Opinions on Irish identity

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Remember, it took an awful lot of complicity for Britain's establishment to create Widgery's whitewash. A concerted effort to take a side by a government that was supposed to be creating a fair and equal society.
There are many examples of this.

Were and are the British 'the scum of the earth' for Bloody Sunday and the 40 year cover-up?

Nobody is directly blaming the British for what the IRA did.
The conflict was about more than the IRA. They were just one of the symntoms of society falling apart.
Who was ultimately responsible for society falling apart?

Again. Blaming the likes of the Warrington bombings in the 1990s on the cover up of Bloody Sunday. Sorry, for me that's not a reason much less an excuse.

The conflict was indeed IRA v the rest. The IRA killed half of all victims of the troubles.

Any soldier on Bloody Sunday who knowingly shot at unarmed people is to be treated in the same contempt as an IRA gunman but bombings are so indiscriminate that those who perpetrate them must come in for particular scorn. Was the whitewash wrong? Yes! Would I consider someone participating in that whitewash to be as bad as someone who plants 2 bombs on a high street packed with children? Are you effing kidding me?

You like to use words like conflict. I and 99% of Irish people had no conflict with Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry. I suspect most nationalists in NI had no conflict with them either.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Again. Blaming the likes of the Warrington bombings in the 1990s on the cover up of Bloody Sunday. Sorry, for me that's not a reason much less an excuse.

The conflict was indeed IRA v the rest. The IRA killed half of all victims of the troubles.

Any soldier on Bloody Sunday who knowingly shot at unarmed people is to be treated in the same contempt as an IRA gunman but bombings are so indiscriminate that those who perpetrate them must come in for particular scorn. Was the whitewash wrong? Yes! Would I consider someone participating in that whitewash to be as bad as someone who plants 2 bombs on a high street packed with children? Are you effing kidding me?

You like to use words like conflict. I and 99% of Irish people had no conflict with Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry. I suspect most nationalists in NI had no conflict with them either.

Again nobody is 'blaming'. But everyone has to take responsibility for what they did and didn't do.

You seem to be suggesting that the IRA would have existed and done what they did in a vacuum. Was IRA violence therefore inevitable or was it a reaction? That they were born with this 'lust to kill'.
Could you expand on that, or the reasons why YOU think they emerged as just one symptom of a wider problem, a problem that went right to the heart of society. A problem that cannot be addressed/analysed by looking at simple 'kill scores'.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is directly blaming the British for what the IRA did.

Indeed.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British government had the most responsibility. They underwrote a sectarian statelet and its violence, and carried out violent acts of its own and whitewashed them. Responsibility steps down from there.
That is what I meant.

Who did you mean?

I thought that it was the circumstances that made them do it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again nobody is 'blaming'. But everyone has to take responsibility for what they did and didn't do.

You seem to be suggesting that the IRA would have existed and done what they did in a vacuum. Was IRA violence therefore inevitable or was it a reaction? That they were born with this 'lust to kill'.
Could you expand on that, or the reasons why YOU think they emerged as just one symptom of a wider problem, a problem that went right to the heart of society. A problem that cannot be addressed/analysed by looking at simple 'kill scores'.

I think the crux of the matter is that when the civil rights movement was taken over and morphed into the IRA, the IRA attracted criminals, thugs, pedophiles etc. who were more than willing to prolong the conflict to offer protection for their other activities. Many of those good republicans living in South Armagh and along the border enriched themselves at the expense of the ordinary population.

It is a tragedy that the civil rights movement was taken over in this way.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Indeed.



I thought that it was the circumstances that made them do it.

You need to read what is being said, instead of engaging in what can only be described as trite pedantry.

Everybody has to take responsibility for what they did. Nobody is suggesting anyone was 'made to do anything'.

munsterlegend

Surely the crowd who were supposed to be running the place shoulder more responsibility than others?

Anyway read a good article by Gordon Brown on the deal between the tories and the dup. It's in the Irish news and is another step in the wrong direction by the British govt.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter is that when the civil rights movement was taken over and morphed into the IRA,

And who, by, inaction, by allowing a partisan police force beat these civil rights activists off the streets, by suppressing their requests, allowed an uninterested, more or less defunct IRA to fill the vacuum?
The British could have delivered a GFA then, there was nothing stopping them but biased underwriting of a sectarian state.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again nobody is 'blaming'. But everyone has to take responsibility for what they did and didn't do.

You seem to be suggesting that the IRA would have existed and done what they did in a vacuum. Was IRA violence therefore inevitable or was it a reaction? That they were born with this 'lust to kill'.
Could you expand on that, or the reasons why YOU think they emerged as just one symptom of a wider problem, a problem that went right to the heart of society. A problem that cannot be addressed/analysed by looking at simple 'kill scores'.

I'm saying that even a "British occupation of the 6 counties" did not justify killing children on British high streets. Would you agree or disagree?

The unfairness with which Catholics were treated by the Protestant north demanded change and the civil rights movement were entirely justified in seeking those rights. Perhaps some of the early violence could even be excused, especially if in self defence.

What I cannot and will not agree on is that bombings during the 90's can be in any way justified. Do you think bombings so late in the IRA campaign could be justified?

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the crux of the matter is that when the civil rights movement was taken over and morphed into the IRA,

And who, by, inaction, by allowing  a partisan police force beat these civil rights activists off the streets, by suppressing their requests, allowed an uninterested, more or less defunct IRA to fill the vacuum?
The British could have delivered a GFA then, there was nothing stopping them but biased underwriting of a sectarian state.

You mean, like some sort of Sunningdale Agreement?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And who, by, inaction, by allowing a partisan police force beat these civil rights activists off the streets, by suppressing their requests, allowed an uninterested, more or less defunct IRA to fill the vacuum?
The British could have delivered a GFA then, there was nothing stopping them but biased underwriting of a sectarian state.

The Westminster government should indeed have stepped in much sooner in NI to end the discriminatory practices against Catholics.

But they did eventually step in and close down Stormont and ran NI directly.

The unfair treatment of Catholics had long since ceased by the time the IRA men planted their bombs in Warrington so for these actions I lay the blame solely and squarely at the IRA itself.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

You mean, like some sort of Sunningdale Agreement?

No, because not everyone was at the table for Sunningdale, it was never going to work and was torn asunder by Unionists.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/uwc/chr.htm

It took 40 years for the British to accept that everyone had to be at the table for any deal/agreement.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The Westminster government should indeed have stepped in much sooner in NI to end the discriminatory practices against Catholics.

But they did eventually step in and close down Stormont and ran NI directly.

The unfair treatment of Catholics had long since ceased by the time the IRA men planted their bombs in Warrington so for these actions I lay the blame solely and squarely at the IRA itself.

The version of history you are putting forward here is wrong.

The worst excesses of the the treatment had ceased but it, even still, hasn't disappeared (witness the current state of the executive) and all through the conflict you had acts committed against the Irish identifying community.

A tit for tat conflict that the British simply were not willing to stop, by publicly and transparently negotiating an agreement, that they could have negotiated at any time in the conflict.

You havent addressed this part of my question:

You seem to be suggesting that the IRA would have existed and done what they did in a vacuum. Was IRA violence therefore inevitable or was it a reaction? That they were born with this 'lust to kill'.
Could you expand on that, or the reasons why YOU think they emerged as just one symptom of a wider problem, a problem that went right to the heart of society. A problem that cannot be addressed/analysed by looking at simple 'kill scores'.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

You mean, like some sort of Sunningdale Agreement?

No, because not everyone was at the table for Sunningdale, it was never going to work and was torn asunder by Unionists.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/uwc/chr.htm

It took 40 years for the British to accept that everyone had to be at the table for any deal/agreement.

But if the GFA is fundamentally the same as Sunningdale, why did they need to be at the table?

How did excluding nationalists from the table cause the Unionists? From the sound of things, including nationalists would not have changed anything, as the actions of Unionists were on behalf of themselves, rather than nationalists.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

But if the GFA is fundamentally the same as Sunningdale, why did they need to be at the table?

How did excluding nationalists from the table cause the Unionists? From the sound of things, including nationalists would not have changed anything, as the actions of Unionists were on behalf of themselves, rather than nationalists.

Sorry that doesn't make any sense to me.

BTW, The 'GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners' was a bitter quote from Seamus Mallon, jumping up and down pleading for people to 'look at me, look at me'.

There are crucial differences between the two:

The recognition of both national identities,
The principle of self-determination,
British-Irish intergovernmental cooperation.
The legal procedures to make power-sharing mandatory.
It also enshrined the principle of equality between the two "traditions" in the 6 counties and included the mechanism for unification.

While those may not be crucial to you they were crucial to nationalists.

Unionists rebelled viciously against sharing power with even the SDLP.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

No, you are wrong there. I have never said that everything the British did was legal, I said that the majority of security force actions were legal. On the other hand, everything the IRA did was illegal.

Those are facts.

Now, you counter by the British having set the rules etc. Again, the fact is whether you judge the British by international law or British law, most of what the security forces did was legal.

If you believe that an undemocratic terrorist group are allowed set rules of conflict, then the world is a strange place.

So we are in agreement about the british. When you say security forces I can't help picturing some half asleep lad in a shopping center.
And yes the british view all IRA activities as illegal under their law. Although with the advent of peace talks that's not so clear, broadly speaking.

I believe international laws of conflict are made a farce in the most part. We must each gauge what is right and wrong in our own minds. The likes of those who set or sign up to these laws will contravene them without much musing when it suits.

The point is, simply saying all IRA activities were illegal, therefore the IRA are/were wrong and shouldn't be entertained, is far too simplistic. We'll never get anywhere. The 1916 rising was illegal, as was the American revolution etc. etc.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The version of history you are putting forward here is wrong.

The worst excesses of the the treatment had ceased but it, even still, hasn't disappeared (witness the current state of the executive) and all through the conflict you had acts committed against the Irish identifying community.

A tit for tat conflict that the British simply were not willing to stop, by publicly and transparently negotiating an agreement, that they could have negotiated at any time in the conflict.

You havent addressed this part of my question:

Can you please identify for me which exact elements of formal discrimination continued post-direct rule and how they compare to places like Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, 1930s Germany, and the Confederate States of the US during slavery?

Say, we take 1975 and you identify the pieces of legislation and/or formal government policies in place that constitute this discrimination you speak of.


P.S. There was nobody speaking Irish in the North in 1975 so the absence of an Irish Language Act doesn't count.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we are in agreement about the british. When you say security forces I can't help picturing some half asleep lad in a shopping center.
And yes the british view all IRA activities as illegal under their law. Although with the advent of peace talks that's not so clear, broadly speaking.

I believe international laws of conflict are made a farce in the most part. We must each gauge what is right and wrong in our own minds. The likes of those who set or sign up to these laws will contravene them without much musing when it suits.

The point is, simply saying all IRA activities were illegal, therefore the IRA are/were wrong and shouldn't be entertained, is far too simplistic. We'll never get anywhere. The 1916 rising was illegal, as was the American revolution etc. etc.

There is no jurisdiction anywhere on earth that would view the IRA activities as legal.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everybody has to take responsibility for what they did. Nobody is suggesting anyone was 'made to do anything'.

Well, Cameron has apologised on behalf of the British government for Bloody Sunday saying it was wrong.

Neither Gerry Adams nor any SF leader have ever conceded that IRA actions were wrong. True, they have made mealy-mouthed apologies for the effect on the victims, but they have never admitted they were wrong.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you please identify for me which exact elements of formal discrimination continued post-direct rule and how they compare to places like Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, 1930s Germany, and the Confederate States of the US during slavery?

Say, we take 1975 and you identify the pieces of legislation and/or formal government policies in place that constitute this discrimination you speak of.


P.S. There was nobody speaking Irish in the North in 1975 so the absence of an Irish Language Act doesn't count.

Who said anything about 'formal discrimination'.

The security forces of the British state committed plenty of questionable acts after '75 to shore up the sectarian statelet. A statelet, which wasn't properly dismantled until the GFA.
It could have been dismantled at any time by a 'responsible' government.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, Cameron has apologised on behalf of the British government for Bloody Sunday saying it was wrong.

Neither Gerry Adams nor any SF leader have ever conceded that IRA actions were wrong. True, they have made mealy-mouthed apologies for the effect on the victims, but they have never admitted they were wrong.

Yes, Cameron did do that. 12 years after the signing of the GFA and 38 years after the event, Britain having first employed the British court system to whitewash and cover it up for years rather than face the truth of what happened. A decision that did untold damage in itself.

Nobody is contesting the fact that all the players were wrong.

The debate is about who was responsible for allowing the society to boil over into violence. As all places where there is inequality and suppression will boil over. It isn't that northern Ireland was unique in history.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no jurisdiction anywhere on earth that would view the IRA activities as legal.

In the IRA command in Ireland?
I frankly don't care if they were seen as illegal or not by self interested parties or any party for that matter. It's only relevant if you are using it to dismiss the views of the IRA and their membership. Doing so will get us nowhere.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, Cameron has apologised on behalf of the British government for Bloody Sunday saying it was wrong.

Neither Gerry Adams nor any SF leader have ever conceded that IRA actions were wrong. True, they have made mealy-mouthed apologies for the effect on the victims, but they have never admitted they were wrong.

You're saying the only side we know, (with no court cases pending and the 'at war' status up for debate) for sure, that all sides agree, committed any criminal acts were the british. Apologised after 35 odd years of being asked to and they should be commended? If the IRA came out and gave apologies, would that be an end to it? I don't think so, but if we could manage to look at the bigger picture encompassing the views of Unionists, Nationalists and others we might get somewhere, trying to favour one side over the other has us were we are.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said anything about 'formal discrimination'.

The security forces of the British state committed plenty of questionable acts after '75 to shore up the sectarian statelet. A statelet, which wasn't properly dismantled until the GFA.
It could have been dismantled at any time by a 'responsible' government.

What was sectarian about the "sectarian statelet" post-1975? Concrete examples of legislation and government policies please.

And as I asked comparison with real-life examples like Rhodesia, South Africa, Hitler's Germany etc.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What was sectarian about the "sectarian statelet" post-1975? Concrete examples of legislation and government policies please.

And as I asked comparison with real-life examples like Rhodesia, South Africa, Hitler's Germany etc.

We are not playing a comparison game.

And again, I said:

The security forces of the British state committed plenty of questionable acts after '75 to shore up the sectarian statelet.

The 'state' is still sectarian in that it discriminates on the basis of religious beliefs.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, Cameron did do that. 12 years after the signing of the GFA and 38 years after the event, Britain having first employed the British court system to whitewash and cover it up for years rather than face the truth of what happened. A decision that did untold damage in itself.

Nobody is contesting the fact that all the players were wrong.

The debate is about who was responsible for allowing the society to boil over into violence. As all places where there is inequality and suppression will boil over. It isn't that northern Ireland was unique in history.

Please give it a rest with the rhetoric. It boiled over in 69 but the IRA simmered it for another couple of decades. You cannot honestly tell me that the situation in the mid 90s was remotely like the situation at the end of the 60s and remotely justified the likes of the Warrington bombings.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Please give it a rest with the rhetoric. It boiled over in 69 but the IRA simmered it for another couple of decades. You cannot honestly tell me that the situation in the mid 90s was remotely like the situation at the end of the 60s and remotely justified the likes of the Warrington bombings.

What are you saying here.

That the IRA were right up to the mid 90's?

Your argument is all over the place in fairness.

ALL the players bear responsibility, all the players were wrong. The question you are being asked is who was ultimately responsible for fixing the huge faults in society that allowed that society to boil over into conflict.

You cannot answer that by naming the IRA, they were not around when it boiled over in any substantive, functional way.

There is also no contest from here that it went on too long, it is STILL going on minus the violence.
And who is once again reneging on their responsibilities that has allowed that situation to develop?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What was sectarian about the "sectarian statelet" post-1975? Concrete examples of legislation and government policies please.

And as I asked comparison with real-life examples like Rhodesia, South Africa, Hitler's Germany etc.

Shoot to kill, media ban, internment, abductions, torture, murder. All nice and legal and if they one day decide it wasn't, by god, they might apologise at some point and that'll be an end to it.

You could say the same about the IRA/UVF etc.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are not playing a comparison game.

And again, I said:


The 'state' is still sectarian in that it discriminates on the basis of religious beliefs.

Please give me clear examples of discrimination, I can only think of one in recent years where a SF Minister was found guilty of a sectarian appointment.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you saying here.

That the IRA were right up to the mid 90's?

Your argument is all over the place in fairness.

ALL the players bear responsibility, all the players were wrong. The question you are being asked is who was ultimately responsible for fixing the huge faults in society that allowed that society to boil over into conflict.

You cannot answer that by naming the IRA, they were not around when it boiled over in any substantive, functional way.

There is also no contest from here that it went on too long, it is STILL going on minus the violence.
And who is once again reneging on their responsibilities that has allowed that situation to develop?

Of course I'm not saying the IRA were right up until the mid 90s.

I'm saying quite clearly, that any solid reasons for violence had been so diminished by that time (at the very latest) that there could be no pushing of the blame for the murders of children and others away from the IRA and onto the British.

The IRA wasn't proscribed in the republic for a laugh. Their actions were considered illegal by the state all along.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Please give me clear examples of discrimination, I can only think of one in recent years where a SF Minister was found guilty of a sectarian appointment.

Is it all about blaming the 'RA or Sinn Fein and excusing the British? And we wonder why the North of Ireland's Identity remains mired in the troubles.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is it all about blaming the 'RA or Sinn Fein and excusing the British? And we wonder why the North of Ireland's Identity remains mired in the troubles.

So nobody can point to a single example of discriminatory legislation post-1975 nor can they post to a single example of a sectarian British government policy post-1975.

All they can do is talk about the British creating the circumstances that made the IRA do it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Please give me clear examples of discrimination, I can only think of one in recent years where a SF Minister was found guilty of a sectarian appointment.

The 'state' clearly discriminates against same sex marriage couples, on LGBT rights and abortion on the basis of religious beliefs.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Of course I'm not saying the IRA were right up until the mid 90s.

I'm saying quite clearly, that any solid reasons for violence had been so diminished by that time (at the very latest) that there could be no pushing of the blame for the murders of children and others away from the IRA and onto the British.

The IRA wasn't proscribed in the republic for a laugh. Their actions were considered illegal by the state all along.

Nobody is 'pushing blame'. I am fairly allocating the blame onto those with the most responsibility.

How was the conflict solved? By getting all sides to the table on the basis parity and equality.
That could have been done in 69. Explain to me how it couldn't have been done?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'state' clearly discriminates against same sex marriage couples, on LGBT rights and abortion on the basis of religious beliefs.

That is not sectarian, it is misogynist and homophobic.

I can really imagine the IRA man arrested in 1976 telling his captors we did it for the gay community. Right.

Give up Francie, the sectarian statelet was ended with the imposition of direct rule. There is nothing that you can point to that would justify the continuation of the IRA campaign - other than a rejection of the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK.

A pity it took the IRA and their supporters in the IRA twenty years to accept democracy.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not sectarian, it is misogynist and homophobic.

I can really imagine the IRA man arrested in 1976 telling his captors we did it for the gay community. Right.

Give up Francie, the sectarian statelet was ended with the imposition of direct rule. There is nothing that you can point to that would justify the continuation of the IRA campaign - other than a rejection of the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK.

A pity it took the IRA and their supporters in the IRA twenty years to accept democracy.

It is done on the basis of religious belief. No other reason.

And it was only a part of the failing of the British state.
The IRA were a part of the conflict, they were not 'the' conflict.

Despite your desperate effort to make it just about them you are failing miserably to convince anyone here. Anyone with an eye on history and the unfolding story of official and unofficial British government involvement in the conflict as a player can see that,
The idea that northern Ireland was being run by a benign British government from the mid 70's is a shocking contention on a politics forum tbh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is done on the basis of religious belief. No other reason.

And it was only a part of the failing of the British state.
The IRA were a part of the conflict, they were not 'the' conflict.

Despite your desperate effort to make it just about them you are failing miserably to convince anyone here. Anyone with an eye on history and the unfolding story of official and unofficial British government involvement in the conflict as a player can see that,
The idea that northern Ireland was being run by a benign British government from the mid 70's is a shocking contention on a politics forum tbh.

It would be hilarious that you paint a picture of the IRA fighting the British in order to secure same-sex marriage and abortion rights if so many innocent people hadn't died.

I am still waiting for an example of a sectarian piece of legislation post-1975.

Actually, I will allow the same-sex marriage one if you can show me a 1970s SF pamphlet calling for it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It would be hilarious that you paint a picture of the IRA fighting the British in order to secure same-sex marriage and abortion rights if so many innocent people hadn't died.

I am still waiting for an example of a sectarian piece of legislation post-1975.

Actually, I will allow the same-sex marriage one if you can show me a 1970s SF pamphlet calling for it.

Why are you doing this?
Why the palpable fear of a decent discussion and the need to blame only one side?

Nobody, but you mentioned legislation and nobody claimed that the conflict was over SSM or Abortion.

This has taken a bit of a cringe turn tbh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you doing this?
Why the palpable fear of a decent discussion and the need to blame only one side?

Nobody, but you mentioned legislation and nobody claimed that the conflict was over SSM or Abortion.

This has taken a bit of a cringe turn tbh.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'state' clearly discriminates against same sex marriage couples, on LGBT rights and abortion on the basis of religious beliefs.

I asked for examples of the "Sectarian State" post-1975, and I got none, other than the hilarious example of abortion rights and SSM as if they were the burning topics in the IRA pubs in 1975.

You suggest I am not interested in a decent discussion, of course I am, but I am not getting any answers to my questions.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I asked for examples of the "Sectarian State" post-1975, and I got none, other than the hilarious example of abortion rights and SSM as if they were the burning topics in the IRA pubs in 1975.

You suggest I am not interested in a decent discussion, of course I am, but I am not getting any answers to my questions.

Post 75 and well into the 90's the real politic was that Unionists would have no truck with the fair and equal sharing of power.
That was nothing more than a sectarian policy. This was underscored by the British who didn't in any effective way seek to end it, until negotiations towards the GFA began.
Ian Paisley even admits to the abuse of power by Unionists.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Post 75 and well into the 90's the real politic was that Unionists would have no truck with the fair and equal sharing of power.
That was nothing more than a sectarian policy. This was underscored by the British who didn't in any effective way seek to end it, until negotiations towards the GFA began.
Ian Paisley even admits to the abuse of power by Unionists.

That is not a sectarian policy. Can you give concrete examples of how this so-called "Sectarian State" operated in the early 1990s?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is not a sectarian policy. Can you give concrete examples of how this so-called "Sectarian State" operated in the early 1990s?

Where did I say it was 'policy'.

It was what it was.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'state' clearly discriminates against same sex marriage couples, on LGBT rights and abortion on the basis of religious beliefs.

The Irish state did all those things in 93 too. Indeed homosexuality was only decriminalised in the south in that year. Why didn't the IRA bomb Dublin as well as Warrington?

I have read some strange justifications for IRA crimes on here but this stuff takes the oul biscuit Francie!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The Irish state did all those things in 93 too. Indeed homosexuality was only decriminalised in the south in that year. Why didn't the IRA bomb Dublin as well as Warrington?

I have read some strange justifications for IRA crimes on here but this stuff takes the oul biscuit Francie!

Not for one second did I make an argument to justify the violence of others.

Again: the prime responsibility for an unequal society lies with the government of that society.

Was NI society equal in any way prior to the GFA. Can you answer that question without reference to anything but society? Was it or wasn't it?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not for one second did I make an argument to justify the violence of others.

Again: the prime responsibility for an unequal society lies with the government of that society.

Was NI society equal in any way prior to the GFA. Can you answer that question without reference to anything but society? Was it or wasn't it?

In my view it was. All members of society had one vote. Nationalists just didn't have as many voters. Catholics even tended to be over represented in civil service jobs. I'm not seeing this grossly unequal society just before the GFA.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

In my view it was. All members of society had one vote. Nationalists just didn't have as many voters. Catholics even tended to be over represented in civil service jobs. I'm not seeing this grossly unequal society just before the GFA.

Start of the ninietes, Molyneaux and Paisley had the north at loggerheads attempting to have the AIG suspended. Paisley was inciting violence in his efforts. They were in government.
The RUC was still the police force. Nationalist areas were disproportionately swamped with army and police. The tensions created by unionists attempting and usually succeeding in parading where they were not wanted.
I could go on and on with examples. The suggestion that life for the vast majority of nationalists was even approaching normal is perverse and a complete rewrite of history.

cameramonkey

murphaph wrote: »

In my view it was. All members of society had one vote. Nationalists just didn't have as many voters. Catholics even tended to be over represented in civil service jobs. I'm not seeing this grossly unequal society just before the GFA.

The UVF in the full knowledge of the UK security services imported weapons which are subsequently used by UVF gangs controlled by the UK security services to murder innocent Catholics. Those crimes are then not investigated, evidence is destroyed by by UK security services and those that carried out the murders are protected by UK security services.

To be murdered by your own government just because you are a catholic is not the action of a government that values the human rights of the minority.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Start of the ninietes, Molyneaux and Paisley had the north at loggerheads attempting to have the AIG suspended. Paisley was inciting violence in his efforts. They were in government.
The RUC was still the police force. Nationalist areas were disproportionately swamped with army and police. The tensions created by unionists attempting and usually succeeding in parading where they were not wanted.
I could go on and on with examples. The suggestion that life for the vast majority of nationalists was even approaching normal is perverse and a complete rewrite of history.

The IRA was disproportionately responsible for the number of paramilitary killings and they had no power base in loyalist areas so mathematics suggests you'd expect more security force presence in nationalist areas.

Remember as soon as the IRA stopped the loyalists stopped and the British army headed home. It was only the IRA that was keeping things going for the vast majority of the time.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The IRA was disproportionately responsible for the number of paramilitary killings and they had no power base in loyalist areas so mathematics suggests you'd expect more security force presence in nationalist areas.

Remember as soon as the IRA stopped the loyalists stopped and the British army headed home. It was only the IRA that was keeping things going for the vast majority of the time.

More misreporting and a complete lack of knowledge. The police force was completely restructured and renamed in disgrace Murphaph, what does that say about fair policing of the conflict.
Since 1998 Loyalists killed 32 and Republicans (including dissidents) killed 10.
It's a fact that loyalists killed more when moves were made towards equality and power sharing.

Completely undermines your narrative doesn't it?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hRidYe3-avd7gvlZWVi1YZB7QY6dKhekPS1I1kbFTnY/edit#gid=0

FrancieBrady

Here is more info Murphaph that shows graphically who was resisting the most as we moved towards an agreement. As they did with the ill conceived Sunningdale agreement too.
The misconception that the IRA were the prime aggressors is very prevalent among a certain Irish identity in the south. As usual, reality is never that simple.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is more info Murphaph that shows graphically who was resisting the most as we moved towards an agreement. As they did with the ill conceived Sunningdale agreement too.
The misconception that the IRA were the prime aggressors is very prevalent among a certain Irish identity in the south. As usual, reality is never that simple.

Just on this, it looks like there would be loyalist violence in the event of a UI. There are certainly many devils on that side of the divide.
The Brexit issue is sure to enflame the debate, it could fuel violence from dissident republicans as well, NI is far from a settled place!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1109/918860-northern-irish-border-after-brexit/

cameramonkey

Edward M wrote: »

Just on this, it looks like there would be loyalist violence in the event of a UI. There are certainly many devils on that side of the divide.
The Brexit issue is sure to enflame the debate, it could fuel violence from dissident republicans as well, NI is far from a settled place!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1109/918860-northern-irish-border-after-brexit/

the loyalist murder gangs were being run by the British security services. They did not have the ability to run the operations themselves. there would be a reaction to a UI but without British help it would be manageable. most loyalist volunteers were pretty low caliber.