Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

The question was very simple and our three resident republicans completely ducked it.
The question is specific. And may even be hypothetical in your mind but Try again.

If an analysis was done on premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

The answer is no downcow...jesus, I answered earlier.

Bombing a business is not a sectarian act. A business isn't a religion, it's an economic target like Canary Wharf was. That protestants owned mist businesses in the sectarian bigoted state they organised for themselves is also a factor.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The answer is no downcow...jesus, I answered earlier.

Bombing a business is not a sectarian act. A business isn't a religion, it's an economic target like Canary Wharf was. That protestants owned mist businesses in the sectarian bigoted state they organised for themselves is also a factor.

Well there is what we are up against. I am surprised that Francie still surprises me.
So if 80+% of businesses attacked by the Uvf were catholic Francie would say that was not sectarian.
So all those attacks on houses by the loyalists were not sectarian because buildings aren’t catholic. Hahahaha.

I certainly don’t see it that way. If the Uvf target their attacks on Catholic homes and businesses then I would say the were sectarian scumbags (as they did and as they were). Francie you are far to kind the the ira and Uvf.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Well there is what we are up against. I am surprised that Francie still surprises me.
So if 80+% of businesses attacked by the Uvf were catholic Francie would say that was not sectarian.
So all those attacks on houses by the loyalists were not sectarian because buildings aren’t catholic. Hahahaha.

I certainly don’t see it that way. If the Uvf target their attacks on Catholic homes and businesses then I would say the were sectarian scumbags (as they did and as they were). Francie you are far to kind the the ira and Uvf.

It is very simple...the purpose of attacking business is to affect the economy. The purpose of attacking a house is to hurt the people inside it...no other reason.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is very simple...the purpose of attacking business is to affect the economy. The purpose of attacking a house is to hurt the people inside it...no other reason.

Ok I will be patient with you Francie.

If there was an analysis done on the premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. And say it was demonstrated that the bombers drove past catholic owned premises on 100% of the occasions and then put their bomb in Protestant owned premises. What if in areas in which the vast majority of the businesses (economic targets) were catholic owned, and yet the ira selected the small number of Protestant premises for attack, Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Ok I will be patient with you Francie.

If there was an analysis done on the premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. And say it was demonstrated that the bombers drove past catholic owned premises on 100% of the occasions and then put their bomb in Protestant owned premises. What if in areas in which the vast majority of the businesses (economic targets) were catholic owned, and yet the ira selected the small number of Protestant premises for attack, Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Present the data, is what I would say to you. One aspect of the IRA's intent was to cripple the economy.

maccored

downcow wrote: »

If there was a analysis done of all the business premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Seems like a simple question so I’d love a simple answer

very loaded and skewed piece of 'what if ..' is that.

It did probably end up most businesses destroyed were owned by protestants - but thats purely because the process of owning a business in the north and the traditional ownership of businesses in the north always favoured unionists. since, of course, they had designed the statelet that way. cant have catholics having money now can we.

Anyway - though you could look at it and say it was sectarian because more protestant (I'd say unionist) business owners might have been affected, it isnt actually for that reason.

it does though expose sectarianism when it comes to equal opportunities.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Present the data, is what I would say to you. One aspect of the IRA's intent was to cripple the economy.

Francie why were you happy to answer the first hypothetical question but not this one.

Those of you in the south who have any doubt how the ira-types are impossible to deal with, just read francies last few answers.
A blind man could see that Francie knows in his heart that the ira attacks were deeply sectarian.
I do worry for a couple of those other posters who may actually believe the ira were not inherently sectarian.
It is really important that young nationalists know how deeply sectarian the ira were.

Beltby

maccored wrote: »

very loaded and skewed piece of 'what if ..' is that.

It did probably end up most businesses destroyed were owned by protestants - but thats purely because the process of owning a business in the north and the traditional ownership of businesses in the north always favoured unionists. since, of course, they had designed the statelet that way. cant have catholics having money now can we.

Anyway - though you could look at it and say it was sectarian because more protestant (I'd say unionist) business owners might have been affected, it isnt actually for that reason.

it does though expose sectarianism when it comes to equal opportunities.

Look at who didn't want a further lockdown in the north. The DUP. Now read between the lines. They wanted their businesses kept open.

lawred2

Solutionking wrote: »

You can't beat the SF supporter who hates everyone who has a job and tries to support their family.
Do you also call people that work in MNC's partitionist and beligernet unionist?

wtf?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie why were you happy to answer the first hypothetical question but not this one.

Those of you in the south who have any doubt how the ira-types are impossible to deal with, just read francies last few answers.
A blind man could see that Francie knows in his heart that the ira attacks were deeply sectarian.
I do worry for a couple of those other posters who may actually believe the ira were not inherently sectarian.
It is really important that young nationalists know how deeply sectarian the ira were.

Utter rubbish. I told you what the intent was and why they did it. They attacked business in Britain too ( which got them to the table actually).
Then you present an even more fantastic theory with no back up and expect a comment.

Rubbish and you know it.

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

The question was very simple and our three resident republicans completely ducked it.
The question is specific. And may even be hypothetical in your mind but Try again.

If an analysis was done on premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Do you suffer from schotoma ?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Utter rubbish. I told you what the intent was and why they did it. They attacked business in Britain too ( which got them to the table actually).
Then you present an even more fantastic theory with no back up and expect a comment.

Rubbish and you know it.

Folks note how Francie won’t engage on this issue.
If Francie will accept that :
If the ira bombs were directed 80+% at Protestant businesses and that in 100% of those cases, they drove past catholic business premises to plant the bomb in Protestant businesses. If he can’t accept that that is a sectarian act, then hopefully most sensible nationalists will see through him and the other ira-types.
If he accepts this premise as inherently sectarian, then I will endeavour to present facts to evidence it.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Folks note how Francie won’t engage on this issue.
If Francie will accept that :
If the ira bombs were directed 80+% at Protestant businesses and that in 100% of those cases, they drove past catholic business premises to plant the bomb in Protestant businesses. If he can’t accept that that is a sectarian act, then hopefully most sensible nationalists will see through him and the other ira-types.
If he accepts this premise as inherently sectarian, then I will endeavour to present facts to evidence it.

So you have data. Present it, let the truth fall where it may.

If I want to go to the Supervalu here...the biggest shop in town I have to drive past about 4 other shop to get there. Some would say I am 'favouring' one shop over the others...I just want to go to the biggest selection.

So size of business hit, location etc is required to assess the validity of your claim.

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

Folks note how Francie won’t engage on this issue.
If Francie will accept that :
If the ira bombs were directed 80+% at Protestant businesses and that in 100% of those cases, they drove past catholic business premises to plant the bomb in Protestant businesses. If he can’t accept that that is a sectarian act, then hopefully most sensible nationalists will see through him and the other ira-types.
If he accepts this premise as inherently sectarian, then I will endeavour to present facts to evidence it.

Have you suffered a traumatic experience lately?
There's definitely something wrong upstairs

FrancieBrady

declanflynn wrote: »

Have you suffered a traumatic experience lately?
There's definitely something wrong upstairs

It's not going well for downcow...again, so he does a bit of dogwhistling about me 'not engaging' and I have answered him every single time.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you have data. Present it, let the truth fall where it may.

If I want to go to the Supervalu here...the biggest shop in town I have to drive past about 4 other shop to get there. Some would say I am 'favouring' one shop over the others...I just want to go to the biggest selection.

So size of business hit, location etc is required to assess the validity of your claim.

My patience continues.
So if the ira drive past bigger catholic businesses to get to a smaller Protestant business to plant a bomb, would that be targeting Protestant businesses ie sectarian?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

My patience continues.
So if the ira drive past bigger catholic businesses to get to a smaller Protestant business to plant a bomb, would that be targeting Protestant businesses ie sectarian?

Just present whatever fecking evidence you have and we'll take it from there. Why you insist on these games.

Beltby

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just present whatever fecking evidence you have and we'll take it from there. Why you insist on these games.

Oh it's called deflection, and she has been doing it for the whole thread now.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just present whatever fecking evidence you have and we'll take it from there. Why you insist on these games.

No games. It’s you that’s playing the games. It matters not what evidence would be presented to you, you will argue black crows are white. Everyone can see it from the last series of answers from you.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

No games. It’s you that’s playing the games. It matters not what evidence would be presented to you, you will argue black crows are white. Everyone can see it from the last series of answers from you.

Nobody is commenting on what I am saying...plenty commenting on your contribution.

Have you any evidence or data...or is this another story a frend told you?

The IRA attacked business across NI and Britain as part of a campaign to affect the economy. Right or wrong that is what they were doing.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is commenting on what I am saying...plenty commenting on your contribution.

Have you any evidence or data...or is this another story a frend told you?

The IRA attacked business across NI and Britain as part of a campaign to affect the economy. Right or wrong that is what they were doing.

Random businesses based on economic impact or Protestant businesses based on sectarianism. That’s the question and I think we all know the answer.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Random businesses based on economic impact or Protestant businesses based on sectarianism. That’s the question and I think we all know the answer.

How do you know they were random? They could have been businesses belonging to supporters...something else you have to know about and factor into your data.

Data you don't appear to have, so we'll leave that one on the 'someone in the pub told me' shelf.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know they were random? They could have been businesses belonging to supporters...something else you have to know about and factor into your data.

Data you don't appear to have, so we'll leave that one on the 'someone in the pub told me' shelf.

One thing that we have evidenced tonight ie that there are no possible circumstances or evidence that would lead you to say the ira were sectarian.

I can say clearly and categorically that the Uvf were sectarian. Maybe someday you’ll stop defending the indefensible

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

One thing that we have evidenced tonight ie that there are no possible circumstances or evidence that would lead you to say the ira were sectarian.

I can say clearly and categorically that the Uvf were sectarian. Maybe someday you’ll stop defending the indefensible

Em...I think you will find i have said the IRA were sectarian sometimes.
The extent of the difference is there in the figures if you care to look at them.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Em...I think you will find i have said the IRA were sectarian sometimes.
The extent of the difference is there in the figures if you care to look at them.

I appreciate you have no moved to accept the ira were sectarian sometimes.
So where are these figures that demonstrate this? I would be really interested in reading the if they don’t only exist in your head?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate you have no moved to accept the ira were sectarian sometimes.
So where are these figures that demonstrate this? I would be really interested in reading the if they don’t only exist in your head?

I have not 'now moved' to accept anything I have always accepted it and said it in this very conversation a few posts before you pretended to be able to 'evidence' your bar stool, someone told me stories.
The CAIN website has all the info you want or Wesley ??? Website also has the numbers

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have not 'now moved' to accept anything I have always accepted it and said it in this very conversation a few posts before you pretended to be able to 'evidence' your bar stool, someone told me stories.
The CAIN website has all the info you want or Wesley ??? Website also has the numbers

You have clearly moved your position, but don’t be ashamed of that, it takes courage to change. Fair or play to you.

You have been clear all along that the ira were not sectarian but that some of there members occasionally were. We are now in agreement as you have now clearly stated that “the IRA were sometimes sectarian”. This is a position I can agree with totally, I was just frustrated that you were originally blaming a few renigade members for their sectarianism and not the organisation.
I have never said their actions were always sectarian, that would be ludicrous as they killed a lot of their own members and also killed very many Catholics by mistake or for informing, etc.

Now you have pointed me to two websites which you say demonstrate the ira were ‘sometimes’ sectarian. Explain how this data supports that analysis?
There is little point in just naming a website. I could name a website and says that proves anything.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You have clearly moved your position, but don’t be ashamed of that, it takes courage to change. Fair or play to you.

You have been clear all along that the ira were not sectarian but that some of there members occasionally were. We are now in agreement as you have now clearly stated that “the IRA were sometimes sectarian”. This is a position I can agree with totally, I was just frustrated that you were originally blaming a few renigade members for their sectarianism and not the organisation.

just unbelievable.

I have never said their actions were always sectarian, that would be ludicrous as they killed a lot of their own members and also killed very many Catholics by mistake or for informing, etc.

Now you have pointed me to two websites which you say demonstrate the ira were ‘sometimes’ sectarian. Explain how this data supports that analysis?
There is little point in just naming a website. I could name a website and says that proves anything.

You havent EVER named a source for your theory or presented any data.

You will insist on twisting everything in your victimhood.
Completely disingenuous debater intent on one agenda.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

just unbelievable.

You havent EVER named a source for your theory or presented any data.

You will insist on twisting everything in your victimhood.
Completely disingenuous debater intent on one agenda.

Could you explain how the data you presented explains how the IRA were sometimes sectarian?
You don’t accept others posting data with explaination

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Could you explain how the data you presented explains how the IRA were sometimes sectarian?
You don’t accept others posting data with explaination

We have done this dance before with the CAIN website. You found an anomaly in one of the stats or something and that proved you were right. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You made the original claim. And STILL haven't presented anything by way of proof except twisting people's words

You said you could 'evidence' your claim, go ahead.