Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[sid waddell]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

It's a collective pathology

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

I see you edited your post to include a Ruth Dudley Edwards reference - thanks for the personal abuse - it's always welcome

Ruth Dudley Edwards is an example of that pathology of mind

But so is calling anybody who says the IRA's mass murder spree was wrong "Ruth Dudley Edwards" also a pathology of the mind

[Franko]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

[blasmere]

Sid - you have regularly called white racists in the US fascists and that they need to be destroyed and now you're saying loyalists/unionists are the same but the downtrodden catholic community should bow down to them. I'm not into personal insults but you're certainly a contradiction, I'll give you that.

[sid waddell]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

Thanks as always for the personal abuse

I don't know what is difficult for you to understand about my point

[sid waddell]

Sid - you have regularly called white racists in the US fascists and that they need to be destroyed and now you're saying loyalists/unionists are the same but the downtrodden catholic community should bow down to them. I'm not into personal insults but you're certainly a contradiction, I'll give you that.

White racists in America are fascists

When I say they need to be destroyed, I mean that white supremacist groups should be classed as terrorist organisations, I mean that the Republican party, which is the driver of fascism, needs to be thoroughly defeated, discredited and ultimately disbanded, the purveyors of fascist corruption and criminality like Trump and cronies need to feel the full force of justice, there needs to be mass mobiliisation including civil disobedience if necessary, boycotting of police if necessary until they are reformed thoroughly, and a thorough changing of the public narrative, a radical public re-evaluation of America's racist history and present, and that people stop biting their lips about what much of white America is, and stop giving undue credit and respect to what is a cancerous racist ideology

What I don't support is a sustained mass murder spree, like what the IRA did

Oh, and precisely nowhere did I say the Catholic population of the north should have ever "bowed down" to anybody

The problem there is you see anything short of a mass murder spree as "bowing down"

[Franko]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

Thanks as always for the personal abuse

I don't know what is difficult for you to understand about my point

You say the unionist community lost nothing in the GFA.  Then a couple of posts later you say they no longer enjoy superiority over their neighbours?

It can't be both?

You say the IRA were not justified in taking up arms after the mid seventies... then a couple of posts later say black folks in America ARE currently justified in doing so?  In between times you agree that the British government were actively murdering catholic civilians, long after the mid seventies?

So I stand by my comment.

It's not meant as abuse, but in light of the evidence of what you've posted here in the past few hours, it's a legitimate observation.

[sid waddell]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

Thanks as always for the personal abuse

I don't know what is difficult for you to understand about my point

You say the unionist community lost nothing in the GFA.  Then a couple of posts later you say they no longer enjoy superiority over their neighbours?

It can't be both?

You say the IRA were not justified in taking up arms after the mid seventies... then a couple of posts later say black folks in America ARE currently justified in doing so?  In between times you agree that the British government were actively murdering catholic civilians, long after the mid seventies?

So I stand by my comment.

It's not meant as abuse, but in light of the evidence of what you've posted here in the past few hours, it's a legitimate observation.

There are no contradictions at all

Extension of rights to a traditionally marginalised community is not a loss for traditionally hegemonic community, it's simple human rights, which is the way it should be

My human rights do not depend on you being denied them

Men did not lose when women got the vote, straight people did not lose when gay people gained the right to get married, whites in America lost no rights when the Civil Rights struggle in America achieved its greatest triumphs

This is not a zero sum game

In fact the whole of society gains

An extension of human rights is a challenge to the idea of superiority in a particular ethnic group - it's a challenge to an ingrained mental pathology

But in reality the traditional hegemonic group has lost nothing at all, they just think they have - because their pathology has taught them so

Many Protestant Unionists genuinely did believe they were inherently superior to Catholics, but of course they weren't

Unionist hegemony had been decreasing by the year for many years in any case p even before the Troubles - and would have continued to do so whatever happened, the NI Civil Rights movement showed that Catholics were no longer prepared to put up with being second class citizens

Group hegemony is not a human right

I've already outlined what I think is morally justified for the black communities in America and they can do it within the law - US law allows for arming yourself publicly - but you do so without killing people

The most likely outcome to armed black mobilisation - which doesn't have to be violent in any way - is a change in the gun laws - which would actually be good for everybody - it would exploit the racist nature of white US society to make it rethink its own pathology as regards guns

In the mid 1970s in NI there was a vicious circle of murder - you clearly believe there was no alternative to continuing that

Why do you believe that?

It was not a case of there being no alternative to the worst option of all, a perpetuation of that cycle of murder

There certainly were alternatives

[Franko]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

Thanks as always for the personal abuse

I don't know what is difficult for you to understand about my point

You say the unionist community lost nothing in the GFA.  Then a couple of posts later you say they no longer enjoy superiority over their neighbours?

It can't be both?

You say the IRA were not justified in taking up arms after the mid seventies... then a couple of posts later say black folks in America ARE currently justified in doing so?  In between times you agree that the British government were actively murdering catholic civilians, long after the mid seventies?

So I stand by my comment.

It's not meant as abuse, but in light of the evidence of what you've posted here in the past few hours, it's a legitimate observation.

There are no contradictions at all

Extension of rights to a traditionally marginalised community is not a loss for traditionally hegemonic community, it's simple human rights, which is the way it should be

My human rights do not depend on you being denied them

Men did not lose when women got the vote, straight people did not lose when gay people gained the right to get married, whites in America lost no rights when the Civil Rights struggle in America achieved its greatest triumphs

This is not a zero sum game

In fact the whole of society gains

An extension of human rights is a challenge to the idea of superiority in a particular ethnic group - it's a challenge to an ingrained mental pathology

But in reality the traditional hegemonic group has lost nothing at all, they just think they have - because their pathology has taught them so

Many Protestant Unionists genuinely did believe they were inherently superior to Catholics, but of course they weren't

Unionist hegemony had been decreasing by the year for many years in any case p even before the Troubles - and would have continued to do so whatever happened, the NI Civil Rights movement showed that Catholics were no longer prepared to put up with being second class citizens

Group hegemony is not a human right

I've already outlined what I think is morally justified for the black communities in America and they can do it within the law - US law allows for arming yourself publicly - but you do so without killing people

The most likely outcome to armed black mobilisation - which doesn't have to be violent in any way - is a change in the gun laws - which would actually be good for everybody - it would exploit the racist nature of white US society to make it rethink its own pathology as regards guns

In the mid 1970s in NI there was a vicious circle of murder - you clearly believe there was no alternative to continuing that

Why do you believe that?

It was not a case of there being no alternative to the worst option of all, a perpetuation of that cycle of murder

There certainly were alternatives

They absolutely did lose.

Things like employment/public housing are and were finite resources - and the unionist community no longer had the 'right' to the lions share.  They no longer have the luxury of being able to forget about 40-50% of the population when competing for decent employment.  The six counties are less prosperous now than they were pre-partition, yet the 'Catholic' section of population has never been more prosperous.  Where do you think that wealth has come from?

Also, if you think that BLM/Antifa are going to publicly arm themselves and it is not going to lead to violence, you are providing further evidence to back up my earlier assertion.  Could I ask you again to answer the questions I asked you earlier?

[sid waddell]

Oh, and what the Unionists very definitely won from Sinn Fein/PIRA was the disbandment of the PIRA, a commitment to the newly renamed/revamped police force, a return to a cushy number at Stormont, the decommissioning of arms, a statement that the war was over, and a commitment to recognise that the future political status of NI would be determined by democratic vote

That's an almost total victory in anybody's language

But their mental pathology prevented them from recognising that

It's tremendously interesting from a psychological point of view

Imagine winning that much and thinking you've lost, crazy shit altogether

[sid waddell]

The escalation in violence in the 70's was not for a United Ireland. It was a breaking point in that Catholic frustration finally boiled over and knew they were never going to be treated equally by talking. There may have been some headbangers in the movement where a United Ireland was the only goal but equality was the driving force.

Saying GFA was a surrender is only half right, it was British surrender. Sunningdale in 73 would have achieved power sharing and the violence of the years that followed would never have been. What was the British response to this? Murder of 33 Irish civilians in Monaghan and Dublin in 74. Women and children deliberately targeted in a no warning attack, worst single atrocity in the whole of the Troubles. As clear a statement as ever that they would not tolerate negotiations with vermin.

Major dragged his heels on GFA, he was under political pressure at home and needed Unionist support (all through the years they always had too much influence in the House of Lords and by proxy, British Government policy). But Canary Warf and time finally caught up with them. The money men in London took the decision out of his hands, the financial cost of the IRA campaign was too much. World was changing, Europe was changing, the troubles possibly caused the ECB to not be in London or at least never to be on the negotiating table. The cost was greater than they will ever admit, same as their surrender will never be admitted. But it wasn't talking brought them to the table.

To say that the PIRA's goal was not a united Ireland is a rewriting of history

At every single juncture of history, the goal of anybody who called themselves the IRA was an all island Irish Republic - the clue is in the title - the Irish Republican Army - not the Irish Equality Army or the Irish Fair Housing Army

The British did not surrender anything with the Good Friday Agreement - they won, completely, there was no downside whatsoever for them

What did the Unionists lose? Sod all, a title of a police force, that's about it

What did the victims of the Troubles lose? Justice

if the british government (won entirely) and the unionists lost( sod all) as part of the GFA why did the majority of the unionist population vote against it?   Baffling

Not really baffling at all

Paranoia and propaganda and unfounded belief in superiority is the answer, hundreds of years of belief that they were the chosen people, superior to the sub-human Catholics

When an ethnic or religious group traditionally has hegemony, any extension of rights or equality to those who have traditionally been oppressed seems like a defeat - because the group identity is based on superiority to the "other" - not equality

That's why they build ever bigger bonfires festooned with"KAT" and burning tricolours, the NI team continues to play God Save The Queen, why they continue to demand the Union Jack be flown from public buildings as a matter of priority and why they demanded Garvaghy Road to march on

The mindset of a lot of Unionists was or is very like the mindset of white racists in America

So by this logic, they lost superiority?

I say this, not as a smart arsed internet comment but 100% genuinely - your incoherence can only be explained by mental illness or drug use.

Thanks as always for the personal abuse

I don't know what is difficult for you to understand about my point

You say the unionist community lost nothing in the GFA.  Then a couple of posts later you say they no longer enjoy superiority over their neighbours?

It can't be both?

You say the IRA were not justified in taking up arms after the mid seventies... then a couple of posts later say black folks in America ARE currently justified in doing so?  In between times you agree that the British government were actively murdering catholic civilians, long after the mid seventies?

So I stand by my comment.

It's not meant as abuse, but in light of the evidence of what you've posted here in the past few hours, it's a legitimate observation.

There are no contradictions at all

Extension of rights to a traditionally marginalised community is not a loss for traditionally hegemonic community, it's simple human rights, which is the way it should be

My human rights do not depend on you being denied them

Men did not lose when women got the vote, straight people did not lose when gay people gained the right to get married, whites in America lost no rights when the Civil Rights struggle in America achieved its greatest triumphs

This is not a zero sum game

In fact the whole of society gains

An extension of human rights is a challenge to the idea of superiority in a particular ethnic group - it's a challenge to an ingrained mental pathology

But in reality the traditional hegemonic group has lost nothing at all, they just think they have - because their pathology has taught them so

Many Protestant Unionists genuinely did believe they were inherently superior to Catholics, but of course they weren't

Unionist hegemony had been decreasing by the year for many years in any case p even before the Troubles - and would have continued to do so whatever happened, the NI Civil Rights movement showed that Catholics were no longer prepared to put up with being second class citizens

Group hegemony is not a human right

I've already outlined what I think is morally justified for the black communities in America and they can do it within the law - US law allows for arming yourself publicly - but you do so without killing people

The most likely outcome to armed black mobilisation - which doesn't have to be violent in any way - is a change in the gun laws - which would actually be good for everybody - it would exploit the racist nature of white US society to make it rethink its own pathology as regards guns

In the mid 1970s in NI there was a vicious circle of murder - you clearly believe there was no alternative to continuing that

Why do you believe that?

It was not a case of there being no alternative to the worst option of all, a perpetuation of that cycle of murder

There certainly were alternatives

They absolutely did lose.

Things like employment/public housing are and were finite resources - and the unionist community no longer had the 'right' to the lions share.  They no longer have the luxury of being able to forget about 40-50% of the population when competing for decent employment.  The six counties are less prosperous now than they were pre-partition, yet the 'Catholic' section of population has never been more prosperous.  Where do you think that wealth has come from?

Also, if you think that BLM/Antifa are going to publicly arm themselves and it is not going to lead to violence, you are providing further evidence to back up my earlier assertion.  Could I ask you again to answer the questions I asked you earlier?

Catholics/Nationalists embraced education from a long way back - they saw it as a route out of oppression - much of Unionism as a culture rejected education in favour of a self indulgent retreat into navel gazing

Anything the Unionists had "lost", they had lost long before the GFA - but it wasn't the IRA who took it from them, it was ordinary Catholics fed up with playing second fiddle, it was people like John Hume and Seamus Mallon who gave the Catholic population a self respect

Fair rights, fair housing, fair voting, fair education, fair employment is not a loss for the traditionally hegemonic group - it's simple extension of human rights

The problem is in the conceptualisation of such as a "loss", and that comes down to mental pathology

Unfortunately there is a section of Catholic Nationalism, both north and south, which would see any recognition of Unionist rights in a future united Ireland, or any giving up of official nationalist paraphernalia such as the Irish tricolour or Anhran na bhFiann, as a loss - and that's a mental pathology too

You didn't answer my question about whether you believe there were alternatives to mass murder in the 1970s

You can arm yourself without being a death squad, you know, and you can certainly do so if it's within the law, as it is in the US

[trileacman]

Pretty much all revolutionary movements based on violence since the 60s were a failure with the exception of some war torn shiteholes in sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan. Civil rights in America, Polish Solidarity, ANC in south Africa were all examples of non-violent political action could effect real change. Violent paramilitarism whether it be Red-Army faction, FARC, ETA were all failures.

It was the provisional IRA and militant republicanism that were "slow learners".

[Angelo]

You're out of your depth in this discussion, Angelo

Considering the kicking you are taking, I'm more than happy to sit back and take a backseat. It's good to see a malicious slabberer like you get exposed as such.

[Angelo]

Pretty much all revolutionary movements based on violence since the 60s were a failure with the exception of some war torn shiteholes in sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan. Civil rights in America, Polish Solidarity, ANC in south Africa were all examples of non-violent political action could effect real change. Violent paramilitarism whether it be Red-Army faction, FARC, ETA were all failures.

It was the provisional IRA and militant republicanism that were "slow learners".

That's not true. Plenty of examples to counter that.

[Snapchap]

Sorry but that's more bluster

What you are saying is that if I lived in the North between 1969 and 1997, I'd have supported the IRA's campaign of murder

But the majority of the Catholic population who lived in the North did not support it

The majority wanted it to stop and to live normal lives, not lives clouded with suspicion and fear

If the IRA had not abandoned their ceasefire, Sean Brown would probably not have been murdered, he might even still be alive - because the circle of tit for tat would have been broken or at least greatly lessened - the LVF would likely never have come into being

I was going to reply to a different aspect of your post but to be honest, you've just exposed yourself as a twisted little lowlife in your comments abour Sean Brown. We're now in Regina Doherty territory whereby loyalists are now absolved of responsibility for their killings and instead, in typical mental gymnastics fashion, those killings too are to now be regarded as the responsibility of the IRA.

[sid waddell]

You're out of your depth in this discussion, Angelo

Considering the kicking you are taking, I'm more than happy to sit back and take a backseat. It's good to see a malicious slabberer like you get exposed as such.

Oh look, you said "I'm taking a kicking" and you called me a "malicious slabberer"

How on earth could I ever come back from such razor sharp debating skills?

There's a barstool that's missing a blatherer somewhere

Don't forget to order your €9 meal first, and wear a mask, it might prevent others from having to listen to you