"IF" a United Ireland did happen...(Mod warning in OP, stay on topic!))

Karl Stein

pilgrim pat wrote: »

why it was called the troubles i will never know, it was war

We have a way of downplaying our issues in Ireland - a brutal conflict is called 'The Troubles' or 'An Gorta Mór' for the death of a million people by starvation.

I think you would have to have lived here to see with your own eyes the things that went on the way we lived our lives .can you people think about the truth and the facts bloody Sunday did actually happen

The more I've discussed these issues here the more I've come to realise the effect that Section 31 censorship had on the public consciousness in the south - the Republican/Nationalist narrative was drowned out and the public consciousness was monopolised by revisionists and apologists for British/Unionist discrimination/violence/killing of our people.

maccored

katydid wrote: »

Hardly hysterical. Factual. They support SF, SF support terrorism. And don't say they don't - they attend terrorist memorials, and they fought for terrorists to be let out of prison early.

Factual? Do you have a dictionary? You should use it as you dont seem to know what factual means going by that post. Everyone in SF = non-Muslim Terrorist Apologists my arse.

maccored

Karl Stein wrote: »

The more I've discussed these issues here the more I've come to realise the effect that Section 31 censorship had on the public consciousness in the south - the Republican/Nationalist narrative was drowned out and the public consciousness was monopolised by revisionists and apologists for British/Unionist discrimination/violence/killing of our people.

there seem to be many who like to criticise from their armchair, with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the conflict itself. Most claim they know someone who lived there once and think that makes them an authority. Kinda ruins the forum as theres no point trying to debate with those kinds of people.

Godge

Karl Stein wrote: »

So you'd describe the majority of SF voters, among others, as 'non-Muslim Terrorist Apologists'?

That a pretty hysterical view to hold.

As factual as referring to all of those who vote UUP or DUP as loyalist bigots and those who do not vote SF in the South to be West Brits which is what the original poster did.

I take it you have no problem with those labels.

circadian

maccored wrote: »

there seem to be many who like to criticise from their armchair, with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the conflict itself. Most claim they know someone who lived there once and think that makes them an authority. Kinda ruins the forum as theres no point trying to debate with those kinds of people.

Pretty much why I bowed out of the thread. I was constantly being responded to with opinion presented as fact.

maccored

circadian wrote: »

Pretty much why I bowed out of the thread. I was constantly being responded to with opinion presented as fact.

same here. its actually put me off bothering with most NI related threads.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

As factual as referring to all of those who vote UUP or DUP as loyalist bigots and those who do not vote SF in the South to be West Brits which is what the original poster did.

He did?

Godge

Karl Stein wrote: »

He did?

Here is his system of government with all of the various group labels included. I was only responding in kind. Sorry it was Free Staters he used rather than West Brits, but you know, it is a similarly insulting term.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I liked the Iroquois system of government. It's a good model that Ireland could adopt. Mohawk = Loyalist bigots, Onondaga = Moderate Unionists, Tuscarora = Moderate Nationalists Oneida = Mainstream Republicans, Cayuga = Dissidents & Seneca = Free Staters. It worked for the United States it will work here to. It's the only way to get are hopelessly divided societies to work together.

katydid

maccored wrote: »

Factual? Do you have a dictionary? You should use it as you dont seem to know what factual means going by that post. Everyone in SF = non-Muslim Terrorist Apologists my arse.

Explain why it's not factual. I outlined perfectly plainly the logic; SF supporters support SF. SF supports terrorists. Therefore SF supporters are terrorist supporters.

Where is the flaw in that clear argument?

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

We have a way of downplaying our issues in Ireland - a brutal conflict is called 'The Troubles' or 'An Gorta Mór' for the death of a million people by starvation.



The more I've discussed these issues here the more I've come to realise the effect that Section 31 censorship had on the public consciousness in the south - the Republican/Nationalist narrative was drowned out and the public consciousness was monopolised by revisionists and apologists for British/Unionist discrimination/violence/killing of our people.

Condemning murdering scum who blew up little children and people out having a drink on a Saturday night is not the same as being an apologist for discrimination or violence by anyone else.

The IRA were scum. Loyalist terrorists were wrong. No excuses, no explanations.
SOME British forces were wrong.

End of.

End of.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

there seem to be many who like to criticise from their armchair, with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the conflict itself. Most claim they know someone who lived there once and think that makes them an authority. Kinda ruins the forum as theres no point trying to debate with those kinds of people.

You know, the opposite can be argued, that those most involved in the "conflict" are the least well able to comment objectively on it as they were too close to what was going on.

Those of us who lived through the 1970s in what you might call the "Free State" and watched in horror as terrorists committed atrocities in our name are well entitled to comment on what we saw and what we felt and what we believe as a result.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

Explain why it's not factual. I outlined perfectly plainly the logic; SF supporters support SF. SF supports terrorists. Therefore SF supporters are terrorist supporters.

Where is the flaw in that clear argument?

Sinn Fein is currently polling at over 20% within Ireland and has been on an upward curve in recent years. By your definition above then support for terrorism is on the rise in a very significant way.


Which of course is simply not the case. Yes in the past Sinn Fein supported the IRA. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have gunmen in their past but moved on to become like them or loath them legit political parties. Sinn Fein's move in that direction obviously has been of more recent vintage but is obviously been recognised by a significant number of Irish voters.

maccored

katydid wrote: »

Explain why it's not factual. I outlined perfectly plainly the logic; SF supporters support SF. SF supports terrorists. Therefore SF supporters are terrorist supporters.

Where is the flaw in that clear argument?

Is that how your brain works things out? a postman murders someone. murderers are criminals. therefore all postmen are murdering criminals. 10 out of 10 there. well done. :rolleyes:

maccored

Godge wrote: »

You know, the opposite can be argued, that those most involved in the "conflict" are the least well able to comment objectively on it as they were too close to what was going on.

Those of us who lived through the 1970s in what you might call the "Free State" and watched in horror as terrorists committed atrocities in our name are well entitled to comment on what we saw and what we felt and what we believe as a result.

the big difference is your version isnt based on actual reality. its based on what you saw on telly and what the man on the telly said (and the newspapers, irish government etc). If i wasnt from the north, you wouldnt see me involving myself in the discussions as I wouldnt know enough about it to make an argument.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Sinn Fein is currently polling at over 20% within Ireland and has been on an upward curve in recent years. By your definition above then support for terrorism is on the rise in a very significant way.


Which of course is simply not the case. Yes in the past Sinn Fein supported the IRA. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have gunmen in their past but moved on to become like them or loath them legit political parties. Sinn Fein's move in that direction obviously has been of more recent vintage but is obviously been recognised by a significant number of Irish voters.

Yes, unfortunately it is. Many people don't even think about the reality of SF when they express support for them, but whether they go to the trouble to think about it or not, they are supporting their terrorist agenda.

SF have not left their terrorist past behind. They still attend "commemorations" for IRA terrorists, and have in the fairly recent past argued for leniency for terrorists like Pierce McCauley and others. They still call the terrorist campaign a "war", and refuse to condemn the murder of legitimate agents of the state. So no, they are NOT like FF or FG.

katydid

Godge wrote: »

You know, the opposite can be argued, that those most involved in the "conflict" are the least well able to comment objectively on it as they were too close to what was going on.

Those of us who lived through the 1970s in what you might call the "Free State" and watched in horror as terrorists committed atrocities in our name are well entitled to comment on what we saw and what we felt and what we believe as a result.

And whether or not we were on the spot, we know the difference from right and wrong...

eire4

katydid wrote: »

Yes, unfortunately it is. Many people don't even think about the reality of SF when they express support for them, but whether they go to the trouble to think about it or not, they are supporting their terrorist agenda.

SF have not left their terrorist past behind. They still attend "commemorations" for IRA terrorists, and have in the fairly recent past argued for leniency for terrorists like Pierce McCauley and others. They still call the terrorist campaign a "war", and refuse to condemn the murder of legitimate agents of the state. So no, they are NOT like FF or FG.

Well I am glad we got your opinion all clear. Your opinion is very clearly stated now that anybody who votes Sinn Fein supports terrorism. No grey area there at all in that.


Clearly a large number of Irish people now vote Sinn Fein and I have no doubt they do not support terrorism. They support the political view points of Sinn Fein on various social and economic issues.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Well I am glad we got your opinion all clear. Your opinion is very clearly stated now that anybody who votes Sinn Fein supports terrorism. No grey area there at all in that.


Clearly a large number of Irish people now vote Sinn Fein and I have no doubt they do not support terrorism. They support the political view points of Sinn Fein on various social and economic issues.

If they support SF they support terrorism, because SF supports terrorism. That's the fact, whether or not they are clued in enough to work it out.

maccored

eire4 wrote: »

Your opinion is very clearly stated now that anybody who votes Sinn Fein supports terrorism. No grey area there at all in that.

thankfully its just a bigoted opinion and not an actual fact.

katydid

maccored wrote: »

thankfully its just a bigoted opinion and not an actual fact.

How is it a bigoted opinion? Do you deny that SF calls the terror campaign a war? Do you deny that they defended terrorists and tried to get them released early? Terrorists such as Pierce McCauley, and others? Do you deny that SF members attend commemorations for terrorists, such as the hunger strikers?

These are the acts of terrorist supporters. If they are terrorist supporters, then their supporters approve of terrorism.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Do you deny that SF members attend commemorations for terrorists

What if they attend Easter 1916 commemorations?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

What if they attend Easter 1916 commemorations?

They're not commemorations for terrorists.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

They're not commemorations for terrorists.

What mandate did they have?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

What mandate did they have?

None. But they were't terrorists. They didn't set out to deliberately blow up little children and people having a pint.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

None. But they were't terrorists. They didn't set out to deliberately blow up little children and people having a pint.

Was 1916 justified? Many civilians died during it.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Was 1916 justified? Many civilians died during it.

Yes, it was. It was not a terrorist action; its aim wasn't to terrorise the population.

The IRA targeted ordinary people going about their business, just for the hell of it.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

Condemning murdering scum who blew up little children and people out having a drink on a Saturday night is not the same as being an apologist for discrimination or violence by anyone else.

The IRA were scum. Loyalist terrorists were wrong. No excuses, no explanations.
SOME British forces were wrong.

End of.

End of.

Funny how you only call loyalists wrong when your actually called up on it, when you have, to seem fair and objective . Happy enough to criticize just the one side it seems up until then, and then go back to doing it.

Also I love how the IRA are "scum", but loyalists are only "wrong".

I see you've still not replied to any of Karl's points. Guess he was right. Your not able to rationally reply to any specific points, just stick your fingers in your ears, and repeat the one thing over and over.

Also, just because you explain your logic, doesn't make it fact. You really need to grow up, instead of acting like a petulant spoilt child

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

Yes, it was. It was not a terrorist action; its aim wasn't to terrorise the population.

The IRA targeted ordinary people going about their business, just for the hell of it.

Ye just for the hell of it. No other reason, no? How do you expect people to try and see where your coming from when you regurgitate rubbish like that?

maccored

katydid wrote: »

How is it a bigoted opinion? Do you deny that SF calls the terror campaign a war? Do you deny that they defended terrorists and tried to get them released early? Terrorists such as Pierce McCauley, and others? Do you deny that SF members attend commemorations for terrorists, such as the hunger strikers?

These are the acts of terrorist supporters. If they are terrorist supporters, then their supporters approve of terrorism.

it is bigoted to assume that all SF supporters are muslin terrorists whatever rubbish you came out with. or that everyone who attends a republican funeral is a terrorist. Thats the kind of crap you'd read in the sun for gods sake. Is that how youve educated yourself on this subject? through the redtops?

I already answered this question by the way on the other page, the last time we were at this stage of your roundabout. You managed to ignore that one, so I'll post it here again:

katydid wrote: »

Explain why it's not factual. I outlined perfectly plainly the logic; SF supporters support SF. SF supports terrorists. Therefore SF supporters are terrorist supporters.

Where is the flaw in that clear argument?

Is that how your brain works things out? a postman murders someone. murderers are criminals. therefore all postmen are murdering criminals. 10 out of 10 there. well done. :rolleyes:

rockatansky

Terrorists, Terrorists, Sinn Fein Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Sinn Fein Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists Sinn Fein!!

Am I doing it right??

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Yes, it was.

On what basis?

TheQuietFella

It won't happen.... ever!

Karl Stein

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Also I love how the IRA are "scum", but loyalists are only "wrong".

Hysterical counter-factual nonsense would be a kind way of describing it. When it came to killing in the north loyalist butchers made the PIRA look like surgeons.

The UVF killed more of each other feuding than they did Republicans. Over 90% of the people killed by so-called 'loyalists' were innocent Catholics going about their business or Protestants mistaken for Catholics. Despite being supplied with weapons, intelligence and killers only 4% of their killings were Republicans.

Also, loyalist paramilitary groups were riddled with informers so the 'security forces' often knew exactly what they were up to and did little to stop it.

Happyman42

Karl Stein wrote: »

Over 90% of the people killed by so-called 'loyalists' were innocent Catholics

But it's ok, those 'innocent Catholics' probably supported SF and where therefore 'terrorists'.

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Funny how you only call loyalists wrong when your actually called up on it, when you have, to seem fair and objective . Happy enough to criticize just the one side it seems up until then, and then go back to doing it.

Also I love how the IRA are "scum", but loyalists are only "wrong".

I see you've still not replied to any of Karl's points. Guess he was right. Your not able to rationally reply to any specific points, just stick your fingers in your ears, and repeat the one thing over and over.

Also, just because you explain your logic, doesn't make it fact. You really need to grow up, instead of acting like a petulant spoilt child

Just to make you happy, Loyalist terrorists were scum. IRA terrorists were scum. Al Quaida terrorists are scum. ETA terrorists are scum.

Terrorists are scum. Happy?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

On what basis?

Because there was no alternative. And it was a military action, not a terrorist one.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Just to make you happy, Loyalist terrorists were scum. IRA terrorists were scum. Al Quaida terrorists are scum. ETA terrorists are scum.

Terrorists are scum. Happy?

You support the tactics of the army of the first Dail. Tactics which included the arbitrary killings of those accused of being informers and the burying of their bodies in unknown locations.

Because there was no alternative.

But you've accused the post 1969 IRA of ignoring the political process. Wasnt the Home Rule bill on the statute books in 1916?

And it was a military action

When its been pointed out to you by others that the the majority of those whom the IRA killed after 1969 weren't civilians, you've responded by saying that members of the British army etc were human beings as well. Was the same not true in 1916?

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

Just to make you happy, Loyalist terrorists were scum. IRA terrorists were scum. Al Quaida terrorists are scum. ETA terrorists are scum.

Terrorists are scum. Happy?

It doesn't really count when you have to be called up on something. The point is this is a topic which encompasses two sides. Why do you only see fit to constantly criticise one? You ever only mention the loyalist side when your called up on it, so have to then "criticise" them to seem fair and balanced or otherwise it would undermine everything you say, and then its back to just Sinn Fein and IRA bashing

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It doesn't really count when you have to be called up on something. The point is this is a topic which encompasses two sides. Why do you only see fit to constantly criticise one? You ever only mention the loyalist side when your called up on it, so have to then "criticise" them to seem fair and balanced or otherwise it would undermine everything you say, and then its back to just Sinn Fein and IRA bashing

So you're not happy. Ok...

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You support the tactics of the army of the first Dail. Tactics which included the arbitrary killings of those accused of being informers and the burying of their bodies in unknown locations.



But you've accused the post 1969 IRA of ignoring the political process. Wasnt the Home Rule bill on the statute books in 1916?



When its been pointed out to you by others that the the majority of those whom the IRA killed after 1969 weren't civilians, you've responded by saying that members of the British army etc were human beings as well. Was the same not true in 1916?

I support the tactics of a democratically elected government. Remind me again when the IRA, OR ANY OTHER TERRORISTS ON THIS ISLAND, were elected?

In case you hadn't noticed, the 1916 rebels weren't after Home Rule...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

I support the tactics of a democratically elected government.

So your ok with all the tactics used in the WoI?

Remind me again when the IRA, OR ANY OTHER TERRORISTS ON THIS ISLAND, were elected?

The 1919-21 version of the IRA weren't elected either in case your forgetting.

In case you hadn't noticed, the 1916 rebels weren't after Home Rule...

You hadn't noticed the alternative.

DarkyHughes

katydid wrote: »

None. But they were't terrorists. They didn't set out to deliberately blow up little children and people having a pint.

Neither did the Provos.

DarkyHughes

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So your ok with all the tactics used in the WoI?



The 1919-21 version of the IRA weren't elected either in case your forgetting.



You hadn't noticed the alternative.

We could keep going back to 1641 & asking the same question, what mandate did Irish Confederacy have? What mandate did the United Irishmen have? What mandate did Robert Emmet have, What mandate did the Provos have? You could say Hitler & the Nazi's had a mandate from the German people to invade & occupy other countries while committing horrible massacres of innocent people.

People have a right, almost a duty to rebel against injustice nobody will give you a mandate to do it, especially not the state that is oppressing you.

DarkyHughes

katydid wrote: »

I support the tactics of a democratically elected government. Remind me again when the IRA, OR ANY OTHER TERRORISTS ON THIS ISLAND, were elected?

In case you hadn't noticed, the 1916 rebels weren't after Home Rule...

I supported the tactics of the forces of the democratically elected government of the Irish Republic. But they didn't have a mandate, they did have a right & duty to rebel against injustice.

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I supported the tactics of the forces of the democratically elected government of the Irish Republic. But they didn't have a mandate, they did have a right & duty to rebel against injustice.

The rebels of 1916 had no mandate at the time, but had little alternative but to strike when they did. Their actions were subsequently validated and mandated by the election of 1918, as were subsequent actions.

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Neither did the Provos.

No, of course not. When they planted a bomb in a shopping centre on a Saturdy afternoon, they had no idea that there would be kids there. And when they put one in a crowded pub on a Saturday night, they were surprised when people out for a drink were blown up.

Keep telling yourself that.

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

We could keep going back to 1641 & asking the same question, what mandate did Irish Confederacy have? What mandate did the United Irishmen have? What mandate did Robert Emmet have, What mandate did the Provos have? You could say Hitler & the Nazi's had a mandate from the German people to invade & occupy other countries while committing horrible massacres of innocent people.

People have a right, almost a duty to rebel against injustice nobody will give you a mandate to do it, especially not the state that is oppressing you.

We could ask all those questions, but the bottom line is that the IRA and others are the ones who blighted OUR society and killed OUR people. They are the ones we have to deal with today, not Hitler or Robert Emmet.

ChicagoJoe

katydid wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 had no mandate at the time, but had little alternative but to strike when they did. Their actions were subsequently validated and mandated by the election of 1918, as were subsequent actions.

And the people in the Bogside, Falls Road, Ardoyne, unionist scumholes like Larne, Portadown had little alternative but to strike when they did as Lynch and co. stood idly by despite decades of rhetoric of never abandoning the nationalists in the six counties As the saying went, IRA defense or no defense.

Now 3,2,1........ I'll bet your all for the use of violence against state forces so long as it was nearly a 100 years ago or is 5,000 miles away ?

ChicagoJoe

katydid wrote: »

No, of course not. When they planted a bomb in a shopping centre on a Saturdy afternoon, they had no idea that there would be kids there. And when they put one in a crowded pub on a Saturday night, they were surprised when people out for a drink were blown up.

Keep telling yourself that.

If you knew the slightest thing about the troubles, that was the standard tacit or firing from the door of a pub with a AK47 of the loyalists/Brit dirty tricks dept right through the troubles in nationalist areas. But doubtless you'll keep telling yourself the Brits were the nice guys in a difficult situation trying their very best to keep the 'peace' , helping little old ladies across the road blah, blah.

katydid

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

And the people in the Bogside, Falls Road, Ardoyne, unionist scumholes like Larne, Portadown had little alternative but to strike when they did as Lynch and co. stood idly by despite decades of rhetoric of never abandoning the nationalists in the six counties As the saying went, IRA defense or no defense.

Now 3,2,1........ I'll bet your all for the use of violence against state forces so long as it was nearly a 100 years ago or is 5,000 miles away ?

What were Lynch and co supposed to do? You can't simply go into another jurisdiction and start laying down the law. Get real. It was a NI problem, nothing to do with this state.

I can understand, however, how people were driven into the arms of the IRA in '69, in the heightened atmosphere of fear and panic of the time. That doesn't justify thirty years of murder and mayhem across these islands. The IRA used the fear of the people to invoke a generation of violence, when any perceived danger to the community was well passed, and in that atmosphere, where violence breeds violence, it was taken up by the other side and perpetuated.