gaaboard.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI-q59ycMws

the Cameron Report
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/index.html

It must have been pure hell for catholics pre 1969 , not that it was much better afterwards..

As one who grew up in a Protestant unionist town in the 60s,I have memories of a fairly happy childhood.Both my parents had jobs,where their work colleagues were pre dominantly Protestant,as were our neighbours,and my playmates.I have fond memories of going to Kids Christmas parties put on by mum's employers,and actually attending 11th of July bonfires where all the kids received minerals and crisps (a rare enough treat for a child back in the 60s).

Life started to get tough when segregation brought about by the troubles started to happen in the early 70s and unfortunately my teenage years were a lot more tense than those carefree days of the 60s

Quote from: T Fearon on December 22, 2015, 07:12:47 PM
As one who grew up in a Protestant unionist town in the 60s,I have memories of a fairly happy childhood.Both my parents had jobs,where their work colleagues were pre dominantly Protestant,as were our neighbours,and my playmates.I have fond memories of going to Kids Christmas parties put on by mum's employers,and actually attending 11th of July bonfires where all the kids received minerals and crisps (a rare enough treat for a child back in the 60s).

Life started to get tough when segregation brought about by the troubles started to happen in the early 70s and unfortunately my teenage years were a lot more tense than those carefree days of the 60s

It didnt look like it was remotely sustainable. The Prod State for a Prod people barely lasted a generation before the political system collapsed.

When I compare Tony's view with what my mother told me of growing up in 1950's Benburb - having to walk to Backwatertown to go to school whilst Protestant neighbours got the bus the short distance to Benburb school it makes me wonder was there more or less discrimination in town or rural areas, serious question.
My mother still to this day never forgot the school bus situation, also my grandfather worked for years "on the rivers and drains" & it was commonplace for young protestant lads to get promoted after mere days on the job to foreman positions, credit in protestant business's was given freely to other protestants but barely if ever to Catholics no matter how well the farm etc was going

Quote from: The Subbie on December 22, 2015, 10:19:21 PM
When I compare Tony's view with what my mother told me of growing up in 1950's Benburb - having to walk to Backwatertown to go to school whilst Protestant neighbours got the bus the short distance to Benburb school it makes me wonder was there more or less discrimination in town or rural areas, serious question.
My mother still to this day never forgot the school bus situation, also my grandfather worked for years "on the rivers and drains" & it was commonplace for young protestant lads to get promoted after mere days on the job to foreman positions, credit in protestant business's was given freely to other protestants but barely if ever to Catholics no matter how well the farm etc was going

I imagine that in the towns there was a very strong class edge to the worst anti catholic bigotry. It was the same class of people who did most of the dying during the years of violence, on both sides.

I can assure you my background is very firmly working class.Im not denying there was bigotry and discrimination,my mum lost practically all her siblings due to emigration in order to find work.But in my experience,it wasn't anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be.

There was no segregation in housing in the 60s,no peace walls etc,these all happened after the outbreak of the troubles.Portadown had its fair share of Catholic professionals,medical,legal etc,and business people,all of whom enjoyed lifestyles far superior to working class Protestants and Catholics.

I know a few older guys from round ardoyne area and they would say what fearon says. No segregation in 60s and neighbours of opposite religions mingled. Then it all changed.

I went with a girl whose name is Mairead, when her mother went to name her the woman refused to let her be named Mairead so she was named Paula Mairead, this was in 1966, she was told the name Mairead was 'Too Irish'

I was blessed in that I grew up in Longstone, a council estate on the edge of Armagh, great neighbors and there was very little bother at all at all.

Quote from: hardstation on December 22, 2015, 11:25:57 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 22, 2015, 10:48:40 PM
I know a few older guys from round ardoyne area and they would say what fearon says. No segregation in 60s and neighbours of opposite religions mingled. Then it all changed.

Yes, no segregation and opposite religions mingled but in many cases when it came to July, Fenians took all sorts of abuse from neighbours who were civil enough to them the rest of the year. Many would say that 'our side' knew its place in society and grew to accept it. This continued in many ways through a large part of the troubles. An example of this was a man who worked for a large company in Belfast with workers from both sides having to take a Saturday off work. Everyone in the place knew he was a Catholic but he could never disclose his reason for taking the day off apart from to a couple of close friends who wouldn't let it slip. The man's daughter was making her first communion. That was well into the troubles.

Knew their place and both sides accepted that, but when the civil rights marches started and Catholics wanted better basic needs and requirements, BAM! Suddenly there's a problem from Unionism, and them pesky Catholics can't have that, who do they think they are? The same as us protestants?! ...and there's your troubles began.

My father to this day still tells me how the local bank wouldn't lend him money back in 1970 to put up a cow shed. He was adamant that it was because of his religion. I don't think he was far wrong.

We have probably all experienced times when we had to keep the head down etc.But pre troubles things weren't too bad.30s and 40s were a lot worse,but I am increasingly of the view that sectarianism has and is being used to divide the working classes

Quote from: T Fearon on December 22, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
We have probably all experienced times when we had to keep the head down etc.But pre troubles things weren't too bad.30s and 40s were a lot worse,but I am increasingly of the view that sectarianism has and is being used to divide the working classes

Cap doffer.

My own perception of the increasing divisions would be that it was down to the urbanisation of the population. Back to even quite recently (like during the troubles) we would have given and got help from Protestant neighbours on the farm and as I understand it this was common place in all areas. When people moved to the more urban areas they started to associate more and more with "their own kind", these communities grew and they then would see less and less of "the other side". Although in Omagh and hinterlands community relations have been and still are very good. Even in the town there is alot of Catholics that could trace their roots to soldiers from "the camp" as it was known.

I would also raise an ebrow at segregation only starting with the troubles. In the Omagh area it started before that with gerrymandering and would say that it had a direct affect in diminishing community relations. The very fact that you even have to start talking about community relations means that they are soured to some degree.

The fact remains that in Portadown,as I presume was the case everywhere else, working class Catholics and Protestants lived together in the same shitty housing complexes,worked together in the same shitty low paid jobs etc,whereas the Catholic and Pritestant middle classes lived( and continued right through the troubles) to live in affluent tree lined avenues .

Thankfully neither I nor anyone in my family every experienced any change in the warm and cordial relationships we enjoyed with our Protestant friends and neighbours,either pre,during or post troubles.

Fascinating.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 22, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
We have probably all experienced times when we had to keep the head down etc.But pre troubles things weren't too bad.30s and 40s were a lot worse,but I am increasingly of the view that sectarianism has and is being used to divide the working classes

Education must have been a driver of change. It is very hard to keep a caste system going when the Untouchables are smarter and generate more economic value than a lot of the Brahmins.  Catholics in the 30s and 40 had no choice but to do as they were told but free secondary education started sometime in the 60s and from then the system was doomed. That was when Down started winning all Irelands as well. Has to be linked to the greater sense of confidence amongst NI catholics. They even beat Kerry. Terence ONeill tried to straddle Orangeism and modernity and he just couldn't. 

http://virtualmethodist.blogspot.com/2009/09/coasters.html
You showed a sense of responsibility,
With subscriptions to worthwhile causes
And service in voluntary organisations;
And, anyhow, this did the business no harm,
No harm at all.
Relations were improving. A good
useful life. You coasted along.
You even had a friend of two of the other sort,
Coasting too: your ways ran parallel.
Their children and yours seldom met, though,
Being at different schools.
You visited each other, decent folk with a sense
Of humour. Introduced, even, to
One of their clergy. And then you smiled
In the looking-glass, admiring, a
Little moved by, your broadmindedness.
Your father would never have known
One of them. Come to think of it,
When you were young, your own home was never
Visited by one of the other sort.
Relations were improving. The annual processions
began to look rather like folk-festivals.
When that noisy preacher started,
he seemed old-fashioned, a survival.
Later you remarked on his vehemence,
a bit on the rough side.
But you said, admit, you said in the club,
'You know, there's something in what he says'.
And you who seldom had time to read a book,
what with reports and the colour-supplements,
denounced censorship.
And you who never had an adventurous thought
were positive that the church of the other sort
vetoes thought.
And you who simply put up with marriage
for the children's sake, deplored
the attitude of the other sort
to divorce.
You coasted along.
And all the time, though you never noticed,
The old lies festered;
the ignorant became more thoroughly infected;
there were gains, of course;
you never saw any go barefoot.
The government permanent, sustained
by the regular plebiscites of loyalty.
You always voted but never
put a sticker on your car;
a card in the window
would not have been seen from the street.
Faces changed on posters, names too, often,
but the same families, the same class of people.
A Minister once called you by your first name.
You coasted along
and the sores supperated and spread.
Now the fever is high and raging;
Who would have guessed it, coasting along?
The ignorant-sick thresh about in delirium
And tear at the scabs with dirty finger-nails.
The cloud of infection hangs over the city,
A quick change of wind and it
Might spill over the leafy suburbs.
You coasted along

Quote from: T Fearon on December 23, 2015, 06:59:22 AM
The fact remains that in Portadown,as I presume was the case everywhere else, working class Catholics and Protestants lived together in the same shitty housing complexes,worked together in the same shitty low paid jobs etc,whereas the Catholic and Pritestant middle classes lived( and continued right through the troubles) to live in affluent tree lined avenues .

Thankfully neither I nor anyone in my family every experienced any change in the warm and cordial relationships we enjoyed with our Protestant friends and neighbours,either pre,during or post troubles.

its a great pity Robert Hamill isn't around to say something similar. It is not so long ago a Portadown woman had to get a police escort out of the Garvaghy road in order to get to hospital to give birth, but thankfully you enjoyed cordial relationships with the scum of Portadown, you are welcome to it.

Quote from: hardstation on December 22, 2015, 11:25:57 PM
Yes, no segregation and opposite religions mingled but in many cases when it came to July, Fenians took all sorts of abuse from neighbours who were civil enough to them the rest of the year.

A lot of truth in this, although people who I talked to would have described it more as a coldness, lack of conversation and being made to feel distinctly uncomfortable.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 22, 2015, 11:52:17 PM
We have probably all experienced times when we had to keep the head down etc.But pre troubles things weren't too bad.30s and 40s were a lot worse,but I am increasingly of the view that sectarianism has and is being used to divide the working classes

tony,
I think it has more to do with rationing scarce jobs and maintaining identity.

Charlie,I myself had to show a quick pair of heels on a few occasions to escape a hiding or worse in Portadown Town Centre,but you can't demonise a whole community due to the actions of some scumbags,in either community.Only last week a few Protestant teenagers got a bad kicking in Derry,does that mean that Protestants in general are treated as sub human by the local catholic nationalist community?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 23, 2015, 02:16:27 PM
Charlie,I myself had to show a quick pair of heels on a few occasions to escape a hiding or worse in Portadown Town Centre,but you can't demonise a whole community due to the actions of some scumbags,in either community.Only last week a few Protestant teenagers got a bad kicking in Derry,does that mean that Protestants in general are treated as sub human by the local catholic nationalist community?

They dont have to be demonised but the experiment of a Protestant State on the island  has been a complete failure.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 23, 2015, 06:59:22 AM
The fact remains that in Portadown,as I presume was the case everywhere else, working class Catholics and Protestants lived together in the same shitty housing complexes,worked together in the same shitty low paid jobs etc,whereas the Catholic and Pritestant middle classes lived( and continued right through the troubles) to live in affluent tree lined avenues .

Thankfully neither I nor anyone in my family every experienced any change in the warm and cordial relationships we enjoyed with our Protestant friends and neighbours,either pre,during or post troubles.

Certainly not the case for my family. Working class Protestants forced us out of Redmanville in 1972.

Harold I realise we had different experiences,but I'm old enough to remember the building of Churchill Park and Ballyoran Park which were mixed at the start,before the troubles really got underway (I lived two years in my early days in the heart of Killicomaine!). It was sad that people on both sides were driven out of mixed estates into in effect segregated areas.But I still don't think you can demonise entire communities.

With such a measured upbringing, Tony, can you explain your total disdain for the false doctrines of the Protestant cults?

Was the Civil Rights Movement needed in the 60's then, as things were generally rosy. There must have been a trigger somewhere...one man one vote?

Quote from: Aaron Boone on December 23, 2015, 10:42:01 PM
Was the Civil Rights Movement needed in the 60's then, as things were generally rosy. There must have been a trigger somewhere...one man one vote?

One man, one vote was the best known demand but Peoples' Democracy were also looking for a number of other things; the repeal of the Special Powers Act and the end of gerrymandering in local elections were two and there were one or two  more that I can't recall the details at the moment.
I know that there was widespread dissatisfaction over the way local houses were allocated and equality of employment (or something like that) was high on the agenda also.

Quote from: Aaron Boone on December 23, 2015, 10:42:01 PM
Was the Civil Rights Movement needed in the 60's then, as things were generally rosy. There must have been a trigger somewhere...one man one vote?

Civil rights in the US and Martin Luther King plus the general openness of the 60s plus education

Quote from: seafoid on December 23, 2015, 11:15:17 PM

Quote from: Aaron Boone on December 23, 2015, 10:42:01 PM
Was the Civil Rights Movement needed in the 60's then, as things were generally rosy. There must have been a trigger somewhere...one man one vote?

Civil rights in the US and Martin Luther King plus the general openness of the 60s plus education

Was it the biased allocation of a Council house in Caledon Co Tyrone that lit the spark?

Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2015, 11:33:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 23, 2015, 11:15:17 PM

Quote from: Aaron Boone on December 23, 2015, 10:42:01 PM
Was the Civil Rights Movement needed in the 60's then, as things were generally rosy. There must have been a trigger somewhere...one man one vote?

Civil rights in the US and Martin Luther King plus the general openness of the 60s plus education

Was it the biased allocation of a Council house in Caledon Co Tyrone that lit the spark?

http://www.nicivilrights.org/category/caledon/

Civil rights in USA,student riots in Paris etc all contributed.I would say working class Protestants enjoyed marginal benefits over working class Catholics but rich Catholics had far greater lifestyles than working class Protestants. Education also played its part, the likes of Hume and Bernadette Devlin came from lowly backgrounds, and through education, saw how their forbears were used and abused by their paymasters.It has largely all been sorted now.A lot of what goes on between unionism and Sinn Fein is merely sham fighting.

To this day I still find it sometimes hard to understand, and reconcile hardline political unionism with the cordiality and gentleness even, of Protestants in general in ordinary life,(scumbags, of which there are plenty on both sides,excepted).As I've said before,I've been in rooms,away from cameras,where I've seen DUP Mayors welcome in Irish,visitors from Mayo.Portadown is twinned with Ballina,and many unionists,including DUP members, spend loads of time down there, and regard their Ballina counterparts as part of the family.

If I'm not mistaken rich Catholics and Protestants enjoyed many more voting privileges than working class Protestants and Catholics, in the early decades on N Ireland's lifespan.

Other questions to ask, was the discrimination practiced by unionists borne out of fear and insecurity and a siege mentality , as opposed to a generally perceived loathing of Catholics? I would say yes is  probably the answer to that one.

Would the changes that have happened, have happened anyway,irrespective of violence, and indeed violence delayed many of the changes.Again I would say yes.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2015, 12:26:00 AM
If I'm not mistaken rich Catholics and Protestants enjoyed many more voting privileges than working class Protestants and Catholics, in the early decades on N Ireland's lifespan.

that is a complete non sequitur. Rich catholics were maybe 5% of the catholic population.
They must have loved the system.  But what always counts is how it treats Joe average.

I was raised on the border in the 50's and 60's. In many ways it was a lost part of Ireland neither, North or South. One of those places that the Boundary Commission actually wanted to hive off to the Free State. I grew up in a catholic enclave where there was very limited exposure to loyalism and Stormont (which we refused to recognize). We had two forms of recognized and accepted authority, the Catholic Church and the GAA.

Our protestant neighbors were a small minority that we lived with and worked with cordially for 10 months of every year. Then the triumphalist gene would burst out in July and August and they would insist on telling us who was boss during their marching season but seemed to get over it before the first Sunday in September (I guess they were more interested in hurling than most of the GAA folks in the 9 counties!) In fact we had a couple of protestants friends who played hurling with us in the early 60's and for most of the year there was no mention of what "Kirk" you attended. (A couple of Protestants was a lot because the population distribution in our area was over 90% Catholic.) 

There was however a constant tension and the impression that you were not the same as them, you were something of a lower caste.  Regardless of whether you ran faster, jumped higher, were better educated or better off financially, being protestant seemed to trump all the aforementioned in a loyalists eyes.

I remember my uncle always lamenting about when he and other catholic neighbors would go to help his protestant neighbor with the hay each summer that the neighbor's mother (who was particularly strongly devoted to the orange order) would fry up a big feed of rashers and sausages on Friday to show her appreciation to the Catholics who came to help. For those of you too young to remember, back in the day papists ate fish on Friday. Despite this affront the Catholic neighbors always showed up to help and laughed off the bitterness of the woman. Thankfully she did not pass any of her bitterness to her son and he seemed to be embarrassed by her behavior. Nevertheless that need to kick out at her "papist" neighbors never left her during all the times that they showed up to help.

Another anecdote from an earlier day in the 30's or 40's when "hiring fairs" still existed. Again for those who do not know the term; at a "hiring fair" young men would sell themselves into indenture for 6 to 9 months. A neighbor of ours when he was younger was hired out to a big protestant farmer in County Tyrone. He was fed porridge for breakfast and dinner every day for 3 months until he scraped up the courage to ask for a cup of "tae" one evening. The woman of the house scornfully rebuked his request with the following pleasantry "You ungrateful papist bastard, now that the wrinkles are out of your belly you are starting to get cheeky."

For me those anecdotes speak to the peaceful yet uneasy tension that predated the civil rights movement that kicked into gear in the late 60's. As long as we knew who the boss was and accepted our place in the back of the bus; everything was OK. Once we started looking for equality in housing, employment and government, the cork blew off the top of the bottle.

The State of Northern Ireland was set up as a result of the Unionists fear of Rome influence in the South, and hence any form of Home Rule or independence was seen as Rome- Rule - (Regrettably the Unionists were right about that; the British were kicked out down south and the Catholic Church took over for eighty years - Thankfully their influence on Irish society both South and North has considerably waned in the last decade or so, mostly through the rampant pedophilia activity of many of their clergy - Regrettably many innocent people had to suffer along the way)

Having established the State, the Unionists copper-fastened their hold on Protestant domination and Catholic subservience by legislation such as the Special Powers Act, intimidation by the B-Specials, whose members were allowed to keep their guns at home and the membership of which was 100% Protestant (while the unarmed at the time, R.U.C. were 90% plus Protestant, and less than 10% Catholic)

In addition to the intimidation from the Special Powers Act and the B Specials, which was intended to constantly let the Catholics know that they were second class citizens,political power was maintained by gerrymandering voting districts, by permitting only those who paid rent to vote (so only the household heads of large Catholic families could vote and the many children were disenfranchised), plus property owners and business owners had multiple votes.

And to round-off all the above were the annual Orange-men's, Black-men's and Apprentice Boy's triumphalist parades - All for the purposes of physiologically keeping the Catholics second class and reminding the brethren that the root of it all was the threat from Rome

The Education Act that was passed in Britain after WW II was adopted in the North, and as a result the number of educated Catholics grew significantly through the 50's and 60's - These educated Catholics said enough is enough, started the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) and pulled the veil away from the Unionist regime and let the British public and the world at large look in

The Unionists immediately reacted against the use of their marching highways being used by NICRA and believed the civil rights movement was an IRA cover (the IRA being their bogyman since the twenties) and went so far as to blown up some utility services in the 60's and blamed it on the IRA to make their case

NICRA was a completely non violent political movement, until the civil rights march in Newry where violence was first used. Many in NICRA formed or joined the SDLP and started the process of equality for all through political means. Unionism saw both NICRA and the SDLP as a threat to the State

There was no effective IRA until the Protestants attached the Ardoyne area and that was only in the role of protectors of the catholic neighborhood. It was subsequent to that and the arrival of the British army to keep the two communities apart that the Provisional IRA was formed to counter the bollix of a job the British Army did in treating the Catholic community, and with the birth of the Provisional IRA came the call for a united Ireland which was never a part of NICRA or the civil rights movement

Tony you may well have had good experiences with your prod friends when you were growing up but you were def in the minority. As someone already stated it would have been max 5% of Catholics that were wealthy and the Protestant people def treated the Catholic people like 2nd class citizens.

I remember working in Portadown in 89 and thru the early 90's and it was a scary place for a young Catholic to be, I was treated like a dog at times and threatened more times than i care to remember. Those cold, dark, wintry mornings walking to work when we were getting shot likes dogs on the street was frightening.

I can remember an older man telling me he was in the UDA in his younger days around Belfast and telling me he could have hit his boss and walked across the road into another job there and then but "you couldn't have done it" he said.

Everything was okay for years when we had nothing and expected nothing too but as the Catholic people started to educate themselves and take proper jobs and looking for equal rights that was the only way we were going to get power back and have our own say, the tables are turning though...

Omochain, your last sentence hit the nail on the head.

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main26.asp?filename=Cr020307Still_No.asp

http://www.thurumbar.com/cms/pages/about-us.html

I can only relay my own experiences.When I was growing up in the 60s it would be fair to say most of my friends were from the Protestant community.I don't ever recall any bad experience,apart from being ordered out of a newsagent shop when I was about ten,when the proprietor heard I was frequenting a rival Catholic newsagents.I remember the almost embarrassment,on their part,of being stopped by some of these lads when they were members of the UDR! I never felt second class.

I am not saying life was perfect,as I said previously I had to take to my heels a few times to avoid hidings, but thankfully I'm able to see the other man's perspective,and have come to the conclusion that we have all been short changed by giving misplaced allegiances to countries/states that do not want any of us,don't understand us,and who both treat everyone of us like second class citizens

The reason for the existence of NI, then and now, is to make Irish people second class citizens. Of course this is more obvious some times than others and to some people than others.

Portadown still scares me. Alabama of the North indeed.

Quote from: bennydorano on December 24, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
Portadown still scares me. Alabama of the North indeed.

Portadown and Larne are the 2 most miserable towns I have ever visited. Even Stoke has more going for it.   

Quote from: T Fearon on December 23, 2015, 06:43:40 PM
Harold I realise we had different experiences,but I'm old enough to remember the building of Churchill Park and Ballyoran Park which were mixed at the start,before the troubles really got underway (I lived two years in my early days in the heart of Killicomaine!). It was sad that people on both sides were driven out of mixed estates into in effect segregated areas.But I still don't think you can demonise entire communities.

Tony, I lived at number one Queens Gardens for the first six years of my life, the neighbors were fantastic and the majority of whom were Prods, it was the scumbags in the surrounding area's that were the problem, we got burned out of Queens Gardens and thankfully moved to Longstone  in Armagh which to me was utopia.

I have not been in the north since 09, I miss family and friends and the GAA, if not for those three entities I would never go near the place.

Quote from: bennydorano on December 24, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
Portadown still scares me. Alabama of the North indeed.

Lisburn is a bigoted hellhole. The people there are soooo Protestant, it's scary.

Quote from: BennyCake on December 24, 2015, 10:34:06 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on December 24, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
Portadown still scares me. Alabama of the North indeed.

Lisburn is a bigoted hellhole. The people there are soooo Protestant, it's scary.

I don't think it's as bad as it used to be.

Don't they have a Gaa club now ?

I would imagine other towns like Strabane and Crossmaglen scare unionists as well.Until we all rid of ourselves of MOPE mindsets we're going nowhere.There are bigots on both sides but I happen to believe the vast majority on both sides want to live and let live and have no wish to offend or dominate anyone.

Hasn't Maurice Hayes for example (one of the masterminds of Down's All Ireland wins in the 60s) always occupied an extremely influential role at Stormont,through the 50s,60s and 70s?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Protestants-An-Unsettled-People/dp/0856407712

I am writing as someone who comes from one of the protestant communities on which this book is based and indeed who knows many of the people who were interviewed in it. I found the book painful to read because it seemed to represent, at least to me, a mirror to the heart of my people. It is hard to read because of it's honesty. I would recommend it to any one wanting to understand how the issue of sectarianism runs deeply in the conflict in Northern Ireland.
We all know the consequences of sectarianism in Northern Ireland. Interestingly in looking closely at some of the transcripts it seems that the sectarianism emerging from the interviews was not just a property of the protestant mindset, but also somewhat a reaction to a wider 'felt' or 'experienced' sectarianism. These aspects of the interviews were not fully analysed. The chapter on South Armagh was especially poignant in this respect.Despite the quibbles, this is a good book and I would certainly recommend it.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2015, 11:42:17 PM
I would imagine other towns like Strabane and Crossmaglen scare unionists as well.Until we all rid of ourselves of MOPE mindsets we're going nowhere.

Firstly any reference to MOPE is a clear indication that the user is not attempting to make a serious point, but rather to divert the discussion. No rational person suggests that nationalists in Ireland have been the most oppressed people ever, but because there are worse examples is no justification whatsoever for whatever oppression does exist.

QuoteThere are bigots on both sides but I happen to believe the vast majority on both sides want to live and let live and have no wish to offend or dominate anyone.

There is a lot of truth in this. But if people vote for bigots then they are the problem however affable they are to their neighbours. People continue to vote for the likes of Tom Elliot and one quarter of unionists chose Jim Allister to represent them in the last Euro election. Nationalists increasingly shun loo-lahs, for instance Phil Flanagan was deselected for next year's Assembly elections.

Whether Tom Elliott attends a GAA game or not is immaterial.It's his ability to represent all communities that really counts.You don't see any Stoops or Shinners at Orange Order parades or Ulster Scots events. All of these things are very minor.

Many unionists are hurt by the size of the vote Sinn Fein (with their inextricable links) get,I wonder how we would feel if the political representatives of the UVF or UDA got similarly high votes?

Both communities feel that they are disadvantaged genuinely.It really is time to move on.

Tony Fearon...what a guy. It sounds like u spent too much of your youth growing up in Portadown, sounds like u have a we soft spot for the dark side

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 01:59:02 AM
Whether Tom Elliott attends a GAA game or not is immaterial.It's his ability to represent all communities that really counts.You don't see any Stoops or Shinners at Orange Order parades or Ulster Scots events. All of these things are very minor.

Just like objecting to schools using school buildings.

QuoteMany unionists are hurt by the size of the vote Sinn Fein (with their inextricable links) get,I wonder how we would feel if the political representatives of the UVF or UDA got similarly high votes?

Every unionist agrees with the use of force in politics to establish the British Empire here, they generally support the coat trailing celebration of these things in the form of the Orange Order. Being sniffy about SF is crass hypocrisy.

Quote
Both communities feel that they are disadvantaged genuinely.It really is time to move on.

Whatever they feel, one side is the object of the 400 year colonisation project, the other are the perpetrators of that project.
There is no moral equivalence between the two sides in this and anyone who claims there is either has chosen to ignore the facts or knows the facts perfectly well but refuses to face up to their implication. Unionists should move on, they should stop trying to colonise us.

Unionism looks great until you think about it. They are very insecure and the main pillars of their identity are fading away.
I wouldnt like to be Unionist in NI.

Take the day off lads.

Happy Christmas to all; Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.

Seafoid,that's the problem,both communities are and have always been disgruntled and insecure.Thinking the other side gets all and we get nothing.I suspect that's because deep down they know damn well their heroes in London/Dublin don't want them.

A new politic needs to develop of Northern Irish,distinct from the ethos and way of life  in the UK and 26 counties,to unite both communities.That way the constitutional question becomes irrelevant.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
Seafoid,that's the problem,both communities are and have always been disgruntled and insecure.Thinking the other side gets all and we get nothing.I suspect that's because deep down they know damn well their heroes in London/Dublin don't want them.

A new politic needs to develop of Northern Irish,distinct from the ethos and way of life  in the UK and 26 counties,to unite both communities.That way the constitutional question becomes irrelevant.

Where do you get the idea that the South doesnt want ye, Tony ? Im sure if the North could make a bit of progress economically things would be much better looking. Northern catholics and prods have made a huge contribution to life in the 26 counties and not just recently.   

The South.(Just a few examples).

1.Accepted partition in the early 20th Century

2.Doing and has done nothing to end partition.

3.Rejected Churchill's offer of unity in the 1940s

4.Deals with the North of Ireland under its Foreign Affairs dept

5.Bertie Ahern addressed a (mainly nationalist) audience in Newry a few weeks ago,describing himself as a "good neighbour" no doubt reflecting the limit of the South's aspirations as far as the North goes.


Equally the UK does not want us either,I would readily concede.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
The South.(Just a few examples).

1.Accepted partition in the early 20th Century/  Realpolitik

2.Doing and has done nothing to end partition./ Agree, could have done more but it is not over

3.Rejected Churchill's offer of unity in the 1940s/ Please expand

4.Deals with the North of Ireland under its Foreign Affairs dept/ Optics

5.Bertie Ahern addressed a (mainly nationalist) audience in Newry a few weeks ago,describing himself as a "good neighbour" no doubt reflecting the limit of the South's aspirations as far as the North goes./00 Bertie speaks for nobody


Equally the UK does not want us either,I would readily concede.

Coming back atcha I would give you the following counter points

The welcome given to Northern teams at Croke Park
eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCXVCA6Oycs

The rugby teams

NI pundits and presenters on RTE

The last president

Dublin airport and NI passengers

Increased inter island trade

All the Norn Irn people living/working in Dublin

Very few people down South consider NI as British

None of which remotely indicate any desire for unity.Do you seriously think that if there was a referendum in the South for unity,that it would be a yes vote? Even if it was affordable? Has any party in the South got a hint of a vision for unity,never mind a strategy to achieve it? Seems to me they are all 100 times more concerned about a Brexit than ending partition.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
None of which remotely indicate any desire for unity.Do you seriously think that if there was a referendum in the South for unity,that it would be a yes vote? Even if it was affordable? Has any party in the South got a hint of a vision for unity,never mind a strategy to achieve it? Seems to me they are all 100 times more concerned about a Brexit than ending partition.

they aren't even ready for Brexit. I think unity is inevitable long term.

Not in our lifetimes.Meanwhile why don't we all aspire to be Northern Irish with or own unique culture as a priority instead of chasing pipe dreams,and develop special relationships?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 12:55:29 PM
Not in our lifetimes.Meanwhile why don't we all aspire to be Northern Irish with or own unique culture as a priority instead of chasing pipe dreams,and develop special relationships?

Catholics in the North have an ingrained Irish culture and way of life that has spanned generations, and prior to partition. Living in a part of a British-ruled territory doesn't make them any less irish than a man a couple of miles across an invisible border.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 12:55:29 PM
Not in our lifetimes.Meanwhile why don't we all aspire to be Northern Irish with or own unique culture as a priority ......?

How would that work in Blacklion/Belcoo and all the other places close to the 300 miles+ border?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 12:55:29 PM
Not in our lifetimes.Meanwhile why don't we all aspire to be Northern Irish with or own unique culture as a priority instead of chasing pipe dreams,and develop special relationships?

It is quite a traumatised  culture in many ways. All the time wasted on sectarianism when you could be talking to people or doing work on the garden or improving your golf swing or whatever

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 12:55:29 PM
Not in our lifetimes.Meanwhile why don't we all aspire to be Northern Irish with or own unique culture as a priority instead of chasing pipe dreams,and develop special relationships?

That's great,so you will be supporting the NI team from now on then,so we won't have to listen to blab on about the Irish team.

If you're looking for your own unique Northern Irish culture,surely then you should be interested in sports which are widespread in terms of cross-community  support and involvement up there, so you should probably start following Ulster Rugby and disassociate yourself with the GAA.

A good first step would be deleting your account on this website and refraining from ever posting here again.

My outlook has evolved.Many unionists have an admiration for the GAA,and I'm not saying for one minute that Northern Irishness should not include aspects of Irish and UK culture (which are ingrained anyway),but the North of Ireland is unique,hence the impossibility of classifying it as 100% UK or 100% Irish.To enhance Northern Irishness will also make the constitutional question irrelevant,as this will be the priority regardless of whether we are governed by London or Dublin.

I don't think any sane person would disagree that neither Dublin or London wants the North,understands the North,etc.If this was the case why did over 90% of the 26 county electorate jettison Articles 2 or 3 (effectively conceding that the British should control the North) at the time of the Good Friday Agreement?

We voted for the whole of the Good Friday agreement worked out by the 2 Governments and Nationalists and Unionists in the North.
How far South would "Northern Irishness " go? Would it include Donegal and North Monaghan, two areas further north than many parts of the 6 Cos.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 12:13:20 AM
My outlook has evolved.Many unionists have an admiration for the GAA,and I'm not saying for one minute that Northern Irishness should not include aspects of Irish and UK culture (which are ingrained anyway),but the North of Ireland is unique,hence the impossibility of classifying it as 100% UK or 100% Irish.To enhance Northern Irishness will also make the constitutional question irrelevant,as this will be the priority regardless of whether we are governed by London or Dublin.

I don't think any sane person would disagree that neither Dublin or London wants the North,understands the North,etc.If this was the case why did over 90% of the 26 county electorate jettison Articles 2 or 3 (effectively conceding that the British should control the North) at the time of the Good Friday Agreement?

Eh, maybe as part of a compromise so there might be a chance of peace in the north.

BTW this whole island is called Ireland. Citizens of the independent republic have no more right to the term 'Irish' than anyone from the north, regardless of the current constitutional arrangement.

There's a Northern mindset but no Northern culture. It's either an Irish culture, or British culture (whatever that entails). You can't redraw a border and force a culture on people.

So Irish sovereignty is casually and overwhelmingly conceded all for the sake of peace,that was never guaranteed? Incomprehensible.You could argue then that Hitler shouldn't have been confronted,as this would have avoided WW2.

A statelet in existence for 100 years is bound to develop its own special culture,different and unique to that of neighbouring states.Unique to Northern Irishness (in terms of the UK and rest of Ireland) are things like parading,plain speaking,religious adherence,temperance,no sense of easy going (that you'd see in the South).Throw in things like the GAA,Irish Language,Music etc which are an anathema to most unionists.As far back as the 70s,Gerry Fitt conceded he had far more in common with a Belfast Protestant than he had with a catholic from Dublin or Cork.

Two communities striving in polar opposites,for things that are never going to happen,like 100% integration with Britain or a wholly United Ireland is simply pointless.

Quote from: BennyCake on December 26, 2015, 12:59:36 AM
There's a Northern mindset but no Northern culture. It's either an Irish culture, or British culture (whatever that entails). You can't redraw a border and force a culture on people.

In the most part i think you are right there. Though things like ulster rugby have actually brought more common ground in the sporting arena at least.

Fearon what do you do - give up your respective cultures?

I am not sure about having more in common with belfast protestants than catholics from down south. World cup 90, ai finals, traditional music,visits of pope. Only a number of things but you don't share those. Granted we have common ground up here with anyone in sharing the ludicrous excuse for a government.

I think you are slowly convincing yourself that you admire the unionist values though as the south has went more secular and this is obviously something you oppose. You seem to miss the fact that the hatred they are pushing on things like homosexuality now is what they pushed for people of "your kind" for years and to be honest at times the mask slips now and they appear still the same in that regard anyway.

Respective cultures can be maintained,but the ridiculous aspirations,like full integration with Britain or Irish unity,which are never going to happen and which cause such division,need to be shelved and the promotion of common Northern Irishness needs to be prioritised.

I go back to the core and irrefutable contention that neither London nor Dublin wants the North of Ireland or regards its people as their people.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 07:47:36 AM
So Irish sovereignty is casually and overwhelmingly conceded all for the sake of peace,that was never guaranteed? Incomprehensible.You could argue then that Hitler shouldn't have been confronted,as this would have avoided WW2.

A statelet in existence for 100 years is bound to develop its own special culture,different and unique to that of neighbouring states.Unique to Northern Irishness (in terms of the UK and rest of Ireland) are things like parading,plain speaking,religious adherence,temperance,no sense of easy going (that you'd see in the South).Throw in things like the GAA,Irish Language,Music etc which are an anathema to most unionists.As far back as the 70s,Gerry Fitt conceded he had far more in common with a Belfast Protestant than he had with a catholic from Dublin or Cork.

Two communities striving in polar opposites,for things that are never going to happen,like 100% integration with Britain or a wholly United Ireland is simply pointless.

So given that parading is from the Orange culture and that the GAA, language and music is from Irish culture, what you are proposing building a unique nationality on is that you think we are uptight, speak more plainly, go to church more and don't drink as much (all debatable). Laughable.

You also seem to think that because some people in the Republic don't think (quite rightly) that the Republic could cope economically with unification that people in the north are no longer Irish. Illogical.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 09:32:33 AM
Respective cultures can be maintained,but the ridiculous aspirations,like full integration with Britain or Irish unity,which are never going to happen and which cause such division,need to be shelved and the promotion of common Northern Irishness needs to be prioritised.

I go back to the core and irrefutable contention that neither London nor Dublin wants the North of Ireland or regards its people as their people.

I don't disagree with your last statement.

We are a dysfunctional "state" though. Part of not being wanted is due to that.

Until we stop being run by bigots we will continue to be dysfunctional. No one would want a place that wastes money like is wasted here.

Look at the money being wasted on things like sports stadiums (how many million on that maze project) , the money being wasted year on year policing parades, we spend money on court cases to stop "gay blood" being used and the list goes on.

When you looking at running a country objectively and you add ni in money will be drained. Currently why would the uk or rest of Ireland want us?

Quote from: BennyCake on December 26, 2015, 12:59:36 AM
There's a Northern mindset but no Northern culture. It's either an Irish culture, or British culture (whatever that entails). You can't redraw a border and force a culture on people.

I think you can actually. The French did it with alsace after the second world war. The English did it in Ireland to a certain extent. The Americans with the Sioux etc. Language and education would be the way to go.

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 09:24:51 AM
I think you are slowly convincing yourself that you admire the unionist values though as the south has went more secular and this is obviously something you oppose. You seem to miss the fact that the hatred they are pushing on things like homosexuality now is what they pushed for people of "your kind" for years and to be honest at times the mask slips now and they appear still the same in that regard anyway.

Re: gay blood donors, gay marriage etc - unionist politicans are against, as would a lot of their followers. But a lot of their followers wouldn't be against it. Likewise there's nationalist voters for and against the same issues. You just dont hear about it. I would guarantee there are nationalist politicans too that are against such issues, but don't have the balls or the stupidity to say so. But that's what we have representing us!

But the unionist politicans are tarred with the bigot/anti-gay label and nationalist politicans jump on the unionist attacking bandwagon. It's the same for most issues here, one side can't be seen to be agreeing with the other. That's why nothing gets sorted, or never will.

I would view the gay blood thing differently from the gay marriage thing. What you have in that case is a health minister who doesn't believe in blood screening and basically modern science which is embarassing really. Those laws, from what i understand, were there as blood screening wasn't advanced enough and "gay blood" was deemed much more likely to have something like hiv. Screening back at a certain stage in time wouldn't have caught it but would now.

The marriage thing is a different matter but i would agree that there are probably nationalists against it too.

The gay marriage thing though highlights the lack of democracy here with the petition of concern being abused again.

All of the above highlight how dysfunctional we are here!

Quote from: Arthur_Friend on December 26, 2015, 09:54:43 AM
You also seem to think that because some people in the Republic don't think (quite rightly) that the Republic could cope economically with unification that people in the north are no longer Irish. Illogical.

Good man Arthur. Well said

There is definitely something different about someone from England.
But not from up North. Even the Prods. Ireland is the 32 counties. 

Quite an interesting read this topic for someone who would be deemed to be from a Unionist Working class Background. A few points to note. The introduction of the Civil rights movement has improved the life of many in Northern Ireland and was needed due to the terrible actions of the Unionist Government from partition. To say however that NI simply exists now to treat those who are Irish as 2nd class Citizens is just false. I call myself N Irish as my nationality. This encompasses I believe a mixture of being Irish and British, It might be a different Irishness than What SF want and a different Britishness than the DUP want but thats who I am.  I don't as a N Irish person spend my time being bigoted as was mentioned by a poster on this topic.
I find it disappointing to read comments about towns being classed as Sectarian holes. to categorise a whole town like Lisburn like this smacks of sectarianism in itself.
As for the idea of voting. I have voted for a Unionist Party once in my life (young and naive) and really can't see why anyone would want to vote for a Party like the DUP. However lets not fool ourselves into thinking that only Unionist parties are Sectarian. SF are as Sectarian a party as the DUP. They just have better PR at covering it up.

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 03:02:25 PM
Quite an interesting read this topic for someone who would be deemed to be from a Unionist Working class Background. A few points to note. The introduction of the Civil rights movement has improved the life of many in Northern Ireland and was needed due to the terrible actions of the Unionist Government from partition. To say however that NI simply exists now to treat those who are Irish as 2nd class Citizens is just false. I call myself N Irish as my nationality. This encompasses I believe a mixture of being Irish and British, It might be a different Irishness than What SF want and a different Britishness than the DUP want but thats who I am.  I don't as a N Irish person spend my time being bigoted as was mentioned by a poster on this topic.
I find it disappointing to read comments about towns being classed as Sectarian holes. to categorise a whole town like Lisburn like this smacks of sectarianism in itself.
As for the idea of voting. I have voted for a Unionist Party once in my life (young and naive) and really can't see why anyone would want to vote for a Party like the DUP. However lets not fool ourselves into thinking that only Unionist parties are Sectarian. SF are as Sectarian a party as the DUP. They just have better PR at covering it up.

Northern Ireland is a term devised by the brits that makes as much sense as Londonderry and let get one thing straight, the DUP are racist, sectarian bigots, the shinners are nothing like the DUP and are in no way sectarian, you are one delusional protestant sir! And this from an anti shinner who never voted for the f**kers in my life!

Not a Protestant and certainly not delusional!!! I agree fully with your comments regarding the DUP. You really believe SF are not Sectarian?

Where the Counties not brought in by the Brits as well? Do they make no sense?

Quote from: seafoid on December 26, 2015, 10:03:06 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on December 26, 2015, 12:59:36 AM
There's a Northern mindset but no Northern culture. It's either an Irish culture, or British culture (whatever that entails). You can't redraw a border and force a culture on people.

I think you can actually. The French did it with alsace after the second world war. The English did it in Ireland to a certain extent. The Americans with the Sioux etc. Language and education would be the way to go.

You cant but you can muddy the waters, I want a United Ireland yet feel absolutely no affinity to my southern brethren, therin lies the paradox the brits have laid on us as a people.

I'm not too mad about them Cork and Kerry hoors meself.

Quote from: stew on December 26, 2015, 03:59:10 PM

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 03:02:25 PM
Quite an interesting read this topic for someone who would be deemed to be from a Unionist Working class Background. A few points to note. The introduction of the Civil rights movement has improved the life of many in Northern Ireland and was needed due to the terrible actions of the Unionist Government from partition. To say however that NI simply exists now to treat those who are Irish as 2nd class Citizens is just false. I call myself N Irish as my nationality. This encompasses I believe a mixture of being Irish and British, It might be a different Irishness than What SF want and a different Britishness than the DUP want but thats who I am.  I don't as a N Irish person spend my time being bigoted as was mentioned by a poster on this topic.
I find it disappointing to read comments about towns being classed as Sectarian holes. to categorise a whole town like Lisburn like this smacks of sectarianism in itself.
As for the idea of voting. I have voted for a Unionist Party once in my life (young and naive) and really can't see why anyone would want to vote for a Party like the DUP. However lets not fool ourselves into thinking that only Unionist parties are Sectarian. SF are as Sectarian a party as the DUP. They just have better PR at covering it up.

Northern Ireland is a term devised by the brits that makes as much sense as Londonderry and let get one thing straight, the DUP are racist, sectarian bigots, the shinners are nothing like the DUP and are in no way sectarian, you are one delusional protestant sir! And this from an anti shinner who never voted for the f**kers in my life!

Behave!

Quote from: Rossfan on December 26, 2015, 04:23:18 PM
I'm not too mad about them Cork and Kerry hoors meself.

I couldn't be arsed about Laois.

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 03:02:25 PM
Quite an interesting read this topic for someone who would be deemed to be from a Unionist Working class Background. A few points to note. The introduction of the Civil rights movement has improved the life of many in Northern Ireland and was needed due to the terrible actions of the Unionist Government from partition. To say however that NI simply exists now to treat those who are Irish as 2nd class Citizens is just false. I call myself N Irish as my nationality. This encompasses I believe a mixture of being Irish and British, It might be a different Irishness than What SF want and a different Britishness than the DUP want but thats who I am.  I don't as a N Irish person spend my time being bigoted as was mentioned by a poster on this topic.
I find it disappointing to read comments about towns being classed as Sectarian holes. to categorise a whole town like Lisburn like this smacks of sectarianism in itself.
As for the idea of voting. I have voted for a Unionist Party once in my life (young and naive) and really can't see why anyone would want to vote for a Party like the DUP. However lets not fool ourselves into thinking that only Unionist parties are Sectarian. SF are as Sectarian a party as the DUP. They just have better PR at covering it up.

Genuine question...

What aspects of britishness do you embrace / want to embrace?

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 04:56:08 PM

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 03:02:25 PM
Quite an interesting read this topic for someone who would be deemed to be from a Unionist Working class Background. A few points to note. The introduction of the Civil rights movement has improved the life of many in Northern Ireland and was needed due to the terrible actions of the Unionist Government from partition. To say however that NI simply exists now to treat those who are Irish as 2nd class Citizens is just false. I call myself N Irish as my nationality. This encompasses I believe a mixture of being Irish and British, It might be a different Irishness than What SF want and a different Britishness than the DUP want but thats who I am.  I don't as a N Irish person spend my time being bigoted as was mentioned by a poster on this topic.
I find it disappointing to read comments about towns being classed as Sectarian holes. to categorise a whole town like Lisburn like this smacks of sectarianism in itself.
As for the idea of voting. I have voted for a Unionist Party once in my life (young and naive) and really can't see why anyone would want to vote for a Party like the DUP. However lets not fool ourselves into thinking that only Unionist parties are Sectarian. SF are as Sectarian a party as the DUP. They just have better PR at covering it up.

Genuine question...

What aspects of britishness do you embrace / want to embrace?

I suppose I have a lot of family through marriage who live in GB and although I don't class the Scottish, Welsh or English as fellow Countrymen I have always felt a closer affinity to GB than to the ROI. I dislike immensely the flag waving element that now comes with Nationality these days. When it comes to the Olympics etc it has always been team GB that I have looked out for. Recently however i really have explored my Irishness more.

What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

Ye're only choice is between being an unwanted boil on the UK's arse or being part of an All Ireland political entity.
A go it alone independent 6 Cos. is a total non starter.
An bhfuil Gaeilge agat a Antòin.

Quote from: Rossfan on December 26, 2015, 06:30:17 PM
Ye're only choice is between being an unwanted boil on the UK's arse or being part of an All Ireland political entity.
A go it alone independent 6 Cos. is a total non starter.
An bhfuil Gaeilge agat a Antòin.

Couldn't agree more in relation to an independent NI. Just not feasible. At present however how do you try to entice people that a UI will be better for us all? To be honest I definitely need convinced of the positives of a UI.

The best thing at present is to maintain the constitutional status quo (there is no other option) but instead of the divisive politics of unionism and nationalism, promote common Northern Irishness.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:42:31 PM
The best thing at present is to maintain the constitutional status quo (there is no other option) but instead of the divisive politics of unionism and nationalism, promote common Northern Irishness.

Indeed, and this shouldn't be a threat to anyones right to class themselves as Irish or British. We have loads in common, and obviously lots that we don't, but that should be celebrated not used to force apart

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:42:31 PM
The best thing at present is to maintain the constitutional status quo (there is no other option) but instead of the divisive politics of unionism and nationalism, promote common Northern Irishness.

Of course you are right. Both Communities have more in common with each other than the extended communities they try to be part of.

Exactly

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

What are these huge cultural differences?? Not sure i see them as clearly as you do.

Tothefuture in terms of sports i also follow team gb though "team ireland" first. England in rugby and soccer i like to see beat though the main reason is the media as they would sicken you.the rest i am happy enough to see do well.

We can not have common identity etc with dup in government. In reality sf either. The other reality is there is no viable party who would promote ni. Alliance were promising in that regard but dup sold them down the river with lies and people fell for it. 

We are stuck with what we have for the time being at least.

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 07:12:00 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

What are these huge cultural differences?? Not sure i see them as clearly as you do.

Tothefuture in terms of sports i also follow team gb though "team ireland" first. England in rugby and soccer i like to see beat though the main reason is the media as they would sicken you.the rest i am happy enough to see do well.

We can not have common identity etc with dup in government. In reality sf either. The other reality is there is no viable party who would promote ni. Alliance were promising in that regard but dup sold them down the river with lies and people fell for it. 

We are stuck with what we have for the time being at least.

I honestly do believe the majority of the DUP/SF rhetoric is a front to keep themselves in power. nothing gets you votes like blaming themuns. you mention Alliance, what make you thin it was a DUP river sell (Any decision in particular), interested as a current AP member? Would you be keen to see main parties like Labour, FG, FF etc contest elections in NI?

The solution to division is not the promotion of more division. Tyrone people has as much in common with Donegal people as Antrim people and no reasonable person should have an ambition to create an artificial division, lets call it a border, which implies that this is not the case.

Much of the so called division in NI is contrived in any attempt to keep the concept of NI going.

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 08:56:46 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 07:12:00 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

What are these huge cultural differences?? Not sure i see them as clearly as you do.

Tothefuture in terms of sports i also follow team gb though "team ireland" first. England in rugby and soccer i like to see beat though the main reason is the media as they would sicken you.the rest i am happy enough to see do well.

We can not have common identity etc with dup in government. In reality sf either. The other reality is there is no viable party who would promote ni. Alliance were promising in that regard but dup sold them down the river with lies and people fell for it. 

We are stuck with what we have for the time being at least.

I honestly do believe the majority of the DUP/SF rhetoric is a front to keep themselves in power. nothing gets you votes like blaming themuns. you mention Alliance, what make you thin it was a DUP river sell (Any decision in particular), interested as a current AP member? Would you be keen to see main parties like Labour, FG, FF etc contest elections in NI?

I agree about dup and sf. I honestly think stormont is one large gravy train for those guys. The dup weren't going to stay in government as they were unsure about the ira council/ existence of ira etc etc. What happens then... It is confirmed so what do they do... They come back in!!

A further farce was the continued resignations however.... No resignations the week they were going to cut the number of aides so less money from the gravy train. Then the next week back to resigning! Health service etc falling on it's arse but the only week with no resignations was when less money was potentially going to go to their pockets.

The ap were sold down the river by the dup convincing people of the lie that they were the ones that got the flag removed from the city hall. They convinced an electorate and in addition long lost her seat due to them combining their seat with uup in east belfast of the back of that. The only good thing was at least long got more votes last election. Alliance party members could have died on that lie.

Anything that would promote real politics i would be keen on. I would still hope the ap can do something. I would also say that if the sdlp had a leader they could be a more real option but mcdonnell has done nothing,literally, for them.  Voting is purely tribal at present leading to apathy among people who wouldn't vote on those lines and tribalness winning on account of this.

Whether you do or don't favour a united ireland it will be a long time coming and in the meantime we have to live with, and pay for, the decisions of these clowns. It is infuriating and at current rate I don't think is sustainable because they will bankrupt us.

That being said i would prefer no tory candidates ;)

(I was hopeful ni21 could have been a real option until it turned out basil was a sex pest!)

I think there is room for a party such as NI21,promoting Northern Irishness.A United Ireland requires a new single party with charismatic leaders,operating across the whole island,like the SNP.It will never be delivered by the current partitionist parties in the South,of the equally partitionist SDLP in the North or by Sinn Fein

Sf have too much baggage to deliver a ui. Quite honestly i think they are not good enough politically, particularly at top level,to do it either in my view.

I would like to see a few of them branch off but couldn't see it.

There are no leaders to do something like an ni21 i think but i agree if someone real stands up it has potential. I would still be hopeful the ap will pick up too though remains to be seem.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 11:35:46 PM
I think there is room for a party such as NI21,promoting Northern Irishness.A United Ireland requires a new single party with charismatic leaders,operating across the whole island,like the SNP.It will never be delivered by the current partitionist parties in the South,of the equally partitionist SDLP in the North or by Sinn Fein

There is a lot of truth in this. The moment is not now, I'd be hopeful that some leadership can emerge in a decade or so, although I have to say that I do not see any Alex Salmond type figures around.

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 11:12:46 PM

Quote from: Tothefuture on December 26, 2015, 08:56:46 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2015, 07:12:00 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

What are these huge cultural differences?? Not sure i see them as clearly as you do.

Tothefuture in terms of sports i also follow team gb though "team ireland" first. England in rugby and soccer i like to see beat though the main reason is the media as they would sicken you.the rest i am happy enough to see do well.

We can not have common identity etc with dup in government. In reality sf either. The other reality is there is no viable party who would promote ni. Alliance were promising in that regard but dup sold them down the river with lies and people fell for it. 

We are stuck with what we have for the time being at least.

I honestly do believe the majority of the DUP/SF rhetoric is a front to keep themselves in power. nothing gets you votes like blaming themuns. you mention Alliance, what make you thin it was a DUP river sell (Any decision in particular), interested as a current AP member? Would you be keen to see main parties like Labour, FG, FF etc contest elections in NI?

I agree about dup and sf. I honestly think stormont is one large gravy train for those guys. The dup weren't going to stay in government as they were unsure about the ira council/ existence of ira etc etc. What happens then... It is confirmed so what do they do... They come back in!!

A further farce was the continued resignations however.... No resignations the week they were going to cut the number of aides so less money from the gravy train. Then the next week back to resigning! Health service etc falling on it's arse but the only week with no resignations was when less money was potentially going to go to their pockets.

The ap were sold down the river by the dup convincing people of the lie that they were the ones that got the flag removed from the city hall. They convinced an electorate and in addition long lost her seat due to them combining their seat with uup in east belfast of the back of that. The only good thing was at least long got more votes last election. Alliance party members could have died on that lie.

Anything that would promote real politics i would be keen on. I would still hope the ap can do something. I would also say that if the sdlp had a leader they could be a more real option but mcdonnell has done nothing,literally, for them.  Voting is purely tribal at present leading to apathy among people who wouldn't vote on those lines and tribalness winning on account of this.

Whether you do or don't favour a united ireland it will be a long time coming and in the meantime we have to live with, and pay for, the decisions of these clowns. It is infuriating and at current rate I don't think is sustainable because they will bankrupt us.

That being said i would prefer no tory candidates ;)

(I was hopeful ni21 could have been a real option until it turned out basil was a sex pest!)

I don't think the Alliance Party where sold down the river, We made a decision, the right decision in MHO. The people who voted for Robinson who had previously voted for Naomi are the ones sold down the river by a lie as you said. On the whole at the last election the Party grew their support and it'll be interesting to see what votes we get at the next Assembly elections. I would suspect that we will see NI21 running for a number of Constituencies, however with Basil still in charge the brand is toxic to many.

Decision was fine. A hell of a lot of people still don't know what your decision was due to the lies that were peddled was my point.

Now that it has settled it will be interesting to see where ap go.

It doesn't look like there will be any further unionist pacts with fallouts which will help in east belfast etc.

I see the AP as soft unionists,certainly they do not prioritise Northern Irishness.Something new and fresh is needed

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 11:21:12 AM
I see the AP as soft unionists,certainly they do not prioritise Northern Irishness.Something new and fresh is needed

You can't be unionist and this 'Northern Irish' you are promoting??

Quote from: From the Bunker on December 26, 2015, 06:55:04 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:42:31 PM
The best thing at present is to maintain the constitutional status quo (there is no other option) but instead of the divisive politics of unionism and nationalism, promote common Northern Irishness.

Of course you are right. Both Communities have more in common with each other than the extended communities they try to be part of.

Well I have to say that I have about the same amount in common with my housemates from Wexford, Kildare and Monaghan as I do as Protestant friends from Larne. Probably more so, in fact.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 26, 2015, 06:24:20 PM
What is Irish culture anyway? Seems to me that large swathes of the 26 counties have a mishmash of West Brit/USA culture.There is now huge cultural differences between nationalists North and South (never mind the huge differences between both and unionists).The influx of foreign nationals to both jurisdictions seems to have further muddied the waters.

In the unlikely event of getting any substantial portion of unionists to agree to a United Ireland (that still no Dublin Govt wants) the absolute minimum requirement for them is that the current British subvention will be matched.

All these factors make a United Ireland not only unattainable but totally off the radar.The British and Irish Government have no attachment to the North and no vision other than peace (or an absence of violence).Why does anyone here owe any allegiance to either of these two governments?

Large US influences and Man U etc but I would define Irish culture as duthracht, concern for people, strong community, very supporting in times of crisis eg funerals , politically over tolerant of corruption, clientelist, adventurous n things like food, child focused, kind to handicapped, perhaps a bit sloppy, wouldn't always follow best practice, afraid of maths, open to the world, big into music, talented musically generally, big readers, not the most organised tend to go more towards flexibility, open to new ideas, tolerant.

I really do dispair when people bring up the whole NI "unique culture" angle. Is it the accent? Just cos to the untrained ear "we all sound the same" when in reality accents in NI are as chequered as the rest of the island. Is it because some people like to march? Which funny enough they do in the ROI as well.

Generally speaking, across all these islands, we're all kind of the same in terms of popular culture. We watch the same tv shows, drive the same cars, follow the same football teams, drink the same beers, have the same socio economic struggles, etc. The differences are so subtle. Why try and peddle this notion that NI is somehow unique? What's the difference between people in Banbridge? Dundalk? Kilmarnock? Rhyl?

In terms of traditional culture. NI doesn't really have any. There is nothing truly unique to NI that you can say doesn't happen anywhere else. I certainly can't think of anything - and no the OO doesn't count.

Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 12:56:38 PM
Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

Visit Shankill Road and Enniskillen and ............

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 12:56:38 PM
Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

Shankill rd is more like Sherriff st.
Killarney would be like somewhere in the glens maybe. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=153b6qaueSc

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 12:56:38 PM
Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

You have taken the most extreme loyalist area (in a city) and compared to a relatively small rural area. Not a realistic comparison at all.

How does crossmaglen compare to the shankill road??

Killarney probably a bit more like mournes.

Absurd comparisons. Visit the Cotswolds and Toxteth, the Lake District and Hull... Most nations are not made up of homogeneous masses.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 12:56:38 PM
Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

The North is NOT unique. The only thing unique about it is there is an international border around 6 counties which differentiates it from the rest of the country. 5/6 counties have a border with with an ROI county so to try spinning this notion that we are unique to the rest of the island is bull. There is no more difference between Killarney and the Shankill than there is between Killarney and Ballymun.

Culturally there is one indigenous culture on this island - Irish culture. There are various strands to this and probably the most significant one is Unionist/Loyalist culture. Remember this pre - exists partition so is not "unique" to NI. The political status of NI doesn't dictate the culture within.

Quote from: general_lee on December 27, 2015, 03:25:17 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 12:56:38 PM
Visit the Shankhill Road and Killarney and tell me these are all the same people? By virtue of 100 years of partition,the North is unique (in terms of the rest of Ireland and the U.K.) in our experiences,outlook and history which shapes all of us.

Throw in the fact (sadly most people do not want to acknowledge this) that neither Dublin or London wants us,and has each screwed us over more times than one could recall,then realise the absurdity of fighting to try to "belong" to either state.

The North is NOT unique. The only thing unique about it is there is an international border around 6 counties which differentiates it from the rest of the country. 5/6 counties have a border with with an ROI county so to try spinning this notion that we are unique to the rest of the island is bull. There is no more difference between Killarney and the Shankill than there is between Killarney and Ballymun.

Culturally there is one indigenous culture on this island - Irish culture. There are various strands to this and probably the most significant one is Unionist/Loyalist culture. Remember this pre - exists partition so is not "unique" to NI. The political status of NI doesn't dictate the culture within.

I'd agree with that GL

There are substantial core cultural differences between northern and southern nationalists never mind unionists.But the 26 county mindset now,after 100 years of partition,is that the North and its people are a different entity and not to be touched with a barge pole.The same attitude multiplied by 5 obtains in the UK

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 08:35:44 PM
There are substantial core cultural differences between northern and southern nationalists never mind unionists.But the 26 county mindset now,after 100 years of partition,is that the North and its people are a different entity and not to be touched with a barge pole.The same attitude multiplied by 5 obtains in the UK

Wtf are these core differences?? Every example you've given so far has been a load of pish!

Yes some examples please tony. May or may not disagree but not sure what you refer to.

Northern people do tend to be more paranoid as can be seen from a few threads on here but that aside very similar....

Northern people are generally more uptight,plain speaking,abstemious,non easy going,adherent to religion,introvert,suspicious and parochial than their Southern counterparts.All this is a product of 100 years of insecurity (both sides in the North).

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 08:35:44 PM
There are substantial core cultural differences between northern and southern nationalists never mind unionists.But the 26 county mindset now,after 100 years of partition,is that the North and its people are a different entity and not to be touched with a barge pole.

This is like a sentence from the article by Eoghan Harris where he pointed out that the people in the 26 counties would never vote for Mary McAleese. How did that turn out.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
Northern people are generally more uptight,plain speaking,abstemious,non easy going,adherent to religion,introvert,suspicious and parochial than their Southern counterparts.All this is a product of 100 years of insecurity (both sides in the North).

I had a funny feeling the religion thing would be in there but think you are wrong.

One of the main and probably only reason ni looks like it is a staunchly religious place, based on politics, is due to the dup and no one else. I would say it is very comparable to the south and maybe even less religious on the whole.

If it wasn't for the petition of concern then gay marriage would most likely have become legal here you know. A democratic ni would have went that way but we aren't democratic here. Sunday trading and pub opening hours would change too i suspect.

Suspiciousness is hardly a culture either. Tell eamon dunphy or pat spillane the plain speaking thing...

I think if you compare church attendance per capita,it is much stronger in the North than the South.Also I wouldn't bet money on the outcome of a gay marriage referendum in the North as it is opposed by the vast majority of the church going communities,which are still substantial on both sides.

As for Dunphy and Spillane don't confuse plain speaking with gobshites being controversial in a contrived manner to forge highly paid media careers.

No one addressing the main fact,still,that the Dublin Government doesn't aspire to unity,doesn't want the North and regards us all as a different and separate people.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 11:22:57 PM
I think if you compare church attendance per capita,it is much stronger in the North than the South.Also I wouldn't bet money on the outcome of a gay marriage referendum in the North as it is opposed by the vast majority of the church going communities,which are still substantial on both sides.

As for Dunphy and Spillane don't confuse plain speaking with gobshites being controversial in a contrived manner to forge highly paid media careers.

No one addressing the main fact,still,that the Dublin Government doesn't aspire to unity,doesn't want the North and regards us all as a different and separate people.

Are those genuine stats? Where are they from? On one religion or more?

I think the gay marriage thing would go through but we will never know with the "democratic" unionist party.

Spillane isn't clever enough for that. Dunphy maybe.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 11:22:57 PM
No one addressing the main fact,still,that the Dublin Government doesn't aspire to unity,doesn't want the North and regards us all as a different and separate people.

The Dublin government does aspire to unity, the question is whether people from a nationalist background in the 6 counties do.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 27, 2015, 11:22:57 PM
I think if you compare church attendance per capita,it is much stronger in the North than the South.Also I wouldn't bet money on the outcome of a gay marriage referendum in the North as it is opposed by the vast majority of the church going communities,which are still substantial on both sides.

As for Dunphy and Spillane don't confuse plain speaking with gobshites being controversial in a contrived manner to forge highly paid media careers.

No one addressing the main fact,still,that the Dublin Government doesn't aspire to unity,doesn't want the North and regards us all as a different and separate people.

Tony all you are showing is regional disparity, not national differences that necessitate separate countries. You can equally view regional differences in any country. Still not buying it; however I do agree with you that there is a general "western" culture which pervades all parts of the islands. Music, film, clothes, sports, shite like X-Factor etc.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 25, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
The South.(Just a few examples).

1.Accepted partition in the early 20th Century

2.Doing and has done nothing to end partition.

3.Rejected Churchill's offer of unity in the 1940s

4.Deals with the North of Ireland under its Foreign Affairs dept

5.Bertie Ahern addressed a (mainly nationalist) audience in Newry a few weeks ago,describing himself as a "good neighbour" no doubt reflecting the limit of the South's aspirations as far as the North goes.


Equally the UK does not want us either,I would readily concede.

Why on earth would you trust an "offer" from Churchill?  I mean seriously, an offer from the ever-tursthworthy British government?  Not to mention from a man who was prepared to use poison gas on ireland during WW2?


"By May 1941 it was clear that the British were prepared to use poison gas anywhere on the British archipelago - including neutral Eire. ''The use of gas in Ireland (including Eire) would be ordered and controlled by the General Officer commanding British troops in Ireland '' one top-secret memorandum declares. In other words, if the Germans had tried to use Eire as a back door into Britain the RAF would have sprayed the beaches of Ireland with mustard gas and/or phosgene."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12251410.Memo__From_Winston_Churchill_________To__General_Ismay_________Date__July_6__1944__It_may_be_several_weeks_before_I_ask_you_to_drench_Germany_with_poison_gas__and_if_we__do_it__let_us_do_it_one_hundred_per_cent/ (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12251410.Memo__From_Winston_Churchill_________To__General_Ismay_________Date__July_6__1944__It_may_be_several_weeks_before_I_ask_you_to_drench_Germany_with_poison_gas__and_if_we__do_it__let_us_do_it_one_hundred_per_cent/)

Seriously I have found in recent years a greater match,in terms of cultural affinity,between the North and the West of Scotland,than between North and South.

Anyone who thinks the Dublin Government aspires to Unity,beyond occasional rhetoric (and even that is never used by FG) seriously needs to have their head examined.We are generally regarded in the South as a different and separate people,as we are similarly in the UK.

So, could Mary McAleese have left her job in Belfast and run for election in Scotland? Could Arlene Foster?

I'm beginning to wonder about your definition of culture and how you go abou comparing it.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2015, 08:36:29 AM
Seriously I have found in recent years a greater match,in terms of cultural affinity,between the North and the West of Scotland,than between North and South.

Anyone who thinks the Dublin Government aspires to Unity,beyond occasional rhetoric (and even that is never used by FG) seriously needs to have their head examined.We are generally regarded in the South as a different and separate people,as we are similarly in the UK.

Just the west of Scotland? Should the East Scottish be considered a different nation of people altogether?

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
I'm beginning to wonder about your definition of culture and how you go abou comparing it.

x1

I struggle to see how I, and the people who live around me, have more in common with people 100 miles away, separated by water and in a different country, than the people 18 miles down the road..

If someone with a Sinn Fein uncle can become a Labour MP in the North of England,yes anything can happen in Scotland.

Mary Mc Aleese diverted totally from Irish nationalism as President, she brought Her Majesty to Ireland.It was precisely this diversion that rendered her so popular and guaranteed her a second term.If you like,she was conditioning her northern kinsmen and women to the preservation of the Status Quo.Meanwhile contrast this with Martin Mc Guinness, offering strong Irish nationalism,who didn't get near the Aras.

You are wumming now Tony. ;)
Marty McG and Lizzie W are now the best of mates.
As for Scotland - some difference between a slum dwelling Rangers soccer bigot and  a Gaelic speaking Hebridean islander ....

Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2015, 10:51:29 AM
If someone with a Sinn Fein uncle can become a Labour MP in the North of England,yes anything can happen in Scotland.

Mary Mc Aleese diverted totally from Irish nationalism as President, she brought Her Majesty to Ireland.It was precisely this diversion that rendered her so popular and guaranteed her a second term.If you like,she was conditioning her northern kinsmen and women to the preservation of the Status Quo.Meanwhile contrast this with Martin Mc Guinness, offering strong Irish nationalism,who didn't get near the Aras.

So what does the mary mcaleese thing have to do with respective cultures? Or the north of england thing?

Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency.

My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2015, 09:10:52 PM
Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency./quote]

Whether you agree with her or not, I'm pretty certain that Mc Aleese believed she was advancing nationalism by having QEII show up as she did. I'd certainly take her judgement on this matter over yours.

[quote[My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

A United Ireland will not happen by agitating for it, it will happen by working for it and providing economic models for its operation. The 26 county government are not going to agitate, which would be counter productive in any case. But by having higher economic growth than the UK for the last 5 decades they have done their bit to show the viability of an independent Ireland.

An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

Quote from: armaghniac on December 28, 2015, 09:26:44 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2015, 09:10:52 PM
Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency./quote]

Whether you agree with her or not, I'm pretty certain that Mc Aleese believed she was advancing nationalism by having QEII show up as she did. I'd certainly take her judgement on this matter over yours.

[quote[My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

A United Ireland will not happen by agitating for it, it will happen by working for it and providing economic models for its operation. The 26 county government are not going to agitate, which would be counter productive in any case. But by having higher economic growth than the UK for the last 5 decades they have done their bit to show the viability of an independent Ireland.

And would you say "their bit" is enough?

Quote from: T Fearon on December 28, 2015, 09:10:52 PM
Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency.

That is nonsense. Reaching out olive branches is not neutralising. It is forward political thinking. She is not the only one to have done it either.

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:43:40 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 09:36:36 PM
An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

I think your post reads that the environment that people lived in had little to do with their actions during that time. I think that's quite a bit off the mark.

Are you arguing that the prevailing environment justifyied any particular murders?

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:50:29 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 09:46:18 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:43:40 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 09:36:36 PM
An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

I think your post reads that the environment that people lived in had little to do with their actions during that time. I think that's quite a bit off the mark.

Are you arguing that the prevailing environment justifyied any particular murders?

It's easy to say that none of it should have happened, in hindsight.

Frankly that is nonsense. Maybe you are arguing that individuals went out there to unthinkingly lash out but I'm invariably told that that republicans had a strategy, a command and a justification. In which case they thought about their actions before they acted.

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

Did I discount it?

I am off the view that it was not enough to justify murder. I stand by that.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/ 

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

Who started the "murdering" in the 1960s??

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

the Unionists thought they could control everything and that enough brutality would put the taigs back n their place. Croppies lie down. With that sort of attitude violence was hardly surprising. And the state wasnt strong enough to come back to a workable equilibrium. NI was a complete failure in that respect.
.
Did murder work? Certainly the violence was effective in destroying the NI economy. 
Did murder work when nothing else could have worked ? The Unionists strangled everything else

Remember Sunningdale for slow learners ?

Does this sound familiar?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/southafrica

I recently read Joel Joffe's excellent book The State vs. Nelson Mandela, about the notorious Rivonia trial in South Africa in 1963-64. Joffe describes a world of bigotry, misinformation and deliberate twisting of the legal system in favour of the state against those it considers to be its enemies. In South Africa in the mid-60s terrorism suspects could be held without trial for long periods of time at the whim of the police; conversations between lawyers and their clients were routinely bugged, the information being used to help the prosecution form its case in advance; and religious leaders who dared to raise tricky religious or political topics were chastised by the press.

Seafoid I think a big reason for Unionist treatment of Catholic/Nationalists (and I'm not condoning it) was born out of the perceived disloyalty to the state and lack of trust.

Also Unionist condemnation of violence is a bit hollow as if the show was on the other foot the violence from unionism would have been ten times worse

The vast majority of people up here don't,and never did hate each other due to religious affiliation.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 06:53:27 AM
Seafoid I think a big reason for Unionist treatment of Catholic/Nationalists (and I'm not condoning it) was born out of the perceived disloyalty to the state and lack of trust.

Also Unionist condemnation of violence is a bit hollow as if the show was on the other foot the violence from unionism would have been ten times worse

The vast majority of people up here don't,and never did hate each other due to religious affiliation.

Tony

Unionist distrust of Catholics goes back all the way to 1607. Settler colonialism is all about us versus them. You cant dispossess a people without it.  While there are great relationships on a personal level, at the level of identity politics they are dreadful. John Hewitts poetry explores this very interestingly, I think. He has one wonderful poem called the colony where he features a roman centurion as a Unionist.

This book looks like a corker

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/literature/poetry/ormsby92.htm

But what is the solution after centuries? Continuing to pursue destructive competing allegiances to two established states that don't want us,or to build on the common shared culture,outlook and mindset and total equality?

The solution to centuries of colonial bigotry is to stop having colonial bigotry.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
But what is the solution after centuries? Continuing to pursue destructive competing allegiances to two established states that don't want us,or to build on the common shared culture,outlook and mindset and total equality?

Build it on top of what? What do we do with Irish culture? What do we do with the OO?

I really haven't seen anything, particularly in this past few months, to suggest (bitter)unionists think any better of catholics than they did say 40 years ago. Where do you see any interest in a party like the DUP to do anything like compromise or make any future "shared"?

At least SF met the queen, went to cenotaph for remembrance day and things like that.

Until a party like the DUP is out of power there is no hope for anything shared.

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 29, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
But what is the solution after centuries? Continuing to pursue destructive competing allegiances to two established states that don't want us,or to build on the common shared culture,outlook and mindset and total equality?

Build it on top of what? What do we do with Irish culture? What do we do with the OO?

I really haven't seen anything, particularly in this past few months, to suggest (bitter)unionists think any better of catholics than they did say 40 years ago. Where do you see any interest in a party like the DUP to do anything like compromise or make any future "shared"?

At least SF met the queen, went to cenotaph for remembrance day and things like that.

Until a party like the DUP is out of power there is no hope for anything shared.

Is Nesbitt's party any better?

Has not Robinson attended GAA matches,attended mass etc? In any case you make my point.Pursuing tribal politics,bizarrely based on competing allegiances to two disinterested sovereign states only perpetuates the them and us zero sum politics which achieves nothing only bitterness and division.

We are long past colonial domination.As the late Fr Faul said over 30 years ago,the Brits see themselves as merely refereeing a fight now.Its time this mindset was jettisoned.


By the way the Orange Order has attended garden parties at the Aras and has a fully funded interpretive centre at the Boyne.The Irish tricolour fully and equally recognises the validity of Orangeism.

As much as the DUP position of power angers nationalists can you not imagine the equal consternation of unionists when they see Sinn Fein (a party inextricably linked to the IRA,and I'm not passing any moral judgement here) in a similarly powerful position?

In a new North of Ireland with a new mindset and emphasising a shared culture neither DUP or SF would command such electoral support.

Wonder how many Tricolours on display at the Rossnowlagh parade?

Problem with Tony's " Northern Irishness" is that there will never be a " Northern Ireland" independent State.
It will either be an unwanted part of a UK ( or whatever England/Wales/NI might be if Scotland pulls out) or at best an Autonomous region of an All Ireland Confederate State.

Yes,but if the emphasis is on the region,not which state we belong to,and our regional identity and culture is the priority,the constitutional arrangement will then be immaterial.

In any case the 26 county state is not independent,depending as it does on European money.

26 Co State will be running a surplus next year and has been a net contributor to the EU for some time. We are one of 27(?) equal partners in the EU.
As for the bail out - the Brits had the IMF in 35 years before us in 1975 and hopefully EU oversight of our budgetary policy will stop our politicians behaving like children in a sweetshop in future.
Just wonder how you'd make a common culture out of GAA people and Allister voters for example?
Will this "Northern Irishness" include Gaelic games, Gaeilge, Irish dancing etc or will it be like some Integrated Schools where such things will be outlawed??

How many mixed marriage's (catholic prod) are there in the north? Few posters here are mixed marriages...

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:51:21 AM
Has not Robinson attended GAA matches,attended mass etc? In any case you make my point.Pursuing tribal politics,bizarrely based on competing allegiances to two disinterested sovereign states only perpetuates the them and us zero sum politics which achieves nothing only bitterness and division.

We are long past colonial domination.As the late Fr Faul said over 30 years ago,the Brits see themselves as merely refereeing a fight now.Its time this mindset was jettisoned.


By the way the Orange Order has attended garden parties at the Aras and has a fully funded interpretive centre at the Boyne.The Irish tricolour fully and equally recognises the validity of Orangeism.

The flag was more hope than reality and seems to refer now to 1798 when Orangemen fought with catholics. After 1801 and the act of union that was it.

I saw a Shinner mural in Belfast a while ago that really struck me. It was about Beal Feirste and included an excerpt from an ancient poem about a bird on Belfast Lough, as Gaeilge. The poem was over 1000 years old. And the Unionists have nothing like that to draw on.
So they focus on the Somme....

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
Yes,but if the emphasis is on the region,not which state we belong to,and our regional identity and culture is the priority,the constitutional arrangement will then be immaterial.

In any case the 26 county state is not independent,depending as it does on European money.

Neither is the UK, Tony. No modern country is independent

Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 29, 2015, 10:44:14 AM

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 29, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
But what is the solution after centuries? Continuing to pursue destructive competing allegiances to two established states that don't want us,or to build on the common shared culture,outlook and mindset and total equality?

Build it on top of what? What do we do with Irish culture? What do we do with the OO?

I really haven't seen anything, particularly in this past few months, to suggest (bitter)unionists think any better of catholics than they did say 40 years ago. Where do you see any interest in a party like the DUP to do anything like compromise or make any future "shared"?

At least SF met the queen, went to cenotaph for remembrance day and things like that.

Until a party like the DUP is out of power there is no hope for anything shared.

Is Nesbitt's party any better?

No. At least they have a bit more backbone though.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:55:38 AM
As much as the DUP position of power angers nationalists can you not imagine the equal consternation of unionists when they see Sinn Fein (a party inextricably linked to the IRA,and I'm not passing any moral judgement here) in a similarly powerful position?

In a new North of Ireland with a new mindset and emphasising a shared culture neither DUP or SF would command such electoral support.

The only "shared" way is without either of them.

The oo are a disgusting organisation irrespective of whether they have went to aras or where they have went. Until something serious is done about them there will never be any true progress in ni as july is just groundhog month every year.

In the same vein though you can't dilute peoples identities. There should be room for "our" irishness or "their" britishness. Neither should need to trample on the other which is all the oo really stands for.

You seem to have this sudden feeling of being sold out and now want to deny your roots...

Make no mistake here the dup do not like "your kind" and would have you lose your entire identity.

One of the things that is unique to NI is the mural culture. Because identity in the South is not contested nobody needs to paint the gable end of the house with a historical scene or a martyr with makey uppy military status. 

I could take Tony's aspirations for a shared future more seriously if he hadn't explicitly stated in other threads that the crossover he sees between Nationalist and Unionist communities lies in the fervency of their faith and their opposition to things like same sex marriage.

I seriously doubt the size of the shared constituency in this new theocracy, sounds like the worst aspects of 50s Dev and puritanical Paisleyism. And does not sound like great craic to live in to be honest.

TF rightly criticises the compunction within both communities to define themself in opposition to the other. But his solution is to provide them with a bigger enemy to define themselves against - modern democratic secularism. Not a runner unfortunately for him, though Ayatollah Tony does have a certain ring to it.

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:40:50 PM
It doesn't matter when you take the stance that there is no justification for killing another person.

It seems that he doesn't want to analyse events that brought about the death of thousands of people but would rather just say "no justification" about every individual action, which may be true but it is both subjective and unhelpful to the discussion.

Should I retract the "truth" and replace it with something a little more "helpful to the discussion?"

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:42:24 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

the Unionists thought they could control everything and that enough brutality would put the taigs back n their place. Croppies lie down. With that sort of attitude violence was hardly surprising. And the state wasnt strong enough to come back to a workable equilibrium. NI was a complete failure in that respect.
.
Did murder work? Certainly the violence was effective in destroying the NI economy. 
Did murder work when nothing else could have worked ? The Unionists strangled everything else

Remember Sunningdale for slow learners ?

As a response that never rises above the level of pitiful.

The request was for specifics in relation to the justifications for taking a human life/ the aggregate death toll we have to confront.

It is also critically important to recognise that an analysis of the situation in say 1968-73 as ajustification for a shot fired or a bomb denonated in say 1995.

Quote from: smelmoth on December 29, 2015, 02:11:17 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:42:24 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

the Unionists thought they could control everything and that enough brutality would put the taigs back n their place. Croppies lie down. With that sort of attitude violence was hardly surprising. And the state wasnt strong enough to come back to a workable equilibrium. NI was a complete failure in that respect.
.
Did murder work? Certainly the violence was effective in destroying the NI economy. 
Did murder work when nothing else could have worked ? The Unionists strangled everything else

Remember Sunningdale for slow learners ?

As a response that never rises above the level of pitiful.

The request was for specifics in relation to the justifications for taking a human life/ the aggregate death toll we have to confront.

It is also critically important to recognise that an analysis of the situation in say 1968-73 as ajustification for a shot fired or a bomb denonated in say 1995.

"There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet's perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain't one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional "live audience" quickly conspire to create a "perfect storm" of perpetual bickering."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoA6zXyWY8

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 06:53:27 AM
Seafoid I think a big reason for Unionist treatment of Catholic/Nationalists (and I'm not condoning it) was born out of the perceived disloyalty to the state and lack of trust.

Also Unionist condemnation of violence is a bit hollow as if the show was on the other foot the violence from unionism would have been ten times worse

The vast majority of people up here don't,and never did hate each other due to religious affiliation.

Northern Ireland was ran as a colonial outpost. It was run as if it was Burma or Belize (not that misrule was or is acceptable there either). The reason why recognising this is important is that there were not simply 2 classes of people in NI. It was not a simple taig vs hun scenario. Colonial outposts are run by small elites - groups of families and friends who not only have the wealth but also the positions. Administrative roles are shared out among the politburo members and their families (similarities with the modern DUP there) based upon rank, expectation and at best noblese oblige. Capablity and meritocracy do not come into it. The quality of administration this produces is predictably atrocious. The ability of thw working class (irrespective of religion) to rise to the top or even beyond the glass ceiling in such a regime is close to nil.

Over time there will be a growing recognition by the working classes in the PUL community that it was not a protestant state for protestant people but a banana statelet run for certain protestant peolple. 

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 29, 2015, 10:40:36 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
But what is the solution after centuries? Continuing to pursue destructive competing allegiances to two established states that don't want us,or to build on the common shared culture,outlook and mindset and total equality?

Build it on top of what? What do we do with Irish culture? What do we do with the OO?

I really haven't seen anything, particularly in this past few months, to suggest (bitter)unionists think any better of catholics than they did say 40 years ago. Where do you see any interest in a party like the DUP to do anything like compromise or make any future "shared"?

At least SF met the queen, went to cenotaph for remembrance day and things like that.

Until a party like the DUP is out of power there is no hope for anything shared.

There is a stage managed situation with SF and DUP but I really don't think there is evidence that either one is better than the other at recognising and valuing the others culture

Quote from: Rossfan on December 29, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
26 Co State will be running a surplus next year and has been a net contributor to the EU for some time. We are one of 27(?) equal partners in the EU.
As for the bail out - the Brits had the IMF in 35 years before us in 1975 and hopefully EU oversight of our budgetary policy will stop our politicians behaving like children in a sweetshop in future.
Just wonder how you'd make a common culture out of GAA people and Allister voters for example?
Will this "Northern Irishness" include Gaelic games, Gaeilge, Irish dancing etc or will it be like some Integrated Schools where such things will be outlawed??

Are they outlawed in integrated schools today?

Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2015, 02:17:58 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 29, 2015, 02:11:17 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:42:24 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 28, 2015, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

the Unionists thought they could control everything and that enough brutality would put the taigs back n their place. Croppies lie down. With that sort of attitude violence was hardly surprising. And the state wasnt strong enough to come back to a workable equilibrium. NI was a complete failure in that respect.
.
Did murder work? Certainly the violence was effective in destroying the NI economy. 
Did murder work when nothing else could have worked ? The Unionists strangled everything else

Remember Sunningdale for slow learners ?

As a response that never rises above the level of pitiful.

The request was for specifics in relation to the justifications for taking a human life/ the aggregate death toll we have to confront.

It is also critically important to recognise that an analysis of the situation in say 1968-73 as ajustification for a shot fired or a bomb denonated in say 1995.

"There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet's perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain't one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, gestated responses, random heckling and a notional "live audience" quickly conspire to create a "perfect storm" of perpetual bickering."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoA6zXyWY8

There is nothing to stop you outling your justification for murder. Absolutely nothing. If you think there is no justification then say it.

Just don't hide in the stance that "there are specific justifications for the individual murders but I can't go into them now". That is basically pissing on graves

Quote from: smelmoth on December 29, 2015, 02:25:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 06:53:27 AM
Seafoid I think a big reason for Unionist treatment of Catholic/Nationalists (and I'm not condoning it) was born out of the perceived disloyalty to the state and lack of trust.

Also Unionist condemnation of violence is a bit hollow as if the show was on the other foot the violence from unionism would have been ten times worse

The vast majority of people up here don't,and never did hate each other due to religious affiliation.

Northern Ireland was ran as a colonial outpost. It was run as if it was Burma or Belize (not that misrule was or is acceptable there either). The reason why recognising this is important is that there were not simply 2 classes of people in NI. It was not a simple taig vs hun scenario. Colonial outposts are run by small elites - groups of families and friends who not only have the wealth but also the positions. Administrative roles are shared out among the politburo members and their families (similarities with the modern DUP there) based upon rank, expectation and at best noblese oblige. Capablity and meritocracy do not come into it. The quality of administration this produces is predictably atrocious. The ability of thw working class (irrespective of religion) to rise to the top or even beyond the glass ceiling in such a regime is close to nil.

Over time there will be a growing recognition by the working classes in the PUL community that it was not a protestant state for protestant people but a banana statelet run for certain protestant peolple.

That last point is really on the ball.

Stiff Little Fingers had a good few songs about it
One other point is that social mobility for working class people was much easier pre 1980 than it is now. There is something about our current economic system (globally, not just in NI) that means social mobility is severely restricted for unskilled workers. It is partly related to education systems but also to general learning opportunities. I think myself it has something to do with Keynesianism versus the current system which is built around monetarism. 

Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2015, 02:37:59 PM
One other point is that social mobility for working class people was much easier pre 1980 than it is now. There is something about our current economic system (globally, not just in NI) that means social mobility is severely restricted for unskilled workers.

Pre 1980 people (like me) were in the vast majority of families who really did not have any opportunities in the previous generation, my Dad's family in the 1930s were dirt poor and had no possibility whatsoever of staying at school, despite an interest in education. Both my siblings and I and my cousins had those opportunities and consequently have masters degrees and the like. People in more recent years are in families who had those opportunities in the 1980s but who did not wish to avail of them or lacked the capacity to do so. It is much more difficult to achieve mobility in the latter case, especially where a large proportion of people attend third level.

Quote from: armaghniac on December 29, 2015, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2015, 02:37:59 PM
One other point is that social mobility for working class people was much easier pre 1980 than it is now. There is something about our current economic system (globally, not just in NI) that means social mobility is severely restricted for unskilled workers.

Pre 1980 people (like me) were in the vast majority of families who really did not have any opportunities in the previous generation, my Dad's family in the 1930s were dirt poor and had no possibility whatsoever of staying at school, despite an interest in education. Both my siblings and I and my cousins had those opportunities and consequently have masters degrees and the like. People in more recent years are in families who had those opportunities in the 1980s but who did not wish to avail of them or lacked the capacity to do so. It is much more difficult to achieve mobility in the latter case, especially where a large proportion of people attend third level.

I think this is a difference between catholics and protestants in NI . Catholics from any social level are more likely to be interested in education. Loyalists are not. And they have a lot more problems as a result now all the protestant jobs are gone. And for them social mobility is basically dead for all but the lucky few 

I wouldn't say that at all seafoid. That issue is specific to certain areas e.g. East belfast with shorts and then there's mackeys and maybe wrights in ballymena. It is not the same on the whole.

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 29, 2015, 06:07:47 PM
I wouldn't say that at all seafoid. That issue is specific to certain areas e.g. East belfast with shorts and then there's mackeys and maybe wrights in ballymena. It is not the same on the whole.

Pretty sure Bombardier would refute that and would say they have an equal opportunities policy to all backgrounds. I know plenty of Catholics that work there.

Is Mackies's still around?

Wright's you may well be correct although would be interested to see what the split is in the population in a 15mile radius around their factory in comparison to their workforce.

Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2015, 06:03:41 PM

I think this is a difference between catholics and protestants in NI . Catholics from any social level are more likely to be interested in education. Loyalists are not. And they have a lot more problems as a result now all the protestant jobs are gone. And for them social mobility is basically dead for all but the lucky few
[/quote]

Catholics, especially out of town, always valued education. But in general social mobility isn't great for those who don't want it. The problem is that certain intermediate categories of skilled working class jobs have largely disappeared so people who do not move up, move down instead.

I don't think you can call the likes of Bombardier etc. as unskilled work. Whilst the option for university should be there for everyone we need to look at what this place looks like when we have too many graduates in useless degrees and no skilled electricians, brickies,  joiners and plumbers (obviously assuming there is an industry to support them!). Third level education needs to really work on employability skills at all levels as the standard of people out there is dire based on application forms I see.

Fact is that wealthy and even middle class Catholics and Protestants enjoyed and always did enjoy privileged lifestyles in the six counties,while working class and unemployed Catholics and Protestants were encouraged to fight each other.Look at the U turns both SF and DUP have made,doing things they said they would never do etc.

I simply do not see any future in pursuing unity with two states that don't want us and have no interest in or concern for us.I think there is a substantial strata of common culture between the two communities in the North,and think the development of this should be prioritised and then who knows,the 50% of the electorate who don't currently vote,which means they reject the current arrangements,might be enticed to the ballot box and the tribal parties influence might well be negated.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 07:09:50 PM
Fact is that wealthy and even middle class Catholics and Protestants enjoyed and always did enjoy privileged lifestyles in the six counties,while working class and unemployed Catholics and Protestants were encouraged to fight each other.Look at the U turns both SF and DUP have made,doing things they said they would never do etc.

I simply do not see any future in pursuing unity with two states that don't want us and have no interest in or concern for us.I think there is a substantial strata of common culture between the two communities in the North,and think the development of this should be prioritised and then who knows,the 50% of the electorate who don't currently vote,which means they reject the current arrangements,might be enticed to the ballot box and the tribal parties influence might well be negated.

yes, the 6 counties is so successful that it shouldn't look to other places but should carry on in its own unique way.

I am advocating change and that the development of a joint culture should take priority over the worn out and divisive constitutional issue.

Quote from: omaghjoe on December 29, 2015, 06:33:54 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on December 29, 2015, 06:07:47 PM
I wouldn't say that at all seafoid. That issue is specific to certain areas e.g. East belfast with shorts and then there's mackeys and maybe wrights in ballymena. It is not the same on the whole.

Pretty sure Bombardier would refute that and would say they have an equal opportunities policy to all backgrounds. I know plenty of Catholics that work there.

Is Mackies's still around?

Wright's you may well be correct although would be interested to see what the split is in the population in a 15mile radius around their factory in comparison to their workforce.

Historically though. Policies in those places would be fine now but not 70s etc.I think mackies is shut a long time.

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 07:09:50 PM
Fact is that wealthy and even middle class Catholics and Protestants enjoyed and always did enjoy privileged lifestyles in the six counties,while working class and unemployed Catholics and Protestants were encouraged to fight each other.Look at the U turns both SF and DUP have made,doing things they said they would never do etc.

I simply do not see any future in pursuing unity with two states that don't want us and have no interest in or concern for us.I think there is a substantial strata of common culture between the two communities in the North,and think the development of this should be prioritised and then who knows,the 50% of the electorate who don't currently vote,which means they reject the current arrangements,might be enticed to the ballot box and the tribal parties influence might well be negated.

What proportion are middle class ? Maybe 30%
I bet that future generations will be less tribal and more in favour of reunification

I don't know.Seamus Mallon was interviewed on radio yesterday and said there was no vision for unity.Money and economics will play an ever increasing role,but I do not expect to see reunification in my lifetime,though having said that a lot of things have happened that I could never have foreseen

Quote from: seafoid on December 29, 2015, 07:54:48 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on December 29, 2015, 07:09:50 PM
Fact is that wealthy and even middle class Catholics and Protestants enjoyed and always did enjoy privileged lifestyles in the six counties,while working class and unemployed Catholics and Protestants were encouraged to fight each other.Look at the U turns both SF and DUP have made,doing things they said they would never do etc.

I simply do not see any future in pursuing unity with two states that don't want us and have no interest in or concern for us.I think there is a substantial strata of common culture between the two communities in the North,and think the development of this should be prioritised and then who knows,the 50% of the electorate who don't currently vote,which means they reject the current arrangements,might be enticed to the ballot box and the tribal parties influence might well be negated.

What proportion are middle class ? Maybe 30%
I bet that future generations will be less tribal and more in favour of reunification

And the non-tribal reasons for "reunification" are?

Also noting the absence of any specific justifications for all those uncomfortable murders

I'll bite...

What is the difference between a killing and and a murder?

Eg British soldiers were murdered by the IRA. IRA members were killed by the British Army.

Pre - meditation in a murder.

Quote from: bennydorano on December 31, 2015, 12:05:26 PM
Pre - meditation in a murder.

So an execution in the US is a murder?

Quote from: bennydorano on December 31, 2015, 12:05:26 PM
Pre - meditation in a murder.

I get that. I'm detecting an insinuation by another poster that all the deaths in the conflict (by one side at least) were murder.

Quote from: armaghniac on December 31, 2015, 12:07:07 PM

Quote from: bennydorano on December 31, 2015, 12:05:26 PM
Pre - meditation in a murder.

So an execution in the US is a murder?

Murder is a legal term for unlawful killing, an execution is a 'lawful' killing.

The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

When politics fail, the poor get shafted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUsSawPeVg

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Who do you mean by Republicans? Is it the Provos? INLA? Stickies? IPLO? CIRA? Reals? ONH? All the above?

Onto the murders. Do you want a comprehensive rundown of each and every one stating the justification? Or are there any ones in particular you'd like to focus on?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Were those killed in War of Independence murders or killings?

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on January 01, 2016, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Were those killed in War of Independence murders or killings?

The war of independence was just as grubby. The only difference was that it had a very high level of popular support. Some dreadful things happened. 

All wars are grubby and awful things are done.

Quote from: Rossfan on January 01, 2016, 11:52:12 PM
All wars are grubby and awful things are done.

the war of Independence was the first in over 400 years where very few Irish people actually died, in relative terms

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

The occupiers had already lost the people in the South. Not the case in the north. And then the psychopaths like the Shanklill butcher rowed in.
Violence was a solution in the South but it ended in a stalemate in the north, because of the Plantation.

The Unionists would have been better off cooking up a deal with the civil rights crowd in 1968. They had too much faith in their dud  ideology. Over the last 50 years they have been the biggest losers.

The Unionists may be losers,but 50 years later they are still there and people like Fearon think they are justified.

Quote from: armaghniac on January 02, 2016, 11:03:42 AM
The Unionists may be losers,but 50 years later they are still there and people like Fearon think they are justified.

Where do you propose that they go?

Quote from: seafoid on January 01, 2016, 11:30:38 PM

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on January 01, 2016, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Were those killed in War of Independence murders or killings?

The war of independence was just as grubby. The only difference was that it had a very high level of popular support. Some dreadful things happened.

Exactly but the romanticism of the War of the Independence and vilification of the Troubles is sickening to see. How some of the free staters can celebrate quisling Collins and barracks Adams about the Provos is an irony lost on most of the electorate. The two main parties of the free state were born from the gun and openly practice hypocrisy about armed militant action.

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on January 02, 2016, 11:16:43 AM

Quote from: seafoid on January 01, 2016, 11:30:38 PM

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on January 01, 2016, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Were those killed in War of Independence murders or killings?

The war of independence was just as grubby. The only difference was that it had a very high level of popular support. Some dreadful things happened.

Exactly but the romanticism of the War of the Independence and vilification of the Troubles is sickening to see. How some of the free staters can celebrate quisling Collins and barracks Adams about the Provos is an irony lost on most of the electorate. The two main parties of the free state were born from the gun and openly practice hypocrisy about armed militant action.

.  History is written by winners so the War of Independence had that glow, which was undeserved. Whatever big houses are left have been turned into boutique hotels.  I think a lot of the romanticism of the war of independence has faded away TBH

The Troubles are far more recent. Even calling them the troubles FFS. Anyone growing up with them down south would have listened to countless Poilin ni Chiarain our northern correspondent in Belfast reports about murders in the mainly loyalist Shankill or mainly nationalist Twinbrook areas yesterday. And the hunger strike was hard to understand.  It was easy to see the thuggery of the killing. And it went on for so long.

Some of the killings stand out in their pointlessness and nihilism such as that of Margaret Wright , a Protestant alcoholic who was killed after she went into a loyalist  drinking den and was mistaken for a catholic.

Quote from: michaelg on January 02, 2016, 11:08:04 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on January 02, 2016, 11:03:42 AM
The Unionists may be losers,but 50 years later they are still there and people like Fearon think they are justified.

Where do you propose that they go?

I don't suggest they move anywhere, but that they move into the 21st century and stop trying to wreck the country in pursuit of their 17th century colonial project.

Quote from: armaghniac on January 02, 2016, 12:29:11 PM

Quote from: michaelg on January 02, 2016, 11:08:04 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on January 02, 2016, 11:03:42 AM
The Unionists may be losers,but 50 years later they are still there and people like Fearon think they are justified.

Where do you propose that they go?

I don't suggest they move anywhere, but that they move into the 21st century and stop trying to wreck the country in pursuit of their 17th century colonial project.

Does anyone know what goes on in the Prod schools from the point of view of indoctrination? Do they use the same history books as catholics, for example ?

History is presented from the perspective of the individual or community's background in any school.

Armaghmaniac it is incredible you neither understand unionism (that sees itself as British and by so doing why would it accede to leaving the UK and joining up with the current Irish 26 county state that wants neither them nor northern nationalists)?

A few poignant anniversaries occur in the next few days,the 40th anniversary of the shooting of 3 Reavie brothers in Whitecross,followed by the retaliatory shooting of ten Protestant workmen in nearby Kingsmill (after they tried to shield their sole Catholic colleague).Sadly these atrocities epitomised the so called troubles,all innocent defenceless victims whose murders achieved zilch for either side,and whose relatives wait in vain for justice.

Quote from: general_lee on January 01, 2016, 04:26:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Who do you mean by Republicans? Is it the Provos? INLA? Stickies? IPLO? CIRA? Reals? ONH? All the above?

All of the above. The reporting line of the man with his finger on the trigger doesn't matter.

Quote from: general_lee on January 01, 2016, 04:26:45 PM
Onto the murders. Do you want a comprehensive rundown of each and every one stating the justification? Or are there any ones in particular you'd like to focus on?

You decide which ones you want to justify. If there any that you know from the outset that you want to be able to justify they feel free to get them out of the way by including them in your next post.

But let us hear this justification. get to the point.

Quote from: T Fearon on January 02, 2016, 05:22:06 PM
Armaghmaniac it is incredible you neither understand unionism (that sees itself as British and by so doing why would it accede to leaving the UK and joining up with the current Irish 26 county state that wants neither them nor northern nationalists)?

Isn't that exactly the problem, a colonial identity that identifies with the mother ship instead of the place where they live. What further understanding is required?

Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on January 01, 2016, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 01, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
The definition of murder is clear. Maybe some republican murders might have been manslaughter but the rest are clearly murder. Put forward a legally accepted authority that states otherwise or just accept that they were murder.

Some state killings are lawful (including the death penalty in some US states or the taking down of jihadists in a Paris shootout) and some state killings in the troubles will fall into this category. Others were murder.

My posts to date have focused on the republican murders because there are some on this site that think that these murders were or are justified. Though there remains none who have outlined that justification. What is the big secret? Or is it just shame?

Were those killed in War of Independence murders or killings?

There were both killings and murders in the war of independence. Remember the legitimacy of a claim of independence backed by a democratic mandate does not mean that every act of violence done its name was justified.

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.


If you actually believed

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

There's an interesting clip from radio Ulster yesterday from an army helicopter pilot whose aircraft came under rocket and gun attack from the IRA in Crossmaglen in the 70s. He spoke of his respect for those that were trying to kill him; and even wants to meet them. Well worth a listen.

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM
So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

If you were in Ballymurphy in 1971 or Derry in 1972. And you witnessed say an aunt or a cousin shot in the back. Or even just a neighbour. Or a priest. Would you not feel some semblance of justification in taking up arms? Or would you accept the rule of law and just go to mass and pray for their souls?

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM
So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

If you were in Ballymurphy in 1971 or Derry in 1972. And you witnessed say an aunt or a cousin shot in the back. Or even just a neighbour. Or a priest. Would you not feel some semblance of justification in taking up arms? Or would you accept the rule of law and just go to mass and pray for their souls?

"Taking up arms" is a lovely phrase.

Going out and targeting someone to kill them and leave another family or families in the same position I was is a lot less  lovely.
Going out and planting a bomb to kill generally or to kill someone specific but running the major risk of killing many more is also not exactly lovely.

So what do you mean by "taking up arms"?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:44:52 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM
So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

If you were in Ballymurphy in 1971 or Derry in 1972. And you witnessed say an aunt or a cousin shot in the back. Or even just a neighbour. Or a priest. Would you not feel some semblance of justification in taking up arms? Or would you accept the rule of law and just go to mass and pray for their souls?

"Taking up arms" is a lovely phrase.

Going out and targeting someone to kill them and leave another family or families in the same position I was is a lot less  lovely.
Going out and planting a bomb to kill generally or to kill someone specific but running the major risk of killing many more is also not exactly lovely.

So what do you mean by "taking up arms"?

Good answer  ::)

It's all well and good looking back now and saying how morally corrupt it is to be involved in killing or murdering. I think the best thing to do is contextualise things instead of being deliberately disingenuous.

Take for example the parachute regiment. They caused considerable pain to civilians. Among one of their more heinous crimes was shooting a 12 year old girl in the back. Twice. They subsequently lied and were acquitted of this. Would you criticise, say a friend or family member who maybe joined a republican paramilitary group on the back of this?

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 01:13:36 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:44:52 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM
So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

If you were in Ballymurphy in 1971 or Derry in 1972. And you witnessed say an aunt or a cousin shot in the back. Or even just a neighbour. Or a priest. Would you not feel some semblance of justification in taking up arms? Or would you accept the rule of law and just go to mass and pray for their souls?

"Taking up arms" is a lovely phrase.

Going out and targeting someone to kill them and leave another family or families in the same position I was is a lot less  lovely.
Going out and planting a bomb to kill generally or to kill someone specific but running the major risk of killing many more is also not exactly lovely.

So what do you mean by "taking up arms"?

Good answer  ::)

It's all well and good looking back now and saying how morally corrupt it is to be involved in killing or murdering. I think the best thing to do is contextualise things instead of being deliberately disingenuous.

Take for example the parachute regiment. They caused considerable pain to civilians. Among one of their more heinous crimes was shooting a 12 year old girl in the back. Twice. They subsequently lied and were acquitted of this. Would you criticise, say a friend or family member who maybe joined a republican paramilitary group on the back of this?

So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

You said that justifications were entirely missing, you asked for a justification and you got one.
I have not engaged in side arguments, now you are accusing me of weaseling out.
Ethnic cleansing not enough of a justification for you? Seems fairly clear cut to me.

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:47:59 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

You said that justifications were entirely missing, you asked for a justification and you got one.
I have not engaged in side arguments, now you are accusing me of weaseling out.
Ethnic cleansing not enough of a justification for you? Seems fairly clear cut to me.

So tell me about this ethnic cleansing. If republican murders in the 1990s were justified by ethnic cleansing then tell me about the related cleansing?

Do you believe there was any ethnic cleansing of protestants?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:51:38 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:47:59 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

You said that justifications were entirely missing, you asked for a justification and you got one.
I have not engaged in side arguments, now you are accusing me of weaseling out.
Ethnic cleansing not enough of a justification for you? Seems fairly clear cut to me.

So tell me about this ethnic cleansing. If republican murders in the 1990s were justified by ethnic cleansing then tell me about the related cleansing?

Do you believe there was any ethnic cleansing of protestants?

No I won't indulge in any more of you mealy-mouthed side arguments nor will I share any of my beliefs with you. Indeed I'm not sure I have shared any of my beliefs with you thus far.
You asked for a justification and you got one.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 02:12:21 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:51:38 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:47:59 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 06, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 12:00:13 PM

Quote from: tiempo on January 02, 2016, 09:32:54 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:19:57 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 10:14:10 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on December 28, 2015, 10:01:27 PM

Quote from: hardstation on December 28, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/

Not being a doormat to the ethnic cleansing of Ireland as a whole and laterly the 6 counties. The free state for example is predicted upon the murder of the occupying force until their surrender which continued during the war in the 6 counties.

Seriously?

Talk me through the ethnic cleansing of Ireland in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you actually believed

Latterly the 6 counties is what I said and ethnic cleansing through the murder and persecution of Roman Catholics.

So what which specific murders does this justification apply?

All murders carried out by Irish Republicans.
It does not apply to murders carried out by the British state and their subservient brethren who carried out ethnic cleansing.

This is pretty typical of any debate on this issue. Those willing to claim justification invariably try to weasel out of serious discussion when asked to outline their justifications

You said that justifications were entirely missing, you asked for a justification and you got one.
I have not engaged in side arguments, now you are accusing me of weaseling out.
Ethnic cleansing not enough of a justification for you? Seems fairly clear cut to me.

So tell me about this ethnic cleansing. If republican murders in the 1990s were justified by ethnic cleansing then tell me about the related cleansing?

Do you believe there was any ethnic cleansing of protestants?

No I won't indulge in any more of you mealy-mouthed side arguments nor will I share any of my beliefs with you. Indeed I'm not sure I have shared any of my beliefs with you thus far.
You asked for a justification and you got one.

If it was murder we were talking about that response would be laughable. As it is its disgusting.

Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 02:36:21 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

In your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18 murders? Explain to me why they deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 02:42:54 PM
Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

Assassination of Billy Wright?

Quote from: armaghniac on January 06, 2016, 02:50:28 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 02:42:54 PM
Its not a side argument and categorically you have not provided one. You mention "ethnic cleansing" but you have not linked a single republican murder to ethnic cleansing. Ergo you have justified nothing. Pitiful and disgusting

Assassination of Billy Wright?

absolutely not. He and the man that killed him were both scumbags and had deservedly been sentenced to prison.

I wouldn't be putting forward the idea of court award death sentences and I would definitely be staying away from inside prison executions of those sentenced to prison by the courts. If anybody is arguing for that sort of thing I would love for them to outline how they think society should order itself? Would be interesting to see if a party advocating that sort of society would do in an election

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 02:36:21 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

Of course not. Not in a fair and just society. NI in the early 70s (and before) however was not a fair and just society. The argument could be made that this remains the case, as people (such as the Kingsmills victims' relatives) have still not seen justice. In fact the sole survivor doesn't buy the government investigation into it.

QuoteIn your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18? Explain to me why the deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

How many atrocities would you allow before some form of retribution would be acceptable? Do you think, given the context of their (to this day) unpunished crimes, that the parachute regiment legitimised themselves as targets? I would respectfully suggest that when the state murders and harasses it's own citizens that a form of retribution is entirely justified.

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 03:11:34 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 02:49:58 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 02:36:21 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
So Ballymurphy and Derry are now replaced with the Paras. "Taking up arms"is replaced with "joining a republican paramilitary group", aunt/cousin is replaced with 12 year old girl and the military response is transferred from the first person to a friend or family member. But the answer to what you mean by "taking up arms" remains the same and unexplained.

Still no individual murders have been justified. Why are you struggling with this so much?

Sorry, Ballymurphy, Derry and the shooting of a 12 year old child were all carried out by the same lawless regiment of the BA ie the parachute regiment. To the best of my mind not one of them has served a minute in jail for their crimes.

I've asked you hypothetically how YOU yourself would react if it affected and you refused to answer.

I then asked would you judge someone else who was affected and you still didn't answer.

You want justification for one killing? I've given you justification for 18.

Re the paras. An horrific record in NI. Can't and never have justified them. Horrors perpetrated by them could never justify a horror by own hand. As an aside would you be happy to legalise murder if it was motivated by revenge? You must have a consistent view on revenge murders, surely?

Of course not. Not in a fair and just society. NI in the early 70s (and before) however was not a fair and just society. The argument could be made that this remains the case, as people (such as the Kingsmills victims' relatives) have still not seen justice. In fact the sole survivor doesn't buy the government investigation into it.

QuoteIn your 2 hypothetical scenarios. No I could not use the former to justify personally perpetrating further atrocities and yes I would be critical of anyone who used the second scenario to go out and kill.

An earlier atrocity does not justify another. Who died in these 18? Explain to me why the deserved to die and why they had to die? The latter is key.

How many atrocities would you allow before some form of retribution would be acceptable? Do you think, given the context of their (to this day) unpunished crimes, that the parachute regiment legitimised themselves as targets? I would respectfully suggest that when the state murders and harasses it's own citizens that a form of retribution is entirely justified.

So how many of those killed by republicans were "the state"?

On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 03:28:04 PM
On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 03:37:21 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 03:28:04 PM
On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

It's all about context, which you seen disregard.

That specific incident in my view was justified. I outlined my reasoning.

In your view, is there any instance or circumstance that taking another life would be justified?

It would be interesting to understand the age bracket of tiempo, general_lee and smelmoth in terms of:

a) < 20
b) 20-30
c) 30-40
d) 40-50
e) 50+

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:00:32 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 03:37:21 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 03:28:04 PM
On that day in Warrenpoint? All of them.

So in your view that is 18 justified and another 2040 not justified?

I do not agree with that justification. Revenge killings are to be condemned. "Class action" revenge killings even more so.

It's all about context, which you seen disregard.

That specific incident in my view was justified. I outlined my reasoning.

In your view, is there any instance or circumstance that taking another life would be justified?

There is no context that allows me to kill person B because person A did something wrong.
There is no context that allows me to kill person B because they wear the same uniform as person A and person A did something wrong.

It is not credible to argue otherwise.

There is no context that allows me to act judge, juror and executioner and murder person A for something they have done.

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted. A trained sniper from the french security forces with a gun trained on a jihadist would, after taking all appropriate precautions, be justified in taking lethal action where the jihadist was reasonably believed to be about to kill a civilian/trigger bomb. There will be other scenarios but they would be very few.

murdering a man purely because he is a copper or a prison warden is unjustified.
Murdering a man purely because he is a member of  of a faith group is unjustified
Murdering someone because they propose a different political view is unjustified
Murdering someone for revenge is unjustified.
Murdering someone as revenge for the actions of another is unjustified
Murdering someone because you are angry at an injustice is unjustified.

I am angry at the Italian attitude and actions to the role of their emergency rescue services in the mediterranean. Am I allowed to kill an Italian?
I am angry at the west's treatment of the developing world. Am I allowed to bomb New York or Frankfurt?

After all I am right to be angry so why can't I murder?

Quote from: Orior on January 06, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
It would be interesting to understand the age bracket of tiempo, general_lee and smelmoth in terms of:

a) < 20
b) 20-30
c) 30-40
d) 40-50
e) 50+

I'm in my early 40s if that helps

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

If it prevents an abortion but hopefully not for much longer. Mna na h Eireann seem to have had enough of the hypocrisy.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

If it prevents an abortion but hopefully not for much longer. Mna na h Eireann seem to have given up on the hypocrisy .

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 06:04:11 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 07:59:34 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

Quote from: johnneycool on January 07, 2016, 09:04:40 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:49:29 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 06:04:11 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing?  ::)

Quote from: general_lee on January 10, 2016, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:49:29 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 06:04:11 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing?  ::)

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 11:11:47 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 10, 2016, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:49:29 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 06:04:11 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing?  ::)

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

Paramilitaries and security forces.

Quote from: general_lee on January 10, 2016, 01:43:55 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 11:11:47 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 10, 2016, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:49:29 AM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 06:04:11 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing?  ::)

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

Paramilitaries and security forces.

So I can put you on record as believing that the paramilitary murders of all others was unjustified and unjustifiable. And equally that mere membership of a paramilitary organisation (including republican organisations) or the police means you deserve to be murdered?

Want to put this to the electorate and see if garners popular support?

I didn't even finish reading your post. So put whatever you want on record. Like I said before from near the beginning. Context is key.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 07, 2016, 09:04:40 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

Agreed on both counts, but when the government and legal arbiter of the day is proven to be unwilling to confront its own crimes, what other avenues are open to an oppressed community in this moral vacuum?

I see the statements of John Weir back doing the rounds on facebook again (From politics.ie) just to give an inkling to the mindset and actions to a lot of those in positions of power here!

I'm not condoning what was done, but I'm understanding of the environment at the time that led a lot of young men into doing what they did.

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:56:13 AM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 07:59:34 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

I'm confused, you've replied to my message with something completely unrelated. Now feel free to tell me of a war that has been limited to the sort of action you've outlined earlier.

Quote from: general_lee on January 10, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
I didn't even finish reading your post. So put whatever you want on record. Like I said before from near the beginning. Context is key.

Its a response to logic that serves you well. Well that is that is until you confront someone with a grasp on logic

Quote from: johnneycool on January 11, 2016, 12:06:19 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 07, 2016, 09:04:40 AM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

Agreed on both counts, but when the government and legal arbiter of the day is proven to be unwilling to confront its own crimes, what other avenues are open to an oppressed community in this moral vacuum?

I see the statements of John Weir back doing the rounds on facebook again (From politics.ie) just to give an inkling to the mindset and actions to a lot of those in positions of power here!

I'm not condoning what was done, but I'm understanding of the environment at the time that led a lot of young men into doing what they did.

I am unclear on what it is that you are arguing.

I know that you are not arguing  that because that the state is (clearly) implicated in murder that murdering state employees is justified. After all only a loon would argue that. I know that you are not arguing that stupidity by a political opponent (e.g. Weir) justifies a counter argument based on stupidy never mind murder.  After all only an outrageous loon would argue that. And I know that you are  not arguing that the statisical probability that some young men will react violently to the abuses of the NI state justify the reponses of said young men. I know that you are not justifying what was done because you say

Quote from: johnneycool on January 11, 2016, 12:06:19 PM
I'm not condoning what was done

So what exactly are you arguing?

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 11, 2016, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 10, 2016, 10:56:13 AM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 07:59:34 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2016, 05:10:42 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 05:02:46 PM

Quote from: johnneycool on January 06, 2016, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: smelmoth on January 06, 2016, 04:57:57 PM

Quote from: general_lee on January 06, 2016, 04:52:46 PM

QuoteThere are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

I'm confused, you've replied to my message with something completely unrelated. Now feel free to tell me of a war that has been limited to the sort of action you've outlined earlier.

Completely unrelated? Are you serious?

Why the need to confirm a war that is limited to state vs state? Any major war of the last century and a half has had some guerrilla participant egged on by an official arm of a governmental secret service or an unoffical aggitation or arms/intelligence supply by the same agencies. it would be easy to argue that the first Gulf War was state vs State but the Kuwaiti rebels were clearly CIA inspired. Many government unofficially supported the international brigade in the spansish civil war (sadly the Irish state but more sadly the catholic church and Fine Gael were drastically on the wrong end of that one). The only genuine rebels that were not government backed (in a recognised war) that I can think of was the Argintine rebels that aided the Falkland rebels and the Peshmerga