Opinions on Irish identity

KN1231999

A Little Pony wrote: »

Never was for the IRA with nationalists. Armed struggles tend to go that way, people will kill for what they believe in. Bombs would inevitable.

Also it wont just be Northern Ireland as the hot zone for violence
This will be all of the island under threat.
I just cant see anything good coming out of a united Ireland unless you want to delve into a civil war

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

Bombs would inevitable.

KN1231999 wrote: »

Also it wont just be Northern Ireland as the hot zone for violence

To what ends?
To force the British go back to the northeast? Not going to happen.
Re-partition? Not going to happen.
Unionist cantons? They'd be welcome to them.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Never was for the IRA with nationalists. Armed struggles tend to go that way, people will kill for what they believe in. Bombs would inevitable.

The IRA believed they could achieve withdrawal.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to achieve after a vote.

There will be a tiny rump of belligerence which will die out, like the parade stuff and the fleg stuff.
Unionism has accepted this roadmap if a vote succeeds already.

Probably the main reason they are petrified to let a vote happen

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lay out how that would work with both the British and Irish security forces vehemently against them and no discernible large scale support for a violent campaign among unionists as a whole.

Well first of all there will not be any British forces involved, because they'll be to bloody smart to get involved. Second, it does not take may - say a 100 or so to run a terrorist campaign. So you are talking Irish soldiers and Irish sons, daughters and spouses coming home in body bags... I don't see may people will to vote for that.

Here is a question for you, are you prepared to do it? Are you prepared to see relatives die?

KN1231999

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well first of all there will not be any British forces involved, because they'll be to bloody smart to get involved. Second, it does not take may - say a 100 or so to run a terrorist campaign. So you are talking Irish soldiers and Irish sons, daughters and spouses coming home in body bags... I don't see may people will to vote for that.

Here is a question for you, are you prepared to do it? Are you prepared to see relatives die?

I Agree with your thought process.
People cant be that naive to think there wont be a severe amount of violence

Junkyard Tom

Jim2007 wrote: »

Second, it does not take may - say a 100 or so to run a terrorist campaign.

To what ends? What would they hope to achieve?

KN1231999

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends? What would they hope to achieve?

forcing the British government back and keep the partition (maybe fix the borders)

Junkyard Tom

KN1231999 wrote: »

forcing the British government back

How would bombing in Ireland force the British to go back to 1969 in the north? Also it wouldn't be British terrirtory any longer so it would essentially be an invasion. Fantasy stuff.

and keep the partition (maybe fix the borders)

How?

A pro-UI vote is the point of no return. The British will be delighted to see the back of Ireland and there would be nothing to try to reverse via unionist terrorism.

Edward M

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How would bombing in Ireland force the British to go back to 1969 in the north? Also it wouldn't be British terrirtory any longer so it would essentially be an invasion. Fantasy stuff.





A pro-UI vote is the point of no return. The British will be delighted to see the back of Ireland and there would be nothing to try to reverse via unionist terrorism.

Probably if the vote for a UI won in NI then it would lead to large scale violence there, probably would.

Sometimes I wonder if the Nationalists want a united Ireland or just to get the better of the unionists!

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well first of all there will not be any British forces involved, because they'll be to bloody smart to get involved. Second, it does not take may - say a 100 or so to run a terrorist campaign. So you are talking Irish soldiers and Irish sons, daughters and spouses coming home in body bags... I don't see may people will to vote for that.

Here is a question for you, are you prepared to do it? Are you prepared to see relatives die?

If violence erupted, I'd have the UN peacekeeping forces in (or the EU Army!). This is the mistake that Britain made when the troubles erupted in NI - they should have got a neutral force in to police it.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well first of all there will not be any British forces involved, because they'll be to bloody smart to get involved. Second, it does not take may - say a 100 or so to run a terrorist campaign. So you are talking Irish soldiers and Irish sons, daughters and spouses coming home in body bags... I don't see may people will to vote for that.

Here is a question for you, are you prepared to do it? Are you prepared to see relatives die?

I have already lost relatives (3) to the cyclical conflict on this island.


I don't think you and the others commenting at the moment fully understand the unionist identity. There is no appetite for large scale sustained violence in the majority of that community.
If there was we would have had a bloodbath already.
What we have gotten is localised violence from a dying rump of 'loyalism'.
Unionism would have rejected the GFA on a much larger scale because it set out the roadmap for a UI.

A Little Pony

KN1231999 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Never was for the IRA with nationalists. Armed struggles tend to go that way, people will kill for what they believe in. Bombs would inevitable.

Also it wont just be Northern Ireland as the hot zone for violence
This will be all of the island under threat.
I just cant see anything good coming out of a united Ireland unless you want to delve into a civil war

It wouldn't be in NI at all, it would be all over the border, Dublin and the major hub of the Irish economy.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It wouldn't be in NI at all, it would be all over the border, Dublin and the major hub of the Irish economy.

There wouldn't be a border.

Where is this sudden expertise going to come from when it wasn't there at the height of the troubles?
You need to make a credible attempt to illustrate this.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

If violence erupted, I'd have the UN peacekeeping forces in (or the EU Army!). This is the mistake that Britain made when the troubles erupted in NI - they should have got a neutral force in to police it.

Cyprus II?

Dyr

People are forgetting that the British now have a ridiculously tight surveillance and intelligence set up in NI, I doubt that would be dismantled in any shake up of the border

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends?
To force the British go back to the northeast? Not going to happen.
Re-partition? Not going to happen.
Unionist cantons? They'd be welcome to them.

You left out simple revenge

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends? What would they hope to achieve?

Vent their anger. Like most terrorism.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Vent their anger. Like most terrorism.

As I said earlier, the time to do that was at the signing of the GFA, which is the roadmap for Unity if a vote succeeds.

They tried to, they tried very hard to sustain violence but couldn't. Why? Because most unionists just got on with it.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already lost relatives (3) to the cyclical conflict on this island.


I don't think you and the others commenting at the moment fully understand the unionist identity. There is no appetite for large scale sustained violence in the majority of that community.
If there was we would have had a bloodbath already.
What we have gotten is localised violence from a dying rump of 'loyalism'.
Unionism would have rejected the GFA on a much larger scale because it set out the roadmap for a UI.

You didn't answer his question.

Are you prepared to lose more relatives for a UI?

I am almost certain there will be some loss of life caused by loyalists if a UI ever becomes a reality.

In fact I would be amazed if there weren't at least a few bombs in Dublin and other cities south of the former border.

People say what could they gain but ETA waged a terrorist campaign in Spain in similar circumstances for decades. Their aim would be to get the RoI out of the north east counties, even if reunification with GB was discounted from the outset (as it should be by the UK).

The question is how much death is a UI worth. To me it's not worth one life, one destroyed family.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There wouldn't be a border.

Where is this sudden expertise going to come from when it wasn't there at the height of the troubles?
You need to make a credible attempt to illustrate this.

Not much expertise required to hire a truck and drive down Grafton Street on a Saturday afternoon at 60mph.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You didn't answer his question.

Are you prepared to lose more relatives for a UI?

I am almost certain there will be some loss of life caused by loyalists if a UI ever becomes a reality.

In fact I would be amazed if there weren't at least a few bombs in Dublin and other cities south of the former border.

People say what could they gain but ETA waged a terrorist campaign in Spain in similar circumstances for decades. Their aim would be to get the RoI out of the north east counties, even if reunification with GB was discounted from the outset (as it should be by the UK).

The question is how much death is a UI worth. To me it's not worth one life, one destroyed family.

The poster's question was along the lines of 'have you stopped beating your wife?'.
It is unanswerable.
Do you see continued partition as likely to cause deaths and violence in the future? I do.
If, for instance a hard border is re-established?

The nature of the conflict is cyclical. I want to end that.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Not much expertise required to hire a truck and drive down Grafton Street on a Saturday afternoon at 60mph.

And doing that will ruin our economy?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And doing that will ruin our economy?

It'll certainly ruin the retail economy of Dublin!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It'll certainly ruin the retail economy of Dublin!

Yeh, the economies of Europe are crumbling after all the ISIS attacks.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, the economies of Europe are crumbling after all the ISIS attacks.

Look it would be just one option open to them. You still haven't said if you'd be prepared to lose more family to a loyalist terror campaign...

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said earlier, the time to do that was at the signing of the GFA, which is the roadmap for Unity if a vote succeeds.

They tried to, they tried very hard to sustain violence but couldn't. Why? Because most unionists just got on with it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The poster's question was along the lines of 'have you stopped beating your wife?'.
It is unanswerable.
Do you see continued partition as likely to cause deaths and violence in the future? I do.
If, for instance a hard border is re-established?

The nature of the conflict is cyclical. I want to end that.

Do you realise that when you say that unionists are not capable of violence but that republicans are, you are saying something really terrible about the republican community - that they value the lives of their fellow men at a lower level?

What is worse is that while you appear to see the republican return to violence as somewhat regrettable, you also see something to admire in it.

When I lay particular blame on republicans for the mess in the North, it is this callous attitude to the lives of others that is the reason. No lives are worth a united Ireland, it just isn't that important.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you realise that when you say that unionists are not capable of violence but that republicans are, you are saying something really terrible about the republican community - that they value the lives of their fellow men at a lower level?

What is worse is that while you appear to see the republican return to violence as somewhat regrettable, you also see something to admire in it.

When I lay particular blame on republicans for the mess in the North, it is this callous attitude to the lives of others that is the reason. No lives are worth a united Ireland, it just isn't that important.

I didn't say any of that at all blanch.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say any of that at all blanch.

Oh, come on. You're on record as suggesting that the Republic of Ireland might want to consider the mind-numbingly stupid move of following the UK out of the EU, in part because of the threat of Republican violence; but you hand-wave away the threat of Loyalist violence as nothing to fear because their hearts wouldn't be in it.

So, no: you've never come right out and said that Republicans are vastly more committed to the idea of murder as a means of achieving political aims than Loyalists are, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you haven't repeatedly implied it.

It may not suit you to admit that the cumulative picture painted by your posts is one of Republican terrorists who will never, ever relinquish the threat of violence until they get their way, contrasted with Loyalist terrorists who will much more readily and peacefully embrace an outcome at odds with their core identity - but whether or not you choose to admit it, that's what you persist in telling us.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. You're on record as suggesting that the Republic of Ireland might want to consider the mind-numbingly stupid move of following the UK out of the EU, in part because of the threat of Republican violence; but you hand-wave away the threat of Loyalist violence as nothing to fear because their hearts wouldn't be in it.

If I am 'on record' saying that can you please point to where I said it?

So, no: you've never come right out and said that Republicans are vastly more committed to the idea of murder as a means of achieving political aims than Loyalists are, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you haven't repeatedly implied it.

It may not suit you to admit that the cumulative picture painted by your posts is one of Republican terrorists who will never, ever relinquish the threat of violence until they get their way, contrasted with Loyalist terrorists who will much more readily and peacefully embrace an outcome at odds with their core identity - but whether or not you choose to admit it, that's what you persist in telling us.

You are as usual confusing a fact based assessment of the threat of violence and where it might come from and how long it can be sustained for something else.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I am 'on record' saying that can you please point to where I said it?

I can go digging for it, but before I do, are you categorically denying it?

As in, are you denying that you suggested Ireland might want to consider leaving the EU, or denying that the threat of Republican violence was part of your reasoning?

You are as usual confusing a fact based assessment of the threat of violence and where it might come from and how long it can be sustained for something else.

Yes - a "fact based assessment" of how the threat of Republican violence will never recede until they get their way, whereas the threat of Loyalist violence can be airily dismissed.

You can spin that how you like, but that's what you keep telling us.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can go digging for it, but before I do, are you categorically denying it?

As in, are you denying that you suggested Ireland might want to consider leaving the EU, or denying that the threat of Republican violence was part of your reasoning?

You made a claim, I asked you to back it up. I never was of the opinion that we should leave the EU or that we should consider it.

Yes - a "fact based assessment" of how the threat of Republican violence will never recede until they get their way, whereas the threat of Loyalist violence can be airily dismissed.

You can spin that how you like, but that's what you keep telling us.

I didn't airily dismiss anything. I gave a reasoned (you can argue with it if you like) opinion on the likelihood of sustained unionist/loyalist violence based on their history of sustaining violent objections to other things like flegs and parades.

It is also factual to state that republican violence has never fully receded.

I am not glorifying or threatening in any way by saying that. If it isn't a 'fact' please argue with the point.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can go digging for it, but before I do, are you categorically denying it?

As in, are you denying that you suggested Ireland might want to consider leaving the EU, or denying that the threat of Republican violence was part of your reasoning?

You made a claim, I asked you to back it up. I never was of the opinion that we should leave the EU or that we should consider it.

Yes - a "fact based assessment" of how the threat of Republican violence will never recede until they get their way, whereas the threat of Loyalist violence can be airily dismissed.

You can spin that how you like, but that's what you keep telling us.

I didn't airily dismiss anything. I gave a reasoned (you can argue with it if you like) opinion on the likelihood of sustained unionist/loyalist violence based on their history of sustaining violent objections to other things like flegs and parades.

It is also factual to state that republican violence has never fully receded.

I am not glorifying or threatening in any way by saying that. If it isn't a 'fact' please argue with the point.

It's bigger than just flags or parades, it's Japan 1945 throwing yourself off cliffs type situation for Unionists.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You made a claim, I asked you to back it up. I never was of the opinion that we should leave the EU or that we should consider it.

I'm going to apologise profusely to you here: I went digging, and it wasn't you who suggested that we leave the EU, it was one of KyussBishop's many incarnations. He interjected that particular piece of complete nonsense into the middle of one of our, ahem, robust discussions, and in my senility I conflated your arguments with his.

My bad, please accept the apology.

I didn't airily dismiss anything. I gave a reasoned (you can argue with it if you like) opinion on the likelihood of sustained unionist/loyalist violence based on their history of sustaining violent objections to other things like flegs and parades.

It is also factual to state that republican violence has never fully receded.

I am not glorifying or threatening in any way by saying that. If it isn't a 'fact' please argue with the point.

I'm not saying you're glorifying or threatening, I'm pointing out the 'fact' that you've expressed the belief that Republican terrorists are more committed to violence than Loyalist terrorists are.

That may not have been how you wanted to express it. It may not be a point you wittingly made. But you can't express a view over a long period of time that one group of terrorists will never stop committing murder until they've achieved their aims, and that another group of terrorists will meekly stop committing murder and accept that their cause is lost, and then get upset when it's pointed out to you what that says about the relative bloodlust of those respective terrorist groups.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's bigger than just flags or parades, it's Japan 1945 throwing yourself off cliffs type situation for Unionists.

That happened when they signed up to the GFA.
Were they only pretending? Will they withdraw their support for it if it results in one of it's central clauses?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to apologise profusely to you here: I went digging, and it wasn't you who suggested that we leave the EU, it was one of KyussBishop's many incarnations. He interjected that particular piece of complete nonsense into the middle of one of our, ahem, robust discussions, and in my senility I conflated your arguments with his.

My bad, please accept the apology.

Apology accepted.

I'm not saying you're glorifying or threatening, I'm pointing out the 'fact' that you've expressed the belief that Republican terrorists are more committed to violence than Loyalist terrorists are.

That may not have been how you wanted to express it. It may not be a point you wittingly made. But you can't express a view over a long period of time that one group of terrorists will never stop committing murder until they've achieved their aims, and that another group of terrorists will meekly stop committing murder and accept that their cause is lost, and then get upset when it's pointed out to you what that says about the relative bloodlust of those respective terrorist groups.

It's a fact based assessment.

I don't really care about others trite assessments of 'relative bloodlust' tbh. They seem to have a bloodcurdling need to denigrate one particular side.
I just wanted to be clear that I never said anything about it.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't really care about others trite assessments of 'relative bloodlust' tbh. They seem to have a bloodcurdling need to denigrate one particular side.

Look, you can't have it both ways.

Part of your argument for Irish unification is that Republican terrorism will never end as long as there is a border, and that Loyalist terrorism will not continue post-unification, and that therefore unification is a necessary path towards peace.

Now, you call that a "fact based assessment"; I call it self-serving logic. But it's awfully convenient not to want to confront a very necessary consequence of your logic, which is that Republicans are inherently more prone to violence than are Loyalists.

I personally reject that assessment. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Republicans are, by their nature, more violent people than Loyalists are. For that reason, among others, I reject your premise.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Look, you can't have it both ways.

Part of your argument for Irish unification is that Republican terrorism will never end as long as there is a border, and that Loyalist terrorism will not continue post-unification, and that therefore unification is a necessary path towards peace.

Now, you call that a "fact based assessment"; I call it self-serving logic. But it's awfully convenient not to want to confront a very necessary consequence of your logic, which is that Republicans are inherently more prone to violence than are Loyalists.

I personally reject that assessment. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Republicans are, by their nature, more violent people than Loyalists are. For that reason, among others, I reject your premise.

If you want to make that assessment, go ahead. I know my own mind on it and tbh I cannot see how it is relevant.

I am making an assessment on the ability to sustain violence not on the propensity for violence. Both sides have proved their ability to do that. That is why I want an island of equals and no 'sides'.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you want to make that assessment, go ahead. I know my own mind on it and tbh I cannot see how it is relevant.

I am making an assessment on the ability to sustain violence not on the propensity for violence. Both sides have proved their ability to do that. That is why I want an island of equals and no 'sides'.

Fair enough, that is your assessment, but if we accept that, we then have to look behind the assessment at the reasons for the assessment.

The ability to sustain violence in either community is dependent on one or more of a number of things:

- the propensity to violence within the relevant community
- the propensity to support violence within the relevant community
- the general regard for human life within the relevant community
- the propensity to put aside democracy for violence within the relevant community
- the proportion of sociopaths within the relevant community
- the levels of criminality within the relevant community

etc. etc.

This is the logic of your position. Every fact-based assessment has underlying logic and for your fact-based assessment, the only credible underlying logic is set out above.

So when you say that republican terrorist activity is more sustainable than loyalist terrorist activity, you are making a very definitive statement about the republican community.

For the record, I don't agree with your fact-based assessment as I don't agree with the underlying logic.

Junkyard Tom

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's bigger than just flags or parades, it's Japan 1945 throwing yourself off cliffs type situation for Unionists.

Utter rubbish.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Fair enough, that is your assessment, but if we accept that, we then have to look behind the assessment at the reasons for the assessment.

The ability to sustain violence in either community is dependent on one or more of a number of things:

- the propensity to violence within the relevant community
- the propensity to support violence within the relevant community
- the general regard for human life within the relevant community
- the propensity to put aside democracy for violence within the relevant community
- the proportion of sociopaths within the relevant community
- the levels of criminality within the relevant community

etc. etc.

This is the logic of your position. Every fact-based assessment has underlying logic and for your fact-based assessment, the only credible underlying logic is set out above.

So when you say that republican terrorist activity is more sustainable than loyalist terrorist activity, you are making a very definitive statement about the republican community.

For the record, I don't agree with your fact-based assessment as I don't agree with the underlying logic.

Blanch, please accept that I am not interested in wasting my time trying to change your already made up mind.
We get it, you think the republican community is genetically disposed to violence.

The Golden Miller

oscarBravo wrote: »

Look, you can't have it both ways.

Part of your argument for Irish unification is that Republican terrorism will never end as long as there is a border, and that Loyalist terrorism will not continue post-unification, and that therefore unification is a necessary path towards peace.

Now, you call that a "fact based assessment"; I call it self-serving logic. But it's awfully convenient not to want to confront a very necessary consequence of your logic, which is that Republicans are inherently more prone to violence than are Loyalists.

I personally reject that assessment. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Republicans are, by their nature, more violent people than Loyalists are. For that reason, among others, I reject your premise.

Are you at some point going to address the hypocritical nature of half a dozen posters arguing the opposite of Francie i.e the one's who will defiantly not allow Republican violence to determine our future but will allow Loyalist violence to do so?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blanch, please accept that I am not interested in wasting my time trying to change your already made up mind.
We get it, you think the republican community is genetically disposed to violence.

No, I do not think that. It is the logical outcome of your statements. You are the one stating that the republican community can sustain a terrorist campaign when the loyalist community can't and all that that implies.

I think much more highly of the republican community than you do. To give an example, read this Joe Brolly column:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

I don't believe that there are people within the republican community who remain capable of this, even though it was only seven years ago. The leaders of the community, the new leaders, will not allow this to happen. Yes, there are the sneaks in Sinn Fein who will speak with forked tongue about a return to violence, but they will not be listened to. The nationalist community has learned the hard way that violence doesn't work. So when I hear talk of a return to violence if there is a hard Brexit, I believe it is only talk, because we remember the futility of violence.

It is also why I am more wary of violence coming from the loyalist community. It is because they haven't been through it in the same way. They haven't sent their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers and sons out to kill for some cause in the same number that the nationalists have and they haven't had the opportunity to learn the hard lesson that violence, particularly terrorist violence, doesn't work. So when I talk about a loyalist terrorist threat in the event of a forced unity of Ireland, I am doing so with a real terrible logic behind it, unlike your logic of the old hard men sitting in the corner of the pub, the modern day Neil Blaneys and Charlie Haugheys who talked the talk.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Are you at some point going to address the hypocritical nature of half a dozen posters arguing the opposite of Francie i.e the one's who will defiantly not allow Republican violence to determine our future but will allow Loyalist violence to do so?

Does that mean that you believe that Francie is arguing that we should allow republican violence to determine our future?

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

Does that mean that you believe that Francie is arguing that we should allow republican violence to determine our future?

No, but that is what the poster in question stated/implied on the hard border thread, and has continued it here. Why do you believe threats of Republican violence should be defiantly stood down, while loyalist violence should determine an outcome?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I do not think that. It is the logical outcome of your statements. You are the one stating that the republican community can sustain a terrorist campaign when the loyalist community can't and all that that implies.

I think much more highly of the republican community than you do. To give an example, read this Joe Brolly column:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

I don't believe that there are people within the republican community who remain capable of this, even though it was only seven years ago. The leaders of the community, the new leaders, will not allow this to happen. Yes, there are the sneaks in Sinn Fein who will speak with forked tongue about a return to violence, but they will not be listened to. The nationalist community has learned the hard way that violence doesn't work. So when I hear talk of a return to violence if there is a hard Brexit, I believe it is only talk, because we remember the futility of violence.

It is also why I am more wary of violence coming from the loyalist community. It is because they haven't been through it in the same way. They haven't sent their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers and sons out to kill for some cause in the same number that the nationalists have and they haven't had the opportunity to learn the hard lesson that violence, particularly terrorist violence, doesn't work. So when I talk about a loyalist terrorist threat in the event of a forced unity of Ireland, I am doing so with a real terrible logic behind it, unlike your logic of the old hard men sitting in the corner of the pub, the modern day Neil Blaneys and Charlie Haugheys who talked the talk.

Forced unity?

Where does that nugget come from?

And despite their violent campaign and never never never stance, Unionism/Loyalism has lost it's veto, has to now share power and accept that Britain has no selfish interest in northern Ireland anymore and will withdraw when a majority vote for it.
If ever there was a lesson in the futility of violence, that would be it.

I asked A Little Pony to outline what he thought the unionist identity would do if a vote for unity passes, but he neglected to answer that unfortunately.

recedite

murphaph wrote: »

Not much expertise required to hire a truck and drive down Grafton Street on a Saturday afternoon at 60mph.

You're confusing loyalists with jihadists.
Any loyalist terrorists would find it very hard to operate outside of their own local community area. Unless they were on a kamikaze mission, which is just not their style.

murphaph

recedite wrote: »

You're confusing loyalists with jihadists.
Any loyalist terrorists would find it very hard to operate outside of their own local community area. Unless they were on a kamikaze mission, which is just not their style.

Who knows what they'd do. I bet you the IRA would have had suicide bombers if it was a thing back then. They had members willing to starve themselves to death after all. Now such suicide missions are unfortunately commonplace. I can't say I'd trust to luck that a few seriously disaffected loyalists wouldn't do some crazy sh!t come the actual day of unity.

KN1231999

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I do not think that. It is the logical outcome of your statements. You are the one stating that the republican community can sustain a terrorist campaign when the loyalist community can't and all that that implies.

I think much more highly of the republican community than you do. To give an example, read this Joe Brolly column:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

I don't believe that there are people within the republican community who remain capable of this, even though it was only seven years ago. The leaders of the community, the new leaders, will not allow this to happen. Yes, there are the sneaks in Sinn Fein who will speak with forked tongue about a return to violence, but they will not be listened to. The nationalist community has learned the hard way that violence doesn't work. So when I hear talk of a return to violence if there is a hard Brexit, I believe it is only talk, because we remember the futility of violence.

It is also why I am more wary of violence coming from the loyalist community. It is because they haven't been through it in the same way. They haven't sent their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers and sons out to kill for some cause in the same number that the nationalists have and they haven't had the opportunity to learn the hard lesson that violence, particularly terrorist violence, doesn't work. So when I talk about a loyalist terrorist threat in the event of a forced unity of Ireland, I am doing so with a real terrible logic behind it, unlike your logic of the old hard men sitting in the corner of the pub, the modern day Neil Blaneys and Charlie Haugheys who talked the talk.

Forced unity?

Where does that nugget come from?

And despite their violent campaign and never never never stance, Unionism/Loyalism has lost it's veto, has to now share power and accept that Britain has no selfish interest in northern Ireland anymore and will withdraw when a majority vote for it.
If ever there was a lesson in the futility of violence, that would be it.

I asked A Little Pony to outline what he thought the unionist identity would do if a vote for unity passes, but he neglected to answer that unfortunately.

I'll tell you what will happen
Violence, lots of violence
Troubles 2.0 except the other way round

KN1231999

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I do not think that. It is the logical outcome of your statements. You are the one stating that the republican community can sustain a terrorist campaign when the loyalist community can't and all that that implies.

I think much more highly of the republican community than you do. To give an example, read this Joe Brolly column:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/columnists/joe-brolly/joe-brolly-spurned-bombed-and-maimed-by-his-own-kind-36270245.html

I don't believe that there are people within the republican community who remain capable of this, even though it was only seven years ago. The leaders of the community, the new leaders, will not allow this to happen. Yes, there are the sneaks in Sinn Fein who will speak with forked tongue about a return to violence, but they will not be listened to. The nationalist community has learned the hard way that violence doesn't work. So when I hear talk of a return to violence if there is a hard Brexit, I believe it is only talk, because we remember the futility of violence.

It is also why I am more wary of violence coming from the loyalist community. It is because they haven't been through it in the same way. They haven't sent their husbands, brothers, uncles, fathers and sons out to kill for some cause in the same number that the nationalists have and they haven't had the opportunity to learn the hard lesson that violence, particularly terrorist violence, doesn't work. So when I talk about a loyalist terrorist threat in the event of a forced unity of Ireland, I am doing so with a real terrible logic behind it, unlike your logic of the old hard men sitting in the corner of the pub, the modern day Neil Blaneys and Charlie Haugheys who talked the talk.

Forced unity?

Where does that nugget come from?

And despite their violent campaign and never never never stance, Unionism/Loyalism has lost it's veto, has to now share power and accept that Britain has no selfish interest in northern Ireland anymore and will withdraw when a majority vote for it.
If ever there was a lesson in the futility of violence, that would be it.

I asked A Little Pony to outline what he thought the unionist identity would do if a vote for unity passes, but he neglected to answer that unfortunately.

I'll tell you what will happen
Violence, lots of violence
Troubles 2.0 except the other way round

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Who knows what they'd do. I bet you the IRA would have had suicide bombers if it was a thing back then. They had members willing to starve themselves to death after all. Now such suicide missions are unfortunately commonplace. I can't say I'd trust to luck that a few seriously disaffected loyalists wouldn't do some crazy sh!t come the actual day of unity.

What is being suggested here exactly? That if a democratic vote took place and a United Ireland was agreed to by a majority, it should be ignored and subverted due to the threat of loyalist terrorism?