Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

gallag

Doublelime wrote: »

Yes because Ireland loses way to much money to NI. People go their and buy tons of things. All that tax goes to Britain. It's a leakage from our economy. We deserve that land back.

Dont worry, the uk buys more irish goods than visa versa, and why do you feel you deserve my land?

ONeill2013

gallag wrote: »

Dont worry, the uk buys more irish goods than visa versa, and why do you feel you deserve my land?

Your land? do you own Northern Ireland or something?

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you are British then yes? You live on the British Isles. And that is an indisputable fact. If you can bring yourself to ignore this indisputable fact then I'm sure you can see how Junder manages the same.

Not one of your better posts.
I live in (what some call) The British Isles yes, to be precise the isle called Ireland and so does Junder.
Though we both live on the same island our respective nationalities are different, do you also have difficulty with those little facts?

junder wrote: »

The term 'island of Ireland' is yet another way for republicans to refuse to acknowledge the existence of Northern Ireland, I don't identify with Ireland or being Irish, so why should I acknowledge the term 'island of Ireland' espically as, as far I'm concerned 'Ireland' is only 26 county's. I don't use the term 'the British isles' so why should I use the term 'the island of Ireland'

No, the term island of Ireland comes from that rather innate human characteristic of naming things due to our use of language to communicate. Patches of land totally surrounded by water are named as single entities some are known by different names by different people, some contain two or more countries but all have a single name, and the name of this one in English is Ireland.

The politicisation comes from you, I could stand by a map of the world point out various islands and ask you their names, if you are very knowledgeable in geography you could answer each time until you get to one particular island which for purely political reasons you would be unable to give a name for.
It is you Junder who has the issue, are you going to try and tell me that only an Irish republican could answer the question below accurately?

What is the name of the third largest island in Europe?

P.S. I would love to see the look on your face if you got that question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire for the 1,000,000 question.

gallag

ONeill2013 wrote: »

Your land? do you own Northern Ireland or something?

I own a bit of it. What makes you think you deserve it?

junder

Rubeter wrote: »

Not one of your better posts.
I live in (what some call) The British Isles yes, to be precise the isle called Ireland and so does Junder.
Though we both live on the same island our respective nationalities are different, do you also have difficulty with those little facts?



No, the term island of Ireland comes from that rather innate human characteristic of naming things due to our use of language to communicate. Patches of land totally surrounded by water are named as single entities some are known by different names by different people, some contain two or more countries but all have a single name, and the name of this one in English is Ireland.

The politicisation comes from you, I could stand by a map of the world point out various islands and ask you their names, if you are very knowledgeable in geography you could answer each time until you get to one particular island which for purely political reasons you would be unable to give a name for.
It is you Junder who has the issue, are you going to try and tell me that only an Irish republican could answer the question below accurately?

What is the name of the third largest island in Europe?

P.S. I would love to see the look on your face if you got that question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire for the 1,000,000 question.

The politization of the Irish idenity lies squarely at the feet of Irish republicans, they have warped it into something that is anathema to unionists, and made us entirely unwelcome in it as well. Moreover refering to the geographical landmass I live as Ireland gives credence to the lie that I am Irish. I suppose if I was pendantic and a Mla in charge of a department at stormont I could instruct the department to omit the term 'island of Ireland from all departmental documents but I'm not a mla, or pendantic, or a member of Sinn Fein who like to get up to the sort of thing. Instead I make A personnel political choice as to how I refer to the place I live in, I don't correct people who refer to it as the 'island or Ireland' or tell them they are wrong, they make thier choice I make mine

ONeill2013

gallag wrote: »

I own a bit of it. What makes you think you deserve it?

I can't recall ever saying I deserved it. What makes the queen think she deserves it? who knows

Rubeter

junder wrote: »

The politization of the Irish idenity lies squarely at the feet of Irish republicans, they have warped it into something that is anathema to unionists, and made us entirely unwelcome in it as well.

Which part of the island has had all the problems regarding polarized communities, the one created by republicans or the one created by the loyal folk of Ulster? Seems one worked and the other didn't.
Surely you don't want to get into who was ultimately responsible for keeping the two communities in NI divided throughout the 20th century?
You also seem to be forgetting that physical force republicanism was in its death throes by the 60's and the reasons for its revival. The NI state had the chance to bring the two communities together in the mid 60's but it decided to use violence against one of them instead, and well.......you reap what you sow.

Moreover refering to the geographical landmass I live as Ireland gives credence to the lie that I am Irish. I suppose if I was pendantic and a Mla in charge of a department at stormont I could instruct the department to omit the term 'island of Ireland from all departmental documents but I'm not a mla, or pendantic, or a member of Sinn Fein who like to get up to the sort of thing. Instead I make A personnel political choice as to how I refer to the place I live in, I don't correct people who refer to it as the 'island or Ireland' or tell them they are wrong, they make thier choice I make mine

Of course you can't tell people who call this island Ireland that they are wrong, that name was around long before you were born and will be around long after you are gone, and will no doubt outlive your very identity.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I'm not sure indisputable means what you think it means.

Not one square inch of Ireland, North or South is in Britain. That is an indisputable fact.

And that is indisputably wrong. Every inch of the British Isles covers Ireland. The British Isles contain Ireland. You are British by the same logic Junder is Irish. Lucky for both of you this is 2013 and we don't define nationality by geography. Now grow up and stop telling other people what they are.

maccored wrote: »

Logically consistant to a two year old maybe, but no - you dont 'have to'. Plus, "but Ireland doesn't cover all of Ireland" sounds like something out of Father Ted.

Nope it isn't, a two year old couldn't comprehend this conversation and if you don't lay off the insults you'll be comprehending it on your own.

Now back to business,
"Ireland is called Ireland because it makes up the majority (but not all of) Ireland."
"Northern Ireland can be called Ulster because it makes up the majority (but not all of) Ulster."

Now this fact may be uncomfortable to you but facts are not designed to suit your ideology and as for the stupid situation we have at the moment where the official name of our country is logically inconsistent. Well you can blame Dev for that.

Rubeter wrote: »

Not one of your better posts.
I live in (what some call) The British Isles yes, to be precise the isle called Ireland and so does Junder.
Though we both live on the same island our respective nationalities are different, do you also have difficulty with those little facts?

Oh believe me I have absolutely no problem with that fact. You are Irish and he is British. End of story.

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

The politization of the Irish idenity lies squarely at the feet of Irish republicans

This is absolute bollocks and indicative of the detachment from reality of a lot of fundamentalist loyalists. Unionists had the option to have a pluralistic society in the 6 counties but instead attempted (and failed) to maintain the sectarian statelet and their privileges at all costs - up to and including crushing the civil rights movement with lethal force.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh believe me I have absolutely no problem with that fact. You are Irish and he is British. End of story.

End of story? What story? I question someone for not being able to name the island he lives on and you call me British, hmmm....not much of a story there, just you getting rather confused, not to mention your slightly odd use of the words indisputable and fact.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

End of story? What story? I question someone for not being able to name the island he lives on and you call me British, hmmm....not much of a story there, just you getting rather confused, not to mention your slightly odd use of the words indisputable and fact.

Never once called you British.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Never once called you British.

OK, you asked me if I was British because I live in the British Isles, which shows your confusion because I am not stating here that anyone is, or isn't, either Irish or British.
If you are going to say my trying to get someone to give the name of this island means I am trying to say he is Irish, then just remember all your posts claiming the name of the islands are The British Isles, does your stating that mean you are calling all the inhabitants British?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And that is indisputably wrong. Every inch of the British Isles covers Ireland. The British Isles contain Ireland. You are British by the same logic Junder is Irish.

The British isles, a term which I personally don't mind at all because it purely is a geographical term to describe the islands which lie within, the two main being Ireland and Britain. I repeat, there is no part of Ireland that lies within Britain, likewise, no part of Britain lies within Ireland.

What were you saying about being indisputably wrong? This is elementary stuff iwf, you should have picked this up at primary level in fairness.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

OK, you asked me if I was British because I live in the British Isles, which shows your confusion because I am not stating here that anyone is, or isn't, either Irish or British.
If you are going to say my trying to get someone to give the name of this island means I am trying to say he is Irish, then just remember all your posts claiming the name of the islands are The British Isles, does your stating that mean you are calling all the inhabitants British?

Nope it doesn't because I don't base nationality off geography. I'm sure Junder is happy to acknowledge Ireland in a purely geographical sense ( such as how you view the British isles) but in terms of nationality it means nothing to him.

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope it doesn't because I don't base nationality off geography. I'm sure Junder is happy to acknowledge Ireland in a purely geographical sense ( such as how you view the British isles) but in terms of nationality it means nothing to him.

The whole point of this recent discussion is that he isn't.

By the way British Isles is the name, British isles would mean the isles that belong to Britain.

Iwasfrozen

Rubeter wrote: »

The whole point of this recent discussion is that he isn't.

By the way British Isles is the name, British isles would mean the isles that belong to Britain.

Well try it out but make sure you're it as only a geographical term.

whateves. :P

Rubeter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well try it out but make sure you're it as only a geographical term.

whateves. :P

I don't like talking about other posters but I'll point you to this post.
Quote: I don't use the term 'the British isles' so why should I use the term 'the island of Ireland'

The topic has been discussed geographically already. Have a re-read of the conversation and you should clearly see it.
You will also notice I am not discussing nationality in any way.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope it isn't, a two year old couldn't comprehend this conversation and if you don't lay off the insults you'll be comprehending it on your own.

You picked me up wrong - I wasnt trying to insult, I was stating that you were incorrect in your assumption.

EvanCornwallis

I am no expert on this , but I do find a few things on this issue funny as an Englishman leaving in Ireland the last few years.

Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist. We have probably killed more innocent people and terrorised more parts of the world than anybody in history. Im not the most caring fellow, but I remember being in Belfast years ago and it was shocking to see how Catholics were treated. Lower than second class citizens.

It's funny that we have the north of the country , yet the most northern county is apart of the republic. Crazy that we got away with that, I don't know the math , but with that considered , I doubt we ever really had a majority.

The funniest thing is that the poor people that want to be apart of the united kingdom , aren't known and/or cared about by the British people. The people and the government would of given you your 32 counties back years ago if it was that simple. We haven't wanted anything to them with them for quite sometime.

Iwasfrozen

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

I am no expert on this , but I do find a few things on this issue funny as an Englishman leaving in Ireland the last few years.

Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist. We have probably killed more innocent people and terrorised more parts of the world than anybody in history. Im not the most caring fellow, but I remember being in Belfast years ago and it was shocking to see how Catholics were treated. Lower than second class citizens.

It's funny that we have the north of the country , yet the most northern county is apart of the republic. Crazy that we got away with that, I don't know the math , but with that considered , I doubt we ever really had a majority.

The funniest thing is that the poor people that want to be apart of the united kingdom , aren't known and/or cared about by the British people. The people and the government would of given you your 32 counties back years ago if it was that simple. We haven't wanted anything to them with them for quite sometime.

I don't really think you're English. If you are then you are seriously ignorant of your own history. More likely though you're a Republican in disguise. Which is frankly bizarre.

EvanCornwallis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't really think you're English. If you are then you are seriously ignorant of your own history. More likely though you're a Republican in disguise. Which is frankly bizarre.

You seem to be the ignorant one. Sorry, but I don't just go along with the spoon fed facts like a sheep.

Yes, I made this account as a republican just to discuss this issue with clever chaos like yourself. My life is pretty dull you see.

Don't know why I waited so long to post in politics.

Like I said , fact is people in the uk don't care about northern Ireland .

Iwasfrozen

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

You seem to be the ignorant one. Sorry, but I don't just go along with the spoon fed facts like a sheep.

Yes, I made this account as a republican just to discuss this issue with clever chaos like yourself. My life is pretty dull you see.

Don't know why I waited so long to post in politics.

It seems like it, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd actually believe it. All I can say is try reading up a bit more on history. It's not as black and white as you think.

.jacksparrow.

gallag wrote: »

Dont worry, the uk buys more irish goods than visa versa, and why do you feel you deserve my land?

Finally the mask comes off.

EvanCornwallis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems like it, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd actually believe it. All I can say is try reading up a bit more on history. It's not as black and white as you think.

I have done more reading on history than you have reading. Sadly, there's a lot more interesting events than northern ireland to read up on. Your problem (one of them) is you arelearning from books, I was around at the time. Although not living in Ireland .

Just because all our leaders whilst in fancy suits told you our actions throughout history were acceptable doesn't make it so. You should try thinking for yourself, most people do not so you aren't alone.

If you went to England you should find we are like most other places, in a lot of disagreement with our governments.

Iwasfrozen

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

I have done more reading on history than you have reading. Sadly, there's a lot more interesting events than northern ireland to read up on. Your problem (one of them) is you arelearning from books, I was around at the time. Although not living in Ireland .

Just because all our leaders whilst in fancy suits told you our actions throughout history were acceptable doesn't make it so. You should try thinking for yourself, most people do not so you aren't alone.

If you went to England you should find we are like most other places, in a lot of disagreement with our governments.

You've done more reading then me but my problem is I've learned too much from reading? What?

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong. Seemingly you have done the same but come to a different conclusion. Actually no I take it back, it's not funny because you can vote too.

I've been to England. Identical to Dublin actually save for Irish on the signs.

EvanCornwallis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You've done more reading from me but my problem is I've learned too much from reading? What?

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong. Seemingly you have done the same but come to a different conclusion. Actually no I take it back, it's not funny because you can vote too.

I've been to England. Identical to Dublin actually save for Irish on the signs.

I have done reading from you ? Any decent person deplores terrorism in all forms. I don't mean in just political terms.


All of england is identical to Dublin ?

Ok. Anyway, I hope you had a nice time and caught all the sites.

Iwasfrozen

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

I have done reading from you ? Any decent person deplores terrorism in all forms. I don't mean in just political terms.


All of england is identical to Dublin ?

Ok. Anyway, I hope you had a nice time and caught all the sites.

*Then,

It didn't seem like you disagreed with terrorism on your first post. You actually seem to be lauding them highly instead of putting scorn on them for not seeking a peaceful solution. Remember two wrongs don't make a right and who invaded who first means little to those who were killed by the IRA.

"Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist."

And yeah sure it's a nice country. The reason I compared it to Dublin was the general greater population density in Britain is more like Dublin here.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong.

But not state terrorism and not the threat of terrorism to create and maintain an anti-democratic sectarian statelet.

You need to think harder.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But not state terrorism and not the threat of terrorism to create and maintain an anti-democratic sectarian statelet.

You need to think harder.

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means. The reunification of Ireland is not worth one life. Never mind 3000.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means.

Peaceful means were attempted and met with lethal force. Of course you're aware of all this but are so wedded to your dogma that you'd rather not develop headaches from the cognitive dissonance it engenders in you.

EvanCornwallis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

*Then,

It didn't seem like you disagreed with terrorism on your first post. You actually seem to be lauding them highly instead of putting scorn on them for not seeking a peaceful solution. Remember two wrongs don't make a right and who invaded who first means little to those who were killed by the IRA.

"Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist."

And yeah sure it's a nice country. The reason I compared it to Dublin was the general greater population density in Britain is more like Dublin here.

Of course I don't , but I certainly understood it. We have been in enough squabbles through out the years and going the talking route isn't going to get an awful lot done. If you knew anything about us , you would know how bad things were and why arms had to be taken up.

Just because I'm English , it doesn't mean I support everything we do, or support everybody that's English. I like to see both points of view and in this case I seen at a glimpse both sides. If I put myself in a northern catholic point of view, that's really not a great place. We have done a lot of bad things around the world , and Ireland is one of them. It's an attitude and time I want to get away from.

Obviously the middle east situation is the most recent and on going. You mat think i'm a middle east terror supporter , pretending to be an Englishman if I say, I don't think all our actions and troops are correct over there. The way we have gone on in a lot of situations threw history , I can't act like I don't understand a lot of the negativity England gets.


Dublin was once far different from London, but you're right they are getting very similar. In regards to attitude , culture, pace of life. I find some subtle differences to each though. Which is nice , because I'd hate to be traveling back and forth to the same place.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Peaceful means were attempted and met with lethal force. Of course you're aware of all this but are so wedded to your dogma that you'd rather not develop headaches from the cognitive dissonance it engenders in you.

The phrase two wrongs don't make a right seems to be wasted on you. There was never any need for the use of physical force. Anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully. Again I repeat my proposition that the unification of Ireland was not worth 1 soul. Never mind 3,000.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The phrase two wrongs don't make a right seems to be wasted on you.

You make your bed you sleep in it. See that? I can vomit up a useless idiom too only I've no need to.

There was never any need for the use of physical force.

Pity you don't have a time machine so that you could go back and tell the sectarian RUC and British Army that 'it's okay lads - there's no need for violence here - these people just want equality' when they deliberately frustrated peaceful protests.

Anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully.

Amazing that you have the ability to see alternate realities. Truly amazing. While you've that ability could you tell me how things would have worked out if the British had brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel and nurtured the civil rights movement? Thanks.

Again I repeat my proposition that the unification of Ireland was not worth 1 soul. Never mind 3,000.

The maintenance of a sectarian anti-democratic statelet was not worth one drop of blood yet I don't see you condemn brutality against those seeking equality by democratic means.

ONeill2013

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means. The reunification of Ireland is not worth one life. Never mind 3000.

three wrongs don't make a right either, if most unionists thought that then loyalist paramilitaries would never have existed

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You make your bed you sleep in it. See that? I can vomit up a useless idiom too only I've no need to.

Unfortunately the subtly in children's proverbs are often lost on adults. This is one such case. If both sides make their shared bed and they both have to lie in it then does one side gain the victory? No they both suffer because they both badly made their shared bed. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right." Now be off with you ya little scamp.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pity you don't have a time machine so that you could go back and tell the sectarian RUC and British Army that 'it's okay lads - there's no need for violence here - these people just want equality' when they deliberately frustrated peaceful protests.

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. That's not to say they are without fault, again "two wrongs don't make a right."

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Amazing that you have the ability to see alternate realities. Truly amazing. While you've that ability could you tell me how things would have worked out if the British had brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel and nurtured the civil rights movement? Thanks.

That was beyond the British power. But you digress. Do you agree with my statement that anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The maintenance of a sectarian anti-democratic statelet was not worth one drop of blood yet I don't see you condemn brutality against those seeking equality by democratic means.

Oh I do, democratic reforms rightfully came in. Unfortunately it was in spite of those tragically killed. Not because of them.

Iwasfrozen

ONeill2013 wrote: »

three wrongs don't make a right either, if most unionists thought that then loyalist paramilitaries would never have existed

Neither Chuck Stone or violent loyalists see the value of my little proverb. That's one thing at least they have in common.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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. That's not to say they are without fault, again "two wrongs don't make a right."

If anyone made the same argument about the Black population of South Africa during Apartheid they would be mocked out of the room. And no, I'm not directly comparing the two, just making a valid observation.

Your mask hasn't slipped mate, it hit the bloody floor.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

If anyone made the same argument about the Black population of South Africa during Apartheid they would be mocked out of the room. And no, I'm not directly comparing the two, just making a valid observation.

Your mask hasn't slipped mate, it hit the bloody floor.

I don't wear a mask.

And if you're not making a comparison then why make a comparison? Make a statement and stand by it.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't wear a mask.

And if you're not making a comparison then why make a comparison? Make a statement and stand by it.

Let me put it in a way you might understand.

It's like me saying -

I personally don't blame the White population of South Africa for keeping the Black population as second class citizens, they really do have legitimate reasons.

And this after all your impassioned appeals about 'two wrongs not making a right.' Yes you tacked it on again at the end of your silly little paragraph, did you not realise it was in direct contradiction to what preceded it?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Let me put it in a way you might understand.

It's like me saying -

I personally don't blame the White population of South Africa for keeping the Black population as second class citizens, they really do have legitimate reasons.

And this after all your impassioned appeals about 'two wrongs not making a right.' Yes you tacked it on again at the end of your silly little paragraph, did you not realise it was in direct contradiction to what preceded it?

Let me put this in a way you may understand.
1. I do not support loyalist violence.
2. I do not support white violence.

There's no contradiction there and no violation of "two wrongs don't make a right"

Yes I did say I understood loyalist fears, but I also understood nationalist grievances. I just don't allow those grievances or fears to excuse violence. Because they don't. Simple as.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let me put this in a way you may understand.
1. I do not support loyalist violence.
2. I do not support white violence.

There's no contradiction there and no violation of "two wrongs don't make a right"

Yes I did say I understood loyalist fears, but I also understood nationalist grievances. I just don't allow those grievances or fears to excuse violence. Because they don't. Simple as.

There certainly is a contradiction.

You say that two wrongs do not make a right yet you don't blame one for doing a wrong. Let us be clear, you did not say you understood loyalist fears, you said -

I don't blame them

As for 1 & 2, those are not accusations I made against you.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

There certainly is a contradiction.

You say that two wrongs do not make a right yet you don't blame one for doing a wrong. Let us be clear, you did not say you understood loyalist fears, you said -

As for 1 & 2, those are not accusations I made against you.

lol is that the issue? We got our wires crossed my friend I said I don't blame loyalists for holding their fears, not for beating up catholics I do blame them for that. Here's the full sentence.

" They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. "

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol is that the issue? We got our wires crossed my friend I said I don't blame loyalists for holding their fears, not for beating up catholics I do blame them for that. Here's the full sentence.

" They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. "

I'll tell you what, I have my doubts but I'll take your explanation at face value.

Just off topic for a second, that portion of NI's history is the greatest irony of the unionist movement, I often wonder that had they not created a 'cold house' for the Catholic population in the North back then, that today the reunification question would have been firmly buried at the back of everyone's mind and could have spared us a lot of agony.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I'll tell you what, I have my doubts but I'll take your explanation at face value.

Just off topic for a second, that portion of NI's history is the greatest irony of the unionist movement, I often wonder that had they not created a 'cold house' for the Catholic population in the North back then, that today the reunification question would have been firmly buried at the back of everyone's mind and could have spared us a lot of agony.

I doubt it, let's be honest unification was as much a goal of the civil rights movement as anything else. Had they achieved their aims quickly it would have created a "golden period" for nationalist thought up North. The movement would have been much more optimistic and without strong loyalist opposition I feel we'd be much closer to a peaceful, less costly reunification. That's my view of it.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I doubt it, let's be honest unification was as much a goal of the civil rights movement as anything else. Had they achieved their aims quickly it would have created a "golden period" for nationalist thought up North. The movement would have been much more optimistic and without strong loyalist opposition I feel we'd be much closer to a peaceful, less costly reunification. That's my view of it.

Without that environment there would have been no call for a Civil Rights Movement, there would have been no Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the height of the troubles in the 70's. You are also not correct about unification being one of the goals of the movement, it certainly was not. There were even unionists involved with the movement from it's inception including at least one on the executive committee. The movement was for social justice.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Without that environment there would have been no call for a Civil Rights Movement, there would have been no Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the height of the troubles in the 70's. You are also not correct about unification being one of the goals of the movement, it certainly was not. There were even unionists involved with the movement from it's inception including at least one on the executive committee. The movement was for social justice.

I was basing my hypothetical scenario on bloody Sunday not happening. And come on are you serious, unification not being a goal? Maybe not officially but the movement was up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism and cultural expression.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unfortunately the subtly in children's proverbs are often lost on adults.

Stop bringing children's proverbs to and adult debate. Despite your attempts, complex situations can not be summed up by continuously citing one children's proverb. Really, it's embarrassing.

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.

Why was the NICRA being frustrated then? What is the justification? Keep digging.

They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement.

Doubted the peacefulness of of the non-sectarian NICRA? Why? Keep digging.

Personally I don't blame them.

That's quite plain to see.

That was beyond the British power.

Absolute rubbish. The British fought in WWI and WWII but they couldn't put down Unionist aggression against the civil rights movement? Keep digging.

Do you agree with my statement that anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully?

It's a stupid statement and only underscores that you do not understand the nature of the statement. I don't claim to have access to an alternative reality where the civil rights movement was not brutally suppressed. Or in the event of brutal suppression there was no backlash.

Oh I do, democratic reforms rightfully came in.

After 30 years of conflict and that could have been prevented from happening by those in power in the late 60's and early 70's i.e. Unionists and the British.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was basing my hypothetical scenario on bloody Sunday not happening. And come on are you serious, unification not being a goal? Maybe not officially but the movement was up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism and cultural expression.

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.

Chuck Stone

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.

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.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Stop bringing children's proverbs to and adult debate. Despite your attempts, complex situations can not be summed up by continuously citing one children's proverb. Really, it's embarrassing.

Innocent children grow up to be murderers and their sympathisers. Despite politics maybe bringing them back to their childhood lessons will show them the error of their ways. Then again I guess not.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why was the NICRA being frustrated then? What is the justification? Keep digging.

Loyalist fears. I've told you this one.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Doubted the peacefulness of of the non-sectarian NICRA? Why? Keep digging.

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

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. The British fought in WWI and WWII but they couldn't put down Unionist aggression against the civil rights movement? Keep digging.

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.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a stupid statement and only underscores that you do not understand the nature of the statement. I don't claim to have access to an alternative reality where the civil rights movement was not brutally suppressed. Or in the event of brutal suppression there was no backlash.

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.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

After 30 years of conflict and that could have been prevented from happening by those in power in the late 60's and early 70's i.e. Unionists and the British.

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