more than back-up for the Unionist/loyalist junta.



They stayed because Unionists/loyalists chose to live with a brutal conflict rather than have a taig about the place. How many of the people out rioting and protesting over nothing the flag issue would happily accept the re-militarisation of the north in return for flag and marching dominance and SF out of power?

Quite a few I'd say.

You are still being very selective, why just post Catholic deaths? I recommend to anyone that buys chucks theory that the CRN community done no wrong read the full list of deaths, you will notice a pattern of who the murderers were. Click on the year for a full break down of all deaths.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/index.html

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

You are still being very selective, why just post Catholic deaths?

It was the killings at the hands of the RUC I was underscoring; the fact that they were all Catholics needs no explanation.

Also, I didn't say the CNR community did no wrong I was simply demonstrating that in 1969 all deaths at the hands of the RUC were Catholic civilians. This is the first year of the CAIN statistics and explodes the myth that the RUC were keeping the two sides apart. The dogs in the street know the RUC was a player in the conflict and we all know the team they were batting for (no pun intended).

I just want to say that I don't believe all RUC men were bad people - no doubt there were good men who just wanted to do police work, however, there was a considerable nasty sectarian element within the RUC and this is an undeniable, demonstrable fact.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It was the killings at the hands of the RUC I was underscoring; the fact that they were all Catholics needs no explanation.

Could it not be explained simply by the fact that it was Catholics attacking/fighting/rioting with the RUC?

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Could it not be explained simply by the fact that it was Catholics attacking/fighting/rioting with the RUC?

Yeah, come on Chuck, be reasonable, they clearly deserved to be beaten to death.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

They gave me some good laughs and partly reminded me on "Puckoon by Spike Milligan".:D

I love Puckoon, I re-read it last week and it's full of um... non PC humour. To say the least. The film with Sean Hughes is quite good.

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´ve watched this with interest and first it seemed to me as if the audience was of more Unionists than others and the Mr Nolan had some difficulties to moderate the show because of the audience. At least some reasonable people came up with some facts, but less of these were from the Unionists.

The intruduction has that old woman shouting "No Surrender" behind a closed door. It looked like taken from a bad film and rather funny.

I've still not watched it but after being told by some one who works there, I think it was the Belfast Telegraph or perhaps Slugger O'Toole that confirmed that the audience was made up of the protestors who'd scared the ticket holding audience off when they arrived.

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

Could it not be explained simply by the fact that it was Catholics attacking/fighting/rioting with the RUC?

No. If people were shot dead and beaten to death for protesting and rioting there'd be thousands more dead from the troubles.

How many loyalists would have been killed in the last few weeks if protesting/rioting was an excuse for lethal force?

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. If people were shot dead and beaten to death for protesting and rioting there'd be thousands more dead from the troubles.

How many loyalists would have been killed in the last few weeks if protesting/rioting was an excuse for lethal force?

Mabey they were not just protesting? We know the CNR community killed and attacked people so mabey some of them were not innocent?

Lingua Franca

gallag wrote: »

Seriously? If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here,

Is this honestly what you believe? Have you really no clue as to what happened? This is factually incorrect. You cannot rewrite the circumstances which led up to the troubles. They are not in dispute.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Mabey they were not just protesting? We know the CNR community killed and attacked people so mabey some of them were not innocent?

Well there's any shred of credibility (if not respectability) you ever had gone the way of the RUC

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is this honestly what you believe? Have you really no clue as to what happened? This is factually incorrect. You cannot rewrite the circumstances which led up to the troubles. They are not in dispute.

Of course they are in dispute, just because a few republican posters on this site have spent the last umpteen posts breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs, doesn't mean that thier version of history is set in stone, everything is up to interpretation in history unless you where an eye witness to events. Basic history 101. Primary sources vrs secondary sources

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Of course they are in dispute, just because a few republican posters on this site have spent the last umpteen posts breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs, doesn't mean that thier version of history is set in stone, everything is up to interpretation in history unless you where an eye witness to events. Basic history 101. Primary sources vrs secondary sources

no, it certainly is not. You're thinking of revisionism, something loyalists are particularly fond of, especially when it comes to how exactly the troubles started.

SoulandForm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

no, it certainly is not. You're thinking of revisionism, something loyalists are particularly fond of, especially when it comes to how exactly the troubles started.

This is something that is very annoying about a lot of Unionists and Loyalists; they expect there subjective feelings to have the same respect as objective fact.

Lingua Franca

junder wrote: »

Of course they are in dispute, just because a few republican posters on this site have spent the last umpteen posts breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs, doesn't mean that thier version of history is set in stone, everything is up to interpretation in history unless you where an eye witness to events. Basic history 101. Primary sources vrs secondary sources

Ok, tell us all about the British army being brought in to quell this IRA murder spree. Include references. Especially from eyewitnesses. There'll be no lack of those since it was only 44 years ago. I look forward to seeing what you think actually happened.

Dubhlinner

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Said as if the RUC were some sort of peace keeping force rather than a Unionist militia that had a penchant for beating and murdering Catholics.

Protestants and RUC/B-Specials attacking Catholic areas in Belfast (RTE).

Erm, I was addressing the fact that you've bought into the myth that the British Army were sent over to protect Catholics not discussing the RUC.

They may say it on every BBC documentary ever made the BA were sent in to save the micks but that doesn't make it true. Word to the wise, you'd be utterly ripped to shreds by republicans for that one. If you ever venture into west Belfast I'd advise keeping it to yourself.

They were sent over because the RUC were in no position (ie did not have the numbers or equipment) to cope with the situation(including loyalist pogroms which i am certainly not denying). That is fact. What I said made no reference to the nature of the RUC, it described literally what happened. You perhaps just really misunderstood what i was saying

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Mabey they were not just protesting? We know the CNR community killed and attacked people so mabey some of them were not innocent?

junder wrote: »

Of course they are in dispute, just because a few republican posters on this site have spent the last umpteen posts breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs, doesn't mean that thier version of history is set in stone, everything is up to interpretation in history unless you where an eye witness to events. Basic history 101. Primary sources vrs secondary sources

I didn't think that Unionism was backed so profoundly into a corner.:rolleyes:

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

no, it certainly is not. You're thinking of revisionism, something loyalists are particularly fond of, especially when it comes to how exactly the troubles started.

Sure And republicans have never been guilty of that,

Lingua Franca

Still waiting to see this evidence of a Brit summoning IRA murder spree, Junder.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

This is something that is very annoying about a lot of Unionists and Loyalists; they expect there subjective feelings to have the same respect as objective fact.

This is something that is very annoying about republicans, they expect songs song in irish bars by men wearing Arran jumpers to be objective fact.

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Still waiting to see this evidence of a Brit summoning IRA murder spree, Junder.

Speak to Gallag about that since its his view your questioning.

Lingua Franca

junder wrote: »

Speak to Gallag about that since its his view your questioning.

He's not answering either. Funny, that.

Haystack.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So wrong.

If it hadn't been for Unionist/Loyalist state and sate facilitated violence (up to murder and ethic cleansing) against the CNR community then the BA might not have ended up on the streets. They came initially to protect Catholics from Unionists/Loyalists.

It was ethnic cleansing from the British Army or Protestants but it wasn't ethnic cleansing of Protestants by PIRA death squads in South Armagh and all over Ulster was it? Hypocrite and a PIRA apologist.

Thomas_I

Dubhlinner wrote: »

... They were sent over because the RUC were in no position (ie did not have the numbers or equipment) to cope with the situation(including loyalist pogroms which i am certainly not denying). That is fact. ...

That´s one part of the official version and the other part is "to protect the Catholics from these pogroms".

Isn´t it curious that in all these documentaries there were footages that shows the BA are welcome by the Catholics? Catholics inviting British soldiers to tea in their homes and so on. It can´t all have been made up but well, this lasted just for a short time.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I love Puckoon, I re-read it last week and it's full of um... non PC humour. To say the least. The film with Sean Hughes is quite good.



I've still not watched it but after being told by some one who works there, I think it was the Belfast Telegraph or perhaps Slugger O'Toole that confirmed that the audience was made up of the protestors who'd scared the ticket holding audience off when they arrived.

No wonder when one takes a look at some of the bully boys among the audience there.

Thomas_I

Haystack. wrote: »

It was ethnic cleansing from the British Army or Protestants but it wasn't ethnic cleansing of Protestants by PIRA death squads in South Armagh and all over Ulster was it? ...

It was simply another kind of civil war.

laoch na mona

no its a group of unionists who reject the idea of equality

Happyman42

There is a notion amongst Unionism that everything they did was moral and right because they had the force of tradition and their god behind them. They haven't faced up to the fact that a lot of what they did exacerbated the problem and is still doing that and they where largely the arbiters of their current position - having nowhere to go, and finding themselves at odds with the very identity they so desperately clung to. There is a hardcore which fails to see their place in the world and they are consequently jealous of the health of republicanism as an idelology. They need to move forward, not backward. I think the more extreme reactions we see helps the more progressive to do this, the Unionist elements of the Alliance being a case in point.

Thomas_I

laoch na mona wrote: »

no its a group of unionists who reject the idea of equality

There are apparently several groups of that kind in NI.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a notion amongst Unionism that everything they did was moral and right because they had the force of tradition and their god behind them. They haven't faced up to the fact that a lot of what they did exacerbated the problem and is still doing that and they where largely the arbiters of their current position - having nowhere to go, and finding themselves at odds with the very identity they so desperately clung to.

I see it quite that way too.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a hardcore which fails to see their place in the world and they are consequently jealous of the health of republicanism as an idelology. They need to move forward, not backward. I think the more extreme reactions we see helps the more progressive to do this, the Unionist elements of the Alliance being a case in point.

This applies for the Republicans as well because to transfer "republicanism as an ideology" into a "New United Ireland" provokes the transfer of "Unionism" and thus the same problems as well into that new Ireland. It´s the only option I can see for the sake of an peaceful united Ireland. I´m more inclined to think about a pluralistic and democratic Ireland for the benefit of all its inhabitants than to advocate an ideology which might become obsolete in the event of the unification of Ireland. I also think that one can´t have it the other way. Everyone of them should have his place in that without fear from either side. That´s the only way it can work and I´m more an realist than an utopist in these regards. I´m sorry but I can only see republicanism as a purpose to achieve a united Ireland. Once this would be accomplished I can´t see any further use of that, because Ireland without NI is already a Republic. It can and hopefully it will only be united as a Republic.

Lets hope that the more progressive will prevail.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

This applies for the Republicans as well because to transfer "republicanism as an ideology" into a "New United Ireland" provokes the transfer of "Unionism" and thus the same problems as well into that new Ireland. It´s the only option I can see for the sake of an peaceful united Ireland. I´m more inclined to think about a pluralistic and democratic Ireland for the benefit of all its inhabitants than to advocate an ideology which might become obsolete in the event of the unification of Ireland. I also think that one can´t have it the other way. Everyone of them should have his place in that without fear from either side. That´s the only way it can work and I´m more an realist than an utopist in these regards. I´m sorry but I can only see republicanism as a purpose to achieve a united Ireland. Once this would be accomplished I can´t see any further use of that, because Ireland without NI is already a Republic. It can and hopefully it will only be united as a Republic.

Lets hope that the more progressive will prevail.

I think the world can see who is 'trying' to move forward. I agree that there is a way to go, but I think SF have a vision of a new republic that I think I can sign up to. I have never voted for them before in a national election but they become more attractive by the day as they mature economically, more people like Pearse Doherty are needed though.
True Republicanism does not need to become redundant.

Lingua Franca

gallag wrote: »

Seriously? If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here

gallag, could you provide a reputable source for this or retract it, please.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the world can see who is 'trying' to move forward. I agree that there is a way to go, but I think SF have a vision of a new republic that I think I can sign up to. I have never voted for them before in a national election but they become more attractive by the day as they mature economically, more people like Pearse Doherty are needed though.
True Republicanism does not need to become redundant.

To me some questions remain: "What is true Republicanism?" and "What place has it really in the present Republic of Ireland?" and "What place would it supposed to have in a new Ireland?"

Republicanism is the claimed grass-root of SF but the other political parties (most of the older ones from the same stock) claim to be republican as well. So what´s the point in this? It rather appeares to me that to be "republican" in the RoI is just a naturally thing based on the democratic Irish State.

Dubhlinner

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s one part of the official version and the other part is "to protect the Catholics from these pogroms".

Isn´t it curious that in all these documentaries there were footages that shows the BA are welcome by the Catholics? Catholics inviting British soldiers to tea in their homes and so on. It can´t all have been made up but well, this lasted just for a short time.

Yeah, wasn't denying that. Made reference to that very point in previous post. This is tedious

Thomas_I

Some cartoon from a book covering the years 1994 to 1996:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/cartoons/t96p104.htm

Funny, that cartoon in which John Major is asking himself: "What´s a sash? What´s a lambeg? What´s bratash? What planet are these guys from?"

Seems as if nothing has changed in compare to the recent flag issue(?)

Another selected from that website:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/cartoons/t98p100.htm

junder

I was at an orange parade last year in London, in celebration of the jubliee, it was hosted and orginised by the English grand lodge and was one of the biggest parades I have attended. Was a very proud moment to parade past the houses of parilment and we where very well revived by the people of London. Another interesting point is that I met my English girlfriend at a orange parade in southhampton, her son was in a English flute band, so it seems unionist culture is not as far removed from the mainland as some people would like to believe

Thomas_I

junder wrote: »

I was at an orange parade last year in London, in celebration of the jubliee, it was hosted and orginised by the English grand lodge and was one of the biggest parades I have attended. Was a very proud moment to parade past the houses of parilment and we where very well revived by the people of London. Another interesting point is that I met my English girlfriend at a orange parade in southhampton, her son was in a English flute band, so it seems unionist culture is not as far removed from the mainland as some people would like to believe

Well done and the link in my previous post leads to a cartoon from 1998. It´s just a cartoon and the Orange Order has done enough publicity to be well recognised by the people in GB.

By the way, that website has some cartoons about Republicans too, but I guess that´s not that sort of humour you´d prefer.

But serious, the traditions of the Orange Order are specifically bound to NI and those parading in GB are from there. I guess those in England and elsewhere supporting the flag protests in NI are from NI also.

One can meet plenty of different people in London, some Orangemen parading there isn´t a great deal anyway.