How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

My mistake, I thought you had said that she was from the North, no idea why I had that in my head.

That's an odd one though; very few in Drogheda who wouldn't have at least heard the term....a fair few people who went on the run across the border ended up settling in Dundalk and Drogheda. Being a border county, generally the people there would be a bit more exposed to events in the North than people further South too.

What sort of age was herself when she moved across to the UK? I could understand if she moved as a child, but genuinely it's perplexing to think someone could grow to adulthood along the border during the Troubles and never once hear the term Taig. It would be used in Scotland as well, particularly Glasgow (as I'm sure you could've guessed!).

Her family moved here in the 60s,she was about eight which perhaps explains it..The only thing that used to rile her mother was any talk of Cromwell!
I'd never heard it although I had heard 'fenian'.
Despite my hopes that the UK remains united I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't be depending on her for information Rob in fairness. If someone in Drogheda doesn't know what a 'taig' is they have no interest in the north or Irish history I would wager.

You're probably right francie,as I said she moved here quite young.Some of her family members are more nationalistic though.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Her family moved here in the 60s,she was about eight which perhaps explains it..The only thing that used to rile her mother was any talk of Cromwell!
I'd never heard it although I had heard 'fenian'.
Despite my hopes that the UK remains united I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs.

While sentiment for Cromwell is FAR from positive across Ireland, they do take a particular dislike for him in Drogheda. If your mother-in-law hasn't told you about it, I'd recommend reading up on The Seige of Drogheda, a particularly brutal action, even by Cromwell's standards.

If your partner moved to the UK at 8, it would explain it alright. If she moved there in the 60s, she has about as much experience with The Troubles as you do (fortunately for her). I'd still vouch that your mother-in-law would've been familiar with the term though.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It's the state forces atrocities that many of your community have trouble condemning. The whole Soldier F fiasco is perfect evidence of this, Downcow.

The man is accused of murder, there is significant evidence of this.....but rather than acknowledging the absolute injustice that is the protection the likes of this man received, the whataboutery starts, the claims of a witch hunt start, the pseudo-sympathetic, 'old man' talk starts, the, 'just following orders' (where have we heard that before?) starts. ANYTHING to deflect and acknowledge that STATE FORCES carried out actions that were just as bad as either of the paramilitary groups on either side.

Ignoring the Nationalist/Unionist question for a second.....don't you think the state should be held to a higher standard than terrorists?

You tend to jab at Francie for this regularly, but I've seen him unequivocally condemn ALL violence.....yours always seems to be tinged with the view that the British troops and RUC were always, 'the good guys'.

I have no issue whatsoever with calling out the likes of the Enniskillen bombing as completely wrong - I use this as an example because of how close to home it was, not to portray any other specific incidents as right. I don't accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was specifically because the victims were Protestants - I would absolutely accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was because the victims were from a Unionist background, and those from a Unionist background were indeed largely Protestant. By and large, I don't believe their Protestantism was a significant motivating factor, but rather their political leanings.

To be clear, this is an analysis, not a justification, and should not be taken as a statement of support, as I'm aware you're occasionally fond of doing so.

I am not sure what you are accusing me off.
No I don’t condemn all violence. That’s just to easy and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s much more challenging to be honest and rank it’s wrongfulness.
I certainly won’t condemn the woman who sticks the kitchen knife in the long-term abusive husband who is raping her. But I will condemn the horrendous murder of Jean mcconville which your great leader organised. It is all on a continuum. A little handy and simplistic to condemn all violence.

Talking about Francie. He tries to label my whole community and their 12th festival with the actions at a tiny minority of 11th bonfires. I wouldn’t dare make that link with the behaviour at republican bonfires. We now see it year after year, taunting victims, threatening neighbours, burning flags - and here’s the latest from last night https://mobile.twitter.com/Gary_Middleton/status/1294393736181559296

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It's the state forces atrocities that many of your community have trouble condemning. The whole Soldier F fiasco is perfect evidence of this, Downcow.

The man is accused of murder, there is significant evidence of this.....but rather than acknowledging the absolute injustice that is the protection the likes of this man received, the whataboutery starts, the claims of a witch hunt start, the pseudo-sympathetic, 'old man' talk starts, the, 'just following orders' (where have we heard that before?) starts. ANYTHING to deflect and acknowledge that STATE FORCES carried out actions that were just as bad as either of the paramilitary groups on either side.

Ignoring the Nationalist/Unionist question for a second.....don't you think the state should be held to a higher standard than terrorists?

You tend to jab at Francie for this regularly, but I've seen him unequivocally condemn ALL violence.....yours always seems to be tinged with the view that the British troops and RUC were always, 'the good guys'.

I have no issue whatsoever with calling out the likes of the Enniskillen bombing as completely wrong - I use this as an example because of how close to home it was, not to portray any other specific incidents as right. I don't accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was specifically because the victims were Protestants - I would absolutely accept that a significant amount of IRA violence was because the victims were from a Unionist background, and those from a Unionist background were indeed largely Protestant. By and large, I don't believe their Protestantism was a significant motivating factor, but rather their political leanings.

To be clear, this is an analysis, not a justification, and should not be taken as a statement of support, as I'm aware you're occasionally fond of doing so.

I won’t accuse you of justifying the killing of my community but you are certainly dancing on the head of a pin

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't need to tell me that many Unionists accept that terrible things were done. Every Unionist I know and have worked with accepts that, they are moderate decent Unionists.
If the IRA killed for sectarian reasons (and they did) I accepted that long ago, as they did. Read any of their statements since the GFA dealing with it.

Despicable use of a genuine post by a victims group to try and earn kudos downcow.

So Francie, if you are not talking nonsense again then this is very helpful - so where is the link to the statement from the ira saying they were sectarian killers? That would be a gamechanger- or maybe you are just making it up????

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

I can't wait to hear you condemn Willie Frazer and not make excuses that he was bullied in his youth (which is a complete fabrication), or making excuses that the Quinn boys murder wasn't sectarian, but all the fault of their supposedly drug dealing uncle and mother's protestant boyfriend.

I fully and unequivocally condemn any crimes Willie Frazer carried out in the name of loyalism and in particular sectarian crimes against his catholic fellow countrymen. Is that clear enough for you? Could you now do the same with regard to bobby sands?

As for the horrific killing of the Quinn boys.
Will you confirm that they were being raised as Protestants, going to an exclusively Protestant school, attending an exclusively Protestant youth club, helped every year to collect wood for the bonfire, were at the bonfire a few hours before their house was attacked, were intending to go to the 12th parade next day. .(....and we’ll not even go into the drug dealing and convictions of those close to them)
A strange ‘sectarian’ killing if so-called prods done it. Wouldn’t you think?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So Francie, if you are not talking nonsense again then this is very helpful - so where is the link to the statement from the ira saying they were sectarian killers? That would be a gamechanger- or maybe you are just making it up????

Why would they apologise for being 'sectarian killers' when they weren't.
2002, the IRA issued an apology for all the deaths of innocents they had caused, catholic and protestant, young and old, sectarian and not sectarian.

You'll notice they didn't 'select' victims, they apologised for all.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira160702.htm

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Talking about Francie. He tries to label my whole community and their 12th festival with the actions at a tiny minority of 11th bonfires. I wouldn’t dare make that link with the behaviour at republican bonfires. We now see it year after year, taunting victims, threatening neighbours, burning flags - and here’s the latest from last night https://mobile.twitter.com/Gary_Middleton/status/1294393736181559296

What has you community leadership being doing to stamp out displays like this downcow?

They have been fighting tooth and nail with the body set up to try to stamp it out...that is what it has been doing.

Sinn Fein condemn these bonfires unequivocally...which is something we rarely hear from your community leaders.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/derry-bonfire-with-names-of-murdered-policemen-condemned-1.3598141

What we see is your politicians at these bonfires and posing for photos and demanding that they be allowed to happen.
We see and hear them at police barricades demanding the right to march where they are not wanted.

timthumbni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sinn Fein condemn these bonfires unequivocally....

I though sf weren’t into the politics of condemnation. They certainly weren’t into condemning any of the cowardly murders by the totally unconnected IRA. Odd that.

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

I though sf weren’t into the politics of condemnation. They certainly weren’t into condemning any of the cowardly murders by the totally unconnected IRA. Odd that.

You need to understand the phrase 'the politics of condemnation' Tim.

You engage in that when you are actually responsible for acts while condemning similar acts by others.

Sinn Fein have nothing to do with these bonfires afaik. If you have info that they are you need to show it. Because I can show you pics of DUP people at sectarian bonfires



and DUP politicians welcoming the police being forced from intervening to stop them.

DUP councillor George Dorrian said the decision not to remove the bonfire was sensible given that no contractors were available to remove it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-48947349

Also, review the history of engagement with the Parades Commission by the Orange Order - there is next to none...so it won't take you long.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I fully and unequivocally condemn any crimes Willie Frazer carried out in the name of loyalism and in particular sectarian crimes against his catholic fellow countrymen. Is that clear enough for you? Could you now do the same with regard to bobby sands?

Bobby Sands got 14 years imprisonment for possession of a revolver!

Willie Frazer got off scott free. Even though it was known what he was up to by the security forces, we had to let that terrorist march down our main street.

As for the horrific killing of the Quinn boys.

Will you confirm that they were being raised as Protestants, going to an exclusively Protestant school, attending an exclusively Protestant youth club, helped every year to collect wood for the bonfire, were at the bonfire a few hours before their house was attacked, were intending to go to the 12th parade next day. .(....and we’ll not even go into the drug dealing and convictions of those close to them)
A strange ‘sectarian’ killing if so-called prods done it. Wouldn’t you think?

1. I couldn't find any convictions of drug dealing by any of the boys relatives. Perhaps you might give me a link to what you found.



2. Your point about them being brought up as protestants just goes to confirm that no matter what catholics did, they would not be accepted by protestant loyalists and they would always be outsiders.



3. I'd guess Rory McIlroy had a similar experience and why he sold up and got the hell out of Northern Ireland.

timthumbni

jm08 wrote: »

Bobby Sands got 14 years imprisonment for possession of a revolver!

Willie Frazer got off scott free. Even though it was known what he was up to by the security forces, we had to let that terrorist march down our main street.


Lots of republican terrorists got off Scot free too as you put it. Would you consider sands as a terrorist btw or would that just be for the loyalists?

jm08

timthumbni wrote: »

Lots of republican terrorists got off Scot free too as you put it. Would you consider sands as a terrorist btw or would that just be for the loyalists?

Willie Frazer was travelling the roads of NI for 30 years distributing assault guns and rocket launchers to loyalists terrorists who killed 70 people. Somehow the British security forces didn't know this and if they did, they did nothing about it.

Frazer didn't spend a day in prison unlike Bobby Sands who got 14 years for possession of a revolver and died in prison. At least he had principles.

How is anyone surprised that the PIRA got nationalist support when the British Security Forces acted the way they did?

Thats a question to you Timthumb? Can you answer it?

timthumbni

jm08 wrote: »

Willie Frazer was travelling the roads of NI for 30 years distributing assault guns and rocket launchers to loyalists terrorists who killed 70 people. Somehow the British security forces didn't know this and if they did, they did nothing about it.

Frazer didn't spend a day in prison unlike Bobby Sands who got 14 years for possession of a revolver and died in prison. At least he had principles.

How is anyone surprised that the PIRA got nationalist support when the British Security Forces acted the way they did?

Thats a question to you Timthumb? Can you answer it?

You first. I ask again would you consider sands to be a terrorist or is that term only used by you to describe loyalists? It’s a very simple question. I don’t need to be side tracked into discussing his supposed “principles”

FrancieBrady

timthumbni wrote: »

You first. I ask again would you consider sands to be a terrorist or is that term only used by you to describe loyalists? It’s a very simple question. I don’t need to be side tracked into discussing his supposed “principles”

A 'terrorist' is one who uses terror to subdue or to get their way. The term is redundant in a context like NI not to mention any conflict/war scenario, as all sides 'terrorised' the other side.

jm08

timthumbni wrote: »

You first. I ask again would you consider sands to be a terrorist or is that term only used by you to describe loyalists? It’s a very simple question. I don’t need to be side tracked into discussing his supposed “principles”

Bobby Sands didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism, so I'm not sure you can call him a terrorist. I'd refer to him as a paramilitary.


You can't just forget their motives or principles when deciding whether they were a terrorist or not. For example, the PIRA's targets were State Security Forces and were considered as legitimate targets by them.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

Bobby Sands didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism, so I'm not sure you can call him a terrorist. I'd refer to him as a paramilitary.


You can't just forget their motives or principles when deciding whether they were a terrorist or not. For example, the PIRA's targets were State Security Forces and were considered as legitimate targets by them.

So how do three and twelve year old children count as legitimate state security forces in Warrington?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

So how do three and twelve year old children count as legitimate state security forces in Warrington?

The 'security forces' of which one part - the British Army - killed 18 children and many many innocents ?

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

So how do three and twelve year old children count as legitimate state security forces in Warrington?

They were not the targets. They would be termed by the PIRA as collatoral damage, just like what the British Security Forces say.

The PIRA would usually apologise for instances like this, but the British Government tend to pretend it didn't happen.

Edit: From what I know, Bobby Sands was not involved in any attacks like Warrington. (I was asked why Bobby Sands wasn't a terrorist).

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

They were not the targets. They would be termed by the PIRA as collatoral damage, just like what the British Security Forces say.

The PIRA would usually apologise for instances like this, but the British Government tend to pretend it didn't happen.

Edit: From what I know, Bobby Sands was not involved in any attacks like Warrington. (I was asked why Bobby Sands wasn't a terrorist).

As the Warrington bombs were left outside argos and boots in a shopping area,in steel bins to cause maximum injuries,who or what would have been the 'legitimate' targets?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings#Second_attack

downcow

timthumbni wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

Bobby Sands got 14 years imprisonment for possession of a revolver!

Willie Frazer got off scott free. Even though it was known what he was up to by the security forces, we had to let that terrorist march down our main street.


Lots of republican terrorists got off Scot free too as you put it. Would you consider sands as a terrorist btw or would that just be for the loyalists?

A very good question Tim. We'll see now whether Francie is a hypocrite or not

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

Bobby Sands didn't actually commit any acts of terrorism, so I'm not sure you can call him a terrorist. I'd refer to him as a paramilitary.


You can't just forget their motives or principles when deciding whether they were a terrorist or not. For example, the PIRA's targets were State Security Forces and were considered as legitimate targets by them.

JM08 this is where all your arguments fall flat on her face. To suggest PIRA's targets were State Security Forces - well I think we all know the nonsense that that is. Do you want me to make me list the endless atrocities carried out against people and businesses which were purely sectarian, not to mention the IRA campaign to drive protestant from areas they dominated. I view you with sad dismay you if really believe what you are saying

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'security forces' of which one part - the British Army - killed 18 children and many many innocents ?

There is your answer Rob. That is the reason the IRA killed dozens upon dozens of children!

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

They were not the targets. They would be termed by the PIRA as collatoral damage, just like what the British Security Forces say.

The PIRA would usually apologise for instances like this, but the British Government tend to pretend it didn't happen.

Edit: From what I know, Bobby Sands was not involved in any attacks like Warrington. (I was asked why Bobby Sands wasn't a terrorist).

Have you some inside knowledge to know what crimes bobby Sands committed? You are quoting the only one he got convicted for. So he had no part in all the horrendous sectarian crimes that the IRA were committing in Belfast while he was an operator? Pull the other one.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

As the Warrington bombs were left outside argos and boots in a shopping area,in steel bins to cause maximum injuries,who or what would have been the 'legitimate' targets?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings#Second_attack

An IRA spokesman, in an interview in Belfast, said two clear warnings of the bombs had been given, but on this and other occasions police had carried out a policy of not acting in time.

Asked what he felt about the death of three-year-old Johnathan Ball, he said: 'Horror. Exactly the same emotion as went through the minds of the volunteers who planted the bombs. I am furious that there are those within the British authorities who have played this cynical game for almost 12 months.'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ira-insists-warrington-bomb-alerts-were-given-terrorists-fear-loss-of-support-1499306.html


Its not the first time that the British Security Forces have ignored warnings like these or planned attacks on civilians to help their greater good - i.e., Dublin-Monaghan bombings!

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ira-insists-warrington-bomb-alerts-were-given-terrorists-fear-loss-of-support-1499306.html


Its not the first time that the British Security Forces have ignored warnings like these or planned attacks on civilians to help their greater good - i.e., Dublin-Monaghan bombings!

Shock. Jm08 believes the ira propaganda.
Even that sectarian killer and torturer Martin McG has said that bomb was totally wrong.

Randy Archer

Still defending to the hilt , terrorist groups and screaming whataboutery and revising history . The thread had been going for months, kept alive by a handful of lads posting 20 hours a day seven days a week

Little to zero serious discussion about the bread and butter aspects of United Ireland

Don’t hold yer breath for this UI

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Shock. Jm08 believes the ira propaganda.
Even that sectarian killer and torturer Martin McG has said that bomb was totally wrong.

I think its more a case I don't believe British propaganda. They have been found out too many times time. Every hear the description: ''Perfidious Albion'' and how it got it.

This is what Martin McGuinness said in Warrington.

"I was once in the IRA. I am now a peace builder," he said.
"It has been a journey which has involved much hurt and pain.
"I have followed many coffins and stood beside many grieving families in the years since.
"But there can be no greater tragedy in life than parents having to bury their child.''
He added: "Regrettably the past cannot be changed or undone. Neither can the suffering, the hurt or the violence of the conflict be disowned by Republicans or any other party to the conflict.''

jm08

downcow wrote: »

JM08 this is where all your arguments fall flat on her face. To suggest PIRA's targets were State Security Forces - well I think we all know the nonsense that that is. Do you want me to make me list the endless atrocities carried out against people and businesses which were purely sectarian, not to mention the IRA campaign to drive protestant from areas they dominated. I view you with sad dismay you if really believe what you are saying

Well, lets take a look first of all where this idea of burning people out of their homes started. Take for example, Mary McAlease, Ireland's former President. Her family were burnt out of their home in the Ardoyne when she was a child. That would have been about 60 years ago.

Take Bobby Sands. His family were burnt out of two homes and he was intimidated out of his job. He joined the PIRA when he was 18.

Take Bobby Storey - by the age of 14, his family had been burnt out of three homes. He joined the PIRA when he was 16.

Do you remember seeing the thousands of catholics steaming across the border in 1969? Thousands ended up in refugee camps because they were being intimidated and beaten out of Northern Ireland. The town of Shannon grew up overnight because of people being burned out by their protestant neighbours in NI (that might explain the big vote that Sinn Fein gets in Co. Clare).

Do you wonder why there are catholic areas and protestant areas in NI. If the State had not driven this policy of segregation/apartheid, there would not have been a fight back from nationalists.

The PIRA targetted business and people that had connections to the security forces in NI. In the UK, they were after economic targets but they always gave warnings so that the place could be cleared.