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

Five Eighth

downcow wrote: »

My point is simple. The article you posted said the b specials were exclusively Protestant. I am telling you that is WRONG. I did not comment on anything else so please don’t try to deflect.
You could simple say ‘thanks for that info, I thought the wee all protestant’ or ‘I still believe they were all Protestant’ or ‘kiss my ass’
But please don’t try to deflect

It wasn't an article. It was a piece extracted from a book written by a respected NI journalist who quoted a report undertaken by the National Council of Civil Liberties (UK). It is this report which included the comment.."...the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials." I also posted a reference to Tim Pat Coogan's book on Michael Collins where he describes how recruitment was controlled by ex UVF loyalist leaders. How is that deflecting anything?

FrancieBrady

Five Eighth wrote: »

It wasn't an article. It was a piece extracted from a book written by a respected NI journalist who quoted a report undertaken by the National Council of Civil Liberties (UK). It is this report which included the comment.."...the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials." I also posted a reference to Tim Pat Coogan's book on Michael Collins where he describes how recruitment was controlled by ex UVF loyalist leaders. How is that deflecting anything?

It is quite common when the percentage is very very low as to be negligible.
'FULL employment is not actually full employment.

Junkyard Tom

Another door slams shut in the DUP's face. David Frost will be in charge of future UK-EU relations, the withdrawal agreement is his baby and he won't want pesky Irish unionists messing it up for him.

I am hugely honoured to have been appointed Minister to take forward our relationship with the EU after Brexit.

David Frost.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

.....you weren't having a laugh at yourself, Downcow. If we take your word that it was supposed to be humorous, you were making a joke at the expense of a group your very much perceive as, 'other'.

If I started making jokes about Jewish people, the French, Indians or Protestants and one of those groups took offence, I could hardly claim it is because they're not comfortable with having a laugh at themselves.

To take it to the extreme, given your usual attitude towards the Irish, I'd expect a black man to derive less humour from a joke made by a Klan member than another person of colour.


.....that all as a total aside from the fact that it just plain wasn't funny.

Just like your comment about the ira getting lucky yesterday Fionn-not funny.

Five Eighth

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is quite common when the percentage is very very low as to be negligible.
'FULL employment is not actually full employment.

Maybe taking the quote to task against a 100% literal interpretation in order to cast doubt on its merits?

An often used deflection tactic...

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just like your comment about the ira getting lucky yesterday Fionn-not funny.

That would be a REALLY great point, Rob....if that is what I'd actually said.

Except what really happened was that I stated that a quote from the IRA with regards to Margaret Thatcher was relevant....and explicitly stated that it was a crude quote.

Good job jumping in as a total neutral again though....

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

But please don’t try to deflect

You are a tricky customer and deflection is exactly what you're doing. The B-Specials were a sectarian paramilitary force, just because there were a few Catholics in it doesn't diminish that fact, any more than Jews who fought for the Germans supports holocaust denial.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That would be a REALLY great point, Rob....if that is what I'd actually said.

Except what really happened was that I stated that a quote from the IRA with regards to Margaret Thatcher was relevant....and explicitly stated that it was a crude quote.

Good job jumping in as a total neutral again though....

Although Thatcher was an obnoxious character,
quoting a terrorist organisation attempting to murder a democratically elected leader is at best bizarre and possibly a sign of your mask slipping imo.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Although Thatcher was an obnoxious character,
quoting a terrorist organisation attempting to murder a democratically elected leader is at best bizarre and possibly a sign of your mask slipping imo.

The perception of a 'terrorist' changes depending on where you are standing. It's why it's a useless and redundant term in Ireland.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Although Thatcher was an obnoxious character,
quoting a terrorist organisation attempting to murder a democratically elected leader is at best bizarre and possibly a sign of your mask slipping imo.

What the hell are you ranting about now, Rob?!

Perhaps I should clarify.

1) I did not attempt to murder Margaret Thatcher
2) I did not attempt to justify any attempts to murder Margaret Thatcher
3) I think Margaret Thatcher was as repulsive a leader as has existed in a modern democracy in my lifetime, and I still do not believe that justified her murder.
4) I used a very famous quote regarding Margaret Thatcher as it was contextually appropriate
5) I highlighted the distasteful historical nature of that quote when I used it, and did not use it to suggest anything regarding the murder of Margaret Thatcher or my opinion of the events that led to that quote
6) Your weird rant has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Downcow taking random potshots at the Irish apart from your desperate need to defend anyone you see as against your precious little union, while still trying to hide beneath a veneer of neutrality (despite your getting banned from any thread that expects a grown up level of discussion).


To summarise....what the hell is your point?!

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The perception of a 'terrorist' changes depending on where you are standing. It's why it's a useless and redundant term in Ireland.

It isnt, although it might suit those who support terrorists (no inverted commas needed), to deny that they are such. But the IRA for example were most certainly terrorists - the most despicable of human beings.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

It isnt, although it might suit those who support terrorists (no inverted commas needed), to deny that they are such. But the IRA for example were most certainly terrorists - the most despicable of human beings.

Across Ireland and the UK there are many victims of Thatcher and Thatcherism who would have the same opinion of her and the government she led.
'Terror' is in the eye off the receiver. Terrorist is a redundant and meaningless term therefore.

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Across Ireland and the UK there are many victims of Thatcher and Thatcherism who would have the same opinion of her and the government she led.
'Terror' is in the eye off the receiver. Terrorist is a redundant and meaningless term therefore.

No. Terrorists jump through a lot nonsensical thinking to justify their actions, but redefining the English language for the rest of the world is beyond their capability. Their distorted view of reality comes with the territory though - if they were more intelligent, they wouldnt be terrorists in the first place. Once you are living in a fantasy world, its no great leap to start redefining language even if it only exists in their own minds.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

No. Terrorists jump through a lot nonsensical thinking to justify their actions, but redefining the English language for the rest of the world is beyond their capability. Their distorted view of reality comes with the territory though - if they were more intelligent, they wouldnt be terrorists in the first place. Once you are living in a fantasy world, its no great leap to start redefining language even if it only exists in their own minds.

Thatcher victimised as many people as any so called terrorist. She was a modern day tyrant. Widely acknowledged by those who don't support her.

Those who do, generally dilute what she did or excuse it. Most people are intelligent enough to see this.

P.S. A 'terrorist' causes terror. Being elected doesn't save you from that.

markodaly

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Cool cool.

And line up beside the bigots and Belligerents you will so.

And thank you for illustrating perfectly as to the 'WHY' I would not be voting for a UI in the near future, attitudes like this.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The main lesson to be learned from Brexit is that voting out of the EU had consequences. Similarly voting to reject a UI would have consequences, like Brexit there certainly would be no return to the status quo so beloved of partitionists.

I don't follow. If the Brexit vote went the other way, the UK would still be in the EU and would be motoring along, pretty much as it was before, with some cribbing from the ERG and UKIP and the like....

A rejection of a UI in a border poll would basically be the acceptance of the status quo for a generation, or are you saying 'No' is basically a Yes for something else?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

A rejection of a UI in a border poll would basically be the acceptance of the status quo for a generation

God love your lack of forethought, not unlike the Brexiters crying for 'no deal' and thinking the world would remain the same for them.

Think it through a little.

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

And thank you for illustrating perfectly as to the 'WHY' I would not be voting for a UI in the near future, attitudes like this.

....you're going to make your decision on a vote on a fundamental part of the future of our country largely because someone hurt your feelings on the Internet?!

Like I've always said, your vote counts as much as mine, but I'd like to hope that most people, whichever way they vote, will do so based on somewhat less fatuous reasoning.

I'd hate to have my opinion on something so important decided by so little.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

I don't follow. If the Brexit vote went the other way, the UK would still be in the EU and would be motoring along, pretty much as it was before, with some cribbing from the ERG and UKIP and the like....

A rejection of a UI in a border poll would basically be the acceptance of the status quo for a generation, or are you saying 'No' is basically a Yes for something else?

How do you make that out? If the vote is anyway close, you'd have one in 7 years (in fact, there could be one every 7 years according to the GFA - its not a once in a generation thing).

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

God love your lack of forethought, not unlike the Brexiters crying for 'no deal' and thinking the world would remain the same for them.

Think it through a little.

Why would anything need to change? Maybe people rejected the idea on economic grounds, or maybe they didn't like a particular aspect of the deal on hand? Hardly needs a new flag now does it?

Its vexatious argument.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

....you're going to make your decision on a vote on a fundamental part of the future of our country largely because someone hurt your feelings on the Internet?!

Like I've always said, your vote counts as much as mine, but I'd like to hope that most people, whichever way they vote, will do so based on somewhat less fatuous reasoning.

I'd hate to have my opinion on something so important decided by so little.

No, I have a very thick skin.

But I made my point very clear, that a UI when such hateful and poisonous attitude exist on both sides of the border, is not something I want, nor want my family exposed to. The comment I quoted is a good reflection on that problem.

By me, merely stating my reluctance to vote for a UI in the short term, is apparently me being on the sides of 'bigots'. What hope is there to unify both sides, when you have this crap going on?

As I mentioned, if people are serious about a UI, then want to stop demonising people for their point of view and SF 'Up da Ra' types should leave the stage for others. SF and their ilk don't own Irishness, the Tricolour or Republicanism, much as they like to pretend they do.

markodaly

jm08 wrote: »

How do you make that out? If the vote is anyway close, you'd have one in 7 years (in fact, there could be one every 7 years according to the GFA - its not a once in a generation thing).

A close vote is not something we want either. The 50%+1 types can't see the wood from the trees.

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

No, I have a very thick skin.

But I made my point very clear, that a UI when such hateful and poisonous attitude exist on both sides of the border, is not something I want, nor want my family exposed to. The comment I quoted is a good reflection on that problem.

By me, merely stating my reluctance to vote for a UI in the short term, is apparently me being on the sides of 'bigots'. What hope is there to unify both sides, when you have this crap going on?

As I mentioned, if people are serious about a UI, then want to stop demonising people for their point of view and SF 'Up da Ra' types should leave the stage for others. SF and their ilk don't own Irishness, the Tricolour or Republicanism, much as they like to pretend they do.

You're acknowledging that these people exist on both sides of the border, so for all your lofty posturing what does your no vote actually achieve to change that? Do you expect that in the event of a No vote that we're going to have some sort of event like the One Ring being cast into The Cracks of Doom epiphany moment and suddenly these people (who already exist here by your own reckoning) will suddenly disappear?

What exactly are you hoping to avoid exposing your family to if you think it is already so prevalent? Surely the Sword of Damocles type of unresolved situation regarding Unification is an exacerbating factor for these issues which would be gradually eliminated by resolving the issue with some degree of finality, whereas a No vote just puts it on the back burner for seven years and makes it all the more heated as a subject?

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You're acknowledging that these people exist on both sides of the border, so for all your lofty posturing what does your no vote actually achieve to change that? Do you expect that in the event of a No vote that we're going to have some sort of event like the One Ring being cast into The Cracks of Doom epiphany moment and suddenly these people (who already exist here by your own reckoning) will suddenly disappear?

No, but as I live in the South, the blatant hatred and sectarianism on display from both sides will largely be contained to the North. If we are not ready and mature for it, we are just not. Its that simple. Maybe the next generation will not be so hateful, maybe the old guards on both sides need to die off.

What exactly are you hoping to avoid exposing your family to if you think it is already so prevalent? Surely the Sword of Damocles type of unresolved situation regarding Unification is an exacerbating factor for these issues which would be gradually eliminated by resolving the issue with some degree of finality, whereas a No vote just puts it on the back burner for seven years and makes it all the more heated as a subject?

We saw the rupturing of divisions in the UK over the Brexit debacle. A tight UI vote that goes, either way, will result in much worse here.
Why should we expose ourselves willingly to that?

It seems you have trouble even accepting that I would vote No, which I think tells a lot.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What the hell are you ranting about now, Rob?!

Perhaps I should clarify.

1) I did not attempt to murder Margaret Thatcher
2) I did not attempt to justify any attempts to murder Margaret Thatcher
3) I think Margaret Thatcher was as repulsive a leader as has existed in a modern democracy in my lifetime, and I still do not believe that justified her murder.
4) I used a very famous quote regarding Margaret Thatcher as it was contextually appropriate
5) I highlighted the distasteful historical nature of that quote when I used it, and did not use it to suggest anything regarding the murder of Margaret Thatcher or my opinion of the events that led to that quote
6) Your weird rant has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Downcow taking random potshots at the Irish apart from your desperate need to defend anyone you see as against your precious little union, while still trying to hide beneath a veneer of neutrality (despite your getting banned from any thread that expects a grown up level of discussion).


To summarise....what the hell is your point?!

I found your quoting of murderous terrorists bizarre to say the least although your subsequent posts suggest you don't hero worship and agree with their actions.
My post prompted a few very illuminating comments from one or two regular republican posters though...
I'm British so believing in the Union isn't unusual or controversial and doesn't change how I feel about Ireland/NI.

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

No, but as I live in the South, the blatant hatred and sectarianism on display from both sides will largely be contained to the North. If we are not ready and mature for it, we are just not. Its that simple. Maybe the next generation will not be so hateful, maybe the old guards on both sides need to die off.



We saw the rupturing of divisions in the UK over the Brexit debacle. A tight UI vote that goes, either way, will result in much worse here.
Why should we expose ourselves willingly to that?

It was half two in the morning, I was in my bed and leaning a little towards the melodramatic in my post....you'd never guess I was re-reading some Tolkien from it, would you?!

Being honest, all I was really getting at was your statement that it exists on both sides of the border would've rendered your justification moot.

I'd also argue that your perceived, 'blatant displays of sectarianism' are much less common than you think in the North nowadays, largely being reserved to small numbers in a case of the squeaky wheel getting the oil regarding reporting.

In general society, the vast majority just get on with their lives and don't consider, 'themmuns' all that often. The sectarianism that still exists in the North would mostly be of the kind which I've admittedly been guilty of myself; see an average exchange between myself and Downcow, we certainly both have some leftover baggage and would have differing narratives on our history....but I wouldn't say either of us are a danger to society. If I am, you'll have to tell me so I can move back!

Does the more violent and unpleasant stuff exist? Certainly. I'd highlight that NI has a lower crime rate and is on a downward trend since the GFA, Ireland's is higher and has been trending upwards though, so like I said perhaps not as common as you think.

It seems you have trouble even accepting that I would vote No, which I think tells a lot.

No idea what you're getting at here. I've repeatedly said your vote will count just as much as mine. Are you suggesting that discussing someone's opinion on the matter and pointing out why I disagree with it is somehow wrong?! Like I genuinely don't even understand what your point is here, beyond a generic attempt at a parting blow.

maccored

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I dont think I have ever read something so illogical in my life !

It was necessary to have a terrorist campaign so that there would be a peace process !!! What about no terrorism in the first place ?

"Well we had to have the Great War, otherwise we wouldnt have had been able to have the ceasefire and agree the Treaty of Versailles, so of course the war was worth it".

people get beat off the street for looking for equality, people get shot at and murdered because of in equality, those people then react violently.

Thats illogical to you? Says more about yourself in that case, than anyone else

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

I found your quoting of murderous terrorists bizarre to say the least although your subsequent posts suggest you don't hero worship and agree with their actions.
My post prompted a few very illuminating comments from one or two regular republican posters though...
I'm British so believing in the Union isn't unusual or controversial and doesn't change how I feel about Ireland/NI.

Ah Rob let's be honest, you were jumping in two footed on a legitimate criticism of Downcow and desperately scrambling for any way to defend him/her that you could. Believing in your Union is fine....blind defense of any criticism of it, not so much.

The quote was contextually relevant and even then, I specifically called out the distasteful nature of it. I've been known to quote the bible on occasion, I'm still an atheist. I've quoted Stalin in the past, despite thinking he's a murderous so and so and not being a communist.

Other posters comments are their own and I'd appreciate you didn't try to use them to discredit or put me down. If you find them illuminating, take it up with the relevant poster instead of trying to make implications and seeing if it'll stick with me.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

.....you weren't having a laugh at yourself, Downcow. If we take your word that it was supposed to be humorous, you were making a joke at the expense of a group your very much perceive as, 'other'.

If I started making jokes about Jewish people, the French, Indians or Protestants and one of those groups took offence, I could hardly claim it is because they're not comfortable with having a laugh at themselves.

To take it to the extreme, given your usual attitude towards the Irish, I'd expect a black man to derive less humour from a joke made by a Klan member than another person of colour.


.....that all as a total aside from the fact that it just plain wasn't funny.

I am going to take you at your word that you were offended. I sincerely apologise.

downcow

Five Eighth wrote: »

It wasn't an article. It was a piece extracted from a book written by a respected NI journalist who quoted a report undertaken by the National Council of Civil Liberties (UK). It is this report which included the comment.."...the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials." I also posted a reference to Tim Pat Coogan's book on Michael Collins where he describes how recruitment was controlled by ex UVF loyalist leaders. How is that deflecting anything?

Just accept the piece was factually incorrect or provide evidence otherwise. Simple