Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.
Options
Comments
-
Now that thats out of the way heres an "on topic post"
My view on re-partition is that it would be a bad idea as it would make northern Ireland into another Gibraltar.
To a comment made earlier by MT about not deviding cities, you would have no choice but to divide cities if repartition were to take place as there are members of both ideologies living in these cities.
The fact is that it would be worse than berlin in that you would not be dividing one city but many.0 -
I'm going to applaud MT again for making a lot of well-thought out points. Almost every point strikes a chord. The conclusion still seems extreme, but others have dismissed it without giving any apparent thought to the carefully structured arguments that support it. What I'm saying is: if you're going to dismiss the conclusion, you should at least address the arguments that led to that conclusion. If repartition won't work, what will?
A thought occurred to me: I was in Brazil recently. Brazil was (I believe) the last country in the western world to abolish slavery. This left something of a legacy of shame and some deep divisions between the black and white populations. To address this, a zero-tolerance approach was adopted towards racism: a racist remark was (and I think still is) punishable by a prison sentence. This might seem extreme, but the level of racial tension there is now very low, and in fact the lines between races are becoming rather blurred.
Is something similar required in the North? The problem is, at its heart, the "them and us" attitude. If it was illegal to speak disparagingly of the other community, is it possible that the lines would become blurred over time?0 -
In case you are still confused, the Scottish (or Welsh) have no difficulty seeing themselves as Scottish ( or Welsh ) and British.
Wales yes, but not Scotland, where in a poll a few years ago (around the time of the devolution referendum), just 25% said they said they saw themselves as "British and Scottish", with just 10% calling themselves "just British", and 58% calling themselves "just Scottish".
BTW MT, what evidence do you have for your contention about Catholic NI birthrates falling to Protestant levels? Also you fail to take account of the Unionist death-rate being higher than the Catholic one due to old-age.0 -
true wrote:Cdebru, it seems you are not fully aware of the facts surrounding Irelands attitude to Jews in those years, and Ireland neutrality. Let me give you some facts.
Sixty Years ago on the 2nd May 1945 just at the close of World War Two the political leader of the Irish Free State and embodiment of the Irish Republican movement failed even to be discreet in his support for Nazism. Eamon de Valera saw fit to sign a petition of condolence at the German legation in Dublin to express his grief on the death of Hitler. Furthermore, he went to personally commiserate with the Nazi representative in Eire, Dr Eduard Hempel on the death of their beloved Fuhrer. Later a mob vandalised the British High Commission and the US embassy in Dublin on news of the Allied victory, both countries being outraged at Ireland's attitude and actions.
Please note this event took place a full three months after the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp and the revelation of the full horror of the Nazi genocide, and was only two weeks after British troops had liberated Bergen-Belsen, accompanied as it happened by an Irish doctor. There could be no possibility that de Valera and the Dail were unaware of the Nazi treatment of Jews, and yet the leader of supposedly neutral Ireland still wished to pay his respects to one of the most evil men in the history of the world. It was a display of support that no other national leader on earth made. At the time it was defended as a diplomatic gesture but was one that not even General Franco was insensitive enough to make.
This of course was not the only manifestation of Irish sympathy for Nazism which led to them being rebuffed scornfully by the USA, that prevented their qualification for Marshal Aid, and delayed their entrance into the United Nations until 1957. During the War officials of the Irish Free State were outrageous in their racist anti-Semitism which was openly tolerated by the Catholic hierarchy and common currency in Irish society. Indeed Hitler's racial criteria for keeping out the Jew were still being used in Eire 8 years after Hitler's death. A 1953 memo from the Dublin department of Justice argues that vetting refugees into the Republic should be on a similar basis to that 'adopted for the admission of non-Ayran refugees' in 1938 and 1939. The Department of Justice went on to depicte the eastern European Jews applying for asylum as a danger to the Irish State. "There is strong anti-Jewish feeling in this State which is particularly evident to the Alien Section of the Department of Justice." They went on to write 'Sympathy for the Jews has not been particularly excited at the recent news that some thousands are fleeing westwards because of the recent round-up of communist Jews who had been prominent in Government and in government service in eastern European countries.'
When in the Dail in 1943, Oliver J. Flanagan praised Hitler for ridding Germany of Jews claiming, "I doubt very much if they are human!", he was not challenged by any other member. Later in a speech to the Dail he said "There is one thing that Germany did and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is honey, and where the Jews are there is money." Flanagan was soon to join Fine Gael and remained a T.D. for them until 1987 briefly becoming Minister for Defence in the late 1970's. J.J. Walsh T.D. who had been a minister in the Cosgrave government was another high ranking anti-Semite who described Irish Jews as a "gang of parasites".
Anti-Semitism and praise for fascism was also rife within the Catholic hierarchy. The main body organising support for Franco was the Irish Christian Front (I.C.F.) a broad based pressure group which , in the early months of the Spanish civil war organised massive demonstrations and had, initially at least, more widespread support than the Blueshirts. The Front's founders were Patrick Belton, who was formerly a T.D. for both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael as well as being an ex-Blueshirt, and Alexander McCabe, formerly elected for both Sinn Fein (pre-1922) and Cumann Na nGaedheal and later to be a member of Eoin O'Duffy's pro-nazi People's National Party. At one I.C.F. rally in Cork in September 1936 40,000 people assembled to hear Monsignor Patrick Sexton, Roman Catholic Dean of Cork, blame the Spanish civil war on "a gang of murderous Jews in Moscow". Beside him stood Alfred O'Rahilly, the future president of the University College of Cork, and Douglas Hyde, the future president of the Irish state who up until introduction of the Euro has his head on our Irish £50 note.
This track record of democratically elected and clerical Jew-baiting was certainly foundation for the fact that only 30 European Jews fleeing persecution were given asylum before the war, none during it, and only a handful afterwards, and that there was consistent government opposition to granting any asylum. Even a year after the close of war, with the memory of the concentration camps fresh in the Irish public's consciousness, the Department of Justice was still vehemently opposed to Jews entering Ireland. In August 1946, the Minister of Justice refused to admit 100 Jewish orphans found at the Bergen-Belsen death camp.
This race hatred should be no surprise given the recent history there had been, of pogroms against Jews in Ireland, such as in Limerick in 1904 when catholic Priest Father John Creagh incited the local population against "blood-sucking" Jewish money-lenders. His sermons brought about a two-year trade boycott of Jewish businesses that was accompanied by harassment and beatings and resulted in the almost total departure of the 150-strong Limerick Jewish community.
During the course of World War Two the Irish Free State remained officially neutral. In 1938 a year before the outbreak of war de Valera took control of the three treaty ports of Queenstown, Berehaven and Lough Swilly making them unavailable for British and thus allied naval operations. These ports were of such significance to allied naval activities that the US ambassador to Eire, David Gray urged President Roosevelt to seize them.
Without the free access to ports and seaways around Northern Ireland operations would have been near impossible, as was later testified to by President Eisenhower who said, "without Northern Ireland I do not see how the American forces could have been concentrated to begin the invasion of Europe. If Ulster had not been a definite, co-operative part of the British Empire and had not been available for our use I do not see how the build up could have been carried out in England". In 1943 Churchill paid a similar tribute to Northern Irelands contribution in the face of the Irish Free State's hindrance and obstruction: "Only one channel of entry remained open. That channel remained open because loyal Ulster gave us the full use of the Northern Irish ports and waters and thus ensured the free working of the Clyde and the Mersey".
Incidentally, at the declaration of war in 1939 Sinn Fein/IRA responded by attacking targets in England - also receiving financial support for their enterprise by support from Irish American Clan na Gael. It is interesting to note that on the day Britain and Germany went to war that the first soldier to be shot was by the IRA in Belfast.
In April 1942 RUC Constables Thomas Forbes and Patrick Murphy ( Catholic father of 10) were murdered in two separate attacks by an IRA gang as a part of the IRA's pro-Nazi subterfuge. The gang of 5 were sentanced to death with only leader Tom Williams getting the noose. ( One of them, Joe Cahill, later to be prominent IRA Chief of Staff, and the other three escaped the rope following direct intervention from Hitler's Pope Pius XII. At his death in July 2004 Cahill was lauded as a hero by Fr. Des Wilson and former Taioseach Albert Reynolds.)
Just in case you thought the IRA only started in the North in '69.
this is directly plagarised from this websitehttp://www.victims.org.uk/nazi.html
dont copy and paste and pretend its your post
Families Acting for Innocent Relatives (FAIR)
Formed in 1989 the organisation is based largely in South Armagh and consists of relatives of Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) / Royal Irish Rangers (RIR) members injured or killed by republican paramilitary groups. As such FAIR has sought to campaign for recognition and compensation for those affected by republican violence particularly in the area of South Armagh.
from here http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/forgan.htm
I suggest you try reading this for a more balanced non patisan view of the reasons for and the actual realities of Irish nuetrality
http://www2.uakron.edu/OAH/newsletter/newsletter/OAHfall04.pdf
the article you plagarised is all over the place has facts that didn't happen tries to link events that were not linked
it was an article written in an attack on mary mcaleese trying to show that the Irish free state was a nazi sympathetic state which it was not in fact any
impartial view of the free states position in WW2 clearly shows it was pro allies
releasing allied soldiers interning german ones
passing on weather reports
passing on information on the location of german U boats off the coast of Ireland allowing flyover of donegal to allied anti submarine aircraft
.0 -
true wrote:Here are some facts on the Spanish inquisition, which incidentally was not the only sort of ethnic cleansing in Europe in this period eg the French Catholics hunting out the Hugenots, some of whom settled in Ireland.
The Spanish Inquisition and its actions caused 200,000 loyal, but Jewish, Spaniards to leave the country. Surely, the Spanish Inquisition was about more than just religious purity.
The Inquisition in Spain began in 1478 and officially ended in 1808. During that time, 323,362 people were burned and 17,659 were burned in effigy. It is one of the darkest periods in Spanish history. Most were Jews, but some were Protestants. Jews were the cases that were tried the most severely. There were other minorities, of course, that were persecuted, but the majority were Jews. The Inquisition definitely had racial overtones. Although it can be said that Queen Isabella officially initiated the Spanish Inquisition for the purity of the Catholic faith, nation, and people, this is probably not the case. The materialistic desires of the aristocracy certainly factor into the reasons for the perpetuation of the Inquisition.
Many hundreds of thousands of people were severly tortured during the spanish inquisition as well. A sort of torture that makes a south Armagh torture look ....tame. In fairness to the Brits, not too many of them did that, did they.
If you dont believe me , read the following books:
Machiavelli, Niccolo (translated by Henry C. Mansfield). (1985). The Prince. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Plaidy, Jean. (1967). The Spanish Inquisition. New York: The Citadel Press.
Roth, Cecil. (1964). The Spanish Inquisition. United States of America: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
The reason all this came up is because of all of the talk about the famine, the 700 or 800 years etc. The rest of Europe had its share of famines, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, disease outbreaks etc as well.
no desire to get into the inquistion
but here for example http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.TXT0 -
Advertisement
-
Post 94: Like Poker Peter I would like to know this aswel MT.The 2003 census stated that 51.5% of all school children in NI are Catholics.Given the fact that the same census put the Catholic % of NI at 44%, this clearly shows the Catholic community is still growing much faster than the Protestant community.
Poker Peter also mentions the fact that the Protestant community is an "older" community aswel.Also the fact that Catholics realise this, and that the potential to realistically overtake the Protestant within 2 or 3 generations exists, will probably continue to "encourage" larger families on the Catholic side (not that i condone bringing children into the world to "make up the numbers", but thats the situation up there).
Like oscarBravo I think that was an excellent post MT.You should be a statesman/woman!!!Now for my response; In theory what your saying is true and should leave us with the confidence to leave the all-island aspiration behind,IN THEORY.However, practically, it does not.Im Irish, a nationalist, want a UI and so on.I regard ALL of Ireland as my homeland.When I "picture" Ireland I see all of it, not just the 26 county area with the 6 cut away.All of the history and heritage of those 6 counties are as valuable and important to me as any other county or province or region of Ireland.While the vast majority of people are "moderates" on partition and dont harbour resentment or hatred to Britain over NI, the majority of people want a UI somewhere down the road.To repartition the statelet to create an overwhelmingly Unionist area will effectively kill any future chance of a UI.Some people (myself included) dont regard the partition of Ireland as fair or just or moral.I know some will disagree with this statement, but I regard Britain and the British government as alien to Irelnad; same way as I do France and its government.Ireland is not a part of Britain and I think the last time it was was before the ice age.But at that point Britain was a part of the continent.Politically, Ireland and Britain were once united, but that never had any support and was only achieved (after 3 attempts) by bribing an unrepresentative parliament.Thus the "administration" of Ireland by Britain in the first place was unjust.Also, the Act of 1801 was supposed to be accompanied by a Catholic emancipation act, but it wasnt.So one argue say the Act of 1801 was invalid.
Another argument is that the people who want reunification are the Irish.Given the fact Ireland was unchanged by the reformation and that the settlers of the 17th century were Protestant, its arguable that the "native Irish" are generally of Catholic stock, while the settlers are Protestant.Yes,yes,yes, I know about the whole native Americans and Basques and other displaced people, but Im arguing for the Irish at the moment.And I say Irish because as MT pointed out Unionists dont call themselves Irish (in general) anymore.Anyway back to the point.Some people view the nationalists as the Irish and the Unionists as British, both of whom it would seem are at each others throats over that part of Ireland.Hence, most people believe the Irish people should be the masters of Ireland and the fact that I aspire to Ireland achieving its full potential as a free united nation, where the only people who influence its destiny and governance are the people of Ireland, not people living in Britain, wheras the Unionist aspire to maintaining Britains governments presence in Ireland and the continued incorporation of part of this island into the UK, which I regard as unacceptable.Ireland is Ireland.
I realise the Unionists dont identify with the Irish nation and cherish there British ancestory which I totally respect and accept, but there are Irish people in Britain who may identify more with their Irish ancestory than the British nation yet partitioning Britain to allow for this is a laughable idea.I mention hypothetically of course.
Ireland was a single united kingdom prior to Britains arrival, so the "birth right" and claims for aspiring to a UI are there.
Most people in the south dont care who lives in NI, we just want it because we regard it as Ireland.Also, the British governments policy on NI (as I mentioned before) is a de facto acceptance of aspirations of a UI and the lawfulness, legitimacy and rationality of this aspiration.Also, partition hasnt worked before and doesnt have a good record as being a method of resolving national disputes.
You dont seem to take this aspiration of a UI into account and said yourself you dont seem to understand it.I personally find it antagonising when people say" Lets just divide Ireland and thatll work out eventually or at least be the best solution".Why?I cant honestly give a perfect long explanation at the moment other than patriotism or nationalism etc. Then again, if I was looking at another nation with problems similar to Ireland Id believe partition to be a solution, because it doesnt affect me.Yet i would be staunchly against repartitioning Ireland.Simply put, your idea doesnt take into account emotions, feelings and human nature/instincts.Another example is Communism; in theory it would be an ideal world if everyone was equal and enjoyed equal luxuries and material wealth etc.Yet when you add people to the mix, it just doesnt seem to work.
Im sure people will disagree with this statement and Im sure its going to be taken apart and criticised, and Ill just respond as best I can.0 -
Originally Posted by cdebru
there was no mass holocaust of protestants during the spainish inquisition
about 3500 to 5000 people were killed during the 150 years not all protestant
ethnic cleansing.
When I correct cdebru with a very detailed reply , inc sources, that over 323,000 were tortured and killed over 330 years, cdebru simply said "no desire to get into the inquistion " and cdebru gives me a source. I look up his sourse and it is a magazine article by some fellow called O'Brien, in a February 15th 1996 issue
of "the Wanderer" , in which he does an "observation" of the inquisition, and says it was'nt all that bad. The magazine link has a catholic church connection. If I am given books on the subject, written by proper historians, and a magazine article by some unknown journalist in an unknown magazine, who does not produce hard facts, I know which I would trust.
Yet again , cdebru, I think you will have to admit I am correct. You tried to , but failed, to shoot down one of the facts I was using to back up one of my points ie that Europe was in turmoil as well during the 700 or 800 years. All you mention and all we hear about is the Irish potato famine : there were famines in Europe as well, and worse.0 -
true wrote:Originally Posted by cdebru
there was no mass holocaust of protestants during the spainish inquisition
about 3500 to 5000 people were killed during the 150 years not all protestant
ethnic cleansing.
When I correct cdebru with a very detailed reply , inc sources, that over 323,000 were tortured and killed over 330 years, cdebru simply said "no desire to get into the inquistion " and cdebru gives me a source. I look up his sourse and it is a magazine article by some fellow called O'Brien, in a February 15th 1996 issue
of "the Wanderer" , in which he does an "observation" of the inquisition, and says it was'nt all that bad. The magazine link has a catholic church connection. If I am given books on the subject, written by proper historians, and a magazine article by some unknown journalist in an unknown magazine, who does not produce hard facts, I know which I would trust.
Yet again , cdebru, I think you will have to admit I am correct. You tried to , but failed, to shoot down one of the facts I was using to back up one of my points ie that Europe was in turmoil as well during the 700 or 800 years. All you mention and all we hear about is the Irish potato famine : there were famines in Europe as well, and worse.
wait one minute first i have never said you were correct about anything never mind again
you said there had been a protestant holocaust in spain that is untrue
most of the victims of the inquistion were jewish or muslim or more accurately converts from those religions
your figure like most that you spout here seem to be from the top of your head
the link i refered you to refered to a bbc documentary that discounted alot of the stories of the inquisition
it was called the myths of the spnish inquisition
now you have some neck to get on here when you have just been caught plagarising from an virulent anti republican website and passing it off as your own work
now why i did not want to get involved in a debate on the spainish inquisition is because it has no relevance
nor does the fact that horrible things happened in other countries
the fact is that a famine happened here and that britain did very little if anything to alieviate the situation
the fact that other people in other countries had a hard time is irrelevant0 -
to the subject of the thread
I can not see where you could possibly repartition
if i take it that you mean the counties west of the bann
which are majority nationalist there is still a substantial number of unionists in fermanagh tyrone derry armagh
what would you do with these hundreds of thousands of people
presuming you managed to convince them to move into the remaining 2 counties
what about belfast would you be able to persuade all the nationalist to leave their homes and jobs and go where exactly
the fact is that although we have majority nationalist counties and majority unionist counties there are still large numbers of the either side in both sections moving all of these people would be not just unfeasable but impossible
what would you have created a 2 or 3 county state with a nice built in majority again
we are back to the 1920s
what kind of life could nationalist expect in this predominantly unionist society what they experienced under stormont a protestant parliament for a protestant people
all you would do is make the mistake that was made the first time and we would be back here again in a 100 years or more with god knows what trouble in between
and then what repartition again and again0 -
Having been away for the last week, I will have to get up to speed with this thread but a few quick points.
1. NI is a failed political entity and something needs to be done. I very much doubt a lot of those currently advocating 'majority' (=50.001%) 'democracy' in NI will accept a United Ireland if the 'majority' in NI vote for it.
2. NI was created and gerrymandered to ensure an in-built 'majority' for Unionism. The fact that a lot of people equate NI to Ulster is a sign of their ignorance. Talk of 'democracy' in NI is a joke.
3. The 'majority' of Scottish people I know in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only. Some of them will then consider themselves British.0 -
Advertisement
-
To get back to the subject "Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.", I do not think repartition would work for the following reasons.
The following account is how a Northern Unionist - not me , I am not a Northern Unionist - may see things :
Some republicans / nationalists would remain in the UK area.
They would sit around all day on the dole, and have families of 10 or 12.
If they intermarried with Protestants, the Protestant partner would be forced to bring the children up as Catholics , and therefore in all likelyhood nationalists.
They would whine about job discrimination : yet whenever they get a job they may throw " a spanner in the works of the occupied 2 counties ", in an effort to bring about the reunification of Ireland, as they see it.
They would move in to areas that were traditionally Protestant, and then object to Protestants having the right to parade down that road once a year.
They would bomb and shoot and sniper the Authorities and security forces of the new 2 county state, and complain when they got shot themselves. When the 2 county sate has to introduce the British army, the nationalists first welcome them and then shoot them. When internment is tried in an attempt to restore civil order, it encourages more mayhem. When the security services introduce watchtower, etc in an effort to reduce fatalities, this provokes more criticism from the nationalists. All the time the nationalist terrorists shoot, bomb, intimidate and robb banks. Sometimes they would shoot from across the border, or use it to escape.
Sounds familiar?
This is why a repartitioned new Northern Ireland of 2 or 3 counties would not work.0 -
-
QUOTE: they would sit around all day on the dole, and have families of 10 or 12.If they intermarried with Protestants, the Protestant partner would be forced to bring the children up as Catholics , and therefore in all likelyhood nationalists. QUOTES
This kind of bigotry sounds awfully familiar. You might as well be saying blacks are all just a bunch of "lazy ****" or that Jews are simply "miserly kikes" - making someone out to be the "other" and making generalizations is not a part of discourse and I would ask the MODERATOR - no matter what you're affiliation may be - to not allow this kind of BS on this thread - or don't ...
you wonder why the nationalists are fighting so hard to break away from the protestants.0 -
true wrote:To get back to the subject "Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.", I do not think repartition would work for the following reasons.
The following account is how a Northern Unionist - not me , I am not a Northern Unionist - may see things :
Some republicans / nationalists would remain in the UK area.
They would sit around all day on the dole, and have families of 10 or 12.
If they intermarried with Protestants, the Protestant partner would be forced to bring the children up as Catholics , and therefore in all likelyhood nationalists.
They would whine about job discrimination : yet whenever they get a job they may throw " a spanner in the works of the occupied 2 counties ", in an effort to bring about the reunification of Ireland, as they see it.
They would move in to areas that were traditionally Protestant, and then object to Protestants having the right to parade down that road once a year.
They would bomb and shoot and sniper the Authorities and security forces of the new 2 county state, and complain when they got shot themselves. When the 2 county sate has to introduce the British army, the nationalists first welcome them and then shoot them. When internment is tried in an attempt to restore civil order, it encourages more mayhem. When the security services introduce watchtower, etc in an effort to reduce fatalities, this provokes more criticism from the nationalists. All the time the nationalist terrorists shoot, bomb, intimidate and robb banks. Sometimes they would shoot from across the border, or use it to escape.
Sounds familiar?
This is why a repartitioned new Northern Ireland of 2 or 3 counties would not work.
True, that seems to me to be a really biased interpretation of why repartition would not work. While I agree with you that it would fail and be a bad idea, I think your complete lack of reference to Loyalist terrorists, together with you only putting a Unionist perspective on repartition, constitutes a profoundly unbalanced slant on things. Despite this, you are entitled to your opinion. Now I will give mine.
Repartition at first glance seems attractive to a Republican, until it becomes clear that under previous UK Government proposals, this would have involved the forced expulsion of the entire Catholic population of Belfast and North Antrim, creating a 100% Protestant/Unionist state, just as out of permanent reach of the Dublin Government as Gibraltar is regarding Madrid. That is my main objection to it. I regard London's remit on this island as something that in the end, must be completely eradicated from this island's shores.0 -
true wrote:To get back to the subject "Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.", I do not think repartition would work for the following reasons.
The following account is how a Northern Unionist - not me , I am not a Northern Unionist - may see things :
Some republicans / nationalists would remain in the UK area.
They would sit around all day on the dole, and have families of 10 or 12.
If they intermarried with Protestants, the Protestant partner would be forced to bring the children up as Catholics , and therefore in all likelyhood nationalists.
They would whine about job discrimination : yet whenever they get a job they may throw " a spanner in the works of the occupied 2 counties ", in an effort to bring about the reunification of Ireland, as they see it.
They would move in to areas that were traditionally Protestant, and then object to Protestants having the right to parade down that road once a year.
They would bomb and shoot and sniper the Authorities and security forces of the new 2 county state, and complain when they got shot themselves. When the 2 county sate has to introduce the British army, the nationalists first welcome them and then shoot them. When internment is tried in an attempt to restore civil order, it encourages more mayhem. When the security services introduce watchtower, etc in an effort to reduce fatalities, this provokes more criticism from the nationalists. All the time the nationalist terrorists shoot, bomb, intimidate and robb banks. Sometimes they would shoot from across the border, or use it to escape.
Sounds familiar?
This is why a repartitioned new Northern Ireland of 2 or 3 counties would not work.
this is how a sectarian bigot would see things its odd how you can so easily see it through the eyes of a sectarian bigot
as someone else has pointed out what you have written here is deeply offensive and sectarian0 -
cdebru wrote:this is how a sectarian bigot would see things its odd how you can so easily see it through the eyes of a sectarian bigot
as someone else has pointed out what you have written here is deeply offensive and sectarian
Typical. Shoot the messenger. Ignore the message. The truth always hurts. To understand a conflict, you have to understand the other sides point of view. As a relatively neutral person, I give a point of view from one side in Northern Ireland. The view I suggested does not condone or advocat violence, either past or present. The views I suggest reflect the opinions of a sizeable amount of people based on their past experiences. That is why some people may have these opinions. That is all I said.
I have said may times that there are good and bad people on both sides. I think you , Cdebru, are more of a sectarian bigot than I am.0 -
cdebru wrote:this is how a sectarian bigot would see things its odd how you can so easily see it through the eyes of a sectarian bigot
as someone else has pointed out what you have written here is deeply offensive and sectarian
Typical. Shoot the messenger. Ignore the message. The truth always hurts. To understand a conflict, you have to understand the other sides point of view. As a relatively neutral person, I give a point of view from one side in Northern Ireland. This was one good reason why repartition in Ireland would not work, which is after all the topic. You have to understand the bitterness on both sides. Even so, the view I suggested does not condone or advocat violence, either past or present. I wish all views that people expressed were the same, The views I suggest reflect the opinions of a sizeable amount of people based on their past experiences. That is why some people may have these opinions. That is all I said.
I have said may times that there are good and bad people on both sides. I think you , Cdebru, are more of a sectarian bigot than I am.0 -
A Dub in Glasgo wrote:1. NI is a failed political entity and something needs to be done.
I remember a very famous ( infamous? ) person making the same remark publicly. "Northern Ireland is a failed political entity". It was Mr. Charles Haughey, when he was Taoiseach back in the eighties. He was telling us literally to wear hairshirts, the economy here was so bad at the time : all the while he was going to top class shops in Paris and buying lots of the most expensive shirts there at £ 300 each. Imelda Marcus eat your heat out.
N.I gets handouts from the UK, we get handouts from the EC.
N.I. does not have / could not have a tourist industry. We do have a large toursist industry, as well as massive inward investment fuelled by tax breaks.A Dub in Glasgo wrote:I very much doubt a lot of those currently advocating 'majority' (=50.001%) 'democracy' in NI will accept a United Ireland if the 'majority' in NI vote for it.
I doubt very much us or our children will live to see 50.001% of the people in N. Ireland wanting to join the republic.0 -
true wrote:Typical. Shoot the messenger. Ignore the message. The truth always hurts. To understand a conflict, you have to understand the other sides point of view. As a relatively neutral person, I give a point of view from one side in Northern Ireland. This was one good reason why repartition in Ireland would not work, which is after all the topic. You have to understand the bitterness on both sides. Even so, the view I suggested does not condone or advocat violence, either past or present. I wish all views that people expressed were the same, The views I suggest reflect the opinions of a sizeable amount of people based on their past experiences. That is why some people may have these opinions. That is all I said.
I have said may times that there are good and bad people on both sides. I think you , Cdebru, are more of a sectarian bigot than I am.
yeah yeah everyone else is a bigot and your only telling us how the ordinary bigot in the street sees things but you dont hold these views yourself
your only a conduit of bigotry
so gives your insight on the mind of the average BNP member and them damn pakistanis and how they are undermining british culture
or perhaps you could explain why those ordinary decent white folks are forced to join the KKK and wear sheets I 'm sure its those black people on welfare having too many children forces them into it and it not like you could trust them with a job yes really those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them0 -
true wrote:N.I gets handouts from the UK, we get handouts from the EC.
actually -> northern Ireland gets handouts from the EU. fact 1
"Northern Ireland will receive around £540 million of European funds from 2000 to 2006."true wrote:N.I. does not have / could not have a tourist industry. We do have a large toursist industry, as well as massive inward investment fuelled by tax breaks
Tourism is important for the local economy.
actually -> northern Ireland has a tourist industry fact 2
"Tourism is important for the local economy. 50% of tourists who visited Northern Ireland in 2001 came from the EU"
and according to figures -> "Nearly two million people visited Northern Ireland last year, according to the latest tourism figures."0 -
Advertisement
-
Johnny_the_fox wrote:actually -> northern Ireland gets handouts from the EU. fact 1
"Northern Ireland will receive around £540 million of European funds from 2000 to 2006."
actually -> northern Ireland has a tourist industry fact 2
"Tourism is important for the local economy. 50% of tourists who visited Northern Ireland in 2001 came from the EU"
and according to figures -> "Nearly two million people visited Northern Ireland last year, according to the latest tourism figures."
The UK, of which N. Ireland is part, has been the second largest contributer to the EC, after Germany. Ireland per head of population has received more grants and handouts than any other country in Europe.
Your link does say "Nearly two million people visited Northern Ireland last year, according to the latest tourism figures." It then adds "The Northern Ireland Tourist Board figures include a 15% increase in holidaymakers to 327,000. "
So there is a massive difference between holidaymakers and visitors.
Possibly some visitors that were in the statistics were just ordinary decent people going across the border for cheap beer, a few dozen cheap Northern bank notes or some smuggled diesel.
Look at the number of hotels and restaurants between N. Ireland and the Rep. of Ireland and you will see the difference. Maybe tenfold or twentyfold?0 -
cdebru wrote:so gives your insight on the mind of the average BNP member and them damn pakistanis and how they are undermining british culture
or perhaps you could explain why those ordinary decent white folks are forced to join the KKK and wear sheets I 'm sure its those black people on welfare having too many children forces them into it and it not like you could trust them with a job yes really those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them
Cdebru, as you seem incapable of absorbing the complexities of the Northern situation, and as you seem to have quite a limited, narrow grasp of history, I think it would not be appropriate to open up a discussion on pakistanis or blacks, who you claim are "undermining british culture" Your comment about "those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them" is quite racist. Why can you not accept people as equals? It does not matter if they are Protestant, Jew, Black or Pakistani. It is a pity you were not taught a bit more tolerance. As I said before, all human beings deserve fair play and
courtesy.0 -
true wrote:So there is a massive difference between holidaymakers and visitors.
Possibly some visitors that were in the statistics were just ordinary decent people going across the border for cheap beer, a few dozen cheap Northern bank notes or some smuggled diesel.
Personally I would say they come to the north to use 'our' health care.... and make 'our' waiting lists longer...
Visitors or Tourists they still come over the border.. to a new country... "The UK, of which N. Ireland is part" :rolleyes:0 -
true wrote:Cdebru, as you seem incapable of absorbing the complexities of the Northern situation, and as you seem to have quite a limited, narrow grasp of history, I think it would not be appropriate to open up a discussion on pakistanis or blacks, who you claim are "undermining british culture" Your comment about "those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them" is quite racist. Why can you not accept people as equals? It does not matter if they are Protestant, Jew, Black or Pakistani. It is a pity you were not taught a bit more tolerance. As I said before, all human beings deserve fair play and
courtesy.
odd that you can see it would be rascist to say those things about black people or pakistanis
but you cant quite get your head around the idea that it is not ok to say them about catholics
I also note with interest that you you give a list of types of people but chose not to include catholics in that list
and i see you tried a very lame attempt to divert the question if you find it so easy to see the sectarian bigots viewpoint in the north would you explain the viewpoint of some other bigots namely BNP members and KKK members0 -
cdebru wrote:odd that you can see it would be rascist to say those things about black people or pakistanis
but you cant quite get your head around the idea that it is not ok to say them about catholics
Please do not state "you cant quite get your head around the idea that it is not ok to say them about catholics" because you did not ask me to. I will state them here now for you.
You , cdebru, wrote that Pakistanis were " undermining british culture". I said it not ok to say that. NOw, for your satisfaction, I will state it would also not be ok to say that catholics were " undermining british culture".
Your commented about "those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them". I said that comment is quite racist. I would also say that to suggest
"those decent catholic folk have no choice but to lynch them" OR those decent protestant folk have no choice but to lynch them" is equally racist.
Are you happy now, crebru? And will you please withdraw your racist remarks.cdebru wrote:I also note with interest that you you give a list of types of people but chose not to include catholics in that list
and i see you tried a very lame attempt to divert the question if you find it so easy to see the sectarian bigots viewpoint in the north would you explain the viewpoint of some other bigots namely BNP members and KKK members
The reason I omitted catholics from the list ( oh I am so deeply sorry, easily offended ) is because I asked you " Why can you not accept people as equals? It does not matter if they are Protestant, Jew, Black or Pakistani "
OK, I will add now, Catholic, Buddist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc etc. Sorry if I forgot anyone. You are being pedantic cdebru.
And your final point " the sectarian bigots viewpoint in the north", which you claim I find easy to see. You never mention the other sectarian bigots viewpoint in the North, which I find equally easy to see. Oh ., I see, you though the only sectarian bigots in the north were all on the same side?
Regarding the BNP and KKK members, it was you that mentioned these groups. You seem to know more about them than I do. I think you would go off topic on this thread talking about them. Besides, if you views on these groups were as sectarian as your views towards pakistanis and blacks, I do not want to read more of your racist drivel.0 -
true wrote:Please do not state "you cant quite get your head around the idea that it is not ok to say them about catholics" because you did not ask me to. I will state them here now for you.
You , cdebru, wrote that Pakistanis were " undermining british culture". I said it not ok to say that. NOw, for your satisfaction, I will state it would also not be ok to say that catholics were " undermining british culture".
Your commented about "those decent white folk have no choice but to lynch them". I said that comment is quite racist. I would also say that to suggest
"those decent catholic folk have no choice but to lynch them" OR those decent protestant folk have no choice but to lynch them" is equally racist.
Are you happy now, crebru? And will you please withdraw your racist remarks.
this is the last time i shall waste my time answering your pathetic attempts to justify your self hating anti Irish anti catholic bigotry
The reason I omitted catholics from the list ( oh I am so deeply sorry, easily offended ) is because I asked you " Why can you not accept people as equals? It does not matter if they are Protestant, Jew, Black or Pakistani "
OK, I will add now, Catholic, Buddist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc etc. Sorry if I forgot anyone. You are being pedantic cdebru.
And your final point " the sectarian bigots viewpoint in the north", which you claim I find easy to see. You never mention the other sectarian bigots viewpoint in the North, which I find equally easy to see. Oh ., I see, you though the only sectarian bigots in the north were all on the same side?
Regarding the BNP and KKK members, it was you that mentioned these groups. You seem to know more about them than I do. I think you would go off topic on this thread talking about them. Besides, if you views on these groups were as sectarian as your views towards pakistanis and blacks, I do not want to read more of your racist drivel.
this is the last time i shall waste my time answering your pathetic attempts to justify your self hating anti Irish anti catholic bigotry0 -
cdebru wrote:this is the last time i shall waste my time answering your pathetic attempts to justify your self hating anti Irish anti catholic bigotry
Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol.
Nothing I said was " self hating anti Irish anti catholic bigotry"
Lol. You know everything I said above was correct, and I am not anti-Irish or anti-catholic.
For the last time cdebru,a chara, will you withdraw you racist and sectarian remarks about pakistanis and blacks , just to name two groups you mention in this way? Given your extreme bigotry, I do not expect you to withdraw your comments about "the brits".
Slan.0 -
A Dub in Glasgo wrote:
3. The 'majority' of Scottish people I know in Scotland consider themselves Scottish only. Some of them will then consider themselves British.
my comment that scotland was a part of great britain was not meant to offend any scottish people and i recognise their right not consider themselves British0 -
true wrote:Lol Lol Lol Lol Lol.
Nothing I said was " self hating anti Irish anti catholic bigotry"
Lol. You know everything I said above was correct, and I am not anti-Irish or anti-catholic.
For the last time cdebru,a chara, will you withdraw you racist and sectarian remarks about pakistanis and blacks , just to name two groups you mention in this way? Given your extreme bigotry, I do not expect you to withdraw your comments about "the brits".
Slan.
Are you daft? cdebru's comments were drawing a comparison between what you said about catholics and the kinds of things that people say about pakistanis and blacks - he, cdebru was not "saying" those things. You're bleeding idiot! Really, were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you sniff glue? For the love of mike, get a clue....0 -
Advertisement
-
folk_smith wrote:Are you daft? cdebru's comments were drawing a comparison between what you said about catholics and the kinds of things that people say about pakistanis and blacks - he, cdebru was not "saying" those things. You're bleeding idiot! Really, were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you sniff glue? For the love of mike, get a clue....
No I am not daft. What I said about Catholics - and even what I said some Northern Irish People may say about Catholics - was not comparable with what cdebru stated about Pakistanis and Blacks.
I really think cdebru should retract the offensive racist remarks he made. Come on cdebru - be a man ( or woman ) , admit you made offensive remarks are please try to be a little bit more tolerant of minorities in the future.0
Advertisement