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

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Disagree again Fionn.
Can you help me reconcile something.
I agree with lots of what you say. And yes there are memorials that I am not fond of in my community.
What gets unionists is eg Chris hazard. I’ll not go over it again, but he is partisan when it comes to terrorism. One is to be admired and the other disposed. If a unionist MP eulogised any individual local terrorists like hazard does then they would not stand a chance of election. Yet nationalists seem to have no difficulty voting for a terrorist supporting liar like hazard (and I have clearly demonstrated these accusations so not made lightly)

Probably because, he doesn't see them as 'terrorists' just like you and Unionist politicians don't see the British Army, the UDR, The RUC, the B-SPecials etc as terrorist either.

The sooner you realise you don't get to define that outdated and meaningless title 'terrorist' the better and the sooner you realise you don't get to say who gets memorialised or remembered the better.

It's either everyone takes down their memorials or nobody does and you get on with it. Personally I would prefer if it all came down.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Retract what? That the naming of the centre predates Hazzard's election?

You're flailing now downcow.

Will the other posters note how we've now moved onto this as the main subject of discussion. Yet again DC and his belligerence drags us all away.

Please answer what is being asked of you; why won't you attend your local MPs office to make representations to him?

Retract your statement that the building had that name for over a quarter of a century.

I just answered your question in last post

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Probably because, he doesn't see them as 'terrorists' just like you and Unionist politicians don't see the British Army, the UDR, The RUC, the B-SPecials etc as terrorist either.

The sooner you realise you don't get to define that outdated and meaningless title 'terrorist' the better and the sooner you realise you don't get to say who gets memorialised or remembered the better.

It's either everyone takes down their memorials or nobody does and you get on with it. Personally I would prefer if it all came down.

You are still ducking it. I have accepted some see British forces as terrorists.
I would disagree equally if a unionist MP put the name of someone who had killed a local resident on his office, whatever the reason for the killing. It is simply obscene

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Simple. He supports the sectarian campaign by the Ira against my local community. I would drink piss before I would ask him for a glass of water

Grand so.

So it has nothing to do with his abstentionism nor as it seems has it anything to do with the naming of the office.

It's because he supports the sectarian campaign against the local community in and around Castlewellan.

Now, can this how me proof of this support? It seems odd that a 36yo would have been up his neck in supporting the Ra in South Down during the Troubles.

Being a SF member is not the same as supporting sectarian murder. Shouldn't be hard to find examples of such support. I can wait.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You are still ducking it. I have accepted some see British forces as terrorists.
I would disagree equally if a unionist MP put the name of someone who had killed a local resident on his office, whatever the reason for the killing. It is simply obscene

It has been clearly shown he didn't name it. His constituency office is in an advice centre named that before he became an MP.

Are you seriously saying a Unionist politician has never eulogised the BA or the RUC?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Retract your statement that the building had that name for over a quarter of a century.

I just answered your question in last post

Hmmm...

It's not a quid pro quo. It's healthy debate. I'm almost certain I'm waiting on a number of retractions over a number of threads from your goodself... So I'll wait if you don't mind.

While I'm waiting you can show us examples of Chris Hazzard supporting sectarian murder. You seem pretty sure of it so they shouldn't be hard to find.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Grand so.

So it has nothing to do with his abstentionism nor as it seems has it anything to do with the naming of the office.

It's because he supports the sectarian campaign against the local community in and around Castlewellan.

Now, can this how me proof of this support? It seems odd that a 36yo would have been up his neck in supporting the Ra in South Down during the Troubles.

Being a SF member is not the same as supporting sectarian murder. Shouldn't be hard to find examples of such support. I can wait.

Are you trying to not understand ?

He demonstrates his support for the local sectarian campaign in lots of ways but two very obvious ones are
1) he is prepared to have his office named after two people who carried out the campaign.
2) he condemns sectarian attacks on the local catholic community eg loughinisland but he categorically refuses to condemn attacks on the local Protestant community

That seems simple to me but maybe I am simple

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Disagree again Fionn.
Can you help me reconcile something.
I agree with lots of what you say. And yes there are memorials that I am not fond of in my community.
What gets unionists is eg Chris hazard. I’ll not go over it again, but he is partisan when it comes to terrorism. One is to be admired and the other disposed. If a unionist MP eulogised any individual local terrorists like hazard does then they would not stand a chance of election. Yet nationalists seem to have no difficulty voting for a terrorist supporting liar like hazard (and I have clearly demonstrated these accusations so not made lightly)

We have plenty of examples of Unionist politicians demonstrating the exact same thing, Downcow. Your community just happens to be able to stand behind the sheen of legitimacy given to the people who terrorised my community being employed by the State.

How many Unionist politicians were partisan regarding Soldier F? Not very many. That is a man responsible for as heinous an activity as you've condemned Paul Magorian for (one is alleged to have been about to shoot at RUC forces, one is alleged to have shot and killed innocent civilians, neither has been convicted).

I believe that Arlene, Robin Swann and Jim Allister all attended the funeral of Willie Frazer, indeed Arlene spoke at his funeral, eulogising him. Do I believe for a second they weren't aware of what came out about him? Absolutely not. That would be the same Arlene who regularly meets with UVF and UDA representatives....

As I said, your victim complex leaves you totally unable to see that eulogising and memorialising isn't unique to one community or the other. Trying to pick out increasingly niche examples to suggest that one side is worse is ridiculous.

Next you'll be going with, 'well you can't give an example of a Unionist called Chris Hazzard with a bit of a ginger hue to his hair who did _____'.

I really suspect you still won't see the point though.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Are you trying to not understand ?

He demonstrates his support for the local sectarian campaign in lots of ways but two very obvious ones are
1) he is prepared to have his office named after two people who carried out the campaign.
2) he condemns sectarian attacks on the local catholic community eg loughinisland but he categorically refuses to condemn attacks on the local Protestant community

That seems simple to me but maybe I am simple

Okay so. You have no examples of him supporting sectarian murder.

Kermit.de.frog

I see DUP politicians are threatening to collapse Stormont

That would mean 2 things.

Free reign for London to operate the protocol as it sees fit, with limited if any local input

No vote on the protocol in 4 years time

I don't think it's being thought through.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

We have plenty of examples of Unionist politicians demonstrating the exact same thing, Downcow. Your community just happens to be able to stand behind the sheen of legitimacy given to the people who terrorised my community being employed by the State.

How many Unionist politicians were partisan regarding Soldier F? Not very many. That is a man responsible for as heinous an activity as you've condemned Paul Magorian for (one is alleged to have been about to shoot at RUC forces, one is alleged to have shot and killed innocent civilians, neither has been convicted).

I believe that Arlene, Robin Swann and Jim Allister all attended the funeral of Willie Frazer, indeed Arlene spoke at his funeral, eulogising him. Do I believe for a second they weren't aware of what came out about him? Absolutely not. That would be the same Arlene who regularly meets with UVF and UDA representatives....

As I said, your victim complex leaves you totally unable to see that eulogising and memorialising isn't unique to one community or the other. Trying to pick out increasingly niche examples to suggest that one side is worse is ridiculous.

Next you'll be going with, 'well you can't give an example of a Unionist called Chris Hazzard with a bit of a ginger hue to his hair who did _____'.

I really suspect you still won't see the point though.

It’s very complex Fionn. I accept that.
I have never claimed to be snowy white in my thinking.
I absolutely abhor the killing of those who were innocent. I find torture sickening and feel for those young men (and occasionally) women who were taken from their loved ones to remote locations to be tortured and murdered. I am equally sickened whether they were young Protestants or catholics.

Now to be very honest. Growing up in a place where the ira (and many of the locals) seen Protestants as the enemy and were determined to drive us away through fear and intimidation. They didn’t care whether we were legitimate targets or not. You feared for your parents life, but that was so connected to being abused day and daily as a child by young republicans.
Am I pure and totally non sectarian after that experience. I guess not.
I was pleased the hunger strikers were killing themselves, I was pleased when an ira man was taken out. I probably convinced myself that most people being killed on the other side were guilty and most being killed on my side were innocent.
I have come to understand that few deserved to die on either side.
I can understand why people got sucked in and done terrible things.
Why I find this discussion confusing is that I cannot put myself in a place to understand how people can vote for a man (hazard) who has chose to locate himself in an office named after people who carried out the sectarian murder intimidation and torture on local people in recent living memory.
We can talk all day about statues, people’s views, attending funerals etc. But this is stark. For me the difference is stark.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

It’s very complex Fionn. I accept that.
I have never claimed to be snowy white in my thinking.
I absolutely abhor the killing of those who were innocent. I find torture sickening and feel for those young men (and occasionally) women who were taken from their loved ones to remote locations to be tortured and murdered. I am equally sickened whether they were young Protestants or catholics.

Now to be very honest. Growing up in a place where the ira (and many of the locals) seen Protestants as the enemy and were determined to drive us away through fear and intimidation. They didn’t care whether we were legitimate targets or not. You feared for your parents life, but that was so connected to being abused day and daily as a child by young republicans.
Am I pure and totally non sectarian after that experience. I guess not.
I was pleased the hunger strikers were killing themselves, I was pleased when an ira man was taken out. I probably convinced myself that most people being killed on the other side were guilty and most being killed on my side were innocent.
I have come to understand that few deserved to die on either side.
I can understand why people got sucked in and done terrible things.
Why I find this discussion confusing is that I cannot put myself in a place to understand how people can vote for a man (hazard) who has chose to locate himself in an office named after people who carried out the sectarian murder intimidation and torture on local people in recent living memory.
We can talk all day about statues, people’s views, attending funerals etc. But this is stark. For me the difference is stark.

Totally understand that feeling, Downcow. I was somewhat shielded from the extreme feelings of, 'themmuns deserve it' due to having family who were themmuns, so while I avoided feeling that all Protestants were the problem, I often experienced the same feelings towards the RUC/UDR/BA that you felt towards IRA members, presuming guilt. I 100% understand that the situation we grew up in led to that sort of conditioning.

We're fully on the same page up to this point on acknowledging our own failings. It's the next step you seem to not be realising. Firstly, just to reiterate, this is not a defense of SF's decision to name the advice centre against those two. Now you can say you don't understand how my community would vote for a person who would work from an office thusly named. I don't understand how your community can vote for people who would actively downplay Bloody Sunday and stand in support of one of its perpetrators.

Your struggle seems to be with realising that the actions of the likes of Soldier F are felt just as painfully in my community as the actions of the likes of Paul Magorrian were felt by your community. Chris Hazzard's tacit approval of the actions of Paul Magorrian by continuing to work from an office named after him is in no way worse than Arlene Foster, Jim Wells or Sammy Wilson's comments on Bloody Sunday, and their ACTIVE support for Soldier F.

If you can't see the similarly between a Unionist saying, ' I can't understand how your community can vote for someone who supports people who killed members of my community' and a Nationalist saying, 'I can't understand how your community can vote for someone who supports people who killed members of my community'.....well I think we're at an impasse

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Totally understand that feeling, Downcow. I was somewhat shielded from the extreme feelings of, 'themmuns deserve it' due to having family who were themmuns, so while I avoided feeling that all Protestants were the problem, I often experienced the same feelings towards the RUC/UDR/BA that you felt towards IRA members, presuming guilt. I 100% understand that the situation we grew up in led to that sort of conditioning.

We're fully on the same page up to this point on acknowledging our own failings. It's the next step you seem to not be realising. Firstly, just to reiterate, this is not a defense of SF's decision to name the advice centre against those two. Now you can say you don't understand how my community would vote for a person who would work from an office thusly named. I don't understand how your community can vote for people who would actively downplay Bloody Sunday and stand in support of one of its perpetrators.

Your struggle seems to be with realising that the actions of the likes of Soldier F are felt just as painfully in my community as the actions of the likes of Paul Magorrian were felt by your community. Chris Hazzard's tacit approval of the actions of Paul Magorrian by continuing to work from an office named after him is in no way worse than Arlene Foster, Jim Wells or Sammy Wilson's comments on Bloody Sunday, and their ACTIVE support for Soldier F.

If you can't see the similarly between a Unionist saying, ' I can't understand how your community can vote for someone who supports people who killed members of my community' and a Nationalist saying, 'I can't understand how your community can vote for someone who supports people who killed members of my community'.....well I think we're at an impasse

I don’t think we are at an impasse. I appreciate your candor and whilst I don’t accept an equivalence between terrorists and the security forces, you have given me reason to reflect. And reflect I will

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I don’t think we are at an impasse. I appreciate your candor and whilst I don’t accept an equivalence between terrorists and the security forces, you have given me reason to reflect. And reflect I will

Of course you don't accept the equivalence, they weren't killing your community, Downcow. We're all made by our own experiences. I appreciate that you'll reflect on it however.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Of course you don't accept the equivalence, they weren't killing your community, Downcow. We're all made by our own experiences. I appreciate that you'll reflect on it however.

They do accept they just refuse to accept responsibility for their part in why it all went up in flames and there will be little reconciliation until they do.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They do accept they just refuse to accept responsibility for their part in why it all went up in flames and there will be little reconciliation until they do.

That is what’s called a projection Francie.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That is what’s called a projection Francie.

You did the 'projecting' downcow. You accused an MP of something and when asked to back it up...failed. I.E. You projected something on to him.

I call belligerent Unionism out on failing to take responsibility by pointing to it's reaction to Soldier F and other incidents of collusion. Plenty of back-up.

Moderate Unionism is further down the road but not altogether there either. They just remain silent.

RobMc59

The good news keeps coming for NI businesses.

"Mash Direct listed by Marks and Spencer Ireland | Buy NI Food, Northern Ireland Food" https://www.buynifood.com/node/4194

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You did the 'projecting' downcow. You accused an MP of something and when asked to back it up...failed. I.E. You projected something on to him.

I call belligerent Unionism out on failing to take responsibility by pointing to it's reaction to Soldier F and other incidents of collusion. Plenty of back-up.

Moderate Unionism is further down the road but not altogether there either. They just remain silent.

Maybe if we work hard we can achieve such dizzy heights of inclusiveness and forgiveness as our local MP. LOL

BonnieSituation

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Of course you don't accept the equivalence, they weren't killing your community, Downcow. We're all made by our own experiences. I appreciate that you'll reflect on it however.

I still don't understand how some can make out that the security forces killing their fellow citizens in cold blood is somehow more laudable?

All killing is reprehensible, but surely state sponsored terrorism is worse?

I mean, that's so self-evident as to not even require discussion surely.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I still don't understand how some can make out that the security forces killing their fellow citizens in cold blood is somehow more laudable?

All killing is reprehensible, but surely state sponsored terrorism is worse?

I mean, that's so self-evident as to not even require discussion surely.

Put it this way Bonnie, I'm glad I am one of the members of society who finds it the ultimate betrayal of democracy.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Put it this way Bonnie, I'm glad I am one of the members of society who finds it the ultimate betrayal of democracy.

Very reason some of us fear SF getting into power. The likes of "Slab" and "One Shot" having friends in high places.
.

Brendan Bendar

jh79 wrote: »

Very reason some of us fear SF getting into power. The likes of "Slab" and "One Shot" having friends in high places.
.

And these lads are very anxious to scuttle SCC.

Be careful out there.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I still don't understand how some can make out that the security forces killing their fellow citizens in cold blood is somehow more laudable?

All killing is reprehensible, but surely state sponsored terrorism is worse?

I mean, that's so self-evident as to not even require discussion surely.

Bonnie, you are not known for your rational conversations, but I’ll try.

You will struggle to find any significant number of unionists who do not find security forces or state involvement in killing innocent people reprehensible. We will no doubt disagree on the extent of such activity.
In the midst of a horrific conflict most of us allowed our morals to be twisted and I like many give tacit support to murder. Shame on me for that, but now that the violent sectarian campaign against me community has been turned down, it has given space to reflect and start to digest the past. I have still some distance to go but I have a very different approach to most of the violence than I did then.

I do though see a huge difference in the paramilitaries and the security forces.
We all know the security forces got it wrong on occasion. I am still in admiration of them for making so few mistakes in such crazy dangerous situations. They knew the people that were trying to kill them and their families and who had killed their friends and yet only occasional individual officers stepped outside the law to take matters into their own hands.
They gave their lives often in the protection of Protestant and CatholicS alike eg the soldiers who died trying to untie paddy Gillespie from the ira bomb.
Whether you accept it or not very few officers went on duty with the intention of killing anyone. The paramilitaries by contrast went on duty with the sole intention of killing their neighbours. A group of them lay in wait outside eg farm buildings for the off duty policemen to tend to his animals and then they shot them in the back.
They placed no warning car bombs and killed everything from babies to pregnant women.
They tortured people for days and then murdered them and refused to return their bodies to families.
They posted body parts to families of their loved ones
I could go on. The ira done all of the above but so did the Uvf

Yes the security services used agents and also interrogated and often crossed lines during interrogations, but I am not aware of the pulling fingernails off, squeezing testicals, placing penises in mouths, taring and feathering, stripping hooding and then murdering defenceless people.

Getting back to my opening point. However twisted we all were during the sectarian bloodbath, most unionists look back with disgust and regret at most of the stuff done in their name by paramilitaries or renegade security forces. Sf and ultimately their voters look back and romanticise their paramilitaries and don’t reject the evil. They eulogise the murdering scum like Martin Maginnis, Bobby sands, Bobby storey, etc. They have no perspective of wrongdoing on both sides and they want to blame the british for everything.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Does the 'Demographics are destiny' thing really ring true today? I find it hard to believe that young people in 2021 from a Nationalist background in Northern Ireland truly act like Catholics, don't use contraception and want to have lots of kids. I suspect the forthcoming Census will show this.

downcow

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Does the 'Demographics are destiny' thing really ring true today? I find it hard to believe that young people in 2021 from a Nationalist background in Northern Ireland truly act like Catholics, don't use contraception and want to have lots of kids. I suspect the forthcoming Census will show this.

Yes interesting point I had not really considered.
Republicans here argue that the catholic majority means a majority to vote out of the uk. But you are right, no one Would argue that the coming catholic majority will mean that we will reintroduce bans on contraception and oppose same sex marriage.
Views change and religion no longer has the same control.
More bad news for republicans! Just when they get the religious majority they have craved for 100 years, religion no longer matters lol

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Very reason some of us fear SF getting into power. The likes of "Slab" and "One Shot" having friends in high places.
.

What...they begin to behave like the British did on this island?

It isn't SF that is cosying up to the DUP and doffing their hats to the British by refusing to lay the blame where it belongs.

The British who allowed the bigoted sectarian government in the north and they tried to shore it up and support it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What...they begin to behave like the British did on this island?

It isn't SF that is cosying up to the DUP and doffing their hats to the British by refusing to lay the blame where it belongs.

The British who allowed the bigoted sectarian government in the north and they tried to shore it up and support it.

And ditto in the south. That’s why we all need to learn

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

And ditto in the south. That’s why we all need to learn

Hopefully the partitionists will see what they are allying with now, and repudiate it.

There was no similarity in the south, the south does not need an international agreement just to function. An international agreement that is now holding back the 3 countries of the UK from the future they seem to want outside the EU.

No similarity at all. We may not have handled independence well initially, but we are now a modern, outward looking country with all the issues of a normal modern country.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What...they begin to behave like the British did on this island?

It isn't SF that is cosying up to the DUP and doffing their hats to the British by refusing to lay the blame where it belongs.

The British who allowed the bigoted sectarian government in the north and they tried to shore it up and support it.

What relevance has that to genuine fears that SF will help their former comrades in the IRA when in power?