How long before Irish reunification?

timhenn

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

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?

Have you visited the Cain website? You should, all the stats are there. The british side killed over 1,000 innocents. You can even go through each of them individually if you so wish.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

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?

Legislative:
Changing of the voting system in 1929 - Gerrymandering of constiuencies as locl and parliamentary level - the denial of the vote - all manner of discrimination in housing and education.

Security Forces - The main police force and it's various 'support' groups...B-Specials/UDR etc all predominately Protestant and so riddled with collusion and corruption and sectarianism now all defunct.

And this from Big Ian maybe:

The one-time firebrand preacher who became the First Minister of Northern Ireland also said the gerrymandering and religious-based discrimination that existed in Northern Ireland was wrong, the BBC reports.

“If you vote down democracy, you are responsible for bringing in anarchy,” he said. “It wasn’t one man, one vote. I mean, that’s no way to run a country. The whole system was wrong”.

jm08

20-30 years

RobMc59 wrote: »

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

I wouldn't say there is anything lovable about dissident republicans. Just so you know, dissident republicans hate Sinn Fein more than you hate the PIRA.

downcow

timhenn wrote: »

Have you visited the Cain website? You should, all the stats are there. The british side killed over 1,000 innocents. You can even go through each of them individually if you so wish.

My question was not what Cain thought I was asking you to clarify you belief of innocence since you are using it so often. ?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said you had evidence.

You are looking evidence on 100 incidents You know that is ludicrous on a forum. And you still haven’t said that if it was provided whether you would then admit the ira were sectarian

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Legislative:
Changing of the voting system in 1929 - Gerrymandering of constiuencies as locl and parliamentary level - the denial of the vote - all manner of discrimination in housing and education.

Security Forces - The main police force and it's various 'support' groups...B-Specials/UDR etc all predominately Protestant and so riddled with collusion and corruption and sectarianism now all defunct.

You are the one who resist stories and hearsay as evidence. Show me some evidence of what you are saying.
eg show me where a Protestant got a vote and a catholic didn’t?

Again your stuff is not evidence of ruc being sectarian just based on numbers. If that was the case then gaa, ira, sf, were all sectarian. You will have to do better to meet your own evidence standards

timhenn

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

My question was not what Cain thought I was asking you to clarify you belief of innocence since you are using it so often. ?

The CAIN website has been going for nearly 25 years. A quarter of a century studying and archiving deaths during the 'troubles'. It has been highly researched by many academics in Ulster University, Queens University and many others besides.

Do you dispute their findings? Which deaths do you dispute? What research have you done to back up your theories?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You are looking evidence on 100 incidents You know that is ludicrous on a forum. And you still haven’t said that if it was provided whether you would then admit the ira were sectarian

YOU claimed it was there.

I knew it wasn't...said it wasn't but I thought it was important to ask the question.

You have demonstrated exactly what I knew to be the case. You have no evidence that these 100 attacks were sanctioned or carried out by the IRA.

jm08

20-30 years

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.

What kind of evidence? Why don't you produce the evidence if it actually exists? I'll need a bit more than what you seem to be offering at the moment. Also dates.

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.

I made no such statement.
I actually asked this question which you have avoided answering for the last two weeks.

So downcow, Castlewellan - what was the percentage of protestants in Dec 1973?

How many incidents? Were these people civilians or were they UDR/RUC members?

So when are you going to answer this simple question?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You are the one who resist stories and hearsay as evidence. Show me some evidence of what you are saying.
eg show me where a Protestant got a vote and a catholic didn’t?

The people who didn't have a vote under a 'whole system that 'was wrong' in the words of Ian Paisley where those most likely to be catholics.

Please come out of denial, the game is up on that as even Paisley realised.

Again your stuff is not evidence of ruc being sectarian just based on numbers. If that was the case then gaa, ira, sf, were all sectarian. You will have to do better to meet your own evidence standards

What 'standards' downcow?

I never said the 'RUC were sectarian', I said that elements within the RUC were sectarian.
The extent to which they were 'riddled' with it is only now becoming known.

Are you in denial of that fact too?

Do you agree with Paisley by the way?

downcow

timhenn wrote: »

The CAIN website has been going for nearly 25 years. A quarter of a century studying and archiving deaths during the 'troubles'. It has been highly researched by many academics in Ulster University, Queens University and many others besides.

Do you dispute their findings? Which deaths do you dispute? What research have you done to back up your theories?

There are certainly mistakes in it but to all intents a purpose it’s excellent and reliable. And to suggest I questioned it credibility is just simply dishonest - unless of course you can show where I questioned its credibility??

timhenn

10-15 years

downcow wrote: »

There are certainly mistakes in it but to all intents a purpose it’s excellent and reliable. And to suggest I questioned it credibility is just simply dishonest - unless of course you can show where I questioned its credibility??

Where are the mistakes? Can you list them? Show your research into them?

If not then we can take the numbers from this highly reliable and credible website and not doubt them. According to their data, the british side killed over 1,000 innocent people. They formed an alliance to murder Nationalists in huge numbers.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

YOU claimed it was there.

I knew it wasn't...said it wasn't but I thought it was important to ask the question.

You have demonstrated exactly what I knew to be the case. You have no evidence that these 100 attacks were sanctioned or carried out by the IRA.

Francie you are dancing on the head of a pin to not say ira were inherently sectarian. I am not going to the trouble of providing you reams of evidence for you to say that proves some few ira members were sectarian. You tell me where your bar is to measure sectarianism and then we’ll see if the evidence exists.
How’s that for an offer

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie you are dancing on the head of a pin to not say ira were inherently sectarian. I am not going to the trouble of providing you reams of evidence for you to say that proves some few ira members were sectarian. You tell me where your bar is to measure sectarianism and then we’ll see if the evidence exists.
How’s that for an offer

To be 'inherently' sectarian you would have to be 'in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way, sectarian.

That's the bar.

You need to show how it was 'permanent', 'essential' and 'characteristic'.

You cannot even back up your claim that the IRA as an organisation was behind the attacks in your own town, for feck's sake!

We are going around in circles here...either put up what you have that shows the 'inherent' sectarianism of the IRA or leave it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To be 'inherently' sectarian you would have to be 'in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way, sectarian.

That's the bar.

Ok Francie. We got there. You named your bar and I am happy with it (if a little low)
I am confident I could have evidenced all three but since your definition gives me a choice I will take the simplest. I will evidence that they are ‘in a characteristic way sectarian’

Ok are we ok with that?

I’ll have a go when I’m not on my phone.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Ok Francie. We got there. You named your bar and I am happy with it (if a little low)
I am confident I could have evidenced all three but since your definition gives me a choice I will take the simplest. I will evidence that they are ‘in a characteristic way sectarian’

Ok are we ok with that?

I’ll have a go when I’m not on my phone.

No 'WE' are not.

Don't bother if you cannot show permanence or that it is essential.

I.E. That they have always been anti-protestant and that it is essential to be anti-protestant to be in the IRA.

And you can also cut out the patronising. You are not 'getting me' anywhere. YOU are floundering about trying to make a point out of some rubbish you spouted ages ago.
You haven't backed up a word of what you said.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No 'WE' are not.

Don't bother if you cannot show permanence or that it is essential.

I.E. That they have always been anti-protestant and that it is essential to be anti-protestant to be in the IRA.

And you can also cut out the patronising. You are not 'getting me' anywhere. YOU are floundering about trying to make a point out of some rubbish you spouted ages ago.
You haven't backed up a word of what you said.

Francie, you know all the posters here have the ability to scroll back and check who is being honest?
The definition of sectarianism you sighted, offered a choice of 3 measures ie permanence, essential or characteristic.
You’ve now had a wee panic cause I can easily meet the criteria and moved the goal posts again to protect the Ra again.

So I am happy to meet all 3 measures but you will find it desperately hard to prove ni state is sectarian under that measure.

Will we both have a go? Or are you accepting defeat and accepting the Ra are sectarian scumbags?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No 'WE' are not.

Don't bother if you cannot show permanence or that it is essential.

I.E. That they have always been anti-protestant and that it is essential to be anti-protestant to be in the IRA.

.

Francie take a look at what you are defending. As long as they were just sectarian most of the time , and as long as part of their oath didn’t include the words ‘I hate Protestants and will kill them’, then you say their not quite sectarian.
Francie. They were/are sectarian scumbags in exactly the same way as the UFF who also didn’t have it as essential criteria to join.

Runaways

10-15 years

DC are you able to go to any of your local pubs or community halls and socialize?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie, you know all the posters here have the ability to scroll back and check who is being honest?
The definition of sectarianism you sighted, offered a choice of 3 measures ie permanence, essential or characteristic.
You’ve now had a wee panic cause I can easily meet the criteria and moved the goal posts again to protect the Ra again.

So I am happy to meet all 3 measures but you will find it desperately hard to prove ni state is sectarian under that measure.

Will we both have a go? Or are you accepting defeat and accepting the Ra are sectarian scumbags?

That is not a definition of sectarianism...it is a definition of 'inherent' that I cited.

If you have evidence that your 100 attacks were sanctioned by the IRA as an organisation...HAVE AT IT. How many times have you to be asked?


I have moved no goal posts. I object to your characterisation of the IRA as 'inherently sectarian'.

Why...because it is not the truth. Simple as that and is part of your disingenuous attempt to play the victim violin.

Das Reich

10-15 years

Maybe an offtopic question but why this unification can't be gradually? Fermanagh borders mostly the ROI than the rest of NI and its population is mostly Catholic. If it becomes part of ROI, Donegal would be less isolated. It would also be easier to UK to accept to give a county than 6 counties.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Das Reich wrote: »

Maybe an offtopic question but why this unification can't be gradually? Fermanagh borders mostly the ROI than the rest of NI and its population is mostly Catholic. If it becomes part of ROI, Donegal would be less isolated. It would also be easier to UK to accept to give a county than 6 counties.

Because there is no legal mechanism outside of the GFA to enable reunification. While your question has merit to a point, it would be in essence a "re-partition".

FrancieBrady

Das Reich wrote: »

Maybe an offtopic question but why this unification can't be gradually? Fermanagh borders mostly the ROI than the rest of NI and its population is mostly Catholic. If it becomes part of ROI, Donegal would be less isolated. It would also be easier to UK to accept to give a county than 6 counties.

What would be the benefit of that though?

Das Reich

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What would be the benefit of that though?

For what part? For NI they would get rid of some of their Catholic population and for ROI to increase by small bit its territory and population and also Donegal would be less isolated.

Das Reich

15-20 years

Das Reich wrote: »

Maybe an offtopic question but why this unification can't be gradually? Fermanagh borders mostly the ROI than the rest of NI and its population is mostly Catholic. If it becomes part of ROI, Donegal would be less isolated. It would also be easier to UK to accept to give a county than 6 counties.

Catholics are a majority in 4 of the 6 counties as it is

At time of partition,it was proposed to make NI just antrim and down,and to quote carson,you cant make a state with just a few



What your proposing is repartition,when it seems obvious that it hasnt worked before

Hamsterchops

Das Reich wrote: »

Maybe an offtopic question but why this unification can't be gradually? Fermanagh borders mostly the ROI than the rest of NI and its population is mostly Catholic. If it becomes part of ROI, Donegal would be less isolated. It would also be easier to UK to accept to give a county than 6 counties.

The UK as a political entity includes Northern Ireland, hence it can't accept to just "give away a county" unless the whole of Northern Ireland votes to leave the United Kingdom as one region (of the UK).

Currently NI wishes to remain part of the UK, connected to Great Britain in the form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland wishes to leave the UK, then it is free to do so, as laid out in the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Westminster/London/England/Britain have no power to hold onto Northern Ireland, and it only remains part of the UK because the majority of its population (Protestant/Catholic/Unionist & Nationalist) wish it to be so...

The trick is for us persuade the population of Northern Ireland to cut its ties with GB, hence they would have to say goodbye to the NHS (free GP visits, dental appointments, etc), goodbye to the BBC, goodbye to the Royal Mail, Parcel Force, goodbye to the Pound Sterling (GBP), goodby to Britain, goodbye to their British/Northern Irish identity too?

Hello to the Tricolour, hello to the HSE (not so free), Hello to RTE, accept An Post, embrace the EURO, and become totally Irish in this Republic, whilst accepting that their new Capital city is Dublin & not London :eek:

...and its up to us to convince them that this is a good thing.
I'm guessing it might take another few decades before we can convince them to jump ship, and join with us.

FrancieBrady

Das Reich wrote: »

For what part? For NI they would get rid of some of their Catholic population and for ROI to increase by small bit its territory and population and also Donegal would be less isolated.

Repartition along sectarian lines? Good luck with that as a proposal.

timhenn

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The UK as a political entity includes Northern Ireland, hence it can't accept to just "give away a county" unless the whole of Northern Ireland votes to leave the United Kingdom as one region (of the UK).

Currently NI wishes to remain part of the UK, connected to Great Britain in the form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland wishes to leave the UK, then it is free to do so, as laid out in the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Westminster/London/England/Britain have no power to hold onto Northern Ireland, and it only remains part of the UK because the majority of its population (Protestant/Catholic/Unionist & Nationalist) wish it to be so...

The trick is for us persuade the population of Northern Ireland to cut its ties with GB, hence they would have to say goodbye to the NHS (free GP visits, dental appointments, etc), goodbye to the BBC, goodbye to the Royal Mail, Parcel Force, goodbye to the Pound Sterling (GBP), goodby to Britain, goodbye to their British/Northern Irish identity too?

Hello to the Tricolour, hello to the HSE (not so free), Hello to RTE, accept An Post, embrace the EURO, and become totally Irish in this Republic, whilst accepting that their new Capital city is Dublin & not London :eek:

...and its up to us to convince them that this is a good thing.
I'm guessing it might take another few decades before we can convince them to jump ship, and join with us.

A colonial mentality is the internalised attitude of ethnic or cultural inferiority felt by people as a result of colonisation, i.e. them being colonised by another group. It corresponds with the belief that the cultural values of the coloniser are inherently superior to one's own.

Hamsterchops

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The UK as a political entity includes Northern Ireland, hence it can't accept to just "give away a county" unless the whole of Northern Ireland votes to leave the United Kingdom as one region (of the UK).

Currently NI wishes to remain part of the UK, connected to Great Britain in the form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland wishes to leave the UK, then it is free to do so, as laid out in the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Westminster/London/England/Britain have no power to hold onto Northern Ireland, and it only remains part of the UK because the majority of its population (Protestant/Catholic/Unionist & Nationalist) wish it to be so...

The trick is for us persuade the population of Northern Ireland to cut its ties with GB, hence they would have to say goodbye to the NHS (free GP visits, dental appointments, etc), goodbye to the BBC, goodbye to the Royal Mail, Parcel Force, goodbye to the Pound Sterling (GBP), goodby to Britain, goodbye to their British/Northern Irish identity too?

Hello to the Tricolour, hello to the HSE (not so free), Hello to RTE, accept An Post, embrace the EURO, and become totally Irish in this Republic, whilst accepting that their new Capital city is Dublin & not London :eek:

...and its up to us to convince them that this is a good thing.
I'm guessing it might take another few decades before we can convince them to jump ship, and join with us.

Indeed the NHS is a roaring sucess with the coronavirus.:rolleyes: ....

You are aware you can get BBC across the state...postal services likely obsolite inside a generation

Though imo belfast should be capital in a utd ireland,ireland and uk are unique in english speaking world in having the capital in the largest city

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed the NHS is a roaring sucess with the coronavirus.:rolleyes: ....

You are aware you can get BBC across the state...postal services likely obsolite inside a generation

Though imo belfast should be capital in a utd ireland,ireland and uk are unique in english speaking world in having the capital in the largest city

How many people in NI, Scotland and Wales would look on London as their 'capital' anyway. Very few I would imagine.