Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Necro

Mod:

Threads merged, no need to split it off into its own thread

Samsonsmasher

tdf7187 wrote: »

This whole aspect is dramatically overplayed by partitionists. We are not in 1971 or even 1991. After a slow start, Gardai are dealing largely succesfullly with our own violent drugs gangs, who are a far bigger threat to peace and security than the loyalists or anti-GFA republicans (a microgroup within a microgroup) in 2021.

Loyalists were not very scientific about who they killed nor did they have to be during the Troubles. Any Catholic would do. They used handguns or knives. Those tactics would be just as effective today to create fear and undermine the system of law and order.
Gardaí and Irish Defence Forces would be quickly exhausted if they had to deal with regular riots between Catholics and Protestants and if soldiers and Gardaí were regularly injured or killed in these disturbances or in isolated gun attacks morale would plummet.
If they showed themselves unable to contain loyalists then republicans would go back to violence.
If there were cross border attacks by loyalists - a machine gun attack on a crowded bar for instance - it would sow terror in the south.
Few young people in the south would want to join the Gardaí or Irish Defence Forces if it meant coming home maimed or dead from the north or having their families targeted and killed? To make up the numbers they would have to obviously recruit Catholics who wouldn't hesitate to stick the boot into the Protestants further alienating them from Dublin.
Most people in the south don't know about or care about the north and if the Troubles started again their interest in the place would be less.

FrancieBrady

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Loyalists were not very scientific about who they killed nor did they have to be during the Troubles. Any Catholic would do. They used handguns or knives. Those tactics would be just as effective today to create fear and undermine the system of law and order.
Gardaí and Irish Defence Forces would be quickly exhausted if they had to deal with regular riots between Catholics and Protestants and if soldiers and Gardaí were regularly injured or killed in these disturbances or in isolated gun attacks morale would plummet.
If they showed themselves unable to contain loyalists then republicans would go back to violence.
If there were cross border attacks by loyalists - a machine gun attack on a crowded bar for instance - it would sow terror in the south.
Few young people in the south would want to join the Gardaí or Irish Defence Forces if it meant coming home maimed or dead from the north or having their families targeted and killed?

There is no discernible evidence of an ability to mount a campaign within loyalism.

The bare fact is that moderate Unionism has accepted that there will be a UI if the majority want it. In other words, as nationalism accepted the democratic imperative of the GFA so also has Unionism by and large.

Loyalism, which always found it difficult to sustain an effective campaign, is only able to muster militancy in the upstairs rooms of pubs these days.

SEPT 23 1989

Weapons and funding would be flowing into the north for loyalist paramilitaries in the months before British withdrawal

There would be mayhem down the eastern side of the island if it ever happened

Hopefully things stay the way they are

Samsonsmasher

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no discernible evidence of an ability to mount a campaign within loyalism.

The bare fact is that moderate Unionism has accepted that there will be a UI if the majority want it. In other words, as nationalism accepted the democratic imperative of the GFA so also has Unionism by and large.

Loyalism, which always found it difficult to sustain an effective campaign, is only able to muster militancy in the upstairs rooms of pubs these days.

It wouldn't take much for loyalists to abduct and kill a Catholic every week.
I'm not talking about moderate Unionists.
I'm talking about hardcore loyalists.
Gangs of these guys meeting in pubs was how they organized and kept their campaign going during the Troubles.

jm08

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Weapons and funding would be flowing into the north for loyalist paramilitaries in the months before British withdrawal

There would be mayhem down the eastern side of the island if it ever happened

Hopefully things stay the way they are

Where would the funding and arms be coming from?

Samsonsmasher

jm08 wrote: »

Where would the funding and arms be coming from?

Sympathetic British people and the British intelligence services.

FrancieBrady

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

It wouldn't take much for loyalists to abduct and kill a Catholic every week.
I'm not talking about moderate Unionists.
I'm talking about hardcore loyalists.
Gangs of these guys meeting in pubs was how they organized and kept their campaign going during the Troubles.

Not possible to sustain a campaign if you don't have supports. Simple as that.

I think the huge evidence is that the militant fight is gone out of Unionism. It has been evident in the ever diminishing strength of protest since the Anglo Irish Agreement (the real watershed vis a vis Unionist militancy)

The end result is a complete failure to mount a protest to the Irish Sea border, despite huge efforts by some. (looking at you Jamie Bryson)

Yes you will sadly see some bitter recrimination stuff, but I think the vast majority in Unionism are ready to get on with it and as a UI will not be a sudden transition, they will have time to adjust properly.

jm08

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Loyalists were not very scientific about who they killed nor did they have to be during the Troubles. Any Catholic would do. They used handguns or knives. Those tactics would be just as effective today to create fear and undermine the system of law and order.
Gardaí and Irish Defence Forces would be quickly exhausted if they had to deal with regular riots between Catholics and Protestants and if soldiers and Gardaí were regularly injured or killed in these disturbances or in isolated gun attacks morale would plummet.
If they showed themselves unable to contain loyalists then republicans would go back to violence.
If there were cross border attacks by loyalists - a machine gun attack on a crowded bar for instance - it would sow terror in the south.
Few young people in the south would want to join the Gardaí or Irish Defence Forces if it meant coming home maimed or dead from the north or having their families targeted and killed? To make up the numbers they would have to obviously recruit Catholics who wouldn't hesitate to stick the boot into the Protestants further alienating them from Dublin.
Most people in the south don't know about or care about the north and if the Troubles started again their interest in the place would be less.

In fairness to the Defence Forces, they are highly skilled in peace keeping. They have been working in the Middle East (and elsewhere) for the last 60 years with the UN. If they are overwhelmed by loyalists, there is always an option to bring in UN Peacekeeping (which is what should have happened in the 70s in Northern Ireland and not British troops who hadn't a clue about peacekeeping.



I think you are reading it wrong about people in the south not caring about what happens in the north of the island.

FrancieBrady

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Sympathetic British people and the British intelligence services.

Gosh, how much more evidence do you need to see that the British are done with NI?

It is in their interests now that a UI be successful.

jm08

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Sympathetic British people and the British intelligence services.

Like who would be sympathetic. And why would the British intelligence service want to cause trouble in Ireland, now that they have withdrawn?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Social and economic cohesion.

Pride - in generating your own living without subsidy.

An end to uncertainty...see Borders/Brexit, health security

An end to International intervention I.E. the operation of agreements just so a sizable part of the island can function.

Parity of esteem for all.

Restructuring of those things that have failed the people in both jurisdictions.

Most importantly, the chance to properly lay to rest the divisions that have and are still causing strife and death.


I could go on.

Please do go on.
I don’t see anything there that a Catalan who wants full integration with Spain or a Scot who wants full integration with UK wouldn’t say, Peppered with some anti-unionist nonsense

downcow

Necro wrote: »

Mod:

Threads merged, no need to split it off into its own thread

Thanks. I wasn’t sure if it was inappropriate and off topic

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Please do go on.
I don’t see anything there that a Catalan who wants full integration with Spain or a Scot who wants full integration with UK wouldn’t say, Peppered with some anti-unionist nonsense

No, you tell us some of the benefits of 'staying' now. Fair's fair.

Samsonsmasher

jm08 wrote: »

In fairness to the Defence Forces, they are highly skilled in peace keeping. They have been working in the Middle East (and elsewhere) for the last 60 years with the UN. If they are overwhelmed by loyalists, there is always an option to bring in UN Peacekeeping (which is what should have happened in the 70s in Northern Ireland and not British troops who hadn't a clue about peacekeeping.



I think you are reading it wrong about people in the south not caring about what happens in the north of the island.

The Irish peacekeeping troops in Lebanon were not raiding houses kicking in doors arresting people actively fighting armed guerrillas and taking hundreds of casualties like the British in Northern Ireland. The most the Irish Defences Forces could send at a time to the Lebanon was a battalion - three companies each divided into three platoons. The British had tens of thousands of troops in the north not just our puny underpaid and understaffed army of less than 10000. The British had special forces overt and covert and front line troops as well as tanks armoured vehicles and helicopters on sustained operations for decades.

Samsonsmasher

jm08 wrote: »

Like who would be sympathetic. And why would the British intelligence service want to cause trouble in Ireland, now that they have withdrawn?

A lot of anti Irish sentiment exists in Britain, many British people still see Ireland as their territory and if they see people with British identity under threat they will help out the same way many Irish Americans sympathized with republicanism.

FrancieBrady

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

A lot of anti Irish sentiment exists in Britain, many British people still see Ireland as their territory and if they see people with British identity under threat they will help out the same way many Irish Americans sympathized with republicanism.

What?

Can you back any of this up?

jm08

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Irish peacekeeping troops in Lebanon were not raiding houses kicking in doors arresting people actively fighting armed guerrillas and taking hundreds of casualties like the British in Northern Ireland. The most the Irish Defences Forces could send at a time to the Lebanon was a battalion - three companies each divided into three platoons. The British had tens of thousands of troops in the north not just our puny underpaid and understaffed army of less than 10000. The British had special forces overt and covert and front line troops as well as tanks armoured vehicles and helicopters on sustained operations for decades.

The British Army initially had the support of the nationalist community. The BA, by their own actions, lost that support. It was entirely their fault that they were unable to keep the peace as they were not trained to do so. Why were they kicking in the doors of nationalists? Just a reminder here as to where it all started going wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBOUkBAO5s


The Irish Gov. wanted UN Peacekeeping Forces, but the British Government were too arrogant in thinking that they could do it by kicking the door in of nationalists.

Samsonsmasher

jm08 wrote: »

The British Army initially had the support of the nationalist community. The BA, by their own actions, lost that support. It was entirely their fault that they were unable to keep the peace as they were not trained to do so. Why were they kicking in the doors of nationalists? Just a reminder here as to where it all started going wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBOUkBAO5s


The Irish Gov. wanted UN Peacekeeping Forces, but the British Government were too arrogant in thinking that they could do it by kicking the door in of nationalists.

The Irish Defence Forces and Gardaí would be kicking in both the doors of republicans and loyalists because both sides would go back to war.

jm08

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Irish Defence Forces and Gardaí would be kicking in both the doors of republicans and loyalists because both sides would go back to war.

Why would republicans go back to war? It just does not make sense.

Samsonsmasher

jm08 wrote: »

Why would republicans go back to war? It just does not make sense.

Because Loyalists would riot and attack the Gardaí and the Irish Defense Forces and attack Catholics of course.

6541

This thread is inciting a great debate and fair play to everyone involved. My 2 cent for what it is worth is that history has already judged that the British and the RA had to compromise. What is left is stalemate. So it's up to both sides how they want to go forward from this point.

FrancieBrady

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Because Loyalists would riot and attack the Gardaí and the Irish Defense Forces and attack Catholics of course.

This nonsense that the Gardai and current Irish army will be sent in is based on a UI were there is a 'takeover' of NI.

It won't be that, it will be the foundation of a new state where the security forces will be as much 'their' security forces as they are ours. I.E. they would be attacking their own security forces in an attempt to bludgeon their way back into a Union that has willingly signed them out of it.
A futility that most of Unionism recognises and won't therefore support.

The evidence of that (something you are not providing for your theories) is there in the behaviour of Unionism in general since the signing of the Anglo Irish Agreement when they could bring tens of thousands onto the streets. That resolve simply isn't there anymore.

Beltby

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Sympathetic British people and the British intelligence services.

Whatever difficulties the UK are currently having with Brexit, that would be nothing if they were seen to be contributing to an insurgency in an EU country.

In short, they would be fcuked.

Samsonsmasher

Beltby wrote: »

Whatever difficulties the UK are currently having with Brexit, that would be nothing if they were seen to be contributing to an insurgency in an EU country.

In short, they would be fcuked.

They are allies of the US and members of NATO. Why would they be f*cked?

Beltby

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

They are allies of the US and members of NATO. Why would they be f*cked?

The president of the United States is Irish, if you hadn't noticed.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

I guess you could get 50 different answers from 50 different viewpoints. No doubt you will believe your answer is the correct one.

I don't want "50 different answers from 50 different viewpoints"; I just want one, singular answer, yours.

Surely you know what you yourself thinks?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you know WHY the GFA and by extension devolution and the Stormont (Joint) Executive came into being?

This is a genuine question that I hope you can answer for me.

Fire away... I can wait.

BonnieSituation

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Weapons and funding would be flowing into the north for loyalist paramilitaries in the months before British withdrawal

There would be mayhem down the eastern side of the island if it ever happened

Hopefully things stay the way they are

Citation needed.

tdf7187

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no discernible evidence of an ability to mount a campaign within loyalism.

The bare fact is that moderate Unionism has accepted that there will be a UI if the majority want it. In other words, as nationalism accepted the democratic imperative of the GFA so also has Unionism by and large.

Loyalism, which always found it difficult to sustain an effective campaign, is only able to muster militancy in the upstairs rooms of pubs these days.

Indeed. In fact, the main obstacle is not unionists but Dublin partitonists/Harrisites/Cruiserites, which this forum is crawling with but in broader society are a microgroup.

tdf7187

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Citation needed.

He won't be able to provide one, because none exist. It's just scaremongering. The threat doesn't exist except in his brain.