Republican Mandate

Crooked Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a compelling argument for uniting all European nations into a single country. I presume you'd be in favour of such a proposal?

Why would you presume that, the two issues are hardly comparable. A united Ireland makes sense, a united one-nation Europe would be unwieldy and probably impossible to govern given the differences between dozens of countries.
This post and a previous one also highlights one of the dafter tactics of the anti-Republican crowd. Unable to base your argument or challenge an opposing argument on the actual issues at hand you start waffling about Scotland or Europe. It's a distraction tactic and nothing else.

Leftist

Happyman42 wrote: »

Dresden and Colonge? World War 2 carpet bombing on the orders of Churchill, the killing and burning to death of civillians with the intent of causing terror.

This is what happens in every war, there is no such thing as a clean moral war. It is nasty filthy stuff and will go out of control unless those vested with the responsibility, do what they are supposed to do.

Churchill is plaqued and statuted all over Britain btw. I'm sure that is fairly 'disgusting' to people from Dresden and Colonge not to mention those affected by what he got up to elsewhere.

you're actually comparing the allies assualt on Nazi Germany in WW2 to a terrorist to puts a bomb in a chippers and kills a bunch of civilians including kids?

get a grip. Or an education. Embarrassing.

Leftist

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're either deliberately lying or being willfully ignorant. Either way, what happened in Frizzle's chip shop was horrendous and tragic enough without your hyperbole, I cant understand the mentality that thinks something like that isnt horrendous enough and feels the need to lie to make it appear even worse. There's almost a bloodlust element to that type of mentality.

are you for real?

what the **** are you talking about? he put a bomb in a chippers that was full of civilians, and you can't grasp the idea that they might have been targets?

I am delighted you are northern irish and not irish. Your attitude is disgusting.

BuilderPlumber

Did independence solve our issues? Not really. The UK is very similar a country to Ireland today and the situation in both is in no way akin to 1920. Should Ireland have remained part of the UK to this day, I'd predict few would want to leave it somehow!

In Northern Ireland, I think the majority of the people want to remain as they are. Theirs is a hard-earned peace and the last 15-20 years has seen things come a long way. Unification with the rest of Ireland or other such moves would plunge things back to 1993's infamous trick or treat era. Loyalists would never accept it and the IRA would want to rule it themselves. What you'd have then is the Irish army in there and the Irish government calling on the British government and army for help too. You could have some very messy joint British/Irish control of it to keep terrorists at bay.

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

are you for real?

what the **** are you talking about? he put a bomb in a chippers that was full of civilians, and you can't grasp the idea that they might have been targets?

I suggest you read up on the subject a bit. The target was a UDA meeting that was held every week in the room above the chip shop. The bomb had an 11 second fuse, enough time to go in, tell every to clear out, light it, but not give those in the meeting enough time to escape. The bomb detonated prematurely. How do you know this? It killed one of the bomber for fuck sake, you think his intention was to kill himself and all.
Even the husband of one of the victims acknowledges this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24609436

The other bomber, Sean Kelly, told the crowd he was sorry for the loss of life. Alan McBride, whose wife died in the blast, said his apology was hollow.

"He (Kelly) went out that day, I have no doubt he was trying to murder UDA men upstairs in that shop, so I'm not suggesting for a minute my wife was the intended target, but she wasn't even considered, her life wasn't even considered that it was worth anything," Mr McBride said.

Now, before you go off another wee tangent that totally misses the subject, this does not amount to a justification of what happened. As i've said several times, it was horrendous. Im responding to your suggestion that it was a deliberate attack on civilians

Leftist wrote: »

I am delighted you are northern irish and not irish. Your attitude is disgusting.

Yawn

Crooked Jack

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Did independence solve our issues? Not really. The UK is very similar a country to Ireland today and the situation in both is in no way akin to 1920. Should Ireland have remained part of the UK to this day, I'd predict few would want to leave it somehow!

In Northern Ireland, I think the majority of the people want to remain as they are. Theirs is a hard-earned peace and the last 15-20 years has seen things come a long way. Unification with the rest of Ireland or other such moves would plunge things back to 1993's infamous trick or treat era. Loyalists would never accept it and the IRA would want to rule it themselves. What you'd have then is the Irish army in there and the Irish government calling on the British government and army for help too. You could have some very messy joint British/Irish control of it to keep terrorists at bay.

Again, this just betrays blind ignorance towards what is actually meant by a united Ireland. Bottom line is it will happen when people vote for it, nobody is suggesting otherwise, so are you actually suggesting that the democratic will of the people (or what passes for democracy in the north) be ignored...again?

bmaxi

harryr711 wrote: »

Nobody said the whole budget figure doesn't have to be met, but obviously every business isn't going to shut it's doors overnight. The crucial number is what the true deficit would be.

Investors are deterred from investing in Ireland because of the existence of the two separate markets. In my industry, Britain is an attractive market, yet the cost of doing business in the six counties is 15%-40% higher than in Britain before grappling with different legals and logistics. Ireland could be a very attractive place for us to invest if there was a single larger market, single regulator, tax system etc. which would allow us to achieve a better economy of scale and good returns.

Which investors and what market? The single largest customer of Ireland is the UK, so it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to anybody else. I can't grasp what you are getting at, every country in the EU has different logistics and legal systems. Are you really trying to tell me that a 32 county Ireland would make it easier to access the UK market than a 26 county? That just doesn't make logical sense, why would access be easier in that scenario?

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why would you presume that, the two issues are hardly comparable. A united Ireland makes sense, a united one-nation Europe would be unwieldy and probably impossible to govern given the differences between dozens of countries.
This post and a previous one also highlights one of the dafter tactics of the anti-Republican crowd. Unable to base your argument or challenge an opposing argument on the actual issues at hand you start waffling about Scotland or Europe. It's a distraction tactic and nothing else.

Scotland is very pertinent to this conversation, I find that most republicans support Scottish independence which in actual terms means the creation of two different economic entity's on a small island, and yet turn around and tell us in the context of Northern Ireland that the existence of two sepperate economic entity's on a small island makes no sence.

Leftist

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I suggest you read up on the subject a bit. The target was a UDA meeting that was held every week in the room above the chip shop. The bomb had an 11 second fuse, enough time to go in, tell every to clear out, light it, but not give those in the meeting enough time to escape. The bomb detonated prematurely. How do you know this? It killed one of the bomber for fuck sake, you think his intention was to kill himself and all.
Even the husband of one of the victims acknowledges this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24609436



Now, before you go off another wee tangent that totally misses the subject, this does not amount to a justification of what happened. As i've said several times, it was horrendous. Im responding to your suggestion that it was a deliberate attack on civilians



Yawn

excusing a terrorist attack that killed civilians.

You'll be doing omagh next. ''they parked in the wrong place''

like I said, glad we are not the same nationality.

Paulie Gualtieri

I believe Sinn fein are gaining more support as people are disalusioned with the current government , and can't see any other partys being any different so its not that there's a new rise of republicanism its more the fact of give someone else a turn at the wheel because they can't do any worse than what's there. it might be nice to see a party at power out for the interests of Irish people and not just themselves . but that probably won't happen with people living in the past and not looking to the future.

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

Scotland is very pertinent to this conversation, I find that most republicans support Scottish independence which in actual terms means the creation of two different economic entity's on a small island, and yet turn around and tell us in the context of Northern Ireland that the existence of two sepperate economic entity's on a small island makes no sence.

Most republicans are pro-letting the scottish people decide their own fate, a courtesy that was never extended to Ireland. Scotland has nothing to do with the discussion, it's a diversionary tactic. We could all drag in the stories of other countries to suit our own ends. This is Ireland, if you want to debate the subject ,deal with Ireland

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

excusing a terrorist attack that killed civilians.

You'll be doing omagh next. ''they parked in the wrong place''

Clearly, blatantly, obviously not what i was doing. Your arguments are pathetic.

Leftist

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Clearly, blatantly, obviously not what i was doing. Your arguments are pathetic.

No of course, you weren't excusing it, you were just providing excuses for it.

''They didn't mean it''

If there's anything more pathetic than an IRA sympathiser, it's one who doesn't have the balls to come out and admit it.

And aren't you the guy who claimed the british army brought over foot and mouth to south armagh on purpose?

I feel sorry for the decent northerners tbh.

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

No of course, you weren't excusing it, you were just providing excuses for it.

You said they deliberately targeted civilians, I presented evidence, including a quote from a victim, proving otherwise.

Leftist wrote: »

If there's anything more pathetic than an IRA sympathiser, it's one who doesn't have the balls to come out and admit it.

I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA. They were a sadly necessary product of the time. That doesnt mean I wont criticise actions that were wrong and it certainly doesnt mean I wish to celebrate the deaths of others. Equally, if somebody makes a deliberately false statement, I will correct them.

Leftist wrote: »

And aren't you the guy who claimed the british army brought over foot and mouth to south armagh on purpose?

Nope, more lies from your good self. I see a pattern here. I said they way the tramped from farm to farm, breaking down hedges and fences allowing different herds to mix and showing no regard for the decontamination mats set up contributed greatly to the spread of diseases like Foot and Mouth and TB. But you feel free to spread whatever lies you like, I dont think anyone takes you seriously at this stage.

Leftist wrote: »

I feel sorry for the decent northerners tbh.

I know, having to listen to the likes of you, but we persevere, secure in the knowledge that most of our fellow countrymen in the south, west, east and midlands dont have the same dysfunctional mindset as yourself.

Manassas61

I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA. They were a sadly necessary product of the time. That doesnt mean I wont criticise actions that were wrong and it certainly doesnt mean I wish to celebrate the deaths of others. Equally, if somebody makes a deliberately false statement, I will correct them.

Why do you support murderers?

An Coilean

Leftist wrote: »

Did those people plant a bomb in a take away specifically to kill a bunch of civilians? The fact that you even suggest a comparison is enough to show that you agree with this plaque. Absolutely disgusting.

Well, there was the croud who dropped tonnes and tonnes of bombs on German cities, specifically to kill a bunch of civilians.

The RAF I think they were called. Is commerating them also 'Absolutely Disgusting'?

.jacksparrow.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Why do you support murderers?

Ok well put it like this.

Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?

Or are you going to tell me if Britain was invaded tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and accept it's fate, all because if they fight back innocent people will die?

No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

Did Britain care much then?

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Ok well put it like this.

Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?

Or are you going to tell me if Britain was invaded tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and accept it's fate, all because if they fight back innocent people will die?

No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

Did Britain care much then?

So you have no problem with Protestants fighting then? As that is the way it would be seen from non Republicans going by that logic.

.jacksparrow.

Manassas61 wrote: »

So you have no problem with Protestants fighting then? As that is the way it would be seen from non Republicans going by that logic.

So the republican Irish people were the invaders?

I see.

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

So the republican Irish people were the invaders?

I see.

To Protestants/Unionists, yes. To them it is sacred land.

.jacksparrow.

Manassas61 wrote: »

To Protestants/Unionists, yes. To them it is sacred land.

How can you invade a country you have lived in all your life?

Surely if this is the case then unionists should have sympathy with republicans?

You must be on a wind up at this stage.

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

How can you invade a country you have lived in all your life?

You're must be on a wind up at this stage.

Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.

.jacksparrow.

Manassas61 wrote: »

Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.

Yes and so have republicans, but they seen the British army arrive and shoot innocent human right marchers dead.

So once again how is this the same as unionists been invaded?

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Yes and so have republicans, but they seen the British army arrive and shoot innocent human right marchers dead.

So once again how is this the same as unionists been invaded?

One of the first killed by the British Army was a Loyalist. Two different peoples with different ideologies.

.jacksparrow.

Manassas61 wrote: »

One of the first killed by the British Army was a Loyalist. Two different peoples with different ideologies.

Oh so now the British army were invading unionists?

I really have no idea what you're trying to claim, and for that reason i'm out.

Fratton Fred

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

No exactly they wouldn't as evidence of a little rock Argentina tried to claim back, well it resulted in 100s dying.

Did Britain care much then?

Claim back?

Lol.

Manassas61

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Oh so now the British army were invading unionists?

I really have no idea what you're trying to claim, and for that reason i'm out.

They got sent in to protect Nationalists at that time. It didn't turn out well but that is what happened.

.jacksparrow.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Claim back?

Lol.

Yes.

Lol.

Crooked Jack

jacksparrow, you're wasting your time, you're as well try to explain quantum mechanics to a goat. Or me, for that matter.

Leftist

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I have never had any problem admitting my support for the IRA.

and there we go. Good, night.

View

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Ok well put it like this.

Let's say today any country in the world was invaded for no reason, does the country who was invaded have a right to fight back?

Oh, the country does but self-appointed vigilantes acting in direct defiance of that country's constitution most certainly do not.

Anyone so acting is displaying less loyalty to the country they claim to act for than most non-citizens of that country as they usually don't actively act in defiance of another countries constitution.

.jacksparrow.

View wrote: »

Oh, the country does but self-appointed vigilantes acting in direct defiance of that country's constitution most certainly do not.

Anyone so acting so is displaying less loyalty to the country they claim to act for than most non-citizens of that country as they usually don't actively act in defiance of another countries constitution.

Well why is there a commemoration every year for the 1916 leaders who had no mandate and acted as you suggest?

And our president and Taoiseach turn up every year to remember the leaders?

And if the pira didn't fight back, who was coming to help them?

View

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Well why is there a commemoration every year for the 1916 leaders who had no mandate and acted as you suggest?

And our leaders turn up every year to remember the leaders?

It is a commeration nothing more. There's one held for all men from Ireland who died in WWI at Islandbridge every year also.

Are you going to claim it is so we can show we agree with the opinions held by the more ardent Unionist members of the Ulster brigade at the time they fell?

.jacksparrow.

View wrote: »

It is a commeration nothing more. There's one held for all men from Ireland who died in WWI at Islandbridge every year also.

Are you going to claim it is so we can show we agree with the opinions held by the more ardent Unionist members of the Ulster brigade at the time they fell?

Nope just pointing out we must be all wrong including the leaders of this country in commemorating the 1916 leaders and even though this state was founded on violence, it should not exist so because it didn't have the backing of the people of the island.

The Corinthian

The vast majority of Irishmen and women would support unification, in principle, done correctly, under the right conditions, at some point in the future.

Note the caveats.

first doyle

Manassas61 wrote: »

Most Protestants/Unionists have lived in Ulster all their life.

The 6 counties aren't exclusively Protestant Unionist, it's the great myth that goes with the territory.

bmaxi

Once again a thread on NI has deteriorated into the usual tit for tat sniping. I'm calling it a day at this stage.

View

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Nope just pointing out we must be all wrong including the leaders of this country in commemorating the 1916 leaders and even though this state was founded on violence, it should not exist so because it didn't have the backing of the people of the island.

This state wasn't founded on violence.

Today's (Republic of) Ireland is a direct successors to the Irish Free State - which as the treaty of the time made clear - was a Dominion within the then British Empire with the same status as Canada etc. as a result of a decision of the then UK of GB&I parliament (Read the treaty if you dispute that).

You can agree with that decision or not but ultimately though, so what?

It is practically ancient history at this stage. Half the countries in Europe have been born, eliminated and re-born in the intervening time.

Today, we have a State to which all Irish citizens owe fealty and that means respecting its laws not those of self-appointed people who have as much respect for our constitution as Unionists have.

The path is open for anyone to bring about peaceful unification. That involves building a realistic credible case for a peaceful future and PERSUADING people (especially Unionists) of the merits of that case. All the rights and wrongs of the past won't build one iota of that case but they CAN hinder it by being a distraction to that case.

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why would you presume that, the two issues are hardly comparable. A united Ireland makes sense, a united one-nation Europe would be unwieldy and probably impossible to govern given the differences between dozens of countries.

That's precisely the response I was expecting. There are incredibly enormous economies of scale to be achieved in a country precisely the size of this island, but any attempt to achieve any such economies of scale on a larger level couldn't possibly work, because any country bigger than this island would be unwieldy and ungovernable. I guess that's why there are no existing countries bigger than this island, right?

This post and a previous one also highlights one of the dafter tactics of the anti-Republican crowd. Unable to base your argument or challenge an opposing argument on the actual issues at hand you start waffling about Scotland or Europe. It's a distraction tactic and nothing else.

On the contrary, it was designed to elicit exactly the sort of magical thinking you've just perfectly espoused.

The "economies of scale" claim is an even more compelling argument for rejoining the UK than it is for uniting the island, but - for some reason - that idea probably doesn't appeal to you. Why not come right out and admit that you'll believe any argument (however flimsy) that leads to your desired outcome, while dismissing without a second thought any argument (however compelling) that doesn't?

oscarBravo

View wrote: »

The path is open for anyone to bring about peaceful unification. That involves building a realistic credible case for a peaceful future and PERSUADING people (especially Unionists) of the merits of that case. All the rights and wrongs of the past won't build one iota of that case but they CAN hinder it by being a distraction to that case.

Hush, you. You're either with them or you're against them.

LordSutch

Leftist wrote: »

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Curious, who put up the plaque? and have Sinn Fein asked for it to be taken down?

harryr711

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's precisely the response I was expecting. There are incredibly enormous economies of scale to be achieved in a country precisely the size of this island, but any attempt to achieve any such economies of scale on a larger level couldn't possibly work, because any country bigger than this island would be unwieldy and ungovernable. I guess that's why there are no existing countries bigger than this island, right? On the contrary, it was designed to elicit exactly the sort of magical thinking you've just perfectly espoused.

The "economies of scale" claim is an even more compelling argument for rejoining the UK than it is for uniting the island, but - for some reason - that idea probably doesn't appeal to you. Why not come right out and admit that you'll believe any argument (however flimsy) that leads to your desired outcome, while dismissing without a second thought any argument (however compelling) that doesn't?

We both know the European integration of 28 states is a different ball game to the re-unification of two states that exist because of partition.

There is no political will on either side of the Irish Sea for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Both sides are reasonably comfortable with the current trading relationship, and if anything the relationship would be strengthened with the unification of Ireland.

oscarBravo

harryr711 wrote: »

We both know the European integration of 28 states is a different ball game to the re-unification of two states that exist because of partition.

There is no political will on either side of the Irish Sea for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Both sides are reasonably comfortable with the current trading relationship, and if anything the relationship would be strengthened with the unification of Ireland.

...and that, in turn, is a goalpost shift. Suddenly the economies-of-scale argument doesn't work anymore, so a completely different counter is offered.

I'm not arguing for Ireland to rejoin the UK; I'm pointing out that the economies-of-scale argument applies equally well to Ireland rejoining the UK, so if you would argue against Ireland rejoining the UK, then economy of scale isn't the reason you want a united Ireland.

Be honest: a united Ireland would be an expensive and difficult affair for a long time, especially if it's rushed through to suit the agenda of those for whom no price is too high.

junder

LordSutch wrote: »

Curious, who put up the plaque? and have Sinn Fein asked for it to be taken down?

Friends and supporters of Thomas begly put it up, make of that what you will

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

Be honest: a united Ireland would be an expensive and difficult affair for a long time, especially if it's rushed through to suit the agenda of those for whom no price is too high.

Be honest, a partitioned Ireland is also an expencive and difficult affair, and has been for a long time.

Fratton Fred

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Yes.

Lol.

How can you claim back something that was never yours?

.jacksparrow.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can you claim back something that was never yours?

Ok so it belonged to the British, Argentina tried to occupy it and Britain fought back with innocent people dying.

Now are you going to tell me Britain had the right to fight back but Irish people didn't?

Fratton Fred

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Ok so it belonged to the British, Argentina tried to occupy it and Britain fought back with innocent people dying.

Now are you going to tell me Britain had the right to fight back but Irish people didn't?

No problem at all. If the democratically elected government want that, or, even a UN resolution calling for immediate withdrawal.

Remind me, during the Falklands war, how many branches of McDonald's did Britain bomb?

If you want to compare the two conflicts, then explain why no pubs in Beunos Aries were bombed?

.jacksparrow.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No problem at all. If the democratically elected government want that, or, even a UN resolution calling for immediate withdrawal.

Remind me, during the Falklands war, how many branches of McDonald's did Britain bomb?

If you want to compare the two conflicts, then explain why no pubs in Beunos Aries were bombed?

Oh right so the people in the north had the choice to vote their government to take action?

The Irish government did nothing to protect them when they were been burned out of their homes or been shot by the British army.

Give over, it's as if they had a choice or had other options, noone was coming to help them, even if they did try to help them, what could they do with a country whos military stance is neutral.

War is dirty, and things happened on all sides that i'm sure they regret.

Crooked Jack

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Oh right so the people in the north had the choice to vote their government to take action?

The Irish government did nothing to protect them when they were been burned out of their homes or been shot by the British army.

Give over, it's as if they had a choice or had other options, noone was coming to help them, even if they did try to help them, what could they do with a country whos military stance is neutral.

War is dirty, and things happened on all sides that i'm sure they regret.

Exactly, this mandate thing about the troubles is bullshit. The IRA didnt decide to start anything. War was already upon the nationalist people. If youre being attacked you dont start balloting people on what should be done, you defend yourself and your community. I for one, am thankful that they did.