Opinions on Irish identity

Edward M

cameramonkey wrote: »

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.

Of course they were.
In Francie's graph there it shows they were or are capable of quite an amount of killing, are you then saying this was done with British security force collusion?

blanch152

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.

Once again, you express views completely incompatible with previous versions of your views.

You have told us time and again that we have nothing to fear from loyalist violence in the event of a united Ireland, but that in the event of Brexit happening, the "good" republicans will rise again and become violent.

Yet here you are, claiming that the IRA were not the prime agressors.

Unbelievably twisting and turning. I don't know why I bother responding.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again, you express views completely incompatible with previous versions of your views.

You have told us time and again that we have nothing to fear from loyalist violence in the event of a united Ireland, but that in the event of Brexit happening, the "good" republicans will rise again and become violent.

Yet here you are, claiming that the IRA were not the prime agressors.

Unbelievably twisting and turning. I don't know why I bother responding.

The british initiated aggression and maintain occupation by their rule of law which they flout when inconvenient. All the Hello magazine covers in the world cannot dismiss that historical fact.
Or is there a particular view and date we are to be confined to?
Again, we must look at all the angles. In a modern day sense, gerrymandering aside, we've a form of representative democracy and a peace agreement.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again, you express views completely incompatible with previous versions of your views.

You have told us time and again that we have nothing to fear from loyalist violence in the event of a united Ireland, but that in the event of Brexit happening, the "good" republicans will rise again and become violent.

Yet here you are, claiming that the IRA were not the prime agressors.

Unbelievably twisting and turning. I don't know why I bother responding.

Twisting and turning? You guys are the one's making claims that cannot be backed up by the facts as the graph shows.


Where have I told you we 'have nothing to fear from loyalist violence'?

I have told you there will be violence - from both sides.

Loyalists won't be able to sustain it for various reasons (given) as they were not able to sustain it against the agreements.

Republican violence would be sustainable for the reasons given.

Can you stop the exclaiming and deal with the points that have actually been made?

Samaris

How many people are still wrapped up in the Troubles as the distinctive part of Irish identity? To read the last bit (at least) of this thread, it would appear to be the sum-total of Irish and NI identity.

Personally, I reckon that the IRA had people committed to both a United Ireland (for better or worse) and protection of pro-Irish/Catholic people in the North under British rule and Unionist cultural dominance. And, since it was an illegal and often violent organisation, it attracted people inclined towards violence and illegal activities. So bit of column A and B for nature v nuture (so to speak).

British security forces did not like the NI gig as it was bloody dangerous and reacted to squash the pesky native rebels to protect British citizens. They reacted violently in a number of well-remembered incidents, and as inevitably happens, it was tit-for-tat violence in which innocent citizens were brutally (and/or incompetantly) killed. There's a fairly well-known trend of violence escalating under fear of violence, justified or otherwise. Good training is supposed to prevent this cycle in peacekeeping. It didn't in NI.

Neither side covered themselves with glory. Neither side should be particularly lauded. It was words that brought peace in the end rather than bombs and shootings.

Violence was probably inevitable, although decade after decade of violence was not. The British government has responsibility for being unable to govern part of GB effectively despite decades of trying. It also holds responsibility for poor control of its peacekeeping and enforcement troops. It definitely has responsibilty for covering up violent actions, regardless of whether it was the politically easy route while the IRA were murdering other innocent citizens within England and the UK. The IRA bear absolute responsibilty for every person its members murdered, injured, intimidated, stole from, abused, orphaned or 'disappeared' and more for its cover-ups and refusal to give closure to the families involved.


In short, fcuk anyone involved in the decades of murder and destruction. Now how do we all prevent this **** starting again? I doubt it will be by chewing over who was more justified in the 70s (although god knows it's easier and probably more satisfying).

Junkyard Tom

Samaris wrote: »

It was words that brought peace in the end rather than bombs and shootings.

The IRA campaign in Britain during the 90's made the peace process.

More here.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

How many people are still wrapped up in the Troubles as the distinctive part of Irish identity? To read the last bit (at least) of this thread, it would appear to be the sum-total of Irish and NI identity.

Personally, I reckon that the IRA had people committed to both a United Ireland (for better or worse) and protection of pro-Irish/Catholic people in the North under British rule and Unionist cultural dominance. And, since it was an illegal and often violent organisation, it attracted people inclined towards violence and illegal activities. So bit of column A and B for nature v nuture (so to speak).

British security forces did not like the NI gig as it was bloody dangerous and reacted to squash the pesky native rebels to protect British citizens. They reacted violently in a number of well-remembered incidents, and as inevitably happens, it was tit-for-tat violence in which innocent citizens were brutally (and/or incompetantly) killed. There's a fairly well-known trend of violence escalating under fear of violence, justified or otherwise. Good training is supposed to prevent this cycle in peacekeeping. It didn't in NI.

Neither side covered themselves with glory. Neither side should be particularly lauded. It was words that brought peace in the end rather than bombs and shootings.

Violence was probably inevitable, although decade after decade of violence was not. The British government has responsibility for being unable to govern part of GB effectively despite decades of trying. It also holds responsibility for poor control of its peacekeeping and enforcement troops. It definitely has responsibilty for covering up violent actions, regardless of whether it was the politically easy route while the IRA were murdering other innocent citizens within England and the UK. The IRA bear absolute responsibilty for every person its members murdered, injured, intimidated, stole from, abused, orphaned or 'disappeared' and more for its cover-ups and refusal to give closure to the families involved.


In short, fcuk anyone involved in the decades of murder and destruction. Now how do we all prevent this **** starting again? I doubt it will be by chewing over who was more justified in the 70s (although god knows it's easier and probably more satisfying).

You won't prevent it happening again by myth making about what happened before, that is for sure.

So many are petrified about a full and frank accounting of what happened and who failed in their responsibilities.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The IRA campaign in Britain during the 90's made the peace process.

More here.

Ridiculous choice of words. Bombing (ie blowing up children) yourself to the negotiating table is different than making a peace process!

There was no need for all those people to die.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Ridiculous choice of words. Bombing (ie blowing up children) yourself to the negotiating table is different than making a peace process!
Dxh
There was no need for all those people to die.

It isn't unique. Many terrible acts were justified because they shortened wars. Dresden, Colonge, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mention a few.

Horrible but factual.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't unique. Many terrible acts were justified because they shortened wars. Dresden, Colonge, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mention a few.

Horrible but factual.

Christ I've heard it all now.

You've actually named at least 2 terrible acts that are rightfully considered by many as unnecessary war crimes.

Apart from that, the British weren't actually waging war on anyone in Ireland in the 1990s so it's a fallacy to claim the IRA somehow preserved life. To do that all they needed to do was stop with their sh!t.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Christ I've heard it all now.

You've actually named at least 2 terrible acts that are rightfully considered by many as unnecessary war crimes.

Apart from that, the British weren't actually waging war on anyone in Ireland in the 1990s so it's a fallacy to claim the IRA somehow preserved life. To do that all they needed to do was stop with their sh!t.

You can condemn and wishful think all you want. Again the fact is that the IRA believed they were at war and the British did engage, publicly and secretly via collusion.
They simply were not going to 'stop their' ****. They stopped when the British decided to negotiate an agreement, which they could have done at any time. They didnt. Fact again.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The IRA campaign in Britain during the 90's made the peace process.

More here.

Unbelievably sickening use of one quotation taken completely out of context. It reminds me of the one out-of-context quotation from a retired British army general that the IRA was not defeated.

In this particular context, the fact that it is being used to justify pathetic and disgusting bombings of innocent civilians including children is grotesque.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Unbelievably sickening use of one quotation taken completely out of context. It reminds me of the one out-of-context quotation from a retired British army general that the IRA was not defeated.

In this particular context, the fact that it is being used to justify pathetic and disgusting bombings of innocent civilians including children is grotesque.

Very low signal to noise ratio there. You've an uncanny habit of quoting people and writing a response which has little or relevance to what was written.

Oh and the former BA general you mentioned said the PIRA couldn't be defeated militarily whatever he meant by that.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can condemn and wishful think all you want. Again the fact is that the IRA believed they were at war and the British did engage, publicly and secretly via collusion.
They simply were not going to 'stop their' ****. They stopped when the British decided to negotiate an agreement, which they could have done at any time. They didnt. Fact again.

The IRA could have stopped killing innocent people anytime it wanted too. If you are happy to have had that stuff done in your name then you have a stronger stomach than I.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The IRA could have stopped killing innocent people anytime it wanted too. If you are happy to have had that stuff done in your name then you have a stronger stomach than I.

Is there a possibility we could leave the moralising out of a political debate along with the assumptions?

The conflict/war happened, nobody I know wanted it to happen, no amount of condemnation stopped it.
So can we park that too and deal with the facts of what happened.

I proved to you that your dual statements - that the IRA were the prime aggressors during the 90's and that the conflict stopped because the IRA stopped are FACTUALLY wrong simplistic statements. You are simply ignoring the facts being presented to you and have now moved to insinuate I supported the IRA.

It isn't an argument. And this is supposed to be a political discussion forum.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there a possibility we could leave the moralising out of a political debate along with the assumptions?

The conflict/war happened, nobody I know wanted it to happen, no amount of condemnation stopped it.
So can we park that too and deal with the facts of what happened.

I proved to you that your dual statements - that the IRA were the prime aggressors during the 90's and that the conflict stopped because the IRA stopped are FACTUALLY wrong simplistic statements. You are simply ignoring the facts being presented to you and have now moved to insinuate I supported the IRA.

It isn't an argument. And this is supposed to be a political discussion forum.

Morals are an important part of a political debate.

I cannot stomach voting for a political party like Sinn Fein which contains members and a leader who are tainted by their personal involvement in terrorism, murder, criminality, child abuse, defending of same and/or cover-up of same.

That is a legitimate political viewpoint based on morals.

No need to respond with a typical attack on my political viewpoint, the purpose of the my post is to demonstrate how morals and moralising can play an important part in political debate. You are free to disagree, that is the essence of political debate.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Morals are an important part of a political debate.

I cannot stomach voting for a political party like Sinn Fein which contains members and a leader who are tainted by their personal involvement in terrorism, murder, criminality, child abuse, defending of same and/or cover-up of same.

That is a legitimate political viewpoint based on morals.

No need to respond with a typical attack on my political viewpoint, the purpose of the my post is to demonstrate how morals and moralising can play an important part in political debate. You are free to disagree, that is the essence of political debate.

I don't remember showing any concern for who you voted for.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't remember showing any concern for who you voted for.

My whole post just passed over your head.

The point I am making is that morals and moralising can and do form an important part of political debate.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

My whole post just passed over your head.

The point I am making is that morals and moralising can and do form an important part of political debate.

Moralising when you cannot counter the facts presented, moralising about one side in a conflict that killed over 3000 from ALL sides is pointless moralising and is not political debate.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

My whole post just passed over your head.

The point I am making is that morals and moralising can and do form an important part of political debate.

As a supporter of the formerly-named 'global war on terror', correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've a leg to stand on when it comes to moralising about politics and terrorism.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Moralising when you cannot counter the facts presented, moralising about one side in a conflict that killed over 3000 from ALL sides is pointless moralising and is not political debate.

You know deep down that if the IRA had packed in the killing after NICRA's objectives had been met that nowhere near that number would have died.

The IRA moved from killing for civil rights to killing for a united Ireland. That's why so many died. A UI was not achieved in the end, probably set it back a generation or two due to bitterness sown.

The individuals on all sides bear the responsibility for the crimes they committed but it was the IRA which perpetuated the troubles and any objective observer will tell you that.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You know deep down that if the IRA had packed in the killing after NICRA's objectives had been met that nowhere near that number would have died.

The IRA moved from killing for civil rights to killing for a united Ireland. That's why so many died. A UI was not achieved in the end, probably set it back a generation or two due to bitterness sown.

The individuals on all sides bear the responsibility for the crimes they committed but it was the IRA which perpetuated the troubles and any objective observer will tell you that.

You have now moved to telling me 'what I know deep down'? :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter, (just like condemnation doesn't matter), what either of us know deep down, the fact is that it did continue. The conflict happened, wishful thinking about it is irrelevant as well.

What you haven't addressed yet, which undermines your contention fundamentally, is that the FACTS show that through the 90's', as we once again moved towards an agreement/settlement, it was not the IRA who were attempting to wreck it by being the main aggressors, except when it looked like the British were going to do the dirt and renege again.

Can you back up your contention? As yet you have failed completely.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have now moved to telling me 'what I know deep down'? :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter, (just like condemnation doesn't matter), what either of us know deep down, the fact is that it did continue. The conflict happened, wishful thinking about it is irrelevant as well.

What you haven't addressed yet, which undermines your contention fundamentally, is that the FACTS show that through the 90's', as we once again moved towards an agreement/settlement, it was not the IRA who were attempting to wreck it by being the main aggressors, except when it looked like the British were going to do the dirt and renege again.

Can you back up your contention? As yet you have failed completely.

You undermine your own point that loyalists wouldn't attempt to wreck a UI when you come out with this stuff. You do understand that?

It's revealing that you claim condemnation doesn't matter but then condemn the loyalist violence of the 90s. Biased much?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You undermine your own point that loyalists wouldn't attempt to wreck a UI when you come out with this stuff. You do understand that?

It's revealing that you claim condemnation doesn't matter but then condemn the loyalist violence of the 90s. Biased much?

I condemn all the violence, let's get that out of the way and park it.

Can you show that the IRA were the 'main' aggressors or not?


And it doesn't undermine my point at all, because I gave reasons why we wont see anything approaching the levels of violence hurled at trying to wreck the GFA.

Please read what is being said and then counter with factual back-up without the moralising and outrage.

murphaph

It's important not to rewrite history. The IRA perpetuated the troubles. If they had stopped after NICRA's aims were met, most of the 3000 would still be alive. That's a fact. Loyalist terrorism was overwhelmingly a reaction to IRA terrorism.

And in the end it will be English nationalists if anything that deliver a UI as NI is jettisoned to appease the EU. Pretty ironic really.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It's important not to rewrite history. The IRA perpetuated the troubles. If they had stopped after NICRA's aims were met, most of the 3000 would still be alive. That's a fact. Loyalist terrorism was overwhelmingly a reaction to IRA terrorism.

And in the end it will be English nationalists if anything that deliver a UI as NI is jettisoned to appease the EU. Pretty ironic really.

Explain the spike in loyalist violence around Sunningdale then and the AIA and GFA?

Facts and figures please to back the very clear assertion that the conflict would have ended had the IRA stopped without an agreement in place.

johnnyskeleton

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As a supporter of the formerly-named 'global war on terror', correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you've a leg to stand on when it comes to moralising about politics and terrorism.

Mod note:

Please dont personalise the debate.

cameramonkey

murphaph wrote: »

It's important not to rewrite history. The IRA perpetuated the troubles. If they had stopped after NICRA's aims were met, most of the 3000 would still be alive. That's a fact. Loyalist terrorism was overwhelmingly a reaction to IRA terrorism.

And in the end it will be English nationalists if anything that deliver a UI as NI is jettisoned to appease the EU. Pretty ironic really.

NICRA ceased it work in 1972. NICRA took part in a mass anti-internment march in Derry 14 unarmed demonstrators were shot and killed by British troops during. I think they lost any relevance after this atrocity.

The Sunningdale agreement was an attempt to establish a power-sharing executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. It was destroyed by a combination of a general strike and a Loyalist terror wave.

Dont let these fact get in the way of your argument.

The Ulster Workers' Council (UWC) strike took place in between 15 May and 28 May 1974. The following killings took place during the strike. This strike and killings destroyed the agreement along with the tacit support of the seurity services .

These are the facts

Over 40 people were murdered during the strike, all were killed by Loyalists or the British army. One was a UVF member murderer by the UDA. 2 OIRA members murdered by the British army, all the rest were civilians murdered by Loyalists.

Wednesday 15 May 1974
Day 1 of the UWC strike
Shortly after they were captured two members of the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) were shot dead by British soldiers. The OIRA members were in the process of planing a landmine near Newry, County Down. (Sutton; 1994)

Thursday 16 May 1974
Day 2 of the UWC strike
Maureen Moore (21), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by a Loyalist paramilitary gunman as she stood at the corner of Stratheden Street and Edlingham Street, New Lodge, Belfast.

Friday 17 May 1974
Dublin and Monaghan Bombings; 33 People Killed
Day 3 of the UWC strike
33 civilians and an unborn child were killed in the Republic of Ireland as a result of a series of explosions when four car bombs were planted by Loyalist paramilitaries in Dublin and Monaghan. Approximately 258 people were also injured in the explosions. The death toll from the bombings was the largest in any single day of the conflict. No one was ever arrested or convicted of causing the explosions.

Saturday 18 May 1974
Day 4 of the UWC strike
Joseph Shaw (22), a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), was shot dead by a member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) during a fracas in North Star Bar, North Queen Street, Belfast. The killing was part of a feud between the UDA and the UVF.

Monday 20 May 1974
Day 6 of the UWC strike
Michael Mallon (20), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) a covername for the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), and left by the side of the road at Shaw's Bridge, Belfast.

Friday 24 May 1974
Day 10 of the UWC strike
Two brothers, Sean Byrne (54) and Brendan Byrne (45), both Catholic publicans, were shot dead at their public house The Wayside Halt, Tannaghmore, near Ballymena, County Antrim. They had been shot by Loyalist paramilitaries.

Saturday 25 May 1974
Day 11 of the UWC strike
Alfred Stilges (52), a Catholic civilian, was beaten to death by Loyalist paramilitaries in Forthriver Road, Glencairn, Belfast.

Tuesday 28 May 1974
Executive Collapsed, Direct Rule Resumed
Day 14 of the UWC strike

CAIN: Chronology of the Conflict 1974

Edward M

Very well organised for mostly low calibre loyalists there now.
Its funny how ones arguments can be tipped up by ones own arguments sometimes.

blanch152

cameramonkey wrote: »

NICRA ceased it work in 1972. NICRA took part in a mass anti-internment march in Derry 14 unarmed demonstrators were shot and killed by British troops during. I think they lost any relevance after this atrocity.

The Sunningdale agreement was an attempt to establish a power-sharing executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. It was destroyed by a combination of a general strike and a Loyalist terror wave.

Dont let these fact get in the way of your argument.

The Ulster Workers' Council (UWC) strike took place in between 15 May and 28 May 1974. The following killings took place during the strike. This strike and killings destroyed the agreement along with the tacit support of the seurity services .

These are the facts

Over 40 people were murdered during the strike, all were killed by Loyalists or the British army. One was a UVF member murderer by the UDA. 2 OIRA members murdered by the British army, all the rest were civilians murdered by Loyalists.

Wednesday 15 May 1974
Day 1 of the UWC strike
Shortly after they were captured two members of the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) were shot dead by British soldiers. The OIRA members were in the process of planing a landmine near Newry, County Down. (Sutton; 1994)

Thursday 16 May 1974
Day 2 of the UWC strike
Maureen Moore (21), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by a Loyalist paramilitary gunman as she stood at the corner of Stratheden Street and Edlingham Street, New Lodge, Belfast.

Friday 17 May 1974
Dublin and Monaghan Bombings; 33 People Killed
Day 3 of the UWC strike
33 civilians and an unborn child were killed in the Republic of Ireland as a result of a series of explosions when four car bombs were planted by Loyalist paramilitaries in Dublin and Monaghan. Approximately 258 people were also injured in the explosions. The death toll from the bombings was the largest in any single day of the conflict. No one was ever arrested or convicted of causing the explosions.

Saturday 18 May 1974
Day 4 of the UWC strike
Joseph Shaw (22), a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), was shot dead by a member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) during a fracas in North Star Bar, North Queen Street, Belfast. The killing was part of a feud between the UDA and the UVF.

Monday 20 May 1974
Day 6 of the UWC strike
Michael Mallon (20), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) a covername for the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), and left by the side of the road at Shaw's Bridge, Belfast.

Friday 24 May 1974
Day 10 of the UWC strike
Two brothers, Sean Byrne (54) and Brendan Byrne (45), both Catholic publicans, were shot dead at their public house The Wayside Halt, Tannaghmore, near Ballymena, County Antrim. They had been shot by Loyalist paramilitaries.

Saturday 25 May 1974
Day 11 of the UWC strike
Alfred Stilges (52), a Catholic civilian, was beaten to death by Loyalist paramilitaries in Forthriver Road, Glencairn, Belfast.

Tuesday 28 May 1974
Executive Collapsed, Direct Rule Resumed
Day 14 of the UWC strike

CAIN: Chronology of the Conflict 1974

I am more confused than ever. Your post clearly sets out how a loyalist terrorist group of criminal thugs sustained a campaign of terrorist activity.

Yet we have been assured time and again by quite a number of republican posters that this just isn't possible.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am more confused than ever. Your post clearly sets out how a loyalist terrorist group of criminal thugs sustained a campaign of terrorist activity.

Yet we have been assured time and again by quite a number of republican posters that this just isn't possible.

I know I gave reasons for that opinion. But if you just want to ignore them rather than engage, what can I do?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know I gave reasons for that opinion. But if you just want to ignore them rather than engage, what can I do?

Yes, but so many people (particularly republicans) have posted evidence to counter your view that maybe you wish to reconsider?

munsterlegend

blanch152 wrote: »

I am more confused than ever. Your post clearly sets out how a loyalist terrorist group of criminal thugs sustained a campaign of terrorist activity.

Yet we have been assured time and again by quite a number of republican posters that this just isn't possible.

I don't think any terror group will last too long in today's western world. Also loyalists won't have any British/police force assistance like they had before. on their own they would be much like dissident republicans now isolated and capable of very little.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but so many people (particularly republicans) have posted evidence to counter your view that maybe you wish to reconsider?

Such as?
Particularly these points:

a0 Unionism has accepted the GFA after a period of ineffectual violence in an attempt to bring it down
b) Loyalists will no longer have the help of the BA or the disbanded RUC
c) Violent Loyalism was always limited to enclaves, which could easily be made difficult to operate outside.
d) A campaign with no possible win (in their minds, not yours or mine, so i have no interest what you think on this) would tend to peter out anyway. They have already fought the GFA and lost.

blanch152

munsterlegend wrote: »

I don't think any terror group will last too long in today's western world. Also loyalists won't have any British/police force assistance like they had before. on their own they would be much like dissident republicans now isolated and capable of very little.

Again, another confusing post. We have been told time and again that if a hard border is reimposed because of Brexit, the IRA will rise again and bomb it out of existence, or something like that, can't recall the exact words.

But, we are now being told that any terror group won't last too long in today's western world.

The likelihood now is that a hard border will be imposed and this is going to create more than enough problems without having some renegade terrorists acting up. These recent posts have reassured me that the IRA threat in the event of a hard Brexit is just the imagination of feeble dreamers of past glories they think really happened.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, another confusing post. We have been told time and again that if a hard border is reimposed because of Brexit, the IRA will rise again and bomb it out of existence, or something like that, can't recall the exact words.

But, we are now being told that any terror group won't last too long in today's western world.

The likelihood n,ow is that a hard border will be imposed and this is going to create more than enough problems without having some renegade terrorists acting up. These recent posts have reassured me that the IRA threat in the event of a hard Brexit is just the imagination of feeble dreamers of past glories they think really happened.

So basically, you have a gut feeling. :rolleyes:

munsterlegend

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, another confusing post. We have been told time and again that if a hard border is reimposed because of Brexit, the IRA will rise again and bomb it out of existence, or something like that, can't recall the exact words.

But, we are now being told that any terror group won't last too long in today's western world.

The likelihood now is that a hard border will be imposed and this is going to create more than enough problems without having some renegade terrorists acting up. These recent posts have reassured me that the IRA threat in the event of a hard Brexit is just the imagination of feeble dreamers of past glories they think really happened.

There won't be a hard border as the people of this island won't tolerate it. You don't need a terror group for civil unrest. Northern Ireland is going to get some form of separate status from the UK and the dup and its ilk will just have to accept just like now it is different to every other part of the uk.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

There won't be a hard border as the people of this island won't tolerate it. You don't need a terror group for civil unrest. Northern Ireland is going to get some form of separate status from the UK and the dup and its ilk will just have to accept just like now it is different to every other part of the uk.

I am watching the beginnings of a civil disobedience group here on the border as we speak. I think underestimating just how strong this will be is a huge mistake.

I think a hard border will split SF in two again and that is serious.

cameramonkey

Edward M wrote: »

Very well organised for mostly low calibre loyalists there now.
Its funny how ones arguments can be tipped up by ones own arguments sometimes.

My argument as you know is that the Loyalist were run by the British security services as counter gangs, That much has been proven in numerous courts.
If you care to watch the new documentary by Alex Gibney he explains it in great detail, that is if you do want to be informed.

cameramonkey

blanch152 wrote: »

I am more confused than ever. Your post clearly sets out how a loyalist terrorist group of criminal thugs sustained a campaign of terrorist activity.

Yet we have been assured time and again by quite a number of republican posters that this just isn't possible.

Would you like to address my post rather than defecting.

Edward M

cameramonkey wrote: »

My argument as you know is that the Loyalist were run by the British security services as counter gangs, That much has been proven in numerous courts.
If you care to watch the new documentary by Alex Gibney he explains it in great detail, that is if you do want to be informed.

I must admit I haven't seen it. I would agree that loyalist gangs had help and collusion from the British, that would be obvious as both wanted the IRA defeated, a common goal.
I'm not trying to pick a side here, but as to moving forward I feel that if the past is going to be constantly rehashed as a point scoring exercise from both sides progress will be difficult.
All I am saying is that a UI will inevitably bring violence with it, certainly in the period leading up to it and in the immediate aftermath.
OK I'd agree that might be short lived and eventually petered out, but loyalists would I feel be capable of considerable violence and of taking a great many lives.
All I would suggest is that northern Irish people would be capable of living together peacefully and democratically , within their own state perhaps, before a complete Irish unification would take place, perhaps that might save lives!

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

I must admit I haven't seen it. I would agree that loyalist gangs had help and collusion from the British, that would be obvious as both wanted the IRA defeated, a common goal.
I'm not trying to pick a side here, but as to moving forward I feel that if the past is going to be constantly rehashed as a point scoring exercise from both sides progress will be difficult.
All I am saying is that a UI will inevitably bring violence with it, certainly in the period leading up to it and in the immediate aftermath.
OK I'd agree that might be short lived and eventually petered out, but loyalists would I feel be capable of considerable violence and of taking a great many lives.
All I would suggest is that northern Irish people would be capable of living together peacefully and democratically , within their own state perhaps, before a complete Irish unification would take place, perhaps that might save lives!

Its executive has fallen apart and the GFA is stagnant. It simply could not govern itself.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Its executive has fallen apart and the GFA is stagnant. It simply could not govern itself.

And that'd be my problem with it.
Would it be any easier governed under an Irish flag?

murphaph

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be my problem with it.
Would it be any easier governed under an Irish flag?

Nope.

FrancieBrady

Edward M wrote: »

And that'd be my problem with it.
Would it be any easier governed under an Irish flag?

I believe so.
If you remove partition then you are left with small enclaves fighting for something totally unachievable and against something that was settled with the signing of the GFA.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I believe so.
.

As you said yourself.....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So basically, you have a gut feeling. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

As you said yourself.....

No, I gave reasons for my belief.

Your reasoning comes from an anything but let republicans win base.
Emotional but fairly useless to a debate.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, another confusing post. We have been told time and again that if a hard border is reimposed because of Brexit, the IRA will rise again and bomb it out of existence, or something like that, can't recall the exact words.

But, we are now being told that any terror group won't last too long in today's western world.

The likelihood now is that a hard border will be imposed and this is going to create more than enough problems without having some renegade terrorists acting up. These recent posts have reassured me that the IRA threat in the event of a hard Brexit is just the imagination of feeble dreamers of past glories they think really happened.

I see that as very unlikely since the GFA. The only ones on either side we need be concerned about are fractured discontented splinter groups/dissidents, but we made one of them a Senator so we may have an in.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see that as very unlikely since the GFA. The only ones on either side we need be concerned about are fractured discontented splinter groups/dissidents, but we made one of them a Senator so we may have an in.

With all the councillors resigning from SF all over the country due to the bullying culture endemic in the party, surely some of them must have potential to work with dissident groups?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

With all the councillors resigning from SF all over the country due to the bullying culture endemic in the party, surely some of them must have potential to work with dissident groups?

If they were leaving due to disagreement on northern Ireland policy that would be a relevant comment.
Lab/FG making a dissident Republican a Senator might work to create links with other anti-GFA persons, should Brexit become a terrorism issue, which I very much doubt.