How long before Irish reunification?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A couple of sentences before or after that statement you were chuckling about sending the AGS into Belfast - World War 111 would ensue you reckoned.

No doubt what you were implying even if you now want to water it down. As I said...there is no halfway house...you are either peaceful or you are not.

So would you imply the same measure to Bloody Sunday marchers? Were they violent?

And I stand by my statement that if the guards tried to patrol loyalist areas they would have to withdraw due to levels of street violence that they have never encountered

maccored

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

So would you imply the same measure to Bloody Sunday marchers? Were they violent?

And I stand by my statement that if the guards tried to patrol loyalist areas they would have to withdraw due to levels of street violence that they have never encountered

without the british army to fund, arm and train the loyalists? big talk.

Good to see though you can see the travesty of bloody sunday for what it was

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

So is that the way we are going to operate. I say something and you choose the antonym that suits your agenda best.
There are many antonyms to peaceful and most would not require anyone to step outside the law to enact. You know quite well from my attitude to the actions of sectarian scumbags like the ira or uvf that I will not be killing my catholic neighbour.

But at least you have clarified that I did not use the term violence or imply violence.

Nope, calling BS, if you're not being peaceful, you are being violent. You did not use the term violence, you heavily implied violence.

You can express your opposition while remaining peaceful, any of the things you are now trying to pretend you meant can be achieved while remaining peaceful. You stated that you would struggle to remain peaceful, so you would struggle to stay within those boundaries.....or in other words, you would potentially respond with violence.

It's always the same song and dance with you though, Downcow. Say it, deny it, twist it.

I'd like some examples of SPECIFIC non-peaceful things you would consider, that are within the bounds of the law. (Considering, 'disturbing the peace' is illegal too, I don't see how anything I would consider non-peaceful could be within the bounds of legality and non-violence)

No one said you were going to start murdering your Catholic neighbours, so drop the grossly exaggerated straw man while you're at it.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So would you imply the same measure to Bloody Sunday marchers? Were they violent? {/QUOTE]

Some marchers were. What is your point?
Will it be okay to shoot you dead in the street if you violently protest?

And I stand by my statement that if the guards tried to patrol loyalist areas they would have to withdraw due to levels of street violence that they have never encountered

And you laughed about it...which implies you endorse it.

About as anti-GFA as you can be.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Nope, calling BS, if you're not being peaceful, you are being violent. You did not use the term violence, you heavily implied violence.

You can express your opposition while remaining peaceful, any of the things you are now trying to pretend you meant can be achieved while remaining peaceful. You stated that you would struggle to remain peaceful, so you would struggle to stay within those boundaries.....or in other words, you would potentially respond with violence.

It's always the same song and dance with you though, Downcow. Say it, deny it, twist it.

I'd like some examples of SPECIFIC non-peaceful things you would consider, that are within the bounds of the law. (Considering, 'disturbing the peace' is illegal too, I don't see how anything I would consider non-peaceful could be within the bounds of legality and non-violence)

No one said you were going to start murdering your Catholic neighbours, so drop the grossly exaggerated straw man while you're at it.

Apart from not answering my question about Bloody Sunday, You are clutching at straws. You are trying to imply I am advocating violence because, in 100s of posts I say once that if this place kicked of f in the way it did before that I couldn’t guarantee to remain peaceful.

If you could guarantee me that if people were attacking your neighbours and family that you could guarantee you would remain peaceful, I would suggest you are a naive fool

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

Apart from not answering my question about Bloody Sunday, You are clutching at straws. You are trying to imply I am advocating violence because, in 100s of posts I say once that if this place kicked of f in the way it did before that I couldn’t guarantee to remain peaceful.

If you could guarantee me that if people were attacking your neighbours and family that you could guarantee you would remain peaceful, I would suggest you are a naive fool

What are you raving on about now, Downcow? You didn't ask me any question about Bloody Sunday.

I didn't mention anything about your advocacy of anything....I stated that you implied that should the GFA be followed and Ireland unified you could potentially turn to violence, because you did imply that. Stop moving the goalposts, despite your demands for a retraction, you're fully aware my post was perfectly accurate. When confronted with the evidence of that, you started the usual twisting and turning.

People did attack my neighbours and my family, Downcow. The government you wish to remain aligned with ignored it at best, and actively covered it up at worst. I remained peaceful. I understand why some people did turn to violence, indeed in the (highly unlikely) circumstance that treatment was visited upon your community post unification, I would understand why some would turn to violence.

You're saying that you would potentially respond in a non-peaceful manner, so if I'm incorrect to infer violence from that, can you please give a straight answer on EXACTLY what you meant? What means of expressing your displeasure at the democratically expressed political positioning of the North would you not be sure you could resist, which could be considered non-peaceful and still legal (your own parameters).

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What are you raving on about now, Downcow? You didn't ask me any question about Bloody Sunday.

I didn't mention anything about your advocacy of anything....I stated that you implied that should the GFA be followed and Ireland unified you could potentially turn to violence, because you did imply that. Stop moving the goalposts, despite your demands for a retraction, you're fully aware my post was perfectly accurate. When confronted with the evidence of that, you started the usual twisting and turning.

People did attack my neighbours and my family, Downcow. The government you wish to remain aligned with ignored it at best, and actively covered it up at worst. I remained peaceful. I understand why some people did turn to violence, indeed in the (highly unlikely) circumstance that treatment was visited upon your community post unification, I would understand why some would turn to violence.

You're saying that you would potentially respond in a non-peaceful manner, so if I'm incorrect to infer violence from that, can you please give a straight answer on EXACTLY what you meant? What means of expressing your displeasure at the democratically expressed political positioning of the North would you not be sure you could resist, which could be considered non-peaceful and still legal (your own parameters).

No you are moving goal posts further. I never suggested that I felt there was any necessity to remain legal. In fact I would advocate breaking the law.
If you want examples
When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression we should defy that, which would obviously mean braking the law and I guess in your view that would be non-peaceful action.
When Irish language was forced in unionist areas then the signs should removed. Again law breaking and non-peaceful.
Etc etc etc. Is that specific enough answers.

Would you suggest that we should just accept what ever the irish majority wanted to foist upon us ?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

No you are moving goal posts further. I never suggested that I felt there was any necessity to remain legal. In fact I would advocate breaking the law.
If you want examples
When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression we should defy that, which would obviously mean braking the law and I guess in your view that would be non-peaceful action.
When Irish language was forced in unionist areas then the signs should removed. Again law breaking and non-peaceful.
Etc etc etc. Is that specific enough answers.

Would you suggest that we should just accept what ever the irish majority wanted to foist upon us ?

Why would the government of Ireland's curtail your rights? What indication have you received that this might happen?

This isn't Craig's Parliament or government.

Get over yourself. And it's so bizarre that you're afraid of a language that your ancestors spoke and that shaped the world in which you live. And in fact gave you your username! You're ridiculous.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

No you are moving goal posts further. I never suggested that I felt there was any necessity to remain legal. In fact I would advocate breaking the law.
If you want examples
When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression we should defy that, which would obviously mean braking the law and I guess in your view that would be non-peaceful action.
When Irish language was forced in unionist areas then the signs should removed. Again law breaking and non-peaceful.
Etc etc etc. Is that specific enough answers.

Would you suggest that we should just accept what ever the irish majority wanted to foist upon us ?

Oh Downcow, you make this so easy. Just today you said

"There are many antonyms to peaceful and most would not require anyone to step outside the law to enact."

I ask for an example that doesnt step outside the law....you rush back to claim you never said anything about remaining legal, and would advocate breaking the law.

Your first example would be non-compliance....a very widely historically used example of PEACEFUL PROTEST, so no, I wouldn't consider it non-peaceful.

As to the second.....damaging or disposing of property which does not belong to you is violent. In what world is criminal damage non-violent?!?

So no, even removing the legal requirement (which you DID suggest first), we still haven't got an example of anything you would do which is not peaceful, but not violent.

I also see you've totally ghosted past your imagined question to me about Bloody Sunday. With your usual tenacity for demanding reactions and apologies, I will of course expect you to retract your statement about me not answering a question, and apologise for it.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Would you suggest that we should just accept what ever the irish majority wanted to foist upon us ?

Given that the above - accepting the wish of the majority - is the very essence of the GFA we can say wirh absolute certainty that you are anti GFA.
You should have sorted this with the Birish gov. at the time. 'It is for the people of Ireland to decide their future'.
That is me and you and all the rest who live here downcow

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would the government of Ireland's curtail your rights? What indication have you received that this might happen?

This isn't Craig's Parliament or government.

Get over yourself. And it's so bizarre that you're afraid of a language that your ancestors spoke and that shaped the world in which you live. And in fact gave you your username! You're ridiculous.

so is it ridiculous Bonnie that many irish people can't tolerate unionist cultural expression in their midst, or is it only ridiculous when unionists struggle with irish expression?

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Oh Downcow, you make this so easy. Just today you said

"There are many antonyms to peaceful and most would not require anyone to step outside the law to enact."

I ask for an example that doesnt step outside the law....you rush back to claim you never said anything about remaining legal, and would advocate breaking the law.

Your first example would be non-compliance....a very widely historically used example of PEACEFUL PROTEST, so no, I wouldn't consider it non-peaceful.

As to the second.....damaging or disposing of property which does not belong to you is violent. In what world is criminal damage non-violent?!?

So no, even removing the legal requirement (which you DID suggest first), we still haven't got an example of anything you would do which is not peaceful, but not violent.

I also see you've totally ghosted past your imagined question to me about Bloody Sunday. With your usual tenacity for demanding reactions and apologies, I will of course expect you to retract your statement about me not answering a question, and apologise for it.

The bloody Sunday question was simple, I am not sure why you are struggling with it. I was asking was the actions of the protesters at bloody Sunday, in your view, peaceful or nonpeaceful, violent or non-violent?

.... And do I hear you clearly, that continuing with band parade, which have been classified as illegal by the state, is your view peaceful non-compliance?
.... And you are also classifying the removal of a sign as violent? And will this mean that when nationalists remove flags which their neighbours have put up on public property, is violent?

We really cant have one law for one and the difference for the other

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

so is it ridiculous Bonnie that many irish people can't tolerate unionist cultural expression in their midst, or is it only ridiculous when unionists struggle with irish expression?

Is triumphalism and sectarianism cultural expression?

Give me an example of particular aspects of culture and cultural expression that are being curtailed or downtrodden in the statelet in which you live?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Given that the above - accepting the wish of the majority - is the very essence of the GFA we can say wirh absolute certainty that you are anti GFA.
You should have sorted this with the Birish gov. at the time. 'It is for the people of Ireland to decide their future'.
That is me and you and all the rest who live here downcow

That may be wishful thinking, but it doesn't make true.

I fully support the GFA, with all its challenges. I am confident that it will never lead to a united Ireland, but rather it build support for Northern Ireland plc. But should you be correct and there is a vote in favour of a united Ireland, then I absolutely accept that the GFA must be implemented.
You seem to then think that that is the end of the story and that unionists have not the right to do in the new Ireland, but nationals have done in Northern Ireland for 100 years.
We are fully within our rights to set up a separatist movement to set our country re-established. And indeed, if we decide as a movement that we only want three counties back, then that is our right.

Are you seriously suggesting that I cannot support GFA and then campaign for a separate state? I believe you have every right, if a united Ireland was formed, and was not who wanted, that you would be fully within your rights to set up a movement for change.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is triumphalism and sectarianism cultural expression?

Give me an example of particular aspects of culture and cultural expression that are being curtailed or downtrodden in the statelet in which you live?

Bonnie, you are a laugh. You have just had a go at me for not answering questions, and you have now just ignored the two concise simple questions I asked you

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

We really Have one law for one and the difference for the other

Inequality is such an ass!

How could anyone live under such disgraceful conditions?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

The bloody Sunday question was simple, I am not sure why you are struggling with it. I was asking was the actions of the protesters at bloody Sunday, in your view, peaceful or nonpeaceful, violent or non-violent?

.... And do I hear you clearly, that continuing with band parade, which have been classified as illegal by the state, is your view peaceful non-compliance?
.... And you are also classifying the removal of a sign as violent? And with this mean that when nationalists remove flags which their neighbours have put up on public property, is violent?

We really Have one law for one and the difference for the other

Can you either point out where you asked ME any question about Bloody Sunday, Downcow.....or retract and apologise for your statement?

Yes.....civil disobedience is not violent. Criminal damage is violent. This isn't a matter of law, both are illegal. It doesnt matter whether you're Nationalist or Unionist, criminal damage is violent and as civil disobedience is by definition non-violent.

To use your specific examples, continuing a band parade which has been deemed illegal - this is entirely possible to do in a peaceful manner. Once it devolves to violence, it is no longer civil disobedience obviously.

A Nationalist removing or damaging their neighbour's flag is criminal damage, so yes....obviously it is violent.

Your low-grade, 'gotcha' attempts aren't going to work with me.

Any examples of something which you would do which is non-peaceful and also non-violent? The examples you have given thusfar are demonstrably incorrect.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Can you either point out where you asked ME any question about Bloody Sunday, Downcow.....or retract and apologise for your statement?

Yes.....civil disobedience is not violent. Criminal damage is violent. This isn't a matter of law, both are illegal. It doesnt matter whether you're Nationalist or Unionist, criminal damage is violent and as civil disobedience is by definition non-violent.

To use your specific examples, continuing a band parade which has been deemed illegal - this is entirely possible to do in a peaceful manner. Once it devolves to violence, it is no longer civil disobedience obviously.

A Nationalist removing or damaging their neighbour's flag is criminal damage, so yes....obviously it is violent.

Your low-grade, 'gotcha' attempts aren't going to work with me.

Any examples of something which you would do which is non-peaceful and also non-violent? The examples you have given thusfar are demonstrably incorrect.

If you are going to be so pedantic as to suggest that whilst in the discussion with you Francie that I have two name each of you on each question I ask, otherwise you'll claim you are not asked the question, well that is just a demonstration of someone under pressure.

So here's the question again

Were Bloody Sunday marchers violent or peaceful? And if I can save us time, as I guess you will suggest some of their actions were peaceful and some more violent, maybe you will tell us at one point they became violent, and that will help me understand where you draw your line.

And obviously there are lots of examples I could seek your advice on, but I am also wondering which you have said that the home crowd that chased Michael Stone down the cemetery violent or peaceful?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

If you are going to be so pedantic as to suggest that whilst in the discussion with you Francie that I have two name each of you on each question I ask, otherwise you'll claim you are not asked the question, well that is just a demonstration of someone under pressure.

So here's the question again

Were Bloody Sunday marchers violent or peaceful? And if I can save us time, as I guess you will suggest some of their actions were peaceful and some more violent, maybe you will tell us at one point they became violent, and that will help me understand where you draw your line.

And obviously there are lots of examples I could seek your advice on, but I am also wondering which you have said that the home crowd that chased Michael Stone down the cemetery violent or peaceful?

There is no again, Downcow. You did not ask me the question, so you can't ask it AGAIN. If you wish to ask me a question, I'd like you to acknowledge your mistake, and apologise for your statement about me avoiding questions. Happy to answer you following that.

For someone who has started an argument entirely based on pedantry, with a demand that I retract and apologise for an entirely accurate statement, I would at least expect you hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That may be wishful thinking, but it doesn't make true.

I fully support the GFA, with all its challenges. I am confident that it will never lead to a united Ireland, but rather it build support for Northern Ireland plc. But should you be correct and there is a vote in favour of a united Ireland, then I absolutely accept that the GFA must be implemented.
You seem to then think that that is the end of the story and that unionists have not the right to do in the new Ireland, but nationals have done in Northern Ireland for 100 years.
We are fully within our rights to set up a separatist movement to set our country re-established. And indeed, if we decide as a movement that we only want three counties back, then that is our right.

Are you seriously suggesting that I cannot support GFA and then campaign for a separate state? I believe you have every right, if a united Ireland was formed, and was not who wanted, that you would be fully within your rights to set up a movement for change.

You can campaign for whatever you want and get it - when a majority say you can have it.

That is democracy. No vetos, no gerrymandering to get the results you want and no sweetheart deals with governments.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can campaign for whatever you want and get it - when a majority say you can have it.

That is democracy. No vetos, no gerrymandering to get the results you want and no sweetheart deals with governments.

I take it then you feel the same about the Catalans ie the only way they should get any independence is if they have a majority in the whole of Spain.
And it’s lucky you didn’t feel like that when 26 counties left Britain without a majority of the British people.
Principals are a real bollocks aren’t they Francie.

And you need to stop answering questions that aren’t directly aimed at you or you will upset fionn’s sensitivities.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I take it then you feel the same about the Catalans ie the only way they should get any independence is if they have a majority in the whole of Spain.
And it’s lucky you didn’t feel like that when 26 counties left Britain without a majority of the British people.
Principals are a real bollocks aren’t they Francie.

And you need to stop answering questions that aren’t directly aimed at you or you will upset fionn’s sensitivities.

Go back...you seem to be confused who you aske about Bloody Sunday. You asked me nd I answered you.

The Catalans and the Irish people at independence were not signed up to a agreement between two sovereign countries called the GFA.

I suggest you spend your weekend reading it as you appear ignorant of it's contents.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

when 26 counties left Britain without a majority of the British people.

You have to join something before you leave. The Irish people never joined Britain including the ones in the north and the British state has never served the interests of the Irish people and indeed was murdering them up until quite recently.

The British aren't a nation. The Irish are a nation.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

Fionn1952 wrote: »

There is no again, Downcow. You did not ask me the question, so you can't ask it AGAIN. If you wish to ask me a question, I'd like you to acknowledge your mistake, and apologise for your statement about me avoiding questions. Happy to answer you following that.

For someone who has started an argument entirely based on pedantry, with a demand that I retract and apologise for an entirely accurate statement, I would at least expect you hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others.

Since you didn't respond last time, Downcow, I'll try again.

eire4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You have to join something before you leave. The Irish people never joined Britain including the ones in the north and the British state has never served the interests of the Irish people and indeed was murdering them up until quite recently.

The British aren't a nation. The Irish are a nation.

The irony is that a Briton or a British person from an ethnic standpoint really refers to the Celts that lived in what today is England before they were largely wiped out by the successive invasions of Romans, followed by Saxon's, Angles and Jutes etc. The Welsh ethnically being the only group of Celtic Britons that survived into modern times in any distinct way.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

BonnieSituation wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

No you are moving goal posts further. I never suggested that I felt there was any necessity to remain legal. In fact I would advocate breaking the law.
If you want examples
When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression we should defy that, which would obviously mean braking the law and I guess in your view that would be non-peaceful action.
When Irish language was forced in unionist areas then the signs should removed. Again law breaking and non-peaceful.
Etc etc etc. Is that specific enough answers.

Would you suggest that we should just accept what ever the irish majority wanted to foist upon us ?

Why would the government of Ireland's curtail your rights? What indication have you received that this might happen?

This isn't Craig's Parliament or government.

Get over yourself. And it's so bizarre that you're afraid of a language that your ancestors spoke and that shaped the world in which you live. And in fact gave you your username! You're ridiculous.

downcow wrote: »

so is it ridiculous Bonnie that many irish people can't tolerate unionist cultural expression in their midst, or is it only ridiculous when unionists struggle with irish expression?

I'm sorry, you stated in the post quoted above that "When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression..."

And I asked a question out straight:
Why would the government of Ireland's curtail your rights? What indication have you received that this might happen?

---

Can you answer this?

Regardless of any individuals' distaste at Unionist or Nationalist cultural expression and the demonstration of same, please tell me where you got the idea that Unionist culture would be downtrodden by the State in a UI?

You didn't just make that up surely?

Any indication that the current Government of Ireland has demonstrated a willingness to assist the cultural destruction of Irish Unionists will do.

It's a pretty straightforward question. Shouldn't take long to answer.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eire4 wrote: »

The irony is that a Briton or a British person from an ethnic standpoint really refers to the Celts that lived in what today is England before they were largely wiped out by the successive invasions of Romans, followed by Saxon's, Angles and Jutes etc. The Welsh ethnically being the only group of Celtic Britons that survived into modern times in any distinct way.

We could also get into the potential irony of the Dalriada coming home during the Ulster Plantation too

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go back...you seem to be confused who you aske about Bloody Sunday. You asked me nd I answered you.

The Catalans and the Irish people at independence were not signed up to a agreement between two sovereign countries called the GFA.

I suggest you spend your weekend reading it as you appear ignorant of it's contents.

We were dealing with the scenario where ireland has been united as laid out in the GFA. The GFA is then gone, irrelevant, done. So why would I read the GFA to see what I might do in your hypothetical UI. That’s rediculous

My question was clear, Do you feel that a people who have lived on the same land for 400 (maybe 1000 years) have now got caught up for whatever reason in a nation they do not want to belong to - having had their own state foe 100 years. Are you saying the in all cases need the majority of the entire nation to agree to allow them to separate?
And I was interested that you consider Catalonia in your answer.

Maybe you could answer that as well fionn

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm sorry, you stated in the post quoted above that "When this new ROI government would curtail our cultural expression..."

And I asked a question out straight:
Why would the government of Ireland's curtail your rights? What indication have you received that this might happen?

---

Can you answer this?

Regardless of any individuals' distaste at Unionist or Nationalist cultural expression and the demonstration of same, please tell me where you got the idea that Unionist culture would be downtrodden by the State in a UI?

You didn't just make that up surely?

Any indication that the current Government of Ireland has demonstrated a willingness to assist the cultural destruction of Irish Unionists will do.

It's a pretty straightforward question. Shouldn't take long to answer.

You’re right bonnie. It doesn’t take a long answer.
There you go https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/26/northernireland.ireland

....and just to save you reading it all, “....Irish police ordered loyalist marchers and their three bands onto buses and made them drive over to the Dail.”

If you want any more examples just let me know

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

We were dealing with the scenario where ireland has been united as laid out in the GFA. The GFA is then gone, irrelevant, done. So why would I read the GFA to see what I might do in your hypothetical UI. That’s rediculous

My question was clear, Do you feel that a people who have lived on the same land for 400 (maybe 1000 years) have now got caught up for whatever reason in a nation they do not want to belong to - having had their own state foe 100 years. Are you saying the in all cases need the majority of the entire nation to agree to allow them to separate?
And I was interested that you consider Catalonia in your answer.

Maybe you could answer that as well fionn

Maybe you could respond to my original request for an apology and retraction before making further demands off me, Downcow.

I'd be quite happy to share my opinion on both Bloody Sunday and the Catalan independence movement should that be forthcoming.

Can you now acknowledge that you made a mistake, did not ask me that question at the point you accused me of avoiding it, and retract and apologise for said accusation?