Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I am serious. Unification was not a goal of NICRA. Was there nationalists involved? yes of course and the movement was not 'up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism.' In fact the movement was purposefully made up mostly of those who were not involved in the Republican movement, they were not entirely excluded of course but a clear arms length approach was certainly made. The goals of NICRA will be easily found online and you should read up about the movement. It was certainly a left leaning movement but it was firmly for the cause of social justice.

How could a movement founded on the ideals of republicanism not be up to it's neck in republicanism? And note in this context I don't mean the Balaclava brigade I mean actual republicanism, as in the ideology created during the European enlightenment and expanded on during the American and French revolutions.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even if there had been an widescale and organised seeking of unification it still wouldn't justify the treatment the NICRA got so I don't know why that's used as a bogeyman for Unionist/British brutality.

It's not.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because they had links to a not so peaceful terrorist organisation.

That's not why.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Innocent children grow up to be murderers and their sympathisers.

Innocent children often grow up to become murderers who wear uniforms with emblazoned epaulettes, collect state pensions, and get shiny badges from a Queen too; only we should expect more from them shouldn't we?

Despite politics maybe bringing them back to their childhood lessons will show them the error of their ways. Then again I guess not.

It really isn't clear what you're trying to say here.

Loyalist fears. I've told you this one.

Do you think Loyalist paranoia justified the brutal suppression of the NICRA?

Because they had links to a not so peaceful terrorist organisation.

Source? I'm not sure Ivan Cooper would agree with you.

No need to dig,

We're going to need a ladder to get you out soon.

they couldn't put down the IRA or the Taliban either. If the IRA fought like a real army like the Germans in WWI or II the IRA would have been beaten in a day, hell hours if they were on the one field.

Such delightful naivety.

A sad position. It speaks more about you that you can't even imagine a peaceful solution to the troubles. It seems to me that a peaceful solution is so against your innate characteristics you can't even comprehend it.

Peaceful means were attempted and brutally suppressed. You know this though. I'm simply exposing the absurdity of your 'ifs and buts - could've and should've' statements. We work with the reality we have not the one you conjure to prop up your dogma on its shaky foundations.

Violence would have broken out over the national issue anyway. Everything isn't the fault of Johnny foreigner you know.

There you go again with your alternate realities. If you want to be taken seriously you should drop the children's proverbs and alternate realities. We're discussing this in the politics forum FFS.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How could a movement founded on the ideals of republicanism not be up to it's neck in republicanism? And note in this context I don't mean the Balaclava brigade I mean actual republicanism, as in the ideology created during the European enlightenment and expanded on during the American and French revolutions.

NICRA was founded on the ideals of Republicanism?

I'll be honest with you, this is a first. I've had many a conversation about the Civil Rights Movement but I've never actually had this chucked at me. I've never heard of this before at all so I'm going to assume it wasn't steeped in Republicanism, of the non-balaclava wearing variety of course. Even if it were that's a pretty big shift of the goal posts on your part.

It was a Civil Rights movement, it really cannot be any more succinctly described.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Innocent children often grow up to become murderers who wear uniforms with emblazoned epaulettes, collect state pensions, and get shiny badges from a Queen too; only we should expect more from them shouldn't we?

I see whataboutery is alive and well in Northern Ireland. But yes, that too is a shame.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think Loyalist paranoia justified the brutal suppression of the NICRA?

No but it helps us understand it. Instead of painting a black and white picture where the big bad protestants beat up the poor innocent catholics. Life is more complicated then that. There are many shades of grey.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Source? I'm not sure Ivan Cooper would agree with you.

Two seconds on wikipedia brought this up, a quote from Lord Cameron.

"The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted by a commission of inquiry set up by the British Government following the spread of civil unrest in 1969. The report by a Scottish judge, Lord Cameron stated, "certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic.""

Now I know I know I can hear you protesting already. Yes it is wikipedia but here is the source.

"Lord Cameron, 'Disturbances in Northern Ireland: Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland' (Belfast, 1969)"

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Such delightful naivety.

Please explain.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Peaceful means were attempted and brutally suppressed. You know this though. I'm simply exposing the absurdity of your 'ifs and buts - could've and should've' statements. We work with the reality we have not the one you conjure to prop up your dogma on its shaky foundations.

My Dogma?

My Dogma that the goals of the civil rights movement could have been achieved through useful means? A position that you dispute? Ivan Cooper would agree more with my position then yours.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

NICRA was founded on the ideals of Republicanism?

I'll be honest with you, this is a first. I've had many a conversation about the Civil Rights Movement but I've never actually had this chucked at me. I've never heard of this before at all so I'm going to assume it wasn't steeped in Republicanism, of the non-balaclava wearing variety of course. Even if it were that's a pretty big shift of the goal posts on your part.

It was a Civil Rights movement, it really cannot be any more succinctly described.

Oh yes because the NICRA were well known Monarchists. Honestly this debate is getting tedious. I'm starting to think some of you in this thread don't want to understand the other persons position.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh yes because the NICRA were well known Monarchists. Honestly this debate is getting tedious. I'm starting to think some of you in this thread don't want to understand the other persons position.

O I think we understand your position well enough at this stage.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two seconds on wikipedia brought this up, a quote from Lord Cameron.

"The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted by a commission of inquiry set up by the British Government following the spread of civil unrest in 1969. The report by a Scottish judge, Lord Cameron stated, "certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic.""

Now I know I know I can hear you protesting already. Yes it is wikipedia but here is the source.

"Lord Cameron, 'Disturbances in Northern Ireland: Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland' (Belfast, 1969)"

Of all the information about NICRA online, you go to that report first?

That's akin to getting your information about Bloody Sunday from Widgery.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

O I think we understand your position well enough at this stage.

Well don't leave me in the dark, what is it?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Of all the information about NICRA online, you go to that report first?

That's akin to getting your information about Bloody Sunday from Widgery.

The guy was a Judge and apparently a Senator of the College of Justice. If you suspect he was biased well I'm not qualified to question him I don't know about you. Here's the link to the report any way.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/cameron.htm

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The guy was a Judge and apparently a Senator of the College of Justice. If you suspect he was biased well I'm not qualified to question him I don't know about you. Here's the link to the report any way.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/cameron.htm

Widgery was a Judge and Lord Chief Justice of England. That did not stop him from flat-out lying.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Widgery was a Judge and Lord Chief Justice of England. That did not stop him from flat-out lying.

That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well don't leave me in the dark, what is it?

It's on based on hostility to Irish nationalists generally and republicans specifically. For instance the efforts to denigrate the NICRA eg dragging out this

"The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted...... " I'm sure if the sum total of the views of every member of macra na feirme were taken as indicative of the views of the actual organisation, it could find itself held in rather different regard than it is. However, as with all organisations, its a vehicle for people to advance an agreed set of joint interests.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.

Yet the views of some individuals in the NICRA justify unionist reactions...

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

It's on based on hostility to Irish nationalists generally and republicans specifically. For instance the efforts to denigrate the NICRA eg dragging out this

I never tried to discredit anyone. My original, and current, position is that violence was not needed to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Ir was chuck who hit back with "yeah well tell it to the RUC who beat up NICRA marchers." (paraphrasing)

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Yet the views of some individuals in the NICRA justify unionist reactions...

Never said that.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.

No, but it provides context into the British establishment of the time, and it raises certainly, serious questions about impartiality of the Cameron report. After all it was the Northern Ireland Government of the time who made the accusation that NICRA was a front for Republicans and Communists. It was the NI equivalent of McCarthyism and it's no shocker at all that a report by a British Judge would subsequently concur.

Think of the American Civil rights and look at how J Edgar Hoover labelled them as "Communist" and "subversive." This is exactly the same, it was an attempt to undermine and defame.

Like I said, NICRA and it's membership is today well documented, and no one gives that report much credence.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never tried to discredit anyone..

In addition to dragging in that report, see below....

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Never said that.

These peaceful protests didn't happen in a vacuum you know. The big bad protestants weren't stopping the sweet innocent Catholics for the fun of it. They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

In addition to dragging in that report, see below....

Yes, I stand by that statement. The publication of that report proves their fears were justified.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

No, but it provides context into the British establishment of the time, and it raises certainly, serious questions about impartiality of the Cameron report. After all it was the Northern Ireland Government of the time who made the accusation that NICRA was a front for Republicans and Communists. It was the NI equivalent of McCarthyism and it's no shocker at all that a report by a British Judge would subsequently concur.

Think of the American Civil rights and look at how J Edgar Hoover labelled them as "Communist" and "subversive." This is exactly the same, it was an attempt to undermine and defame.

Like I said, NICRA and it's membership is today well documented, and no one gives that report much credence.

Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, I stand by that statement. The publication of that report proves their fears were justified.

And, as I pointed out....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84085275&postcount=465

karma_

Also, just before I neglect to mention it, no matter what this report said, the British knew full well that the NI Government was completely out of control. For a long time the British essentially completely forgot about the place, but by the late 60's they had to do something. That's why direct rule had to be reimposed and the NI Parliment abolished, it had morphed into a corrupt statelet and had to be brought into check.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.

I was being polite when I said 'raises questions.' The report was obviously a whitewash.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

And, as I pointed out....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84085275&postcount=465

Why post a statement I've responded to, that's the definition of a circular argument.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I was being polite when I said 'raises questions.' The report was obviously a whitewash.

Why obviously? Where is the proof.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Also, just before I neglect to mention it, no matter what this report said, the British knew full well that the NI Government was completely out of control. For a long time the British essentially completely forgot about the place, but by the late 60's they had to do something. That's why direct rule had to be reimposed and the NI Parliment abolished, it had morphed into a corrupt statelet and had to be brought into check.

Agreed

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why post a statement I've responded to, that's the definition of a circular argument.

You responded to the first point therein, but didn't address the difference I highlighted between the goals of individuals and that of organisations.

GRMA

When someone refuses point blank to see that they are (obviously) wrong there is not much point continuing to engage with that ignorance.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why obviously? Where is the proof.

Because today we know, with absolute certainty who the membership was, we know who was on the executive committee, and we know what the goals were. We also can point to that time in history and know with absolute certainty why the Movement existed.

I've said earlier that yes, the movement was definitely left leaning, but to accuse it of being a hotbed of Republicanism is farcical.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Because today we know, with absolute certainty who the membership was, we know who was on the executive committee, and we know what the goals were. We also can point to that time in history and know with absolute certainty why the Movement existed.

I've said earlier that yes, the movement was definitely left leaning, but to accuse it of being a hotbed of Republicanism is farcical.

What we know now did not affect the fears of loyalists at the time,

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic."

As much as I think this is a fabrication from an untrustworthy British establishment at the time let's just pretend that it's true.

With the above in mind I put the this to you: so fucking what? What exactly would have been wrong with aspiring to an all island socialist Republic? There were socialist and communist parties in the UK at the time that weren't being brutalised.

the goals of the civil rights movement could have been achieved through useful means?

The above is little more than idle conjecture that belongs 'what ifs, if only, should've, would've' section of boards wherever that may be. Also, the fact that you hold Nationalist civilians who were seeking equality by democratic means to higher standard than those who were brutalizing them exposes your blatant anti-Nationalist bias.

In IWF's reality it's okay for the sectarian militias that were the B-Specials and RUC to beat Catholics to death but Nationalists should still have been throwing flowers and blowing bubbles at them?

Now that's a perfect example of naivety.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What we know now did not affect the fears of loyalists at the time,

That's not what you asked me, you asked why I can call the report a whitewash.

It was feared because it was a threat to their hegemony. It's always been the Unionist way, the fear of change. Their primary function was to retain control of the state by any means.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.

Tbh I'd be quite happy in dismissing a report by a British report or judge in 1969 about the NICRA.

Why do you regard it so highly as to bring it into your argument?

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No need to dig, they couldn't put down the IRA or the Taliban either. If the IRA fought like a real army like the Germans in WWI or II the IRA would have been beaten in a day, hell hours if they were on the one field..

What do mean by a real army.
You do realise one of the main objectives in war/battle is to disable/kill as many of the opposition while avoiding casualties on your own side.
Ever heard of "camouflage", or do you know why those so called "smart bombs" were invented, how about Special Forces like the SAS operating behind enemy lines, your views on conflict are more than just naive, they are stuck centuries in the past, with brightly coloured troops standing in nice neat rows taking pot shots at each other.

I find your (and others) attitude towards this baffling.
Take for example Bloody Sunday 1920, you would consider the efficient surgical strike against the castle detectives as an horrific terrorist action, yet would consider the all out storming of the castle by regular troops as legit, even though one would involve many more casualties on both sides and no doubt take out many non-combatants, from secretaries to visitors and even passer-bys.
Clinical surgical strike no, all out assaults yes. Very odd indeed.

Scofflaw

Can we keep the firing from the trenches civil, thanks.

moderately,
Scofflaw

kabakuyu

Rubeter wrote: »

What do mean by a real army.
You do realise one of the main objectives in war/battle is to disable/kill as many of the opposition while avoiding casualties on your own side.
Ever heard of "camouflage", or do you know why those so called "smart bombs" were invented, how about Special Forces like the SAS operating behind enemy lines, your views on conflict are more than just naive, they are stuck centuries in the past, with brightly coloured troops standing in nice neat rows taking pot shots at each other.

I find your (and others) attitude towards this baffling.
Take for example Bloody Sunday 1920, you would consider the efficient surgical strike against the castle detectives as an horrific terrorist action, yet would consider the all out storming of the castle by regular troops as legit, even though one would involve many more casualties on both sides and no doubt take out many non-combatants, from secretaries to visitors and even passer-bys.
Clinical surgical strike no, all out assaults yes. Very odd indeed.

Ah, have you not realised the way some think, eg.
A successful operation by the IRA = cowardly,sneaky,murderous Irish.
A successful action by the BA= Brave, courageous, dashing action against inferior,stupid Irish.

LordSutch

kabakuyu wrote: »

Ah, have you not realised the way some think, eg.
A successful operation by the IRA = cowardly,sneaky, murderous Irish.
A successful action by the BA= Brave, courageous, dashing action against inferior,stupid Irish.

Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.

guinnessdrinker

LordSutch wrote: »

Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.

Nobody is denying that the British army had an extremely difficult job to do but lets not pretend they were not as "sneaky" as their foes or that their members always "played by the rules".

kabakuyu

LordSutch wrote: »

Well if you had left out the word 'Irish' I would totally agree with that^ Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group who needed to be faced off, and the BA were for the most part courageous and restrained, but always with one hand always tied behind their backs. Things would have been a whole lot worse in NI had the "Regular Army" not been deployed on the streets to keep both sides apart.

The thirty year PIRA campaign put back any chance of reconciliation between North & South, Nationalist/Unionist by decades.

Sorry Sutch, I should have clarified that I was referring to actions in the War of Independence as referred to by Rubeter in post #486.

Rubeter

LordSutch wrote: »

...... Let us not forget that the PIRA were indeed a sneeky cowardly terrorist group ..........

You may say that from behind your keyboard but I think their opponents on the ground had quite a different opinion.

BRITS SPEAK OUT
British Soldiers' Impressions of the
Northern Ireland Conflict
By John Lindsay

Peter - Cheshire Regiment:
If you look at the IRA in a professional sense, then you have to admit that they are exceptional. I see them like the resistance against the Germans in the Second World War. If they were in the British Army they would be in the special services.

In accounts from British soldiers or even Loyalist paramilitaries you rarely hear the word "cowardly", and this goes for all sides, ie none of the groups involved believed any of the others were cowards (such an attitude would have actually been quite dangerous), words such as yours only tend to be seen in a rant of angry rhetoric.

As for sneaky; in conflict, sneaking up on the enemy is (believe it or not) quite common among those without a suicidal nature.

Have you ever read a book such as the one quoted above?