Unification?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 didn't have a mandate at the time, but they got one two years later.

Ah sure that's grand so. Any chance you'll give me next week's winning lotto numbers?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Ah sure that's grand so. Any chance you'll give me next week's winning lotto numbers?

I see you haven't answered my question...

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

Definitely wasn't my intention to post a loaded question. I do how ever believe that government's can be quantifiable, for instance the people in Cuba and North Korea get a very raw deal because of their lack of democracy. In the instance of the Republic of Ireland I think the people get the government they deserve.

No government is perfect but economy and job wise they certainly seem to be heading in the right direction, growth outstripping any other EU country at the minute.

As for the local government being ineffective I can honestly say I know little about the LG system in the south. Here in the North my particular local government is incompetent. We were suppose to get a bridge between the north and South, and they managed to underestimate the expense by 7 million thus loosing all the EU, UK and ROI money put forward for the project, they bought a huge piece of land in Newry city centre before the property crash, never followed through with the planned development and now they can't shift it. Then they spend money on things that aren't need solely because there's money which must be used up by a certain date or it goes back to central funds. I would honestly be happy if my local government was disbanded.

No question I agree there are governments that around the world are clearly not good for the majority of their people. I totally agree. Beyond ones that are obvious though you get into dangerous territory in the sense of what one person thinks is best which is why I thought the question was a bit loaded. But fair enough your reply indicates you didn't intend it to come over that way.


I agree with your that many local governments can be bad in the sense that those in them are incompetent. It doesn't mean that form of government is bad though. It is up to us as citizens to work to change things for the better and demand better from our elected officials and replace them when they fail us. One of the problems we have in Ireland since Independance is that the states powers have become more and more centralized and that is not a good thing. As I mentioned before local government is a joke in Ireland at this point and I don't mean that as a competence issue rather in that they have been made all but irrelevant as power resides more and more in the central authority and thus is not as responsive to the local needs. This is a serious structural issue which we need to address within our political system.


The current government has done some positive things no doubt about it. Although it could be argued that really the mass emigration brought about by the incompetence of the previous government has had a lot to do with that. If there was not the kind of mass emigration we saw after the crash in 2008 it is difficult to see how things would have been able to get turned around. We even had at one point a government minister sending letters to some unemployed encouraging them to emigrate. So I wouldn't be congratulating this governmnet too much.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

You don't need the majority to be bigoted to have a culture of bigotry. All you need is for the bigotry to be so ingrained and strong on the part of a vocal minority. The strong divisions in NI, and the linking of religion to politics make it bigoted in a way that is present in very few parts of the Western world.
And which certainly doesn't exist here, for all our faults.

The question remains, why would we want to take on that particular malaise?

Ahh so I see. In Ireland we have bigotry against the travelling community for example or against people with different sexual orientations for example but its no biggie no worries. In the north the minority of bigots there though are so bad that its not ok. So you have one standard to suit Ireland and another to suit the north.


As for your question to say it is loaded is an understatement. If you would like to ask an unloaded question fire away. Kind of like this which I asked earlier in general to the board:


"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"


You chose to respond to that question although you never actually answered yes or no. Care to say yes or no now?

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Ahh so I see. In Ireland we have bigotry against the travelling community for example or against people with different sexual orientations for example but its no biggie no worries. In the north the minority of bigots there though are so bad that its not ok. So you have one standard to suit Ireland and another to suit the north.


As for your question to say it is loaded is an understatement. If you would like to ask an unloaded question fire away. Kind of like this which I asked earlier in general to the board:


"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"


You chose to respond to that question although you never actually answered yes or no. Care to say yes or no now?

As I've said several times now, the particular kind of sectarian/political bigotry they have in the North is something we don't have. And don't want. Our society is far from perfect but why would we want to make it even worse?

After all I've said on the subject, you actually want an answer to your simplistic question? It's not enough for me to say repeatedly that we don't want NI as long as it is dysfunctional? Surely that gives you your answer - if NI Ireland were normal, there would be no problem.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

I see you haven't answered my question...

Ever heard of hindsight bias?

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

The rebels of 1916 didn't have a mandate at the time, but they got one two years later.

Remind me again when the IRA got a mandate?

So if in a few years SF get in to power and retrospectively say the IRA actions of the past in the north was justified and retrospectively recognises that they had a mandate will you say well that was a justified action on behalf of the Irish people?.

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

Ahh so I see. In Ireland we have bigotry against the travelling community for example or against people with different sexual orientations for example but its no biggie no worries. In the north the minority of bigots there though are so bad that its not ok. So you have one standard to suit Ireland and another to suit the north.


As for your question to say it is loaded is an understatement. If you would like to ask an unloaded question fire away. Kind of like this which I asked earlier in general to the board:


"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"

Cheers for the detailed reply (n:604) Yeah I agree strong local government can definitely have it's benefits but when it's so incompetent it's really hard to see the point sometimes.

For your question above honestly, if it was a. stable and b. saw no economic downside for anyone north or south i would have no objection.

Weather a United Ireland happens or not would not really have any bearing on my life. Growing up in Northern Ireland I feel I've developed a kind of aversion to nationalist labels they're just utterly unimportant to me. If someone thinks I'm British or Irish I'm not really bothered. I describe myself as Northern Irish because I feel it's the best current fit.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

It is only YOUR opinion that the Irish government had a constitutional role to fulfil.

It is also only YOUR opinion that they chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route.

There is a huge disconnect on these boards between those who hold an extreme nationalist position and the general poster from the South. It is seen in the partitionist, West Brit and other insults freely thrown around. It doesn't augur well for a meeting of minds outside of here.

The 'disconnect' comes from posters epressing platitudes from an ignorant knowledge base. Knowledge of what actually happened and how the conflict escalated and why it escalated. A disconnect that believes the IRA where responsible for the degeneration into chaos. They simply weren't if you are aware of the facts.
If you don't have the energy to inform yourself take one event, a pivotal event and study it...Bloody Sunday. The Irish Governments reaction was pivotal, had we taken a very strong line, supported Irish people under fire unequivocally when world opinion could see murderous oppression going on, then we would not have had the descent in to societal breakdown in NI.
What we got was simpering, fearful hat doffing from our 'leaders'. Jack Lynch was more concerned about how it was going to impact on the FF/FG control of the southern state.
Here is the transcript of Lynch's phoe call....are you proud of his leadership here?
ew Source
The Irish Times


Transcript of Heath Lynch BS Telephone Call



Transcript of the phone call between the Taoiseach, Mr Jack Lynch,
and the British Prime Minister, Mr Edward Heath, on the evening of
Bloody Sunday in January 1972

Mr Lynch: Lynch here. I am sorry to ring you at this hour but you
will probably have heard the unfortunate news about Derry this
afternoon.

Mr Heath: It is very bad news, yes.

Mr L: Very bad news, yes. And from reactions received around the
country at the moment it looks as if a very serious point has now
been reached and the situation could escalate beyond what any of us
would anticipate at this stage. I am told that, according to
reports I received and checked on the spot, the British troops
reacted rather beyond what a disciplined force might be expected
to, and, as you know, there were 13 killed and as many again
injured.

So judging by what I have heard around the country and from
reports, a very, very serious situation could emerge from all this.
I would like to suggest here at this stage that some serious
political action might be taken on your part and even to the point
of taking first of all, taking over the control of the security
forces from Westminster and taking over in some way in Stormont
itself.

I am saying this now because it is something that I have been
urging on you before but I think the situation has now been reached
that there will be a very serious reaction in our country tomorrow.
First of all I am told on good authority that one of the British
newspapers will describe this tomorrow as a massacre and will even
go so far as to say that the British troops went berserk.

So you can imagine what the Irish people will think about it. In
the meantime whatever numbness or lull there is in the situation
but when the funeral take place on either Tuesday or Wednesday I
hate to think of what could happen. So I am suggesting to you that
you take very serious action at this stage, Prime Minister. That is
all I have to say just now. Whether in the meantime you have, I am
sure you have, got your own reports and have received reactions
from different people...

Mr H: Yes

Mr L: So, I think a crunch point has been reached. We just cannot
ignore any more. I have been on to John Hume in Derry and he has,
as you know he is a reasonable man, and he has said that the
feeling up there is very, very grave indeed and he has grave fears
for what the reaction might be. So I am urging on you, Prime
Minister, that now is the point that something will have to be done
and I must say we just cannot expect any solution from present
measures.

Mr H: Well, now, as far as any accusations are concerned I
obviously cannot accept that.

Mr L: I assure you I can understand your point of view.

Mr H: I will obviously consider anything which you say. But I must
also point out that this arose out of a march which was against the
law, which was banned, you have always asked me to ban marches.
Faulkner banned them last August and renewed the ban, as you know,
for a year. Now this was done, and it is a policy which you have
always urged, and we believe it was absolutely right for him to ban
marches. Now the people therefore who deliberately organised this
march in circumstances which we all know in which the IRA were
bound to intervene, carry a very heavy responsibility for any
damage which ensued - a very heavy responsibility - and I hope that
you would at least condemn the whole of that unequivocally and
publicly.

Mr L: Well I am waiting to get further clarification of the
situation, but...

Mr H: So am I.

Mr L: I accept at this stage anyway...

Mr H: There is absolutely no doubt. It was a march, it was against
the law and should never have been held or countenanced by anybody.

Mr L: Yes. On the other hand I am told now that...I know it was
against the law...It was I think...

Mr H: The reason it was against the law was that we have all known
that if you have a march of this kind it will lead to a clash
between the communities and it will also lead to gunmen intervening
and everybody was warned yesterday quite specifically again that it
was against the law and the people who were organising it were
going to carry a very heavy responsibility if the IRA intervened.

Mr L: Well now, there is no indication at all that the IRA
intervened before shots were fired from the British side. Now again
you can disagree with that but this is the information I have got,
and...

Mr H: I am not going to prejudge it.

Mr L: No, let us not do that now but I just want to give you an
indication of the kind of evidence I have got at this stage. I have
not seen the BBC news but apparently the General commanding the
ground forces, General Ford, said that there were at least 200
rounds fired at his troops but not one of his troops was hit and
some few of them were injured but not by bullets. So at least if
one can say it is credible that that many shots were not fired at
them anyway and according to my information there were no shots
fired at them at all for several minutes until several minutes
after they had opened fire. So I do not know what the facts will
unfold but the facts will remain anyway that for these people - as
far as I know all of them innocent, innocent in so far as they were
not carrying arms - were shot down in a crowd.

Mr H: I do not think one wants to prejudge that either.

Mr L: Again I am saying that, with due reservation of the limited
information that has been given to me...

Mr H: Yes.

Mr L: But I am only just saying that, given an indication of what I
know that one British newspaper reporter has sent to his
headquarters describing this as a massacre and that the British
forces went berserk, you can imagine what the Irish people will
feel and what the Irish papers will report tomorrow. But there will
be very, very strong feeling around this country and...

Mr H: There will be equally string feeling here but there will
also, as well as feelings of regret, there will be very strong
feeling against those who organise marches in these circumstances.

Mr L: Well of course when the other marching time comes around,
whether they would continue to defy bans or not, I do not know, but
I feel that they would probably unless something is done in the
meantime.

Mr H: What precisely do you propose should be done other than
banning marches?

Mr L: Well, banning marches, this was the first thing.

Mr H: These are the people who are challenging the law.

Mr L: Again, this is only the symptom. As I have said before,
symptom of the root cause of the whole thing and obviously now that
this has happened it has made the acceptability of Stormont more
and more remote, and...

Mr H: Well you know it is very difficult to accept a condemnation
of Stormont for doing something which you yourself have requested,
you have constantly requested. You spoke to me last summer that
marches should be banned.

Mr L: Because I think these marches are provocative.

Mr H: Well then, this was a provocative march today.

Mr L: But the fact is that...

Mr H: And against the law.

Mr L: Well it was a peaceful march up to the point when...

Mr H: It was against the law.

Mr L: Yes

Mr H: And it was provocative.

Mr L: Yes. Well I admit...but on the other hand...

Mr H: Well I cannot therefore take this as a criticism of Stormont.

Mr L: On the other hand, well the fact is that the whole thing
arises as a result of the Stormont regime. It arises as a result of
the...

Mr H: It arises as a result of the IRA trying to take over the
country.

Mr L: Well, we have no intention of letting them do that.

Mr H: Well I was glad to see the action you have taken.

Mr L: But the fact is that it is going to make it more and more
difficult for me to adopt this middle course because people have
been critical of me that I have not been tough enough in the whole
thing. So, well, I will be meeting my colleagues tomorrow but in
the meantime I have said on radio that of course it was - I cannot
remember the exact words now - that I was appalled and I was
stunned at the fact that a disciplined force did shoot into a crowd
like this and that...

Mr H: Well that of course is prejudging the issue.

Mr L: Well it is not, because it happened. You see...

Mr H: Well I do not accept that. I am not prepared to prejudge it
on the reports which I have had from the Army.

Mr L: Well we will probably get more reports anyway but I did say
in the statement I issued tonight on Irish television that I would
make contact immediately with you. I did not say what I was going
to say to you or anything like that. So, I mean, I will say of
course that I have in fact contacted you and that I will say that I
have asked you to take very firm political steps to the point of
taking over security and making some alternative arrangement as far
as Stormont is concerned.

Mr H: Well you can tell me how taking over security and changing
Stormont is going to make people obey that law and not challenge
with marches.

Mr L: Well I think it will certainly avoid situations like this
arising again and, I mean, this has been the whole raison d'etre of
the operation for the last two and a half years and obviously now,
after all the measures that have been taken, increasing almost
fourfold the British military presence, internment is obviously
only exacerbating the whole situation and I just want to say this,
that the repercussions South of the Border, as I see myself, are
going to be so serious that we will both have a much more difficult
situation on hand as a result of this unless Westminster does take
firm action at this stage.

Mr H: Well perhaps if you had condemned people beforehand who were
going to challenge the law the march might not have taken place.

Mr L: I do not believe that would have happened anyway. Words would
come easily from me but people are not going to obey or accord to
what I think might be done in certain circumstances.

Mr H: Well then, I am afraid that as long as they go on creating
situations like this there is danger.

Mr L: Well there is, and there will be, and unless something is
done from the Westminster aide I am afraid this danger is going to
continue. And as I have said to you already, if this kind of thing
is going to have its repercussions South of the Border I hope it
will not reach that point but, well, things could happen elsewhere
as well, as I think I indicated to you last week in Brussels. So
that is my fear. I have been playing or holding a hard line, a
tough line.

About the middle of the road is the most difficult to hold. We have
factions on both sides - not only on both sides of my Government in
the South but in the North as well. I can assure you that my role
is becoming more and more difficult and I am very very fearful of
what is likely to happen unless there is some very very positive
indication of action from Westminster. I am not going to ask you to
do it now but I want you to contemplate it and I will perhaps be
making further contact with Westminster tomorrow - if not with you,
at least in some other way - hoping that we will in some way de-
escalate - and that is the word now because I think the situation
has been escalated already - to de-escalate what has happened and I
just want you to think, when these bodies are being buried at
funerals on Tuesday or Wednesday, what the ultimate is likely to
be.

Mr H: Well I hope you will also think about it and the consequences
of what the IRA are doing and the support they are getting.

Mr L: Yes. Well. I cannot tell people not to support them and there
is evidence...

Mr H: Well you could deal very toughly with those who are using the
South as their refuge and I have always told you this for many
months.

Mr L: I know you have. Yes. But on the other hand within the limits
of our own law...

Mr H: If you had dealt with them this would have been over long
ago.

Mr L: I do not believe it would. No I say it would have been much
worse. We know what happened as a result of internment in the North
and in fact the suggestion you have been making that we should
intern them in the South would have been far worse. However, Prime
Minister, I do not want to labour the point at this stage. It is
not the best means of arguing out a situation like this, but I just
want to tell you how gravely apprehensive I am. Now if the present
situation in Stormont is permitted to continue I think it will get
worse and I would urge you to take very quick action in relation to
the present situation.

Mr H: We certainly have our apprehensions about this. We have
always had them as far as Londonderry is concerned. But I must
again repeat that, Stormont having done what you and I wanted,
which was to ban marches, I really cannot accept that as a
criticism for changing Stormont and I am not prepared to prejudge
the Army and I think that is where we must leave it tonight.

Mr L: Well, Prime Minister, we will be in touch again, either by
phone or perhaps I will come and see you or send somebody to talk
to you. Thank you for talking to me. Good night.

Mr H: Good night, Prime Minister.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'disconnect' comes from posters epressing platitudes from an ignorant knowledge base. Knowledge of what actually happened and how the conflict escalated and why it escalated. A disconnect that believes the IRA where responsible for the degeneration into chaos. They simply weren't if you are aware of the facts.
If you don't have the energy to inform yourself take one event, a pivotal event and study it...Bloody Sunday. The Irish Governments reaction was pivotal, had we taken a very strong line, supported Irish people under fire unequivocally when world opinion could see murderous oppression going on, then we would not have had the descent in to societal breakdown in NI.
What we got was simpering, fearful hat doffing from our 'leaders'. Jack Lynch was more concerned about how it was going to impact on the FF/FG control of the southern state.
Here is the transcript of Lynch's phoe call....are you proud of his leadership here?
ew Source
The Irish Times


I don't feel ignorant about the Troubles, we can all cherry pick moments in time which will back up our own personal biases.

From my family's perspective I have an extremely negative view of the PIRA. They were the main drivers in tearing the two communities apart in the town where my Mum grew up. They threatened to plant incendiary devices in the shops of every Catholic business owner's home who would not put up a sign saying we refuse of serve British Soldiers. The minute those signs went up protestant customers refused to speak those shop owners never mind come into them.

They planted an incingery device in the shop under where my Grandparents and their whole family lived because her went to the funural of someone the IRA murdered

These will always be the acts of a fascist organization in my mind. they never allowed free choice.

In South Armagh Protestants were butchered for being protestants no other reason, case in point the Kingsmill Massacrer. Willy Fraizer is a product of the Ira's actions. He's a bigot no doubt but if you knew his background you'd know why. His Father and Uncles were wiped out by the IRA

And to bring it back on topic these are the people you need to convince that a UI will be a welcoming place for them.

On the other hand I know of people who where interned by the British Army, one guy in particular who was brought up in a Helicopter and then pushed out when it was only a few meters off the ground, the Police check points where catholics where targeted etc...

For me it's never as clear cut as one side being wholely good or bad but I fervently believe the IRA did nothing to make a United Ireland more likely with there actions in many boarder towns.

Happyman42

Saintleger wrote: »

For me it's never as clear cut as one side being wholely good or bad

And I have never claimed EVER that one side where to blame, but there are those on here so disconnected from the facts, that they routinely lay the blame at one side's door.

Crooked Jack

In South Armagh Protestants were butchered for being protestants no other reason, case in point the Kingsmill Massacrer. Willy Fraizer is a product of the Ira's actions. He's a bigot no doubt but if you knew his background you'd know why. His Father and Uncles were wiped out by the IRA

Absolute utter fu(king drivel.
The IRA in South Armagh had one of the lowest instances of sectarian killings in the entire conflict.
Kingsmill was a complete aberration, carried out without the authority of the army council at a time when the Glennane Gang was walking into people's homes and killing everyone. (Please don't be a simpleton and try to paint me as justifying Kingsmill, I am in no way doing so, I unreservedly condemn it, IRA volunteers, no matter what pressure they were under, should never have stooped to the level of brits and loyalists.)
It was condemned by Sinn Fein and the IRA, even IRA prisoners condemned it with several of them describing it as "the darkest period for republicans" in Toby Harnden's Bandt Country.
It was completely outside the norm, the IRA in South Armagh concentrated almost exclusively on the apparatus of the British state.
Frazer is a bigot whose father and uncle were killed, not because they were protestants, but because they were in the the utterly discredit UDR and had highly suspect links with the loyalist groups that were shooting and bombing bars and homes.
You want to have a discussion on this, that's fine, but stick to the facts and dont be making up your own wee fairy tales.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'disconnect' comes from posters epressing platitudes from an ignorant knowledge base. Knowledge of what actually happened and how the conflict escalated and why it escalated. A disconnect that believes the IRA where responsible for the degeneration into chaos. They simply weren't if you are aware of the facts.
If you don't have the energy to inform yourself take one event, a pivotal event and study it...Bloody Sunday. The Irish Governments reaction was pivotal, had we taken a very strong line, supported Irish people under fire unequivocally when world opinion could see murderous oppression going on, then we would not have had the descent in to societal breakdown in NI.
What we got was simpering, fearful hat doffing from our 'leaders'. Jack Lynch was more concerned about how it was going to impact on the FF/FG control of the southern state.
Here is the transcript of Lynch's phoe call....are you proud of his leadership here?
ew Source
The Irish Times

I don't feel ignorant about the Troubles, we can all cherry pick moments in time which will back up our own personal biases.

From my family's perspective I have an extremely negative view of the PIRA. They were the main drivers in tearing the two communities apart in the town where my Mum grew up. They threatened to plant incendiary devices in the shops of every Catholic business owner's home who would not put up a sign saying we refuse of serve British Soldiers. The minute those signs went up protestant customers refused to speak those shop owners never mind come into them.

They planted an incingery device in the shop under where my Grandparents and their whole family lived because her went to the funural of someone the IRA murdered

These will always be the acts of a fascist organization in my mind. they never allowed free choice.

In South Armagh Protestants were butchered for being protestants no other reason, case in point the Kingsmill Massacrer. Willy Fraizer is a product of the Ira's actions. He's a bigot no doubt but if you knew his background you'd know why. His Father and Uncles were wiped out by the IRA

And to bring it back on topic these are the people you need to convince that a UI will be a welcoming place for them.

On the other hand I know of people who where interned by the British Army, one guy in particular who was brought up in a Helicopter and then pushed out when it was only a few meters off the ground, the Police check points where catholics where targeted etc...

For me it's never as clear cut as one side being wholely good or bad but I fervently believe the IRA did nothing to make a United Ireland more likely with there actions in many boarder towns.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I have never claimed EVER that one side where to blame, but there are those on here so disconnected from the facts, that they routinely lay the blame at one side's door.

Never said you did I was only stating my beliefs based on my experiences. I think however it's important to try and see it from other's perspectives if a true reconciliation is ever going to happen, especially for those who aspire to see a UI.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Absolute utter fu(king drivel.
The IRA in South Armagh had one of the lowest instances of sectarian killings in the entire conflict.

Have you any research studies to back that up?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Kingsmill was a complete aberration, carried out without the authority of the army council at a time when the Glennane Gang was walking into people's homes and killing everyone. (Please don't be a simpleton and try to paint me as justifying Kingsmill, I am in no way doing so, I unreservedly condemn it, IRA volunteers, no matter what pressure they were under, should never have stooped to the level of brits and loyalists.)

It was a time of tit for tat killing which the IRA where also hugely implicated in I'm glad you're not trying to defend the indefensible. It was condemned by the IRA eventually certainly not immediately they denied they were eve involved for a long time.

Regardless of weather it was condemned eventually it happened and it certainly wasn't a once off and you might write me off for saying it here as 'total drivel' but it's hugely relevant in this tread if you are ever going to have any hope of convincing Unionists who still feel so so aggrieved at what was done to them.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the IRA in South Armagh concentrated almost exclusively on the apparatus of the British state.

In doing so they coerced and extorted they community the pro-ported to be fighting for for their own means. That is my families experience and it's no fairy tale.

The forced civilians, in particular postal works to drive bombs in to barracks, blew towns to smithereens with the result that people's homes and businesses were destroyed time and time again under the guise of targeting fortified British Army barracks which hardly took a dent.

And deny it all you like but it played a huge part in tearing communities apart, and i believe setting back any chance of a United Ireland by generations.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Frazer is a bigot whose father and uncle were killed, not because they were protestants, but because they were in the the utterly discredit UDR and had highly suspect links with the loyalist groups that were shooting and bombing bars and homes.
You want to have a discussion on this, that's fine, but stick to the facts and don't be making up your own wee fairy tales.

Regardless of what you believe his Father and Uncles did the point I was making was the reason he is the way he is is clear. He's a product of IRA aggression and I think he's a prime example of why a prolonged bloody conflict where it was civilians not the Army, IRA, Loyalist paramilitaries who took the worst hit psychologically and in terms of casualties.

Happyman42

Saintleger wrote: »

Regardless of weather it was condemned eventually it happened and it certainly wasn't a once off

This is some of the curious logic that you see on here...when a British soldier does something wrong and against orders (allegedly) that is ok (see Katydid's post history for prime examples of this) but when it happens in the IRA there are no excuses or downplaying. Pathetic really and shows a very biased opinion.

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is some of the curious logic that you see on here...when a British soldier does something wrong and against orders (allegedly) that is ok (see Katydid's post history for prime examples of this) but when it happens in the IRA there are no excuses or downplaying. Pathetic really and shows a very biased opinion.

How so? I've listed things experiences of crimes the British Army did which I know personally about here, in fact I labelled it as torture and yet you suggest I'm white washing??

There are no excuses for Kingsmill just like there's no excuses for Bloody Sunday or other crimes carries out by British officers just like there is no justification for the actions of the shankill Butcher.

Everyone come's with their own biases and like i said above my families direct real experiences of the tactics used by the IRA are very negative, it doesn't make anyone elses experiences any less real and with relation to this thread in the context of a United Ireiand those actions have served to hinder rather than help.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Twhen a British soldier does something wrong and against orders (allegedly) that is ok (see Katydid's post history for prime examples of this).

Excuse me?????

That is a lie, I never said anything of the such. Please cite any post in which I said what you claim, or apologise for your dishonesty.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

Excuse me?????

That is a lie, I never said anything of the such. Please cite any post in which I said what you claim, or apologise for your dishonesty.

Here is just one example of your excusing of the British army.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93923154&postcount=455

It is the intention behind the use of violence that defines terror. The Allies in WW2 caused terror amongst the German civilian population, but in most cases (there were shameful exceptions) the action taken was for the greater purpose of gaining strategic advantage over the enemy, whose negative intentions were clear.

Of course, it's not always as clear cut as the example of WW2. In most cases, armies are used by governments for their own political purposes, and as often as not, the terrorising of the population is totally unnecessary - note the last invasion of Iraq by the Americans.

However, terror is not the purpose of an army. Its function is primarily to defend the territory in which it is the authorised force; hence the term "defence forces". That it steps beyond this role, for good or for bad, at times, doesn't make it a terrorist organisation.

The raison d'être of Al Quaida, or ETA, or the UVF or IRA was not defence of anyone (although the IRA used that short window in time where there was a perceived need for defence in the nationalist community to excuse thirty years of violence, long after any need for defence had passed). Their raison d'être is and was very simple; to create an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst the population in order to force a government, or, in the case of Al Quaida, an entire democratic system, into acting in a way they wish them to act.

Armies sometimes act as terrorists, but terrorists are always terrorists.

I'm sure the subtlety of you excuse was lost on the victims though. :rolleyes:

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here is just one example of your excusing of the British army.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93923154&postcount=455


I'm sure the subtlety of you excuse was lost on the victims though. :rolleyes:

How does that excuse the entire British army? It seems you didn't understand what I wrote; individual members of the British army committed terrible atrocities, and entire sections of the army committed terrorism. But the British army is not a terrorist organisation like the IRA or Al Quaida, whose sole purpose is terrorism.

So, waiting for your apology...

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

How does that excuse the entire British army? It seems you didn't understand what I wrote; individual members of the British army committed terrible atrocities, and entire sections of the army committed terrorism. But the British army is not a terrorist organisation like the IRA or Al Quaida, whose sole purpose is terrorism.

So, waiting for your apology...

Here is what I said:

This is some of the curious logic that you see on here...when a British soldier does something wrong and against orders (allegedly) that is ok (see Katydid's post history for prime examples of this) but when it happens in the IRA there are no excuses or downplaying. Pathetic really and shows a very biased opinion.

You excused actions by an army, thus:

However, terror is not the purpose of an army. Its function is primarily to defend the territory in which it is the authorised force; hence the term "defence forces". That it steps beyond this role, for good or for bad, at times, doesn't make it a terrorist organisation.

You ain't due any apology I'm afraid.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

But the British army is not a terrorist organisation like the IRA or Al Quaida, whose sole purpose is terrorism.

So, waiting for your apology...

Defending the BA and attacking the IRA in the modern era, but it was ok for the Irish Volunteers/IRA to kill members of the BA in 1916 & 1919-21 in pursuit of a cause.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Defending the BA and attacking the IRA in the modern era, but it was ok for the Irish Volunteers/IRA to kill members of the BA in 1916 & 1919-21 in pursuit of a cause.

The British Army are a legitimate army, the IRA a terrorist organisation. Why would I not defend one and condemn the other? It's what decent people do.

The original IRA was not a terrorist organisation.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here is what I said:



You excused actions by an army, thus:


You ain't due any apology I'm afraid.

Yes, I excused an army. The British Army, like the Irish Army or the French Army, is a legitimate arm of the state.
What you said was that I excused the actions of individual British soldiers. I quite clearly did not.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

The British Army are a legitimate army, the IRA a terrorist organisation. Why would I not defend one and condemn the other? It's what decent people do.

The original IRA was not a terrorist organisation.

Until 1998 Ireland did not recognise the legitimacy of that army's presence in Ireland, therefore as far as the Irish government 'should' have been concerned any action carried out by them was not legitimate.

You haven't commented on the transcript of the Lynch call...would you be proud of your leader for that 'intervention'?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

the IRA a terrorist organisation...........

........The original IRA was not a terrorist organisation.

But both used the same methods......?

https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/good-old-ira-sf-publ-dept-1985.pdf

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Until 1998 Ireland did not recognise the legitimacy of that army's presence in Ireland, therefore as far as the Irish government 'should' have been concerned any action carried out by them was not legitimate.

You haven't commented on the transcript of the Lynch call...would you be proud of your leader for that 'intervention'?

Who said "Ireland", by which I presume you mean the Republic of Ireland, didn't recognise the legitimacy of the British Army in NI?

I saw no transcript of the Lynch call. No idea what you're talking about but I presume you're talking about Jack Lynch contacting Heath about the troubles in Derry. The Irish government suggested the British government get their finger out...what's your point?

StudentDad

A united Ireland? No thanks.

As it stands we can barely keep this little republic afloat. The last thing we need is to add to that particular headache. There is also the added fact that NI is happy where it is, within the UK.

When or if the crowd in the North consider leaving the UK, then we can talk about it. Until that happens the question is moot.

SD

Saintleger

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here is what I said:



You excused actions by an army, thus:


You ain't due any apology I'm afraid.

Am I since the reply you posted here was to me? Or maybe people are only bias when they don't come from the same perspective as you?

eire4

Saintleger wrote: »

Cheers for the detailed reply (n:604) Yeah I agree strong local government can definitely have it's benefits but when it's so incompetent it's really hard to see the point sometimes.

For your question above honestly, if it was a. stable and b. saw no economic downside for anyone north or south i would have no objection.

Weather a United Ireland happens or not would not really have any bearing on my life. Growing up in Northern Ireland I feel I've developed a kind of aversion to nationalist labels they're just utterly unimportant to me. If someone thinks I'm British or Irish I'm not really bothered. I describe myself as Northern Irish because I feel it's the best current fit.

Fair enough Saint Ledger. It's nice to actually be able to have a sane chat even though I am guessing we probably do not agree on too much in terms of this topic.


I totally hear you about incompetent representatives. But it is up to us to not accept and vote them out and demand competence from our represetatives. I do think that we need to really significantly change thr structure of our system of government and move as much real power as possible away from the central authority. The almost complete centralization of power in Ireland is flat out dangerous and it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

marienbad

eire4 wrote: »

Fair enough Saint Ledger. It's nice to actually be able to have a sane chat even though I am guessing we probably do not agree on too much in terms of this topic.


I totally hear you about incompetent representatives. But it is up to us to not accept and vote them out and demand competence from our represetatives. I do think that we need to really significantly change thr structure of our system of government and move as much real power as possible away from the central authority. The almost complete centralization of power in Ireland is flat out dangerous and it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Realistically though we are to small to decentralise power. What we really need right now is to make government more accountable and more subject to freedom of information laws.

As a side note I have rarely met a local politician who was not in it for the 'expenses'

eire4

katydid wrote: »

Yes, I excused an army. The British Army, like the Irish Army or the French Army, is a legitimate arm of the state.
What you said was that I excused the actions of individual British soldiers. I quite clearly did not.

Was the Soviet army legitimate, how about the German army during world war 2 or maybe the North Korean army today? They are all official state armies. So according to you as long as an army is the official arm of the state then any atrocities they commit are just aberations of a minority and no big deal. Kind of similar to your attitude to bigotry in Ireland against the travelling community. It's only a minority so no big deal.

Redbishop

marienbad wrote: »

Realistically though we are to small to decentralise power. What we really need right now is to make government more accountable and more subject to freedom of information laws.

As a side note I have rarely met a local politician who was not in it for the 'expenses'

The only passionate CC I ever knew who really was for his local people was an old republican SF councillor. A great man for our locality, until they redrew the electoral boundaries here to make sure he lost out. Not my politics BTW but a great man nonetheless.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are missing is what it would have meant to Irish people and other people around the world.

Symbolic yes, but symbolic of the Irish government fulfilling what was their constitutional role. The protection of ALL Irish people, without fear or favour. And it could have been done without showing a scintilla of support for groups like the IRA, in fact, imo they (the Irish Gov.) created a vacuum of inaction that was filled by the IRA. Look what happened in the Bogside and you will see an IRA reluctant to get involved.
What Katydid refers to as 'riots' about hunger strikes and Bloody Sunday on southern Irish streets where expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon.
The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.
Had they held to a trenchant position the world would have come to a judgement of Britain's activity much much sooner than it did. The world now knows, because of the efforts of a few just exactly what Britain was doing during those years...including contemporary Britons and it's government and they have partly apologised for it, as they should.

This is just not correct Happyman , the Irish government protested every step of the way on all these issues , and they did hold to a trenchant position.

If memory serves they became the first state to take another before the ECHR and never let up on it ,and even requested the court to revisit their earlier decision. A view deeply unpopular in UK and US power circles.

And they raised these issues at every opportunity in the following years .

The GFA is a wonderful achievement and would not have happened without certain key players ,of which the Irish Government is one .

eire4

katydid wrote: »

As I've said several times now, the particular kind of sectarian/political bigotry they have in the North is something we don't have. And don't want. Our society is far from perfect but why would we want to make it even worse?

After all I've said on the subject, you actually want an answer to your simplistic question? It's not enough for me to say repeatedly that we don't want NI as long as it is dysfunctional? Surely that gives you your answer - if NI Ireland were normal, there would be no problem.

Once again you ask a loaded question. It is your opinion that unification would make our society worse. I do not agree I believe it would make things better.


Yes indeed my question was a very simple one. Not loaded and you chose to respond again but again you refuse to answer it.


Let me throw it out for you once again. Care to actually answer the question its very simplictic as you say it only requires a yes or no.




"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"

Redbishop

eire4 wrote: »

"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"

An old teacher of mine used to say, "if you ask a hypothetical question then you are going to get a stupid meaningless answer". That said, my answer would be I would only be in favour if the north were an already independent state with its own working economic policy and already self sufficient. Independence from britain needs to come first for me.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Once again you ask a loaded question. It is your opinion that unification would make our society worse. I do not agree I believe it would make things better.


Yes indeed my question was a very simple one. Not loaded and you chose to respond again but again you refuse to answer it.


Let me throw it out for you once again. Care to actually answer the question its very simplictic as you say it only requires a yes or no.




"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"

How is it a loaded question? Northern Ireland IS dysfunctional. There is no other place in Europe where politics and religion are so closely linked that people are regarded as traitors if they change their religious denomination. There is no place in Europe where politics is so dysfunctional that a special system has to be maintained where both sides get permanent representation. It is a dysfunctional society.

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

How is it a loaded question? Northern Ireland IS dysfunctional. There is no other place in Europe where politics and religion are so closely linked that people are regarded as traitors if they change their religious denomination. There is no place in Europe where politics is so dysfunctional that a special system has to be maintained where both sides get permanent representation. It is a dysfunctional society.

In all fairness now the same point is being made here again and again, something new and insightful would be welcome sometimes.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Going to watch the rugby now...I suggest you read Tim Pat Coogan's book Ireland in the Twentieth Century, particularly the transcripts of a shamefully timid Jack Lynch's phonecalls to Heath. Look at what was said at the FF ard fheis 3 weeks after Bloody Sunday (Sweet F.A.) and then come back to me when we have the same amount of actual knowledge of the events, not makey up stuff that you seem to be relying on.

Come on Happyman Tim Pat Coogan ? As for the actual phone calls - they are not nearly as damning as you make them out to be , they took place as events were unfolding and information was incomplete. This was not the internet and media saturated age of today .

And Jack Lynch was always polite and formal no matter what the situation . Could he have been more forceful ? I am sure he could have ,but it was not in his nature .

Thereafter under Des O'Malley they deemed the IRA a treat to this state and took action accordingly.

On the other side they pursued a diplomatic drive against Britain and never let up in the ensuing years .

What else do you suggest they could have done ? Military action ?

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

In all fairness now the same point is being made here again and again, something new and insightful would be welcome sometimes.

It might be being made over and over again, but it's not sinking in...

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

There is no place in Europe where politics is so dysfunctional that a special system has to be maintained where both sides get permanent representation. It is a dysfunctional society.

Wrong. Bosnia-Herzegovina rotates it's presidency between a Croat, Serb and a Bosniak (Muslim) every 8 months. Pretty dysfunctional too I'd say.

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

It might be being made over and over again, but it's not sinking in...

katy, it sank in with me no bother. You might be a bit strong but basically you make a good point. Leave it at that

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

Ahh so I see. In Ireland we have bigotry against the travelling community for example or against people with different sexual orientations for example but its no biggie no worries. In the north the minority of bigots there though are so bad that its not ok. So you have one standard to suit Ireland and another to suit the north.


As for your question to say it is loaded is an understatement. If you would like to ask an unloaded question fire away. Kind of like this which I asked earlier in general to the board:


"I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind. "


"If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?"


You chose to respond to that question although you never actually answered yes or no. Care to say yes or no now?

It is not so simple as majority/minority.

For example you could have 3% of the settled community bigoted towards the traveller community and 3% of the traveller community bigoted towards the settled community and while it is worrying, it is not a serious problem.

Yet, in the North, you could have 40% of the unionist community bigoted towards the nationalist community and 40% of the nationalist community bigoted towards the communist community and it is a serious problem.

In both cases, it is only a minority but in one case, it is a serious problem. If you cannot see the difference between bigotry on one side of the border from the order, you are like an ostrich in viewing a united Ireland.

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

katy, it sank in with me no bother. You might be a bit strong but basically you make a good point. Leave it at that

You're not the problem :-)

Godge

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Wrong. Bosnia-Herzegovina rotates it's presidency between a Croat, Serb and a Bosniak (Muslim) every 8 months. Pretty dysfunctional too I'd say.

So with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland in the same class, that pretty much sums it up.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Wrong. Bosnia-Herzegovina rotates it's presidency between a Croat, Serb and a Bosniak (Muslim) every 8 months. Pretty dysfunctional too I'd say.

Yep, pretty dysfunctional. Thanks for the reminder.

RED L4 0TH

Godge wrote: »

So with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Northern Ireland in the same class, that pretty much sums it up.

Both are currently relatively peaceful. What's the alternative?

Karl Stein

Banjoxed wrote: »

The challenge that Nationalists need to face is that bombing and shooting didn't work

The uncomfortable truth is that it was guns in the hands of Republicans that put a stop to this kind of ethnic cleansing attempted by loyalist bully-boys backed by the RUC.

Another uncomfortable truth was that the PIRA bombing campaign in Britain in the 1990's was instrumental in driving the GFA along. When the PIRA starting blowing city centres to pieces the BGov appreciated that there was a credible threat to the UK economy.

1992 10 April: Baltic Exchange bombing ... The bomb caused £800 million worth of damage.

1993 24 April: IRA detonated a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate ... causing approximately £1 billion worth of damage ... The insurance payments required were so enormous, that Lloyd's of London almost went bankrupt under the strain, and there was a crisis in the London insurance market.

1996 9 February: Docklands (£100m). On 28 February, John Major, John Bruton the Taoiseach announced that all-party talks would be resumed in June. Major's decision of dropping the demand of a previous IRA decommissioning of weapons led to criticism from the press, which accused him of being "bombed to the table"

1996 15 June: The Manchester bombing (£1.1 billion)

There's an excellent series of interviews on The Real News about how guns in the hands of Black people in the southern states of the US enabled the Civil Rights movement.

In 'This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed', civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb Jr. describes the vital role that armed self-defense played in the survival and liberation of black communities in America during the Southern Freedom Movement of the 1960s. In the Deep South, blacks often safeguarded themselves and their loved ones from white supremacist violence by bearing—and, when necessary, using—firearms. In much the same way, Cobb shows, nonviolent civil rights workers received critical support from black gun owners in the regions where they worked. Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these courageous men and women and the weapons they carried were crucial to the movement’s success.

amazon.com

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Both are currently relatively peaceful. What's the alternative?

Working towards a process of normalisation, where religion or ethnicity is not an issue, just like in normal society.

The point is that it IS not normal and that these places ARE dysfunctional.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Yep, pretty dysfunctional. Thanks for the reminder.

No problem. Just highlighting your continued curious attempts to paint NI as somehow a place on another planet entirely considering your support for non-mandated violence in other eras etc etc.......

Godge

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Both are currently relatively peaceful. What's the alternative?

Yes, they are.

And that is good news, they have both achieved an equilibrium with their political models. Not a good idea to upset either by changes though?