How long before Irish reunification?

Runaways

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

On a thread about Irish unity, it is a little hypocritical to criticise people for bringing up events from the past that have no bearing on where we are now.

After all, without events from the distant past, we would still be part of the UK, and no need to discuss this at all.

If you bothered to read the thread even a random sampling you’ll see it’s only one cohort playing the neverending victim card dragging up events past to fit whatever meets the need.

All while celebrating a battle from hundreds of years ago where some Catholics died.

Edgware

maccored wrote: »

they'd quite a lot of support in the north in the 80s when I came of voting age - dont talk bollocks please

Now you're down to "quite a lot of support" That's very vague. How about electoral support?

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

This is interesting from Prof Liam Kennedy (Irish catholic academic). also sad to reflect on the pointless loss of life

"“The greatest danger to you if you were a Provisional IRA volunteer was not the RUC or the British Army – it was your own organisation killing you either accidentally or intentionally,”

The number of loyalist paramilitaries killed by the Provisional IRA was just 28 – less than 2 per cent of all those killed by the Provisional IRA but notwithstanding this relatively low figure, the Provisional IRA was “the main killing agency during the Troubles”, he said.

‘Spearhead’
“The Provisional IRA was the spearhead or the cutting edge of, as Martin McGuinness described it, ‘the fight for Irish freedom’ or if you prefer the move to coerce 900,000 Protestants into a state that they did not want to be part of,” he said.

“These figures show that the Provisional IRA was responsible for driving the conflict onwards year and year before admitting defeating in 1994 for its ultimate objective of creating a 32 county republic,” he added.

“The Provisional IRA proved the dynamic for three decades of political violence and as such was primarily responsible for the Troubles – the Provisional IRA was not about civil rights or defending Catholic communities, it was about achieving a 32 county republic by force of arms.”

Prof Kennedy said: “There is a basis for suggesting that in some instances there is such a thing as an oppressive minority and in that sense, the republican community, and perhaps extending further into the nationalist electorate, can be categorized as an oppressive community.”
https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/persons/liam-kennedy

You are being a bit selective here as to what Liam Kennedy has said.He condemned all paramilitaries, though from what he said here the loyalists seem to have been worse than the republicans!

A meticulous review of official PSNI statistics, it shows that between 1990 and 2013 94 children were shot and 166 badly beaten by loyalist paramilitaries and 73 shot and 178 beaten by their republican equivalents. He called for a cross-border commission of inquiry into physical as well as sexual abuse of children by paramilitaries.

Ruth Dudley Edwards is an admirer of his.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/we-didnt-treat-farm-animals-like-that-30748033.html

He is a pacifist who thinks that 1916 ''is something to be angry about, not celebrated'' and that James Connolly was a dictator!

And seriously, just because he is a catholic is just not relevant. During the civil war, families took different sides. For instance, Michael D. Higgins talks about his father and uncle taking different sides with his aunts trying to stay neutral.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

I think you are trying to move the goal posts again.
You said the ira did not attack Protestants before dec 73. I asked if I provide evidence,restricted only to the wee town Francie identified, that showed dozens of attacks and 100% against Protestants. Would you then admit the ira was sectarian? I am still awaiting your response to that question. Lying low for a few days doesn’t remove the need to answer the question. Follow bonnies courageous example.
??????????????

I think it was Sinbad who said he couldn't understand why nationalists supported Sinn Fein in the first place. I explained (IMO) the reason why they supported Sinn Fein was because unionists would not share power with nationalists like John Hume, Paddy Devlin of the SDLP according to the Sunningdale Agreement and with unionists refusal to power share back then, they took away all hope of equality and so turned to Sinn Fein because a peaceful way wasn't going to work. That is when nationalists support started to shift to Sinn Fein (Dec 1973).



You keep refusing to produce any statistics to support sectarianism as the reason for the attack on protestants. I believe that the IRA targetted the establishment who happened to be protestants.


Now, tell me your opinion as to why did unionists refused to support the Sunningdale Agreement?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

jm08 wrote: »

from what he said here the loyalists seem to have been worse than the republicans!
.

That's an uncontroversial fact. Unionist murder-gangs killed more of each other feuding than they did Republicans. They killed close to 1000 innocent Catholic people or Protestants they mistook for Catholics.

RobMc59

10-15 years

What a lovable bunch those brave freedom fighters are!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-52019200

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

You keep refusing to produce any statistics to support sectarianism as the reason for the attack on protestants. I believe that the IRA targetted the establishment who happened to be protestants.


Now, tell me your opinion as to why did unionists refused to support the Sunningdale Agreement?

Jm08 I will certainly answer your question after you deal with the outstanding matters.
You say I have produced no evidence. I am still waiting for your reply. I said, if I can evidence that 97% of the ira attacks on civilians homes and shops ( in the town Francie raised which was less than 30% Protestant ) will you then admit the ira were inherently sectarian? - and if not why not? You’ll get all the evidence you want then.

You also made a statement that 8 of the shop owners in castlewellan were udr members. Tell us why you believe this? Was it sf propaganda fed to you because they are embarrassed about their sectarianism? Give us the evidence?
I am assuring you there were zero shop owners in udr, so it is important you tell us all why you made this statement, if you are to have any credibility.

Very simple requests. Don’t duck them.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's an uncontroversial fact. Unionist murder-gangs killed more of each other feuding than they did Republicans. They killed close to 1000 innocent Catholic people or Protestants they mistook for Catholics.

I would say you are probably correct.
As was linked several posts ago CAIN state that ira killed only 28 loyalist paramilitaries, while they killed huge numbers of their own members and innocent catholics

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's an uncontroversial fact. Unionist murder-gangs killed more of each other feuding than they did Republicans. They killed close to 1000 innocent Catholic people or Protestants they mistook for Catholics.

I am very interested junkyard in what you mean by “innocent catholics” and who you believe are the guilty catholics?

downcow

RobMc59 wrote: »

What a lovable bunch those brave freedom fighters are!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-52019200

Yeah nice people. In my local town which is now 98% nationalist several pubs were open over the entire weekend past with back door entry. The town is the power base and office base of our local Sinn Fein MP and local party headquarters. It is interesting that it took a local unionist politician to contact PSNI and it was unionist politicians and irate local nationalists who went on social media about it. Complete silence from sf mp. I wonder who is controlling him.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Jm08 I will certainly answer your question after you deal with the outstanding matters.
You say I have produced no evidence. I am still waiting for your reply. I said, if I can evidence that 97% of the ira attacks on civilians homes and shops ( in the town Francie raised which was less than 30% Protestant ) will you then admit the ira were inherently sectarian? - and if not why not? You’ll get all the evidence you want then.

Still ignoring the Unionist/Loyalist elephant in the room I see.

You also made a statement that 8 of the shop owners in castlewellan were udr members. Tell us why you believe this? Was it sf propaganda fed to you because they are embarrassed about their sectarianism? Give us the evidence?
I am assuring you there were zero shop owners in udr, so it is important you tell us all why you made this statement, if you are to have any credibility.

Very simple requests. Don’t duck them.

When others like maryishere were going on about ethnic cleansing in Fermanagh they liked to quote the killing of a shopkeeper in Roslea as an example. He had 'no connection' to the security forces' either mary would claim, he was killed 'just because he was a protestant'

The problem with that is that locally (it's local to me) it is known that he was warned several times about supplying the local base and refused to stop.

People like that were considered part of the occupying force. If you aid the enemy you are usually a target in any conflict/war. Not nice, but then war/conflict never is.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still ignoring the Unionist/Loyalist elephant in the room I see.

When others like maryishere were going on about ethnic cleansing in Fermanagh they liked to quote the killing of a shopkeeper in Roslea as an example. He had 'no connection' to the security forces' either mary would claim, he was killed 'just because he was a protestant'

The problem with that is that locally (it's local to me) it is known that he was warned several times about supplying the local base and refused to stop.

People like that were considered part of the occupying force. If you aid the enemy you are usually a target in any conflict/war. Not nice, but then war/conflict never is.

Disgusting Francie. Exactly the excuse the UVF etc give for killing members of the 'pan nationalist front', in other words any catholic will do.
But you are trying to shock us into being deflected. JM08 was asked why he said that eight of the protestant shops which were bombed in Castlewellan were owned by members of the UDR.
His tactic is to go to ground for a few days. your tactic is say something so abhorrent that we will be distracted

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still ignoring the Unionist/Loyalist elephant in the room I see.




When others like maryishere were going on about ethnic cleansing in Fermanagh they liked to quote the killing of a shopkeeper in Roslea as an example. He had 'no connection' to the security forces' either mary would claim, he was killed 'just because he was a protestant'

The problem with that is that locally (it's local to me) it is known that he was warned several times about supplying the local base and refused to stop.

People like that were considered part of the occupying force. If you aid the enemy you are usually a target in any conflict/war. Not nice, but then war/conflict never is.

Out of curiosity would view the murder of Pat Finucane in the same way ie a legitimate target? He aided the enemy from their perspective and the use of proxies is normal in a war/conflict too.

Sinbad_NI

jm08 wrote: »

...

...I believe that the IRA targetted the establishment who happened to be protestants.

...

How did the frequent tit for tat murders and reprisals factor into that black and white view.

I think it’s all a very grey mess, unfortunately a blood red shade of grey.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still ignoring the Unionist/Loyalist elephant in the room I see.
.

I am ignoring nothing franci.
You brought up Castlewellan. I am giving the statistics for Castlewellan.
I don't want to bore you by repeating them again, though the summary is that 97% of IRA attacks on civilians were on Protestant civilians - in a town with few protestants. I call that sectarianism.

As for ignoring the Unionist/Loyalist elephant in the room. There is zero evidence of any single member of the Castlewellan Protestant community ever committing a single offence against either an ordinary innocent catholic or for that matter even a member of the republican movement.
I am extremely proud of my protestant neighbours restraint during the onslaught. Unless you know different.
I can evidence anything I am saying - hope you will evidence your reply, if asked for.

A few republicans on here, Junkyard, JM08, yourself etc are trying to convince ordinary Irish people on this forum that somehow the IRA were not evil, sectarian scumbags. I can openly say that the UFF etc were evil sectarian scumbags

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Disgusting Francie. Exactly the excuse the UVF etc give for killing members of the 'pan nationalist front', in other words any catholic will do.
But you are trying to shock us into being deflected. JM08 was asked why he said that eight of the protestant shops which were bombed in Castlewellan were owned by members of the UDR.
His tactic is to go to ground for a few days. your tactic is say something so abhorrent that we will be distracted

Nobody ever claimed the conflict/war was anything but abhorrent downcow.

People who supplied the enemy were targets whether they catholic or protestant. People who were members of the security forces were targets whether they were catholics or protestants.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I can openly say that the UFF etc were evil sectarian scumbags

What about the RUC and sections of the BA? Were they evil sectarian scumbags?

What about the UDR? Or the B-Specials before them?

I know you couldn't possibly have this evidence and that it is positively anecdotal, but it is important to ask the question:

Do you have evidence that it was the IRA as an organisation who sanctioned and supported these attacks?

Like the same grade 'evidence' that exists in the sectarian killings in Loughlinisland for example, as laid out in No Stone Unturned.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What about the RUC and sections of the BA? Were they evil sectarian scumbags?

What about the UDR? Or the B-Specials before them?

I know you couldn't possibly have this evidence and that it is positively anecdotal, but it is important to ask the question:

Do you have evidence that it was the IRA as an organisation who sanctioned and supported these attacks?

Like the same grade 'evidence' that exists in the sectarian killings in Loughlinisland for example, as laid out in No Stone Unturned.

Would you accept ira claims of responsibility as evidence?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody ever claimed the conflict/war was anything but abhorrent downcow.

People who supplied the enemy were targets whether they catholic or protestant. People who were members of the security forces were targets whether they were catholics or protestants.

It is one thing say that they were targets we all knew that and have brought you to that position.
You have used terms like legitimate target. I would not use a term like that because they were not legitimate targets.

I would never dream of calling kids who were abused as legitimate targets just because the targeting thinks they are. I also wouldn’t call women legitimate targets for rapists.

But that aside, you are deflecting again.
We were talking about Protestants that were not connected to or supplying the brits who were singled out for target. Is that sectarian Francie.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Would you accept ira claims of responsibility as evidence?

You are now claiming that PIRA have claimed responsibility for over '100 offences against civilians' - '97% of them' just because they were protestants.

What were you waiting for - have at it, show us.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

It is one thing say that they were targets we all knew that and have brought you to that position.
You have used terms like legitimate target. I would not use a term like that because they were not legitimate targets.

I would never dream of calling kids who were abused as legitimate targets just because the targeting thinks they are. I also wouldn’t call women legitimate targets for rapists.

But that aside, you are deflecting again.
We were talking about Protestants that were not connected to or supplying the brits who were singled out for target. Is that sectarian Francie.

What?

If you target somebody just because of their religion you are engaging in sectarianism...WTF is your problem here?

THERE WAS and STILL IS sectarianism at all levels in northern Ireland downcow. WTF is your problem with that? NOBODY is denying it.

You claimed that the IRA was 'inherently' sectarian. I am saying that the facts do not support that.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

If you target somebody just because of their religion you are engaging in sectarianism...WTF is your problem here?

THERE WAS and STILL IS sectarianism at all levels in northern Ireland downcow. WTF is your problem with that? NOBODY is denying it.

You claimed that the IRA was 'inherently' sectarian. I am saying that the facts do not support that.

My problem is that you have avoided admitting that the ira were sectarian. I know many republicans who would never admit this in public but a small few will admit it privately.
It is important moving forward.
So many republicans have no problem saying the state was sectarian, the loyalists paramilitaries were sectarian, the ruc were sectarian, the OO are sectarian, etc etc etc.
But they always duck the ira question and when pushed may say there were maybe a few sectarian members and a few sectarian actions.
It is like Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness’s claims around ira membership. And is just as ludicrous and shows no integrity.
Hard to move forward together when republicans won’t tell the truth about the past.
That is WTF is wrong with me.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are now claiming that PIRA have claimed responsibility for over '100 offences against civilians' - '97% of them' just because they were protestants.

What were you waiting for - have at it, show us.

You can spin all you like.
This is what you said in relation to my claim that ira carried out sectarian attacks in castlewellan
“ I know you couldn't possibly have this evidence and that it is positively anecdotal, but it is important to ask the question:
Do you have evidence that it was the IRA as an organisation who sanctioned and supported these attacks?”

I am asking would you accept the IRAs own claims of responsibility as evidence.

Simple question again.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

My problem is that you have avoided admitting that the ira were sectarian. I know many republicans who would never admit this in public but a small few will admit it privately.
It is important moving forward.
So many republicans have no problem saying the state was sectarian, the loyalists paramilitaries were sectarian, the ruc were sectarian, the OO are sectarian, etc etc etc.
But they always duck the ira question and when pushed may say there were maybe a few sectarian members and a few sectarian actions.
It is like Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness’s claims around ira membership. And is just as ludicrous and shows no integrity.
Hard to move forward together when republicans won’t tell the truth about the past.
That is WTF is wrong with me.

You need to understand what 'inherently' means downcow.

The northern Ireland state was 'inherently' sectarian as it actively and through legislative functions as well as security force, discriminated against people who where 'catholic'.

Likewise the OO is sectarian as it constitutionally discriminates against a religion.

There is also no doubt that 'some' in the RUC were 'sectarian'.

Loyalist paramilitaries who killed just because somebody was a catholic were sectarian.

As were members of the IRA who killed just because somebody was a protestant.

YOU claimed that the IRA were 'inherently sectarian' and failed to produce any evidence that this was the case.

'Inherently' - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You can spin all you like.
This is what you said in relation to my claim that ira carried out sectarian attacks in castlewellan
“ I know you couldn't possibly have this evidence and that it is positively anecdotal, but it is important to ask the question:
Do you have evidence that it was the IRA as an organisation who sanctioned and supported these attacks?”

I am asking would you accept the IRAs own claims of responsibility as evidence.

Simple question again.

So show us were PIRA claimed responsibility for over 100 attacks - 97% of which were on people just because they were protestant.

timhenn

10-15 years

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

How did the frequent tit for tat murders and reprisals factor into that black and white view.

I think it’s all a very grey mess, unfortunately a blood red shade of grey.

Occasionally, the PIRA got dragged down to the level of the british side. They should never have lowered themselves. You can see why it happened though. The ruc/british armed forcers/uvf etc almost solely targetted innocent nationalists. They killed over 1,000 innocents.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So show us were PIRA claimed responsibility for over 100 attacks - 97% of which were on people just because they were protestant.

Absolutely ridiculous request. And well you know it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to understand what 'inherently' means downcow.

The northern Ireland state was 'inherently' sectarian as it actively and through legislative functions as well as security force, discriminated against people who where 'catholic'.
.

You that is great at demanding evidence it not prepared to accept it when you get it.

Would you give me evidence of the above statement of yours?

downcow

timhenn wrote: »

Occasionally, the PIRA got dragged down to the level of the british side. They should never have lowered themselves. You can see why it happened though. The ruc/british armed forcers/uvf etc almost solely targetted innocent nationalists. They killed over 1,000 innocents.

You are keen on identifying “innocents”. You’ve been using it a lot. And my question is still outstanding to you from last time ie

‘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.’

Any chance of an answer?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous request. And well you know it.

You said you had evidence.