How long before Irish reunification?

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

WHERE have I justified killing?

Not agreeing with you and downcow on the 'inherent' motivation is not 'justifying anything.

AHH yes the motivation.
Political isn't it?

Sectarian definition from the link above...
"caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups:

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

AHH yes the motivation.
Political isn't it?

Well here's a test for you.

When they achieved a 'political' settlement/agreement...what happened?

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well here's a test for you.

When they achieved a 'political' settlement/agreement...what happened?

Political killing is sectarian.
It's in the very definition.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Political killing is sectarian.
It's in the very definition.

Sorry, don't have time for this moving of goalposts.

Downcow is trying to make out that the IRA's campaign was motivated by a hate of protestants.

Do you agree with that or not?

My lifelong view has always been that any killing is wrong and should never happen BTW.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, don't have time for this moving of goalposts.

Downcow is trying to make out that the IRA's campaign was motivated by a hate of protestants.

Do you agree with that or not?

My lifelong view has always been that any killing is wrong and should never happen BTW.

I think they started off with a politician aim.

As time went on they obviously got a huge number of volunteers. Many of whom I would class as complete head cases.
Once they'd tasted murder and got away with it they did whatever they wanted, as tit for tat killings with loyalists
intensified they absolutely targeted protestants, not exclusively no, but regularly yes.

Does that make them sectarian in a religious sense. Absolutely yes.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I think they started off with a politician aim.

As time went on they obviously got a huge number of volunteers. Many of whom I would class as complete head cases.
Once they'd tasted murder and got away with it they did whatever they wanted, as tit for tat killings with loyalists
intensified they absolutely targeted protestants, not exclusively no, but regularly yes.

Does that make them sectarian in a religious sense. Absolutely yes.

Is this a feeling in your water or do you have data to back it up?

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this a feeling in your water or do you have data to back it up?

That they had head cases in their ranks?
I'm sure I could list you a few names if needed.

Or the targeting of protestants?
Don't want to start digging through history tbh, but will if I have to. Can't do now though, busy at work ;-)

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

That they had head cases in their ranks?
I'm sure I could list you a few names if needed.

Or the targeting of protestants?
Don't want to start digging through history tbh, but will if I have to. Can't do now though, busy at work ;-)

Yes they had 'headcases', all armies do.

And yes there were instances of pure sectarianism.

All of these things...(essentially the killing of innocents) have happened in every conflict/war that has ever taken place on this planet.

When a country elects to carpet bomb a political enemy...does that mean they have a racist hate for the people they are dropping bombs on?

I would say, not necessarily, it is NOT an indication of racist hate...they are spreading terror (being 'terrorists') in order to force their political foes to do something or other.

That is the horror of war/conflict sadly. It should never be allowed to happen.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes they had 'headcases', all armies do.

And yes there were instances of pure sectarianism.

All of these things...(essentially the killing of innocents) have happened in every conflict/war that has ever taken place on this planet.

When a country elects to carpet bomb a political enemy...does that mean they have a racist hate for the people they are dropping bombs on?

I would say, not necessarily, it is NOT an indication of racist hate...they are spreading terror (being 'terrorists') in order to force their political foes to do something or other.

That is the horror of war/conflict sadly. It should never be allowed to happen.

I agree.

What are we arguing about again :-). ?

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I agree.

What are we arguing about again :-). ?

I asked you a question, you didn't answer.

Downcow is trying to make out that the IRA's campaign was motivated by a hate of protestants.

Do you agree with that or not?

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked you a question, you didn't answer.

Sorry thought I had already.
Copied from above...

I think they started off with a politician aim.

As time went on they obviously got a huge number of volunteers. Many of whom I would class as complete head cases.
Once they'd tasted murder and got away with it they did whatever they wanted, as tit for tat killings with loyalists
intensified they absolutely targeted protestants, not exclusively no, but regularly yes.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Sorry thought I had already.
Copied from above...

I think they started off with a politician aim.

As time went on they obviously got a huge number of volunteers. Many of whom I would class as complete head cases.
Once they'd tasted murder and got away with it they did whatever they wanted, as tit for tat killings with loyalists
intensified they absolutely targeted protestants, not exclusively no, but regularly yes.

So I can take that as not inherently sectarian in your opinion?

Nobody is denying that protestants were targeted at times.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So I can take that as not inherently sectarian in your opinion?

Nobody is denying that protestants were targeted at times.

Sectarian definition from the link above...
"caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups:

Based on that I'd say yes, sectarian.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Sectarian definition from the link above...
"caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups:

Based on that I'd say yes, sectarian.

You are squirming on the head of a pin Sinbad.

Have at it. It's just a pathetic need to be a standalone victim that is evident in Unionism. And Unionism really really needs to deal with that and spend some time analysing why northern Ireland ended up as it did.

If you set up a state along sectarian lines do not be surprised if you occasionally have some sectarian backlashes.

Maybe if Unionism confronted this and properly owned up to setting up the state to be sectarian and bigoted it might be a step forward. It could start by condemning loudly what happens around it's annual festival.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are squirming on the head of a pin Sinbad.

Have at it. It's just a pathetic need to be a standalone victim that is evident in Unionism. And Unionism really really needs to deal with that and spend some time analysing why northern Ireland ended up as it did.

If you set up a state along sectarian lines do not be surprised if you occasionally have some sectarian backlashes.

Maybe if Unionism confronted this and properly owned up to setting up the state to be sectarian and bigoted it might be a step forward. It could start by condemning loudly what happens around it's annual festival.

Look, I agree with you for the most part.
Sectarian state lead to sectarian terrorism.

A single victim is still 1 too many.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Look, I agree with you for the most part.
Sectarian state lead to sectarian terrorism.

A single victim is still 1 too many.

Absolutely...nobody needed to die had the government with the power acted when it should have.

There is not a single line in the GFA that could not have been delivered either in 1922 or 1968 when the lid finally came off.

You need to look up the meaning of 'inherently' BTW because the IRA never had the motivation to kill protestants just because they were protestants. Had that been the case there would be a much higher death toll.

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely...nobody needed to die had the government with the power acted when it should have.

There is not a single line in the GFA that could not have been delivered either in 1922 or 1968 when the lid finally came off.

You need to look up the meaning of 'inherently' BTW because the IRA never had the motivation to kill protestants just because they were protestants. Had that been the case there would be a much higher death toll.

Deffinition of 'never'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/never

Think we'll have to disagree on you last paragraph.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Deffinition of 'never'
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/never

Think we'll have to disagree on you last paragraph.

The logic of your position means that any act carried out by a member of an army or organisation is the sanctioned policy of that organisation.

Are you sure you want to hold by that logic?

Sinbad_NI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The logic of your position means that any act carried out by a member of an army or organisation is the sanctioned policy of that organisation.

Are you sure you want to hold by that logic?

So a difference between HQ and the rogue troops on the ground is that what you’re saying?

If that’s the case then fair enough. The logic of the head case wouldn’t be strong on either / any side, be it IRA, RUC, UDR, whoever.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

You must be drinking the same as Francie if you think Protestants are anything other than a minority in ROI, which was Francies point. so analogy works just fine - it may not suit your narrative, but it works

Unfortunately guys you are trying to defend something disgusting ie the IRA murder campaign against my community

You were talking about Catholics who were not a majority in Northern Ireland, not Protestants.

Your post which I replied to:

what a ridiculous post Francie. I can take you to places where catholics suffered greatly from sectarianism, but just because a few managed to stay around doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Tell the Palestinians living in Israel, or the travelling community in Ireland, that they are evidence everything is fine.

One of the most ridiculous things I have read on here. But thats all the evidence you have that the IRA were not sectarian.

simply unbelievable

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

Francie. I offered to use the town you raised as an example. I said i would prove that the IRA committed over 100 offences against civilians and that 97% were against protestants - in a town where less than 30% of the population were protestant, the deal was that JM08 would then admit that the IRA were inherently sectarian - he then went to ground. i think the phrase may be
I Ran Away
Now if i provide such evidence, will you admit the IRA are inherently sectarian?

jm08 is still waiting for you to provide a list of protestants killed by the PIRA prior to unionists/protestants rejection of the Sunningdale Agreement (i.e., protestants killed by the PIRA/INLA etc. prior to December 1973.


I'd also like to know why did protestants/unionists reject Sunningdale?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well that reminds me of YET ANOTHER challenge made to your posting:

You never did show one post where I mentioned the famine.

You are throwing out accusations all around you but backing up none of them.

Some guy getting his windows broken by a scrote is now proof that 'the IRA is inherently sectarian' allegedly.

Firstly. I was wrong about you mentioning the famine. apologies.

If the 'scrote' broke his windows after four big IRA attacks on his home, then maybe the scrote was just following his heros

Edgware

jm08 wrote: »

jm08 is still waiting for you to provide a list of protestants killed by the PIRA prior to unionists/protestants rejection of the Sunningdale Agreement (i.e., protestants killed by the PIRA/INLA etc. prior to December 1973.


I'd also like to know why did protestants/unionists reject Sunningdale?

A certain percentage of Unionists accepted Sunningdale. Rabble rousers like Paisley focussed in on the Council of Ireland as a step towards a united Ireland by allowing Dublin have an input in Northern Ireland administration.
Seamus Mallon the great Irish patriot and a true Republican was correct in his description of the G.F.A. as "Sunningdale for slow learners"
By 1973/1974 reforms had come in with the Housing Executive, Fair employment, the B Specials etc but bigots like Paisley and Craig on the Loyalist side and dinosaurs like O Bradaigh and O Conaill on the Provo side could not see beyond their own narrow minded beliefs. The result was 20 years of slaughter

jh79

Given the title of the thread, what effect do you think COVID-19 could have on the possibility of a border poll?

With SF out of government for now and a recession on the way, I personally think at least a decade before we are back to where we were prior to the virus. It was never a big priority down south and will be even less so now.

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

A certain percentage of Unionists accepted Sunningdale. Rabble rousers like Paisley focussed in on the Council of Ireland as a step towards a united Ireland by allowing Dublin have an input in Northern Ireland administration.
Seamus Mallon the great Irish patriot and a true Republican was correct in his description of the G.F.A. as "Sunningdale for slow learners"
By 1973/1974 reforms had come in with the Housing Executive, Fair employment, the B Specials etc but bigots like Paisley and Craig on the Loyalist side and dinosaurs like O Bradaigh and O Conaill on the Provo side could not see beyond their own narrow minded beliefs. The result was 20 years of slaughter

Mallon was wrong. Profoundly.
Look up the differences in Sunningdale and tge GFA and then contemplate who was involved or allowed to be involved.
Unionists simply were not ready for democracy nor to relinguish their veto.
That only happened when Britain had enough and signed the AIA. That built the platform of trust on which the GFA came about.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes they had 'headcases', all armies do.

And yes there were instances of pure sectarianism.

All of these things...(essentially the killing of innocents) have happened in every conflict/war that has ever taken place on this planet.

When a country elects to carpet bomb a political enemy...does that mean they have a racist hate for the people they are dropping bombs on?

I would say, not necessarily, it is NOT an indication of racist hate...they are spreading terror (being 'terrorists') in order to force their political foes to do something or other.

That is the horror of war/conflict sadly. It should never be allowed to happen.

No no no. we are not talking carpet bombing indiscriminately.
We are talking about Gerry sending his boys right across town and out into unionist strong country - taking all the obvious risks of getting caught by security forces to firebomb La Mon hotel used fairly exclusively by protestants, killing 12 and horrendously injury many more. They passed many hotels on the way which would have been very safe economic targets for them, but of course they couldn't hit them as they might have killed catholics.
We are talking about them stopping a minibus. Identifying the catholic and letting them run away and then murdering the remaining 10 protestants.
...and you know i could go on and on.

Your reluctance to admit the IRA were inherently sectarian is sad and pathetic.
and yes I can freely admit the loyalist terrorists were inherently sectarian. They targeted many IRA members etc but they were still inherently sectarian.

Grow a set francie and say it

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The logic of your position means that any act carried out by a member of an army or organisation is the sanctioned policy of that organisation.

Are you sure you want to hold by that logic?

Gerry was directing La Mon. was that not sanctioned?

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mallon was wrong. Profoundly.
Look up the differences in Sunningdale and tge GFA and then contemplate who was involved or allowed to be involved.
Unionists simply were not ready for democracy nor to relinguish their veto.
That only happened when Britain had enough and signed the AIA. That built the platform of trust on which the GFA came about.

No he wasnt

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

You were talking about Catholics who were not a majority in Northern Ireland, not Protestants.

Your post which I replied to:

No I wasn't. I was referring directly to Francie whop was evidencing that there was no sectarianism because he knew there were still prods living in ROI and the border areas of NI

downcow

downcow wrote: »

You have a slightly warped sense of who is innocent and who is guilty.
Just to clarify- are you saying the off duty policeman who was shot in the back while with his family is guilty, while the ira man who’s family claimed he was in nothing who was shot is innocent?
Just trying to understand your rational.

Timhen has gone to ground. Could we have your view on this Francie?