How long before Irish reunification?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which puts you firmly in an anti-GFA position.
And it is my belief that only a few Unionists are anti-democratic. The vast majority will accept the will of the people and just get on with life. They may not like it but that will be the height of it.

At no point will confrontational, provocative marching be allowed. Frazer was provoking long before that march came to Dublin. He wanted the reaction he got to serve his victimhood - which is remarkably similar to yours.

Well now that should answer a few questions I’ve been asked.

Francie says no provocative marching.
Francie believes OO are provocative
Join the rest of the dots yourselves.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The unique bubble you live in again.

It cost nearly 200,000 just to remove two bonfires that threatened the security of houses and businesses near them a few years ago...nothing whatsoever to do with 'republican intolerance'.

Bizarre that you are blaming republicans for your own community's behaviours.

Oh my goodness. The go to position. Let’s find the most extreme aspect of the culture and paint it all based on that.
I could do exactly the same with any Irish event eg west Belfast festival, gaa, roi football, etc, etc and find an example that is not pretty.

This really is the problem. In your heads Irish is good northern Irish is bad.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well now that should answer a few questions I’ve been asked.

Francie says no provocative marching.
Francie believes OO are provocative
Join the rest of the dots yourselves.

Yes the OO have been provocative in their anti-Catholic stances.
You example of a march in Dublin wasn't an OO march though as far as I remember it was a Love Ulster one.
And I know for definite whether it was an OO one or not hat Fraser was provoking ahead of it. He refused to say whether or not a picture (previously displayed at FAIR marches) of the man who had allegedly bombed Dublin would be displayed by the marchers. He also made other contetntious comments.
Nobody in the main political parties here (including SF) attempted to stop the march by the way.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which puts you firmly in an anti-GFA position.
And it is my belief that only a few Unionists are anti-democratic. The vast majority will accept the will of the people and just get on with life. They may not like it but that will be the height of it.
.

You just don’t get the gfa.
The one bit of genius with it was how it allowed a defeated ira to tell its people that it was a roadmap to a UI.
Gerry said he expected there would be a UI by 2016.
We are over 20 years on and a UI is no closer (indeed NI has been bought into by many nationalists) today than in 1998.
I voted for the gfa and still support the concept.
It’s like have a line in it that if the majority decide to only eat bread and water then we will adhere to that, when we know there is no chance it will happen. And if it did happen then we could work to convince people that we should consider a more enjoyable diet.

It’s the reason unionists would not sign up to Irish language act. Because that would probably happen.

If there was any chance of a UI then why would unionists have signed up to it? That’s a question Francie, Bonnie, fionn, et al

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Oh my goodness. The go to position. Let’s find the most extreme aspect of the culture and paint it all based on that.
I could do exactly the same with any Irish event eg west Belfast festival, gaa, roi football, etc, etc and find an example that is not pretty.

This really is the problem. In your heads Irish is good northern Irish is bad.

No downcow...some of your 'culture' is bad and toxic. And needs to stop. And it is being stopped because systems and bodies have been set up to stop it and to normalise society. If you came out of your bubble you might see that behaviour that costs one service 200,000 to clear up is 'not normal'.

And have no doubts, it won't be allowed in a UI either. You can stop blaming 'republican intolerance' and just accept it is not normal for reasonable society to behave in this way. Moderate Unionism has long ago accepted it...time for you to catch up.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes the OO have been provocative in their anti-Catholic stances.
You example of a march in Dublin wasn't an OO march though as far as I remember it was a Love Ulster one.
And I know for definite whether it was an OO one or not hat Fraser was provoking ahead of it. He refused to say whether or not a picture (previously displayed at FAIR marches) of the man who had allegedly bombed Dublin would be displayed by the marchers. He also made other contetntious comments.
Nobody in the main political parties here (including SF) attempted to stop the march by the way.

Was the Dublin dissident March after death of Lyra Mckee provocative and was it allowed?
Will it only be marches that the majority see as provocative that will be prevented?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You just don’t get the gfa.
The one bit of genius with it was how it allowed a defeated ira to tell its people that it was a roadmap to a UI.
Gerry said he expected there would be a UI by 2016.
We are over 20 years on and a UI is no closer (indeed NI has been bought into by many nationalists) today than in 1998.
I voted for the gfa and still support the concept.
It’s like have a line in it that if the majority decide to only eat bread and water then we will adhere to that, when we know there is no chance it will happen. And if it did happen then we could work to convince people that we should consider a more enjoyable diet.

It’s the reason unionists would not sign up to Irish language act. Because that would probably happen.

If there was any chance of a UI then why would unionists have signed up to it? That’s a question Francie, Bonnie, fionn, et al

Are you trying to suggest that the Unionists were smarter because they didn't get conned?

Jim Molyneaux called the IRA ceasefire that led to the signing of the GFA (Which is an agreement between two governments..not an agreement with Unionists btw) as 'the worst thing that has ever happened to Unionism'...why did he say that?

Because it was. It was the British telling Unionism that it would not defend it's colony/statelet. It was British telling Unionism that they were in a demcoracy from now on.

You can keep saying that a UI will never happen, the facts however show that it is becoming more and more likely as Britain diverges away.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Was the Dublin dissident March after death of Lyra Mckee provocative and was it allowed?
Will it only be marches that the majority see as provocative that will be prevented?

Yes it was allowed because there is no statutory ban on assembly here. It was roundly condemned by the main political party's here and the majority of the public.
Something we see failing to happen (from Unionist politicians) when your 'cultural expression' gets racist, bigoted and hateful.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes it was allowed because there is no statutory ban on assembly here. It was roundly condemned by the main political party's here and the majority of the public.
Something we see failing to happen (from Unionist politicians) when your 'cultural expression' gets racist, bigoted and hateful.

So don’t avoid the question. You said provocative marches would not be allowed when referring to potential restriction on my community. You seem to be saying that does not apply to the dissidents Please explain?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So don’t avoid the question. You said provocative marches would not be allowed when referring to potential restriction on my community. You seem to be saying that does not apply to the dissidents Please explain?

There is no statuary ban on assembly here at the moment. I would think and be supportive of a parades commission to continue it's work in a UI.
In fact I recommended a 10 year moratorium on all marching/display of flags(barring formal state occasions) etc to allow a new society to bed in, in the event of a UI.

FrancieBrady

Just as a point of interest to earlier debates here. This confirms and validates many of the criticisms being made of the early approach of the UK government that threatened our islands health.
No nasty, sick gloating comparisons are necessary,(there were mistakes made here too) just look at what happened in the UK in it's own right. I believe the Guardian is telling a similar story today.

https://archive.is/20200418182037/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

You just don’t get the gfa.
The one bit of genius with it was how it allowed a defeated ira to tell its people that it was a roadmap to a UI.
Gerry said he expected there would be a UI by 2016.
We are over 20 years on and a UI is no closer (indeed NI has been bought into by many nationalists) today than in 1998.
I voted for the gfa and still support the concept.
It’s like have a line in it that if the majority decide to only eat bread and water then we will adhere to that, when we know there is no chance it will happen. And if it did happen then we could work to convince people that we should consider a more enjoyable diet.

It’s the reason unionists would not sign up to Irish language act. Because that would probably happen.

If there was any chance of a UI then why would unionists have signed up to it? That’s a question Francie, Bonnie, fionn, et al

I can only speak from my own experience, and those Unionists I know (actual moderate, tolerant Unionists, not your self proclaimed, 'tolerance') are mostly supportive of democracy.

The Unionists I know personally would PREFER to remain part of the United Kingdom, but don't have the same visceral, irrational fear of everything Irish that you and your ilk hold. They would be of the opinion that Unionism holds a responsibility to persuade those of a Nationalist leaning of the benefits they see of remaining part of the United Kingdom. While they would prefer to remain part of the United Kingdom, they hold a stronger preference for upholding democracy. They support the GFA because of this, and obviously because it ended the PIRA campaign.

The beauty of the GFA isn't that one side wins, Downcow. It takes a particularly twisted mindset to believe that. I've seen this nonsense parroted by extreme ends of both sides. The beauty of the GFA is that it places a responsibility on both sides to persuade people to their perspective via non-violent, democratic means.

From a Nationalist perspective, for the first time there is a pathway formally laid out to achieving their goal of unification. From the Unionist perspective, it shuts down any power that physical force Republicanism holds.

It takes a certain level of blind confidence to predict public sentiment a generation from now. I'd apply that equally to Gerry's prediction as your own. One thing is for sure, the triumphalist, rub themmuns nose in it attitude that you hold won't help your cause.

The insecurity shown by such attitudes always leaves me questioning just who you're trying to convince.

jm08

20-30 years

downcow wrote: »

You asked for a example of when an Irish government curtailed cultural expression. I went straight to one that stands out in my head and posted you a link.
This is a very clear example when the guards, who I regard as working for the Irish government, prevented loyalists completing their legal procession through either an unwillingness or inability to stand up to a small crowd of republican hoods acting illegally. I honesty can’t see why that does not meet the criteria of your request.

FFS, the guards were protecting them from the rioters. There was no way they could go down O'Connell Street as it was basically a building site and our guards don't have the same hardware as the PSNI to sort out riots, as funnily enough, it doesn't happen that much down here. From accounts I've read, the marchers didn't want to go either as they were terrified. My sister happened to be down in the area (visiting a museum) and she couldn't couldn't exercise her right to march home by O'Connell Street either purely because it would not have been safe. The marchers were put on a bus and brought to Leinster House (Irish seat of Government), played their tunes and made their protests. What more could the Irish State have done in the circumstances?


I'd be interested to know what you think of Willie Frazer, the organiser of the parade, now that according to a BBC documentary, he was the quartermaster who distributed assault rifles and rocket launchers to loyalist paramilitaries? A lot of blood on his hands!

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I can only speak from my own experience, and those Unionists I know (actual moderate, tolerant Unionists, not your self proclaimed, 'tolerance') are mostly supportive of democracy.

The Unionists I know personally would PREFER to remain part of the United Kingdom, but don't have the same visceral, irrational fear of everything Irish that you and your ilk hold. They would be of the opinion that Unionism holds a responsibility to persuade those of a Nationalist leaning of the benefits they see of remaining part of the United Kingdom. While they would prefer to remain part of the United Kingdom, they hold a stronger preference for upholding democracy. They support the GFA because of this, and obviously because it ended the PIRA campaign.

The beauty of the GFA isn't that one side wins, Downcow. It takes a particularly twisted mindset to believe that. I've seen this nonsense parroted by extreme ends of both sides. The beauty of the GFA is that it places a responsibility on both sides to persuade people to their perspective via non-violent, democratic means.

From a Nationalist perspective, for the first time there is a pathway formally laid out to achieving their goal of unification. From the Unionist perspective, it shuts down any power that physical force Republicanism holds.

It takes a certain level of blind confidence to predict public sentiment a generation from now. I'd apply that equally to Gerry's prediction as your own. One thing is for sure, the triumphalist, rub themmuns nose in it attitude that you hold won't help your cause.

The insecurity shown by such attitudes always leaves me questioning just who you're trying to convince.

I agree with most of what you say. And whilst I think the gfa was a nail in the coffin of a UI and don’t agree that it ended the pira campaign. The pira campaign was in very serious trouble. There own community were simply tired of it and made all the worse by the growing level of indescriminate loyalist retaliation eg attacks on innocent people in pubs.
Had the pira campaign never have happened I would not be so confident about a UI not happening.
I agree that I have no idea what future generations will decide, and apologies if I said otherwise.
The trend in people’s minds is away from a UI. The younger generation have, in the main, bought into ni more than uk or ireland. That’s why I say I could talk about a united island of two countries. Never thought I would consider that but I realise more and more we cherish ni first and we have such a strong culture and identity that it will survive in uk, a new island or some other arrangement. But, as I am sure people of Roi also feel about joining the uk, we wont be giving up our country to anyone, least of all a state that has wanted to absorb us for generations

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say. And whilst I think the gfa was a nail in the coffin of a UI and don’t agree that it ended the pira campaign. The pira campaign was in very serious trouble. There own community were simply tired of it and made all the worse by the growing level of indescriminate loyalist retaliation eg attacks on innocent people in pubs.
Had the pira campaign never have happened I would not be so confident about a UI not happening.
I agree that I have no idea what future generations will decide, and apologies if I said otherwise.
The trend in people’s minds is away from a UI. The younger generation have, in the main, bought into ni more than uk or ireland. That’s why I say I could talk about a united island of two countries. Never thought I would consider that but I realise more and more we cherish ni first and we have such a strong culture and identity that it will survive in uk, a new island or some other arrangement. But, as I am sure people of Roi also feel about joining the uk, we wont be giving up our country to anyone, least of all a state that has wanted to absorb us for generations

Define this 'strong NI culture and identity' how is it distinct from the culture and identity that others on the island have?

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

FFS, the guards were protecting them from the rioters. There was no way they could go down O'Connell Street as it was basically a building site and our guards don't have the same hardware as the PSNI to sort out riots, as funnily enough, it doesn't happen that much down here. From accounts I've read, the marchers didn't want to go either as they were terrified. My sister happened to be down in the area (visiting a museum) and she couldn't couldn't exercise her right to march home by O'Connell Street either purely because it would not have been safe. The marchers were put on a bus and brought to Leinster House (Irish seat of Government), played their tunes and made their protests. What more could the Irish State have done in the circumstances?


I'd be interested to know what you think of Willie Frazer, the organiser of the parade, now that according to a BBC documentary, he was the quartermaster who distributed assault rifles and rocket launchers to loyalist paramilitaries? A lot of blood on his hands!

Well for whatever reason republicans right to march was upheld and loyalists wasn’t. We could argue all day about the reasons.

I would be really honest about how I feel about Willie Frazer but I fear a few on here will be wanting to latch on to every word is say and twist it to suit their agendas so there is not much room for real honesty on here But anyhow I’ll have a go and probably just ignore the disengenuous reply’s.

I have met willie several times. Always taking international visiting groups or local cross community groups to meet him. So I don’t know him outside that.

He always treated me and other visitors with total respect. And I brought him a very wide range of visitors including a SF mla (the first and I guess only one to sit in his office).

Just my take (apologies Willie if I am way off the mark)
Willie was hurting and that hurt was directed into anger. He took us on tours around his local area. Absolutely devastating stories of lives ruined, families destroyed, murder and torture. So intense in a small area that you could not help but be desperately moved. My heart went out to him and his people. I had empathy from experiencing the sectarian onslaught on my local community, but this was it multiplied by 10.
He covered the terrible hurt up with anger and courage that extended to almost a death wish.
His story goes back to being abused as a kid, day and daily because of his religion. Eg coming home from school and being stopped by the local lads who forced him to sing the sash and then through him in a thorn hedge. Through to family members being murdered by some of those same people as adults. I think 7 of his family were murdered.
I like him. He spoke to my feelings of welled up hurt that had developed into bitter sectarianism in me.
He took risks for me, and crossed some lines that he thought he couldn’t. eg sf in his office and other republicans and I always told him in advance who I was bringing (with their permission).
I wanted so much to help him journey to a better place and regret I didn’t devote energy to it.
(My view). He was a good man, a very good man. He was good craic and humorous. He was quite shy and not over confident. He was mannerly and respectful to all my guests, always. And he was very very angry with the ira.
I believe he had PTSD. Well he couldn’t not have it.

With regard to recent accusations. I honestly don’t know. Lots of people in this country moved guns about and had blood on their hands.
Several republicans on here hold paisley in esteem. I’ve met him to and id rather have a dialogue with willie any day of the week for integrity, honesty, etc

On many occasions some of the international guest were openly crying as he told his story. I would have visited every group imaginable with these groups and the visit to willie’s was by some distance the most shocking for people (or maybe that was my prejudiced wishful thinking,who knows)

I if I be really honest I was proud that he was one of my people and had became a friend of sorts.

Rest easy Willie.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

downcow wrote: »

Well for whatever reason republicans right to march was upheld and loyalists wasn’t. We could argue all day about the reasons.

I would be really honest about how I feel about Willie Frazer but I fear a few on here will be wanting to latch on to every word is say and twist it to suit their agendas so there is not much room for real honesty on here But anyhow I’ll have a go and probably just ignore the disengenuous reply’s.

I have met willie several times. Always taking international visiting groups or local cross community groups to meet him. So I don’t know him outside that.

He always treated me and other visitors with total respect. And I brought him a very wide range of visitors including a SF mla (the first and I guess only one to sit in his office).

Just my take (apologies Willie if I am way off the mark)
Willie was hurting and that hurt was directed into anger. He took us on tours around his local area. Absolutely devastating stories of lives ruined, families destroyed, murder and torture. So intense in a small area that you could not help but be desperately moved. My heart went out to him and his people. I had empathy from experiencing the sectarian onslaught on my local community, but this was it multiplied by 10.
He covered the terrible hurt up with anger and courage that extended to almost a death wish.
His story goes back to being abused as a kid, day and daily because of his religion. Eg coming home from school and being stopped by the local lads who forced him to sing the sash and then through him in a thorn hedge. Through to family members being murdered by some of those same people as adults. I think 7 of his family were murdered.
I like him. He spoke to my feelings of welled up hurt that had developed into bitter sectarianism in me.
He took risks for me, and crossed some lines that he thought he couldn’t. eg sf in his office and other republicans and I always told him in advance who I was bringing (with their permission).
I wanted so much to help him journey to a better place and regret I didn’t devote energy to it.
(My view). He was a good man, a very good man. He was good craic and humorous. He was quite shy and not over confident. He was mannerly and respectful to all my guests, always. And he was very very angry with the ira.
I believe he had PTSD. Well he couldn’t not have it.

With regard to recent accusations. I honestly don’t know. Lots of people in this country moved guns about and had blood on their hands.
Several republicans on here hold paisley in esteem. I’ve met him to and id rather have a dialogue with willie any day of the week for integrity, honesty, etc

On many occasions some of the international guest were openly crying as he told his story. I would have visited every group imaginable with these groups and the visit to willie’s was by some distance the most shocking for people (or maybe that was my prejudiced wishful thinking,who knows)

I if I be really honest I was proud that he was one of my people and had became a friend of sorts.

Rest easy Willie.

While I can understand your feelings from this post Downcow, you seem to be tip-toeing around acknowledging any responsibility that Willie Frazer had for his own actions and wish to paint him as a victim of circumstance, and all his wrongdoing can be waved off by, 'but themmuns'.

Yet I doubt you would apply the same standard to someone eulogising Martin McGuinness, for example - much of the same, 'victim of circumstance' logic can be applied to where his life led him.

Perhaps reflecting on this will give you pause for thought and allow you to gain some understanding (even if you don't approve) of how some people from a Nationalist perspective wish to remember flawed people whom they knew a side of that perhaps you didn't?

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

While I can understand your feelings from this post Downcow, you seem to be tip-toeing around acknowledging any responsibility that Willie Frazer had for his own actions and wish to paint him as a victim of circumstance, and all his wrongdoing can be waved off by, 'but themmuns'.

Yet I doubt you would apply the same standard to someone eulogising Martin McGuinness, for example - much of the same, 'victim of circumstance' logic can be applied to where his life led him.

Perhaps reflecting on this will give you pause for thought and allow you to gain some understanding (even if you don't approve) of how some people from a Nationalist perspective wish to remember flawed people whom they knew a side of that perhaps you didn't?

I have never had a problem (well at least once I got out of the cauldron of the sectarian threat.
I can respect republicans. I have had the pleasure of meeting Laurence McKeown several time a true gent, very respectful. I didn’t need him to say sorry for anything even though it was just ‘bad luck’ that prevented him killing members of my community.
It’s posters on here that seem to like to place loyalist paramilitaries as drug dealing scumbags but hold there own up as saints.
And awful lot on both sides done stuff that was beyond the pail, others were misguided and you can see the decent person behind it.

I am not eulogising Willie. I am simply understanding how I could easily have been like him if exposed to the horrors and the opportunities. And I don’t know what he is guilty of if anything.

He is painted as the awful man and yet if I was to start about bobby sands being an lowlife and and armed robber people would get hot under the collars.
Interestingly sands grew up in rathcoole and I can imagine he suffered a fair bit of sectarian **** as well.

It’s a complicated place with a complicated past.

I would love many more in my own community to take some community responsibility for what went on. But I despair at some of the attitudes on here of eg the ‘gaa are fine, I know a prod plays gaa, sure it’s open to everyone etc etc ‘

So in short. I don’t agree with anyone publicly eulogising m mcg, Bobby sands or willie. I have no problem with people quietly remembering them in a respectful manner. But if a mla or MEP of any party I supported danced in the street and chant ‘U U UVF’ I would be disgusted as there is too much hurt out there. Yet it baffles me why Sinn Fein voters don’t care about the hurt of their neighbours.
Can you help me understand that. Eg MEP chant up the ra?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have never had a problem (well at least once I got out of the cauldron of the sectarian threat.
I can respect republicans. I have had the pleasure of meeting Laurence McKeown several time a true gent, very respectful. I didn’t need him to say sorry for anything even though it was just ‘bad luck’ that prevented him killing members of my community.
It’s posters on here that seem to like to place loyalist paramilitaries as drug dealing scumbags but hold there own up as saints.
And awful lot on both sides done stuff that was beyond the pail, others were misguided and you can see the decent person behind it.

I am not eulogising Willie. I am simply understanding how I could easily have been like him if exposed to the horrors and the opportunities. And I don’t know what he is guilty of if anything.

He is painted as the awful man and yet if I was to start about bobby sands being an lowlife and and armed robber people would get hot under the collars.
Interestingly sands grew up in rathcoole and I can imagine he suffered a fair bit of sectarian **** as well.

It’s a complicated place with a complicated past.

I would love many more in my own community to take some community responsibility for what went on. But I despair at some of the attitudes on here of eg the ‘gaa are fine, I know a prod plays gaa, sure it’s open to everyone etc etc ‘

So in short. I don’t agree with anyone publicly eulogising m mcg, Bobby sands or willie. I have no problem with people quietly remembering them in a respectful manner. But if a mla or MEP of any party I supported danced in the street and chant ‘U U UVF’ I would be disgusted as there is too much hurt out there. Yet it baffles me why Sinn Fein voters don’t care about the hurt of their neighbours.
Can you help me understand that. Eg MEP chant up the ra?

Again, inside a little bubble of victimhood.

You do know what the 12th of July celebrates? You do know what Carson was to republicans? You do know that the British flag can be seen as the flag of an invading oppressor?

Eulogising...republicans are in the halfpenny place there. Unbelievable.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, inside a little bubble of victimhood.

You do know what the 12th of July celebrates? You do know what Carson was to republicans? You do know that the British flag can be seen as the flag of an invading oppressor?

Eulogising...republicans are in the halfpenny place there. Unbelievable.

My question was.
If a unionist MEP danced on the spot a 2 year old catholic had been killed by the UVF and a few mins later on a platform in a main town square, chanted U U UVF, I can assure you I and most other unionist would never vote for her again.
I am trying to understand why this does not repulse SF voters and they seem quite happy with their MEP behaving like that?

And let’s not go of on the things my community have got wrong. I’ll deal with them another time.

Just help me understand why this is ok?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

My question was.
If a unionist MEP danced on the spot a 2 year old catholic had been killed by the UVF and a few mins later on a platform in a main town square, chanted U U UVF, I can assure you I and most other unionist would never vote for her again.
I am trying to understand why this does not repulse SF voters and they seem quite happy with their MEP behaving like that?

And let’s not go of on the things my community have got wrong. I’ll deal with them another time.

Just help me understand why this is ok?

If you dont understand why after years of being the leaders of a sectarian bigoted statelet and all that means or after centuries of a triumphalist OO and all it stood for then again it obvious you have a longer way to come than most unionists.
The reason it happens is quite simply that the people who say it contrary to your view that the IRA were defeated- believe the IRA won them freedom from that bigotry and oppression.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you dont understand why after years of being the leaders of a sectarian bigoted statelet and all that means or after centuries of a triumphalist OO and all it stood for then again it obvious you have a longer way to come than most unionists.
The reason it happens is quite simply that the people who say it contrary to your view that the IRA were defeated- believe the IRA won them freedom from that bigotry and oppression.

That doesn't deal with the question. I still don't get it Francie

My question was.
If a unionist MEP danced on the spot a 2 year old catholic who had been killed by the UVF and then, a few mins later, on a platform in a main town square, chanted U U UVF, I can assure you I and most other unionist would never vote for her again.
I am trying to understand why this does not repulse SF voters and they seem quite happy with their MEP behaving like that? ....and we are talking in the past year here - not some distant stuff about Carson

Just help me understand why this is ok?

maybe a better equivalence for you is if a unionist MEP stood on a platform at the Guildhall, having just danced along the Bogside, and chanted, Up The Paras. The Unionist electorate would ensure they were never in office again

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That doesn't deal with the question. I still don't get it Francie

My question was.
If a unionist MEP danced on the spot a 2 year old catholic who had been killed by the UVF and then, a few mins later, on a platform in a main town square, chanted U U UVF, I can assure you I and most other unionist would never vote for her again.
I am trying to understand why this does not repulse SF voters and they seem quite happy with their MEP behaving like that? ....and we are talking in the past year here - not some distant stuff about Carson
Just help me understand why this is ok?

Because the UVF were almost exclusively reactionary sectarian killers many of whom indulges in sadistic arbitrary, indiscriminate killing? They also achieved nothing as the the bigoted statelet they were 'defending' is gone and the Unionist veto with it?

Try and work it out for yourself...I have done my best.

maybe a better equivalence for you is if a unionist MEP stood on a platform at the Guildhall, having just danced along the Bogside, and chanted, Up The Paras. The Unionist electorate would ensure they were never in office again

Unionists have done the equivalent of that. And the core of your 'cultural expression'...what is that based on again, a victory over 'themuns' in 16fecking90.

You are a bit of a joke at this stage.

FrancieBrady

Are we going to get an answer to this at all?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113204850&postcount=7366

Define this 'strong NI culture and identity' how is it distinct from the culture and identity that others on the island have?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

downcow wrote: »

Several republicans on here hold paisley in esteem.

Paisley was a mad bastard and is probably the individual who carries the most blame for igniting the Troubles. He was a rotten coward too who whipped people into a frenzy and then slithered off like the lowlife he was when Catholics got beaten and murdered by those he inspired.

I can't understand why nobody has written an honest biography of Paisley holding him to account for his relentless hate-mongering and sabotaging of any move towards compromise.

There you go, a bit of balance.

eire4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Paisley was a mad bastard and is probably the individual who carries the most blame for igniting the Troubles. He was a rotten coward too who whipped people into a frenzy and then slithered off like the lowlife he was when Catholics got beaten and murdered by those he inspired.

I can't understand why nobody has written an honest biography of Paisley holding him to account for his relentless hate-mongering and sabotaging of any move towards compromise.

There you go, a bit of balance.

He certainly must take a good portion of the blame for igniting the tinder that was there no question. A text book demagogue.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because the UVF were almost exclusively reactionary sectarian killers many of whom indulges in sadistic arbitrary, indiscriminate killing? They also achieved nothing as the the bigoted statelet they were 'defending' is gone and the Unionist veto with it?

Try and work it out for yourself...I have done my best.



Unionists have done the equivalent of that. And the core of your 'cultural expression'...what is that based on again, a victory over 'themuns' in 16fecking90.

You are a bit of a joke at this stage.

Francie. You have sanitised the ira role.
Could you answer something for me without any whataboutery.
Do you accept.
The ira devastated communities like mine
They tourtured and murdered, often taking 3 days to kill their captives slowly - these were members of my community whether they wore a uniform part time or not.
They ensured my town has basically no Protestants left through a sectarian bombing and murder campaign. Replicated in many towns and villages across the north.
They were massively infiltrated by informers and agents Some of these very people were policing the organisation and torturing and killing their own ‘innocent members’ for being ‘informers’
They abused power and many of their ‘top men’ now have fortunes amassed.
Oh I’ll stop now but I could go on.

Which of the above do you accept and which do you reject?. So as I’ll know which to provide you evidence for.

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Paisley was a mad bastard and is probably the individual who carries the most blame for igniting the Troubles. He was a rotten coward too who whipped people into a frenzy and then slithered off like the lowlife he was when Catholics got beaten and murdered by those he inspired.

I can't understand why nobody has written an honest biography of Paisley holding him to account for his relentless hate-mongering and sabotaging of any move towards compromise.

There you go, a bit of balance.

I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying. But he seems to have sucked in a lot of republicans that were drunk on power like himself

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie. You have sanitised the ira role.
Could you answer something for me without any whataboutery.
Do you accept.
The ira devastated communities like mine
They tourtured and murdered, often taking 3 days to kill their captives slowly - these were members of my community whether the my wore a uniform part time or not.
They ensured my town has basically no Protestants left through a sectarian bombing and murder campaign. Replicated in many towns and villages across the north.
They were massively infiltrated by informers and agents Some of these very people were policing the organisation and torturing and killing their own ‘innocent members’ for being ‘informers’
They abused power and many of their ‘top men’ now have fortunes amassed.
Oh I’ll stop now but I could go on.

Which of the above do you accept and which do you reject?. So as I’ll know which to provide you evidence for.

And the usual deflection when you can't get anymore mileage out of your current victimhood.

All the above was dealt with on the thread. I haven't 'sanitised' a single thing. It was all awful, tragic, sad and wrong. It should never have happened nor let happen.

It was a full blown conflict/war and there isn't a single one of those in history that didn't involve two sides.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the usual deflection when you can't get anymore mileage out of your current victimhood.

All the above was dealt with on the thread. I haven't 'sanitised' a single thing. It was all awful, tragic, sad and wrong. It should never have happened nor let happen.

It was a full blown conflict/war and there isn't a single one of those in history that didn't involve two sides.

Agreed