Loyalism in a United ireland

Jelle1880

[Jackass] wrote: »

Loyalist agenda

1/ Antagonize Nationalists / Republicans / All of Southern Ireland.

/agenda

They're pure scumbags, nothing more. If they don't get to gloat, they riot. If they don't get to rub British rule in Irish faces at every single opportunity, they riot.

Don't take down our fleg! We need to fly it in the face of the 40+% who don't support it 365 days a year - our preference is the only preference! No compromise!

You must let us march through the streets of the Irish to rub in their face a 1,000 year old war! We must humiliate them and show them we are in charge! We must at all times antagonize them!

If we don't get to gloat, if we don't get to permanently throw Britishness in the face of half of the population, we will riot until we can!

Both sides do this.

The rest of your post smells of a massive inferiority complex tbh.

As for your claim that all they want is antagonise Irish people:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0706/460939-orange-order-donegal/

The only OO parade in the Republic is in Donegal, and year by year it goes on without any incident.

As far as I know your average Irish person doesn't care that much whether they march or not.

[Jackass]

For clarification, I was mainly talking about nationalist community in the North who hold Irish citizenship.

People in the south generally don't care about things like this, but I can see why Irish people living in Northern Ireland would not appreciate their flags being drapped in order to burn on bon fires, especially when those same people are rioting over their flag not being flown on Government buildings at all times - expecting one sort of respect for the flag they identify with, whilst showing such a crass level of contempt and hatred for the flag of those they supposedly don't antagonize and respect as dual partners in the north... This is widespread and par for the course by the way, each and every year, not an isolated incident.

junder

[Jackass] wrote: »

I've removed that word from my original post, granted that's not appropriate language.

In fairness, given the history of the plantations and thievery of land and treatment of indigenous peoples, I can't see a shred of good spirit in a community who would be anything other than apologetic. Unionists are anything but.

Anywhere else in the world, Australia, Canada, USA there is an apologetic tone to similar past injustice - in the north there's an appetite to gloat and still force it into their face. It's not enough to fu*k them over, it needs to be thrown in their face forever more at every opportunity.

Yes, I think I can safely assume from your stance that you may well be a mean spirited individual who is a direct product of a hate filled, petty, pathetic community.

In guessing you don't do irony

SoulandForm

[Jackass] wrote: »

Yes, I think I can safely assume from your stance that you may well be a mean spirited individual who is a direct product of a hate filled, petty, pathetic community.

Certainly the type of people who vote for PUP and make up the Loyal orders and band scene in Belfast could easily be described as such. However they in no way make up all or even the majority of the PUL community- they are just the ones that are best in drawing attention to themselves and making their presence felt.

Mr_Spaceman

[Jackass] wrote: »

For clarification, I was mainly talking about nationalist community in the North who hold Irish citizenship.

It's not just nationalists from Northern Ireland who hold Irish passports. Plenty of unionists hold Irish citizenship as well.

There are many shades of grey.

Neo Unionist

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Again: very simplistic.

First of all, there are elements in the Republican gangs that don't just want a United Ireland, they just want to hurt 'those Orange bastards'.

So even in a United Ireland I'm sure there will be elements that will be out for violence, from both sides.

You also seem to be under the impression that your average Irishman/woman will support the IRA simply because Loyalists paramilitariers would cause violence. That wasn't the case during The Troubles and I don't think it'll be the case in a UI.

What are you talking about? Nowhere did I say that Irish people will support the IRA. Being a nationalist does does not equate to supporting the IRA.

Sectarianism is a symptom of British rule and it's only cure is a united Ireland.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

So I'm a scumbag then? Do you actually know me, met me in public, know anything about me? or are you just make a sectarian generlization? I believe it's republicans that have been rioting at the arydone shops the last few years, care to comment on that? Or is it just loyalist rioting that's bad

Celebrating the Williamite victory in the Jacobite wars given what that victory meant for Irish Catholics is bound to wind them up- I find it hard to believe that you are stupid, therefore what other conclusion can we come to seeing your stated aim of having your son follow your example by taking part in Orange marches that you strongly desire to maintain sectarian hatred and division in the north of Ireland?

Jelle1880

Neo Unionist wrote: »

What are you talking about? Nowhere did I say that Irish people will support the IRA. Being a nationalist does does not equate to supporting the IRA.

Sectarianism is a symptom of British rule and it's only cure is a united Ireland.

So why mention the 4-1 ratio ?
Because you definitely weren't talking about the amount of paramilitary gangs and their members, since those numbers aren't even close to that.

As for saying that sectarianism is a symptom of British rule: Absolute nonsense and it smells of justification for sectarian acts of terror by the IRA and it's offspring.

SoulandForm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So why mention the 4-1 ratio ?
Because you definitely weren't talking about the amount of paramilitary gangs and their members, since those numbers aren't even close to that.

As for saying that sectarianism is a symptom of British rule: Absolute nonsense and it smells of justification for sectarian acts of terror by the IRA and it's offspring.

While the PIRA did carry out sectarian acts of terror- most of their violent acts were not sectarian. They were not in essence a sectarian organization.

Violent Unionist acts however were almost purely sectarian.

And very clearly the British establishment has used divide and conquer tactics to rule its northern Irish colony though these tactics have led to a situation in which has now taken on a life of its own.

junder

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why do you think the ruling favoured the Ardoyne residents?
It seems to me that it was a genuine attempt to facilitate both sides of the political divide?



So, there are parades other than the Ardoyne that are contentious?



You know better than that Junder.
There are many flavours of Republicanism, just as there are many flavours of Unionism.



Invaders? The native Irish, whose ancestors lived in the area for centuries before Ireland was invaded?
That's a very revealing description of your neighbours.

Fair point, I should be more specific about which republicans I am talking about. In fairness I have met some genuine republicans in real life

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

Celebrating the Williamite victory in the Jacobite wars given what that victory meant for Irish Catholics is bound to wind them up- I find it hard to believe that you are stupid, therefore what other conclusion can we come to seeing your stated aim of having your son follow your example by taking part in Orange marches that you strongly desire to maintain sectarian hatred and division in the north of Ireland?

I wonder how Catholics Actully understand the williamite war, I wonder how many know how many Catholics made up Williams army, I wonder if the knew the Williams elite Dutch blue guard where exclusively catholic or that the pope supported Williams endeavours. Personnly I don't buy into the prod vrs catholic view of the battle of the boyne

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

I wonder how Catholics Actully understand the williamite war, I wonder how many know how many Catholics made up Williams army, I wonder if the knew the Williams elite Dutch blue guard where exclusively catholic or that the pope supported Williams endeavours. Personnly I don't buy into the prod vrs catholic view of the battle of the boyne

I wasnt talking about Catholics in general- I was talking about Irish Catholics. You know the consequences that the Williamite victory had for them and you know that is the reason why Orange Order parades cause such trouble and why the Orange Order arouses such strong feelings.

The Pope did not support William's endeavours. That is a myth.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

I wasnt talking about Catholics in general- I was talking about Irish Catholics. You know the consequences that the Williamite victory had for them and you know that is the reason why Orange Order parades cause such trouble and why the Orange Order arouses such strong feelings.

The Pope did not support William's endeavours. That is a myth.

It's No myth, the battle of the boyne was a European war that happened to be fought on this island, 'James the ****' had allied himself with king Louis of France, since this was still the age of the Devine right of rule king Louis had designs on making himself the supreme ruler political and spiritual leader of Europe, he had designs on making himself pope and moving the Vatican to France, the pope like any political leader of the time in his position made allies of those ranged against king Louis, which included William

[Jackass]

junder wrote: »

In guessing you don't do irony

Even your "location" makes me laugh: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland It's just so pathetic and funny in a sad way. Like the point needs to be rammed home, it's not incorrect, but it's indicative of all the things I've been saying about the pathetic grasping at everything British and nothing matters as long as there's union jacks lining the streets, lest anyone forget.

What would you do without the Irish? Your life would be awful meaningless without that "war" up there.

[Jackass]

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

It's not just nationalists from Northern Ireland who hold Irish passports. Plenty of unionists hold Irish citizenship as well.

There are many shades of grey.

Well I will take your word for it, but obviously the point I'm making is the people who identify their nationality as Irish / are nationalistic.

Mr_Spaceman

[Jackass] wrote: »

Well I will take your word for it, but obviously the point I'm making is the people who identify their nationality as Irish / are nationalistic.

I identify myself as Irish and I have absolutely no appetite for a united Ireland.

bilston

[Jackass] wrote: »

I can't see a shred of good spirit in a community who would be anything other than apologetic. Unionists are anything but.

a hate filled, petty, pathetic community.

Fairly sweeping statements there Jackass. There is hatred on both sides up here but it is a minority of people who have that be they Unionist, Loyalist, Nationalist or Republican. You just cant judge a whole community on the actions of a few hundred morons out rioting.

Anyway I finally have an explanation for your dislike of Paddy Jackson Jackass...

Neo Unionist

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So why mention the 4-1 ratio ?
Because you definitely weren't talking about the amount of paramilitary gangs and their members, since those numbers aren't even close to that.

As for saying that sectarianism is a symptom of British rule: Absolute nonsense and it smells of justification for sectarian acts of terror by the IRA and it's offspring.

Why do you think I mentioned the 4.1 ratio? Unionists only make up a population of 900,000 if even that. The remaining population of Ireland is 5 -6 times that. The iRA have traditionally drawn support from all 32 counties. Where have ulster terrorists drawn their support from? Cork and Kerry I suppose?

The whole Loyalist/Orange Order thing is a sideshow distraction to justify British rule.

Jelle1880

Neo Unionist wrote: »

Why do you think I mentioned the 4.1 ratio? Unionists only make up a population of 900,000 if even that. The remaining population of Ireland is 5 -6 times that. The iRA have traditionally drawn support from all 32 counties. Where have ulster terrorists drawn their support from? Cork and Kerry I suppose?

You said that if violence erupted that the republicans would outnumber the loyalists 4-1, due to the population of the RoI vs that of NI.

There is nothing to back that up, it didn't happen in The Troubles since most normal people wanted to stay as far away as possible from it all.

And there is also nothing to point out that it would happen like that in modern times.

[Jackass]

Mr_Spaceman wrote: »

I identify myself as Irish and I have absolutely no appetite for a united Ireland.

Fair enough, well then you don't fall under the bracket I identified above then.

Might I ask though, how do you feel about unionist insistence on marching in predominantly Irish parts of the North. Or the tradition of burning the Irish flag. Or the riots on city hall over the decision to not fly the union jack every day of the year? Do you feel these are solely motivated by the desire to disrespect and humiliate?

Do you feel polarized and that the unionists are fighting a war with the establishment, or do you feel it's as much nationalist / republican vs Unionists as it ever was.

Basically, I suppose what I'm saying is do you think the nationalist side of the North have mostly moved on and are looking to the future, whereas the Unionists are more and more becoming the predominant trouble makers based largely around not getting absolutely everything their own way with no empathy for the other half they share Northern Ireland with.

Is the contempt towards the Irish as vile and hostile as it ever was?

And would you say the majority of trouble caused by the Irish side of the North is usually in reaction to provocative musings from the unionist side?

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

It's No myth, the battle of the boyne was a European war that happened to be fought on this island, 'James the ****' had allied himself with king Louis of France, since this was still the age of the Devine right of rule king Louis had designs on making himself the supreme ruler political and spiritual leader of Europe, he had designs on making himself pope and moving the Vatican to France, the pope like any political leader of the time in his position made allies of those ranged against king Louis, which included William

LOL at the underlined!

"The other great myth, that the Vatican celebrated the defeat of the Irish Jacobites, is also misleading. Pope Alexander VIII was dismayed by the reverse suffered by the Catholic Irish, but as an adherent of the League of Augsburg, in opposition to the Gallican pretensions of Louis XIV, he was obliged to go through some perfunctory congratulatory gestures towards a prince who was technically an ally."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100047172/king-billy-on-a-white-horse-could-ulsters-orangemen-at-least-get-their-own-mythology-right/

Still you are deliberately refusing to address the point raised- given the absolutely grave consequences for Catholic Ireland from the Williamite victory the fact of someone in Ireland celebrating it means that they do so to send out a clear message to Irish Catholics today.

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

LOL at the underlined!

"The other great myth, that the Vatican celebrated the defeat of the Irish Jacobites, is also misleading. Pope Alexander VIII was dismayed by the reverse suffered by the Catholic Irish, but as an adherent of the League of Augsburg, in opposition to the Gallican pretensions of Louis XIV, he was obliged to go through some perfunctory congratulatory gestures towards a prince who was technically an ally."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100047172/king-billy-on-a-white-horse-could-ulsters-orangemen-at-least-get-their-own-mythology-right/

Still you are deliberately refusing to address the point raised- given the absolutely grave consequences for Catholic Ireland from the Williamite victory the fact of someone in Ireland celebrating it means that they do so to send out a clear message to Irish Catholics today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/battle_of_the_boyne

"William is celebrated to this day as a champion of Protestantism, but he was nonetheless backed by the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Alexander VIII. The Pope was part of a ‘Grand Alliance’ against Louis XIV’s warring in Europe and supported William’s reconquest of Ireland."

getzls

SoulandForm wrote: »

While the PIRA did carry out sectarian acts of terror- most of their violent acts were not sectarian.


.

No indeed. Most of their bomb attacks were not sectarian.

They were keen to kill people of any religion or none.

SoulandForm

getzls wrote: »

No indeed. Most of their bomb attacks were not sectarian.

They were keen to kill people of any religion or none.

Yet you cannot ignore the fact that Loyalism itself brought on the troubles and that 2 years after the UK government seriously began to do something about discrimination and give equal treatment to Catholic schools the PIRA declared their ceasefire. You also have to remember that there was a mass Unionist movement against the Anglo-Irish Agreement because a lot of Unionists prefered to have the Troubles rather than behave like decent human beings.

Neo Unionist

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You said that if violence erupted that the republicans would outnumber the loyalists 4-1, due to the population of the RoI vs that of NI.

There is nothing to back that up, it didn't happen in The Troubles since most normal people wanted to stay as far away as possible from it all.

And there is also nothing to point out that it would happen like that in modern times.

No what I said was that Ireland was partitioned because a percentage of the Unionist population threatened violence. It was a threat that Nationalists could have faced and easily defeated since they outnumber Unionists. The same applies today.

Jelle1880

Neo Unionist wrote: »

No what I said was that Ireland was partitioned because a percentage of the Unionist population threatened violence. It was a threat that Nationalists could have faced and easily defeated since they outnumber Unionists. The same applies today.

So why didn't they ?

You seem to be under the assumption that all Irish people would support the Nationalist cause if violence erupted again, there's nothing to back that up and no precedent.

So either you're saying that Nationalist organisations would outnumber the Loyalists 4-1, or you're claiming that Irish citizens would support Nationalists given the population difference.

Neither of which are true.

Neo Unionist

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So why didn't they ?

You seem to be under the assumption that all Irish people would support the Nationalist cause if violence erupted again, there's nothing to back that up and no precedent.

So either you're saying that Nationalist organisations would outnumber the Loyalists 4-1, or you're claiming that Irish citizens would support Nationalists given the population difference.

Neither of which are true.

What you don't understand is that Irish people are expected to believe that Loyalists, who draw their support from a community of 900,000 people, can match the capabilities of the IRA, an organisation that has drawn its membership from all 32 counties of Ireland and abroad. I'm afraid the numbers do not add up. Loyalists never posed a threat to Home Rule and do not pose a threat to a future United Ireland.

Therefore the partition of Ireland was never justified.

Jelle1880

I do understand your point, but there is nothing to back it up.

Surely if the IRA would have such a broad support they would have already succeeded in their goal(s) ?

getzls

SoulandForm wrote: »

Yet you cannot ignore the fact that Loyalism itself brought on the troubles and that 2 years after the UK government seriously began to do something about discrimination and give equal treatment to Catholic schools the PIRA declared their ceasefire. You also have to remember that there was a mass Unionist movement against the Anglo-Irish Agreement because a lot of Unionists prefered to have the Troubles rather than behave like decent human beings.

Yes the Unionist goverment were largely to blame for the troubles.
Most fair minded Unionist will at least partly agree to that.
There was discrimination.

You have to allow for the fact that since the formation of N.I. the Unionists were under threat or attack from Republican terrorists.

Also a hostile Irish Goverment.