Made a phone call earlier to a supplier from Dublin. The Dublin lass on the far end of the phone asked my name and I gave it - her reply thats a very Irish name for somebody from Northern Ireland. I asked her did she study her history in school, but I still dont think she caught on - nor would for the next 10 years. I found the episode amusing but in a way sad. My question is: is the day coming when we will have more in common with the English than the Irish? (and Im only talking about the Southerners!!!!!!).
All that tells me is that she's some kind of combination between poorly educated and/or naturally stupid. Regardless of what you think you know (which we can tell she knows little), you dont come out with something that may be taken as an insult unless you're daft as a brush.
Whats your name anyways? Must be O' something. :D
Stephen Ireland ;)
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Made a phone call earlier to a supplier from Dublin. The Dublin lass on the far end of the phone asked my name and I gave it - her reply thats a very Irish name for somebody from Northern Ireland. I asked her did she study her history in school, but I still dont think she caught on - nor would for the next 10 years. I found the episode amusing but in a way sad. My question is: is the day coming when we will have more in common with the English than the Irish? (and Im only talking about the Southerners!!!!!!).
That bit in bold explains alot.....
Dont get me wrong she was a sweet chatty gal and didnt mean anything by it and as there was no offence intended - none was taken, but is it a sign of the way things are understood these days. What sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Made a phone call earlier to a supplier from Dublin. The Dublin lass on the far end of the phone asked my name and I gave it - her reply thats a very Irish name for somebody from Northern Ireland. I asked her did she study her history in school, but I still dont think she caught on - nor would for the next 10 years. I found the episode amusing but in a way sad. My question is: is the day coming when we will have more in common with the English than the Irish? (and Im only talking about the Southerners!!!!!!).
I must be really stupid as I don't understand this question.
sorry Muppet, as economic, political and infrastructural link ups nullify the border is the mindset the last frontier?
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 06:00:27 PM
sorry Muppet, as economic, political and infrastructural link ups nullify the border is the mindset the last frontier?
Probably more the blanket defense rather than mindset.
Some people have no interest in history or culture whatsoever. There are people living in Clontarf who don't know that a battle was fought there or who was involved. There are people living in Drogheda who couldn't tell you within 100 years when Cromwell was there or whether he came before or after the battle of the Boyne. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this. I am not sure that Northerners can say that they are not influenced by the English, even in here there was much talk of "Boxing Day" for instance and miles and other imperial measure is used in preference to metric.
I blame all the British Soccer fans!
She was too busy watching the Hills, and the OC, to bother with Irish Geography.
Probably one of those who goes off to Spain,Cyprus, on holidays,but has never been North of Balbriggan,South of Bray and West of Tallaght.
Typical dub :P
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:23:15 PM
She was too busy watching the Hills, and the OC, to bother with Geography.
Probably one of those who goes off to Spain,Cyprus, on holidays,but has never been North of Balbriggan,South of Bray and West of Tallaght.
Typical dub :P
Theres a strange irony in that statement.
Quote from: Puckoon on January 30, 2009, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:23:15 PM
She was too busy watching the Hills, and the OC, to bother with Geography.
Probably one of those who goes off to Spain,Cyprus, on holidays,but has never been North of Balbriggan,South of Bray and West of Tallaght.
Typical dub :P
Theres a strange irony in that statement.
happy are we now Puck >:( ;D
Eh, Im not sure what you thought I was getting at!?
I just think its funny that the hills, and the "OC" (Orange County, California) are the names of two of the programmes that prevent this lass from knowing about Geography. ;D
Ach I'd pass no remarks, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude has got to a lot of them.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Sure if they were from south Dublin they've probably never been been north of the Liffey apart from going to the airport. Let alone knowing anything about the north.
i think its only fair rrhf changes the thread title, its a stretch to class the Dubs as irish ;)
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"bastard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
When did Dubs become southerners? What does that make langers?
Langers.
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
When did Dubs become southerners? What does that make langers?
scabs.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
Anyone from the north I know uses the term freestate and freestater and mean absoloutely nothing by it.
Maybe it hits a nerve with you?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
Ach I'd pass no remarks, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude has got to a lot of them.
Are you not alright, Pints? What's wrong with you?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:49:47 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
Anyone from the north I know uses the term freestate and freestater and mean absoloutely nothing by it.
Maybe it hits a nerve with you?
Isnt that like saying anyone from the 2000's in the deep south of the USA uses the term nigger - but may not necessarily mean anything by it?
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 06:53:25 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
Ach I'd pass no remarks, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude has got to a lot of them.
Are you not alright, Pints? What's wrong with you?
I was sold out.
But what's wrong with you?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 07:03:34 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 06:53:25 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
Ach I'd pass no remarks, the "I'm alright Jack" attitude has got to a lot of them.
Are you not alright, Pints? What's wrong with you?
I was sold out.
Before you were born? By people who are now dead??
Phone our helpline: (http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/aba0380l.jpg)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
I think it's strange when people can't distinguish between what one or a few people, who happen to be from the north of the country, do and what all "northerners" do?
Who are northerners anyway pints ;)
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
But what's wrong with you?
I've just told you, I was sold out.
Who would you say had the easier life since 1922, people born south of the border or North of the border?
How many people have you know that have been blew up or shot?
Have you ever been refused a job because of how your name sounded?
Have you ever been stopped going to a football/hurling game by the brits intent on making your life as difficult as possible?
Have you sat behind locked metal doors in a bar or your gaa club keeping an eye on a security camera in case this is the night?
I'll not bore you by going on but you've the nerve to ask how we werent alright?
I know you'll come back now and talk about things changing in the north and they have to an extent, after 70 or 80 years.
Do or did you care about what happened in the North Hardy?
Pints, you forgot to include the recent GAA plot to kill Northern football via the new rules.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
You're dead right; the term is usually taken down here to be an insult. It's not too bad coming from a Unionist source but from one of 'our' side it's generally not regarded as a compliment.
Back in earlier days it meant the same as 'Blueshirt' and Republicans would use it to rubbish the pro-treaty crowd. [After all, they settled for a free state.]
Nowadays, the bitterness between the opposing sides has died down a lot but, with older people especially, the name is meant to convey one meaning and one meaning only.
Hardy is a blueshirt, isn't he?
Pints - where did that question come from? And I never asked how you WEREN'T alright? And I have a nerve? Do you think it's OK to insult people down here at random and accuse us, en masse, of anything that comes into your head, gratuitously mis-name the republic and then whinge that we don't care about you when we have the cheek to ask you to stop?
I might consider answering your loaded question (if I make up my mind it's a real question) when you answer mine. What's wrong with you NOW?
Main street - stop stirring. (What's a blueshirt, these days, BTW?).
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:43:11 PM
Pints - here did that question come from? And I never asked how you WEREN'T alright? And I have a nerve? Do you think it's OK to insult people down here at random and accuse us, en masse, of anything that comes into your head, gratuitously mis-name the republic and then whinge that we don't care about you when we have the cheek to ask you to stop?
I might consider answering your loaded question (if I make up my mind it's a real question) when you answer mine. What's wrong with you NOW?
You asked what's wrong and I told you what's wrong. What's the problem? What's wrong NOW? Well most of my generation and older carry around the memories of the past and the North is still far from a ideal society. Why concentrate on now? Because it'll be easier for your argument?
Who have I insulted? What have I accused anyone of?
So you're not alright because you have bad memories and the North is still far from a ideal society. OK thanks for answering. The republic is also far from an ideal society, so I'm not THAT alright, Jack.
I re-read your original post. Since you said "a lot of them" have an I'm alright Jack attitude, I accept it's capable of a more benign interpretation than I gave it, so I'll accept you didn't mean an insult to the people in general. I presume you'll confirm that.
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:59:20 PM
So you're not alright because you have bad memories and the North is still far from a ideal society. OK thanks for answering. The republic is also far from an ideal society, so I'm not THAT alright, Jack.
I re-read your original post. Since you said "a lot of them" have an I'm alright Jack attitude, I accept it's capable of a more benign interpretation than I gave it, so I'll accept you didn't mean an insult to the people in general. I presume you'll confirm that.
Me? insult anyone? never!
By "I'm alright jack" I dont just mean towards the north hardy, would you not think that a lot of people today would have the attitude in general? It's like a greedy, selfish thing, I've a feeling the next few years might change that though.
I am bitter though about people in the south, all the trouble in the north and you've done f**k all to help us. Virtually every taoiseach would get down and lick the hole of whatever prime minister there was. Watch big Ian being welcomed with a round of appaluse tonight and Kenny lick his hole. Would you disagree?
pints - you're f**king bitter about everything :D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 07:28:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
But what's wrong with you?
I've just told you, I was sold out.
Who would you say had the easier life since 1922, people born south of the border or North of the border?
How many people have you know that have been blew up or shot?
Have you ever been refused a job because of how your name sounded?
Have you ever been stopped going to a football/hurling game by the brits intent on making your life as difficult as possible?
Have you sat behind locked metal doors in a bar or your gaa club keeping an eye on a security camera in case this is the night?
I'll not bore you by going on but you've the nerve to ask how we werent alright?
I know you'll come back now and talk about things changing in the north and they have to an extent, after 70 or 80 years.
Do or did you care about what happened in the North Hardy?
Someone call nurse!
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Made a phone call earlier to a supplier from Dublin. The Dublin lass on the far end of the phone asked my name and I gave it - her reply thats a very Irish name for somebody from Northern Ireland. I asked her did she study her history in school, but I still dont think she caught on - nor would for the next 10 years. I found the episode amusing but in a way sad. My question is: is the day coming when we will have more in common with the English than the Irish? (and Im only talking about the Southerners!!!!!!).
When she asked your name she probably thought you'd say Adams ;)
I have to agree that Irish people have started to adopt a lot thats common with British culture, Its in the way people speak, dress, what news they watch, what music they listen to. Now I know we have a shared history with Britain, you only have to look at the Georgian buildings in Dublin to remind you and thats fair enough, its history. But there are aspects of modern British culture that are now very much a part of Irish society. Traits that you dont see in Norway, France or Germany. The traditional Irish pubs are dissappearing, well the buildings might still be there but the redeeming features have been exchanged for flat screen TVs in every corner and booming music. Local brews have dissappeared and its all the piss of Carlsberg, Bud and Hieniken and all that shit. Now these arent nessessarily British influences but what I want to know where is the Irishness going????
Despite myself located in Britain (temporarily) I have held on to Irish culture dearly while Im here. I try keep my Gaelige up to a decent level, play Irish music, join the local GAA clubs. But when I go home when I meet my old friends and brother and sister, it seems like I'm so much 'more Irish' than they are. Or perhaps more immersed in Irish culture, and that doesnt nessessarily mean I'm more Irish than them. It bothers me because once we lose our culture or bury our history or destroy our beautiful landscape which we have been guilty of during this so called boom years, I feel we've lost a piece of our idenity, sold it for a bit of corporate moolla.
Thanks Im done now. Of to the pub
Quote from: thejuice on January 30, 2009, 08:36:47 PM
I have to agree that Irish people have started to adopt a lot thats common with British culture, Its in the way people speak, dress, what news they watch, what music they listen to. Now I know we have a shared history with Britain, you only have to look at the Georgian buildings in Dublin to remind you and thats fair enough, its history. But there are aspects of modern British culture that are now very much a part of Irish society. Traits that you dont see in Norway, France or Germany. The traditional Irish pubs are dissappearing, well the buildings might still be there but the redeeming features have been exchanged for flat screen TVs in every corner and booming music. Local brews have dissappeared and its all the piss of Carlsberg, Bud and Hieniken and all that shit. Now these arent nessessarily British influences but what I want to know where is the Irishness going????
Despite myself located in Britain (temporarily) I have held on to Irish culture dearly while Im here. I try keep my Gaelige up to a decent level, play Irish music, join the local GAA clubs. But when I go home when I meet my old friends and brother and sister, it seems like I'm so much 'more Irish' than they are. Or perhaps more immersed in Irish culture, and that doesnt nessessarily mean I'm more Irish than them. It bothers me because once we lose our culture or bury our history or destroy our beautiful landscape which we have been guilty of during this so called boom years, I feel we've lost a piece of our idenity, sold it for a bit of corporate moolla.
Thanks Im done now. Of to the pub
The Celtic tiger showed the world that Ireland and Irishness was for sale. I thought that was the deal everyone in the 26 signed up to 15 or 20 years ago in exchange for inward investment, jobs, the latest Merc and a flat in Bulgaria!
Southerners don't trust us.
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:44:37 PM
Main street - stop stirring. (What's a blueshirt, these days, BTW?).
It's just your sensitivity perceives a stir rather than a prod.
Blueshirt is a common enough term of description used by Northerners to describe free staters where the term free stater would be too mild.
I for one would find being called a "Freestater" by a fellow Irishman offensive.A particularly nasty partitionist insult imo.Can only assume that it is a Northern Castle Catholic / uneducated saying as I cannot fathom any self respecting nationalist using it.
On the other topic, I feel it somewhat arrogant that a Northerner expresses surprise that people down South don't know/care much about the North. Why should they? They have their own worries/ daily/family responsibilities and would imo have the same interest towards the North as many Northerners would have towards for example Cork,Clare etc.........virtually zero.
For example I would contend that the Heroin "epidemic" in the South in the 1970/80s killed more than the Northern "Troubles" yet it is virtually airbrushed from the media consciousness. No doubt someone will sneer as to why they should care about "Junkies" etc but they were still fellow Irish people and imho should be remembered also as the casualties up the North are.
Just my own personal opinion. Sin é.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
I would wager you a crisp ten pound note that you have never been called a freestater bastard in your life.
Until now.
Sort the grammar out you freestater bastard! :)
Quote
On the other topic, I feel it somewhat arrogant that a Northerner expresses surprise that people down South don't know/care much about the North. Why should they? They have their own worries/ daily/family responsibilities and would imo have the same interest towards the North as many Northerners would have towards for example Cork,Clare etc.........virtually zero.
I'm alright Jack.
Quote from: ONeill on January 30, 2009, 09:18:15 PM
Southerners don't trust us.
It's not that we don't trust you, O'Neill, it's more a case of not having a clue about what you are saying betimes. ;D
I'd be 99% sure that that's the first time betimes has appeared on the gaaboard since its inception. That's a worthy stripe.
Quote from: Canalman on January 30, 2009, 10:24:58 PM
I for one would find being called a "Freestater" by a fellow Irishman offensive.A particularly nasty partitionist insult imo.Can only assume that it is a Northern Castle Catholic / uneducated saying as I cannot fathom any self respecting nationalist using it.
Why would you think it offensive, it is simply the term that was given to us by the oul wans and used in our house when growing up. The same people would have declared we were in "Gods country" as soon as we crossed the border so I don't think it was used as a term of abuse. I'm sure republicans from all 32 counties used the term up until youse got the 'not-quite-what-we-wanted-Republic' in 1949 and as we in the north were cut off at that point the term kind of continued in parallel. No offence intended, but you certainly don't live in the Republic my grandfather fought for, so until then it's the '
south' (small 's') but as I hate to offend my Donegal cousins, 'Freestate' (note not two words) fits the bill better.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on January 30, 2009, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
I would wager you a crisp ten pound note that you have never been called a freestater b**tard in your life.
Until now.
Sort the grammar out you freestater b**tard! :)
;D my grammar is shite i know.
ah being called a freestate b**tard, it brings me back to the days of the "disco" in the Slieve Russell,the pure unadulterated violence, getting a few smacks for no reason or if you were lucky ,getting chased by the lads from the six counties,hiding on the bus, until they lost interest. ;D ;D
Those were the days.
i feel old.
I think there's a vast difference between calling someone a 'Freestater' and the saying that someone is from the 'Freestate', with the former being politically loaded and offensive, and the latter being totally benign and merely a relic of not long since departed political nomenclature.
Free state bastard - ah the memories alright. Canal End 1995 when I asked a Tyrone supporter to refrain from blowing smoke into my aunts face and generally acting the bollix was the last time I was called one. In general terms over the years the vast majority of people in the republic levels of interest in the North were minimal enough I'd say
Quote from: Declan on January 31, 2009, 12:01:21 AM
Free state b**tard - ah the memories alright. Canal End 1995 when I asked a Tyrone supporter to refrain from blowing smoke into my aunts face and generally acting the bollix was the last time I was called one. In general terms over the years the vast majority of people in the republic levels of interest in the North were minimal enough I'd say
You think it only goes one way?
We were asked by Laois men, in a pub in dublin before a game, if we were going to stand for the national anthem.
At another game I also had to sit in front of another laois man and we heard nothing but abuse about northerners the entire game.
Everyone could tell stories you know.
Lovely, we're done fightin with themmuns, lets round on ourselves over some historical nomenclature.
Fuckin mexicans.
QuoteQuoteYou think it only goes one way?
No pints I don't but the thread was about "Southerners" and their knowledge or attitude towards the North. I didn't take particular offence at the term when it was used but it was obviously an insult and in my mind said more about the lad who spewed it at me than anything else. Not surprised it was Laois lads who were involved in your story though - sure look at the ignorance of some of their posters on here ;)
Quote from: Puckoon on January 31, 2009, 12:07:07 AM
Lovely, we're done fightin with themmuns, lets round on ourselves over some historical nomenclature.
Fuckin mexicans.
Sure some of them eg Pat Kenny are worse than the brits.
In the End,
we will remember
not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Quote from: ONeill on January 30, 2009, 09:18:15 PM
Southerners don't trust us.
What we need is some form of physical demarcation line - keep the southeners out of our liberated zone. We need a physical and political line between us and them .. any ideas?
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:03:37 AM
Quote from: Declan on January 31, 2009, 12:01:21 AM
Free state b**tard - ah the memories alright. Canal End 1995 when I asked a Tyrone supporter to refrain from blowing smoke into my aunts face and generally acting the bollix was the last time I was called one. In general terms over the years the vast majority of people in the republic levels of interest in the North were minimal enough I'd say
You think it only goes one way?
We were asked by Laois men, in a pub in dublin before a game, if we were going to stand for the national anthem.
At another game I also had to sit in front of another laois man and we heard nothing but abuse about northerners the entire game.
Everyone could tell stories you know.
Yeah but we are awful c***ts though
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:26:00 AM
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
I'm surprised you know there's a world outside Dublin.
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:26:00 AM
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
Pints is upset. The rest of us couldn't give a shit about youse!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:26:00 AM
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
I'm surprised you know there's a world outside Dublin.
I've been to every county on the Island for Dublin matches. Aren't you living over in England at the moment POG?
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:32:07 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:26:00 AM
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
I'm surprised you know there's a world outside Dublin.
I've been to every county on the Island for Dublin matches. Aren't you living over in England at the moment POG?
Yes, what's that got to do with anything?
btw, I dont believe for a second that we've got a real life travelling dub's supporter on the board, what next leparcauns ?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:32:49 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:32:07 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:26:00 AM
Awe the poor wee ones up North are upset because some idiot doesn't understand their history and . Sure that's evidence the whole of Ireland doesn't care about the North.
I'm surprised you know there's a world outside Dublin.
I've been to every county on the Island for Dublin matches. Aren't you living over in England at the moment POG?
Yes, what's that got to do with anything?
btw, I dont believe for a second that we've got a real life travelling dub's supporter on the board, what next leparcauns ?
Jasus your extra cranky today. Maybe life amongst the enemy is getting too you.
You never answered me, what has where I'm living got to do with it?
Im not living amonst the enemy because I've yet to meet one of them that gives a shit.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:39:27 AM
You never answered me, what has where I'm living got to do with it?
Im not living amonst the enemy because I've yet to meet one of them that gives a shit.
Jesus Pints if the southerners don't give a shit and the English don't give a shit who do you moan to?! Oh right now i know!
Quote from: saffron sam2 on January 30, 2009, 10:27:23 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on January 30, 2009, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 30, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
Quote from: rrhf on January 30, 2009, 05:55:34 PMWhat sort of history are youse guys teaching down there in the free state?
Nothing more pig ignorant than a northerner who spits out
'are yew a free ssshtater?' ;D
When are freestaters going to release that northerners normally dont mean anything by the term "freestater".
most of the time the term "freestater" is followed by a lovely endearing term like"b**tard".
its amazing isnt it,how we could take offence from that ::)
I would wager you a crisp ten pound note that you have never been called a freestater b**tard in your life.
Until now.
Sort the grammar out you freestater b**tard! :)
Funny - it was a term used quite regularly at Solitude to describe southern Irish footballers that played in the Irish league, as I was one of them (a free stater, not a footballer) I ued to get quite a bit of stick in the same vein when I was at Cliftonville games. So I can only assume that it's not just used at soccer matches.
It didn't really bother me, call me a free stater and I'll call you British - normally gets a laugh.
rrhf was using too broad a brush in any case - the line actually runs from Dublin to Galway, aka the 'Mason-Dixie Line', albeit with an Oirish slant. Although when he says southern, maybe he means that in the literal geographical sense, in which case, anyone from above the Mason-Dixie, wind yer necks in ;)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:39:27 AM
You never answered me, what has where I'm living got to do with it?
Im not living amonst the enemy because I've yet to meet one of them that gives a shit.
How miss guided an I here I was thinking we sold you out in 1922 and the English where the oppressors. What living in England has to do with is that you've moved too the land of your oppressors and your questioning people in Ireland .
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:49:46 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:39:27 AM
You never answered me, what has where I'm living got to do with it?
Im not living amonst the enemy because I've yet to meet one of them that gives a shit.
How miss guided an I here I was thinking we sold you out in 1922 and the English where the oppressors. What living in England has to do with is that you've moved too the land of your oppressors and your questioning people in Ireland .
I want to live where I have a job. Why would I mind what the English do in England? It's their country.
I mind the English being in Ireland, when they shouldnt be there.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on January 31, 2009, 12:48:55 AM
rrhf was using too broad a brush in any case - the line actually runs from Dublin to Galway, aka the 'Mason-Dixie Line', albeit with an Oirish slant. Although when he says southern, maybe he means that in the literal geographical sense, in which case, anyone from above the Mason-Dixie, wind yer necks in ;)
I thought that was the Hurling line , with Antrim being the exception the proves the rule
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:49:46 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:39:27 AM
You never answered me, what has where I'm living got to do with it?
Im not living amonst the enemy because I've yet to meet one of them that gives a shit.
How miss guided an I here I was thinking we sold you out in 1922 and the English where the oppressors. What living in England has to do with is that you've moved too the land of your oppressors and your questioning people in Ireland .
I want to live where I have a job. Why would I mind what the English do in England? It's their country.
I mind the English being in Ireland, when they shouldnt be there.
Classic logic their .
What, that I'll live where I have a job?
When you grow up and move out of mammy and daddy's, get your bills to pay, you'll understand.
Quote from: Canalman on January 30, 2009, 10:24:58 PM
I
On the other topic, I feel it somewhat arrogant that a Northerner expresses surprise that people down South don't know/care much about the North. Why should they? They have their own worries/ daily/family responsibilities and would imo have the same interest towards the North as many Northerners would have towards for example Cork,Clare etc.........virtually zero.
For example I would contend that the Heroin "epidemic" in the South in the 1970/80s killed more than the Northern "Troubles" yet it is virtually airbrushed from the media consciousness. No doubt someone will sneer as to why they should care about "Junkies" etc but they were still fellow Irish people and imho should be remembered also as the casualties up the North are.
Just my own personal opinion. Sin é.
Blackly ironic but one situation is not that far removed from the other. If a good citizen in Dublin decided to phone in a complaint to the Gardai about a couple of people putting up H Block related posters in 1979, you would have 2 car loads of special branch men around in 5 minutes flat to the scene. Any political meeting would not be complete without the usual car loads of them outside the meeting. I don't know how many were assigned to the special branch (at least there must have been hundreds of smelly bogmen) doing feck all but trying to intimidate small time political activity.
Whilst Dinny Mullins and the 5 or 6 members of his drug squad were motoring around the heroin epidemic in bicycles.
Also before the heroin epidemic sunk in there was quite some presence on marches etc from young guys (boot boys) from the inner city. Once heroin took root, most of all that activity dissipated.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:54:00 AM
What, that I'll live where I have a job?
When you grow up and move out of mammy and daddy's, get your bills to pay, you'll understand.
What I understand is that it is OK for you too sell out and live and work in the with the people who are occupying part of this island but you can get upset and start tarring everyone from Ireland with brush based on the actions of one air head . Sure no doubt you'd swear an oath too HRH for a bit of cash too .
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:57:27 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:54:00 AM
What, that I'll live where I have a job?
When you grow up and move out of mammy and daddy's, get your bills to pay, you'll understand.
What I understand is that it is OK for you too sell out and live and work in the with the people who are occupying part of this island but you can get upset and start tarring everyone from Ireland with brush based on the actions of one air head . Sure no doubt you'd swear an oath too HRH for a bit of cash too .
How have I "sold out"?
Tarring everyone with the same brush over an airhead? You said yous didnt care about the north so that would make my assumption correct.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:59:14 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 12:57:27 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:54:00 AM
What, that I'll live where I have a job?
When you grow up and move out of mammy and daddy's, get your bills to pay, you'll understand.
What I understand is that it is OK for you too sell out and live and work in the with the people who are occupying part of this island but you can get upset and start tarring everyone from Ireland with brush based on the actions of one air head . Sure no doubt you'd swear an oath too HRH for a bit of cash too .
How have I "sold out"?
Tarring everyone with the same brush over an airhead? You said yous didnt care about the north so that would make my assumption correct.
If England is your enemy, the force occupying part of your county and your working their is a major contradiction if not a complete sell out.
I said no such thing.
Sorry, you're right I miss read your post.
I wonder would sitting at home picking up the dole from Queen be more a rebel action. ::)
Quote from: Declan on January 31, 2009, 12:11:02 AM
QuoteQuoteYou think it only goes one way?
No pints I don't but the thread was about "Southerners" and their knowledge or attitude towards the North. I didn't take particular offence at the term when it was used but it was obviously an insult and in my mind said more about the lad who spewed it at me than anything else. Not surprised it was Laois lads who were involved in your story though - sure look at the ignorance of some of their posters on here ;)
Don't get me started on the bottle throwing Dubs :P
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 01:07:50 AM
Sorry, you're right I miss read your post.
I wonder would sitting at home picking up the dole from Queen be more a rebel action. ::)
You could work in Ireland, the other 26 EU countries, Canada or Australia are looking for people. Even Scotland or Wales would be better.
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 01:07:50 AM
Sorry, you're right I miss read your post.
I wonder would sitting at home picking up the dole from Queen be more a rebel action. ::)
You could work in Ireland, the other 26 EU countries, Canada or Australia are looking for people. Even Scotland or Wales would be better.
Gnevin I don't see the harm in pints going to England to get work,at least he is getting off his hole and making a life/career for himself
And aren't Canada,Australia Wales and Scotland all part of the Commonwealth so what would be the difference if he worked there instead of England?
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 01:07:50 AM
Sorry, you're right I miss read your post.
I wonder would sitting at home picking up the dole from Queen be more a rebel action. ::)
You could work in Ireland, the other 26 EU countries, Canada or Australia are looking for people. Even Scotland or Wales would be better.
:D
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on January 31, 2009, 01:14:15 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on January 31, 2009, 01:11:01 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 01:07:50 AM
Sorry, you're right I miss read your post.
I wonder would sitting at home picking up the dole from Queen be more a rebel action. ::)
You could work in Ireland, the other 26 EU countries, Canada or Australia are looking for people. Even Scotland or Wales would be better.
Gnevin I don't see the harm in pints going to England to get work,at least he is getting off his hole and making a life/career for himself
And aren't Canada,Australia Wales and Scotland all part of the Commonwealth so what would be the difference if he worked there instead of England?
To be honest I've no problem with anyone going to work in England but if POG is going to get all high and mighty about some Air head , I will get all high and mighty about him moving over to Britian to be closer to Lizzy ;)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 01:14:54 AM
:D
What a p***k. I spent most of the early 90s working abroad, London included, because there was no work at home. I followed 30 years worth of close relations who left rather than be a burden on the family. On principle, I was always determined to come back - I wonder will yer man return in a few years time after he has tasted the Dublin dole for a while?
Well. im back from the pub now, and while this post might not make sense it will make more sense then the shite on the last 3 pages. For f**k sake, Some Laois lad took the pisss out of a Tyrone lad on the Hill someday that time forgot when dinosaurs were playing corner forward. Therefore the South hate the North or vice versa.
The problem is that through media and society I'm not sure if young lads or lassies are brought up on british celebrity culture(which includes sportsmen) and their role models become airheads like Peter and Jordan(i recently saw on the BBC a parent who said Jordan was a good role model for her daughter!! f**k sake!. The tabloid media which certain people seem to subscribe to tend to report on British issues and the Irishness of their publications tend to be on how they rotate the sports pages.
Of course there is also at the very top level a lack of leadership and inspiration amoung people. In America thank God they have a man and woman in Hilary to give their youth something great to aspire to. What have we had in Ireland? Cowan and Harney? Nothing but corruption and inneptitude. Its time the ordianry person stood up to the social decay thats going. In England and I've been here long enough to see people sit back and let the rot set in, in their communities and then they complain about the crime and violence in their locallity.
The Irish arent known for their complacency so why start now!!
I have called many in the 26 counties free-state b**tards and still maintain that opinion. The attitude shown by the majority toward the north was nothing short of ignorant and even to this day they still dont look on the irish of the six counties as being their fellow citizen. Thats what has always annoyed me about it.They were just lucky their land wasnt drawn within a border.
Totally agree with POG on this one - the "i'm alright jack" mentality was always there.
Quote from: Donagh on January 31, 2009, 01:31:35 AM
London included,
Did you get your passport stamped?
Quote from: Donagh on January 31, 2009, 01:31:35 AM
I followed 30 years worth of close relations who left rather than be a burden on the family.
Would bring a tear to the eye :'(
Do you have anything grown up to say chris?
Or do you just suffer from the same attention disorder most unionists suffer from?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 30, 2009, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2009, 07:59:20 PM
So you're not alright because you have bad memories and the North is still far from a ideal society. OK thanks for answering. The republic is also far from an ideal society, so I'm not THAT alright, Jack.
I re-read your original post. Since you said "a lot of them" have an I'm alright Jack attitude, I accept it's capable of a more benign interpretation than I gave it, so I'll accept you didn't mean an insult to the people in general. I presume you'll confirm that.
Me? insult anyone? never!
By "I'm alright jack" I dont just mean towards the north hardy, would you not think that a lot of people today would have the attitude in general? It's like a greedy, selfish thing, I've a feeling the next few years might change that though.
I am bitter though about people in the south, all the trouble in the north and you've done f**k all to help us. Virtually every taoiseach would get down and lick the hole of whatever prime minister there was. Watch big Ian being welcomed with a round of appaluse tonight and Kenny lick his hole. Would you disagree?
Well I see the debate has moved on since I went to the dinner, but I should answer your question. Would I disagree with your statement about how little "we" did to help and the relationships between taoisigh and British PMs? I don't think I'd disagree that much, but I'm not sure what you'd have expected me to do that I didn't do or what you'd have expected Irish governments to do. Invade?
[Edit] By the way you were right in your prediction about the Late Late Show interview with Paisley and "Lady Eileen" (does that make him a lord?). Sick-making.
Good posts Juice.
Hardy, the Irish government speaking out for us would be nice. Have they ever demanded anything? Demanded answers?
As I said earlier most taoiseach's rolled over and licked the hole of whatever primeminster was in office.
Look at the ass licking of Paisley last night ffs.
At the height of troubles when your politicans were going around looking for your votes have you ever asked him what they were going to do about the North? Did you ask them what they had to say on the latest Catholic killed by the brits or as a result of collusion?
We didnt expect invasion Hardy but some back up would be nice. It's quite clear yous done f**k all and then you'd actually have the nerve to come on here and say to us to "move on", ask us how we were worse off than you.
Quote from: carribbear on January 31, 2009, 04:58:33 AM
I have called many in the 26 counties free-state b**tards and still maintain that opinion. The attitude shown by the majority toward the north was nothing short of ignorant and even to this day they still dont look on the irish of the six counties as being their fellow citizen. Thats what has always annoyed me about it.They were just lucky their land wasnt drawn within a border.
Totally agree with POG on this one - the "i'm alright jack" mentality was always there.
And when you point out to them that Pearse, Casement, Plunkett etc. all lived and died under the same British identity current northerners are labled with (within that border) they get angry and don't want to talk to you anymore. :(
BTW why is there a capital S in the title?
Quote from: Zapatista on January 31, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: carribbear on January 31, 2009, 04:58:33 AM
I have called many in the 26 counties free-state b**tards and still maintain that opinion. The attitude shown by the majority toward the north was nothing short of ignorant and even to this day they still dont look on the irish of the six counties as being their fellow citizen. Thats what has always annoyed me about it.They were just lucky their land wasnt drawn within a border.
Totally agree with POG on this one - the "i'm alright jack" mentality was always there.
And when you point out to them that Pearse, Casement, Plunkett etc. all lived and died under the same British identity current northerners are labled with (within that border) they get angry and don't want to talk to you anymore. :(
BTW why is there a capital S in the title?
Sure surely they have no feelings for Pearse, Casement and co, weren't they terrorists like Sands, Hughes etc?
Btw hardy, why did it take yous so long to do the decent thing and take the bodies of Kevin Barry and his comrades and give them a dignified burial? Was that any way to treat the people who give their lives for your freedom?
Quote from: Donagh on January 30, 2009, 11:40:06 PM
Quote from: Canalman on January 30, 2009, 10:24:58 PM
I for one would find being called a "Freestater" by a fellow Irishman offensive.A particularly nasty partitionist insult imo.Can only assume that it is a Northern Castle Catholic / uneducated saying as I cannot fathom any self respecting nationalist using it.
Why would you think it offensive, it is simply the term that was given to us by the oul wans and used in our house when growing up. The same people would have declared we were in "Gods country" as soon as we crossed the border so I don't think it was used as a term of abuse. I'm sure republicans from all 32 counties used the term up until youse got the 'not-quite-what-we-wanted-Republic' in 1949 and as we in the north were cut off at that point the term kind of continued in parallel. No offence intended, but you certainly don't live in the Republic my grandfather fought for, so until then it's the 'south' (small 's') but as I hate to offend my Donegal cousins, 'Freestate' (note not two words) fits the bill better.
It's not a term of abuse. It's a nothing term, which it appears only resonates inside the 6 counties. It might have had currency once, in another lifetime.
My first reaction to being called a free stater in the 70's was wtf does that mean? I am an Irishman. It sounded like a label of identity which meant something sinister to them and nothing to me.
I think you boys dont like the term "freestater" because it hits a nerve, perhaps subconsciously.
Btw there are people telling you that the term means nothing but yous wont accept it, yous know yous are behaving like unionists?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 12:58:42 PM
I think you boys dont like the term "freestater" because it hits a nerve, perhaps subconsciously.
Btw there are people telling you that the term means nothing but yous wont accept it, yous know yous are behaving like unionists?
I often use it with the intention to hit that nerve. You can call it the intention to insult if you want. I did think for years that is was a harmless and unoffensive term though and my father still uses it in that context.
It would be beneath me to call you a Brit.
Factually correct but probably and rightfully regarded as very insulting to your sense of identity.
Nothing is beneath you ;D some sort of anti psychology.
I don't really have a problem with being called a Brit I'm not going to pretend it's a black and white situation. It's no worse than being called an Irishman as the majority Irish are no better than the majority Brits. I suppose it depends on the context though and I could be offended if insult is intended. There seems to be a need to be one or the other for some reason. We have two bad options and seem to accept we must be one or the other. F**k them both I say.
My sense of Identity is not wrapped up in a tri-colour and Roy Keane.
was called a 'freestate b***d' once when playing in an all Ireland fresher football final a long time ago when we (southern college) were playing jordanstown. Was annoyed at being thought of being one!
some years later just before I hung up the boots and was in a fould fighting mood in a junior football game, I called someone this - to help try and intimidate/provoke a reaction. The intimidation part seemed to work.
Anyone that knows me that can think of my fcuked up accent actually saying this will get a great laugh!
Sorry, this is getting a bit much. Zapatista is happy to insult us and still expect reasoned debate in return. Pintsofguinness wants me to be responsible for where Kevin Barry is buried, ffs. I don't really know what to say about that. I have to speculate, though, on what would be the reaction here if a crowd of us "freestaters" and "southerners" banded together to fling insults at Northerners (nationalists only, of course) and demand to know what they're doing for the rest of us, accuse them of everything from treachery to apathy and deliberately call them names that they've told us they find insulting.
You're not going to answer my questions or address my points hardy?
You're going to run away?
I know that the term free stater is used as a term of geographical reference.
However it CAN be used as an insult - depending on how its said and the context.
the rest of this is going OTT as no one here has caused the problems experienced in NI, and the propaganda media machine is to blame for all the lads here and worldwide for not knowing the truth of what happened.
I dont particularly want to have to remember it myself.
When we have no one else to fight, we fight among ourselves.
This is a statement I have always believed about us Irish.
let it go lads.
Pints, this isn't a schoolyard, so spare me the childish nonsense about running away. Anyway you know I've never "run away" from you and never will. I've addressed your points ad nauseam. I'll take your latest batch of questions together and summarise by saying I don't feel any responsibility for either your bad memories or the fact that you "were sold out". Sorry - wasn't me or anyone belonging to me. I'm not assuming you expect me to answer for where Kevin Barry is buried.
I'm not asking you to take responsibility for anything, I've pointed out that southerners have done nothing to help the North, you could have backed us, demanded answers from the Brit government, treated the men who died for your freedom with a little bit of respect and allow them a dignified burial but instead yous licked Britain's hole and woudlnt do anything that might upset them yet you spout about living in this "republic" - a "republic" without a backbone I'm afraid.
You're ranting now.
Quote from: Hardy on January 31, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
You're ranting now.
If I was "ranting" you'd be able to counter my argument, you've got nothing to say because you know I'm right.
Your inability to answer me when I asked you yesterday about what YOU ever done for the north (i.e. did you ever ask a politican standing at your door when he was going to start speaking out against the Brits murdering catholics) suggests to me taht like an awful lot of southerners you done NOTHING! You slept sound in your bed at night while we were wondering who was gonig to be next and then you'd feel you had the authority to come on here and preach to northerners about "moving on". Unbelieveable.
Pints, just out of curiosity - What would your response be if Hardy said he did do all those things you are accusing him of not doing?
Quote from: Puckoon on January 31, 2009, 04:22:59 PM
Pints, just out of curiosity - What would your response be if Hardy said he did do all those things you are accusing him of not doing?
Id say fair play, pity there wasnt more like him.
I've never used the term Freestate/Freestater, but know who do and they don't use it as an insult. More to say that region of Ireland that is free of British rule.
As to say that people in the South don't care about the North.. well none of the ones I know. From Donegal to Offaly and Monaghan to Waterford, they all seem to care. It's just not in the forefront of their minds, like many up here. And why don't it, the economy is falling apart and we've all more important and pressing things to be worrying about.
Wow did this thread escalate or what.
Only thing I dont like about Mexico is aspects of Dublin and the Ivory Tower media (Sunday Independent). Really not at all sorry to see SIR Tony O'Reilly getting hit by the credit crunch. But this is a very small minority really (I have never ever felt like I have been 'preached to' or criticised in person over being a northerner)
But theres nothing better than trip across Ireland (usually for a GAA match) and having the craic with folks from other counties, north south east west.
People are always the best when brought together in the context of the GAA, thank god for it
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on January 31, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
You're ranting now.
If I was "ranting" you'd be able to counter my argument, you've got nothing to say because you know I'm right.
Your inability to answer me when I asked you yesterday about what YOU ever done for the north (i.e. did you ever ask a politican standing at your door when he was going to start speaking out against the Brits murdering catholics) suggests to me taht like an awful lot of southerners you done NOTHING! You slept sound in your bed at night while we were wondering who was gonig to be next and then you'd feel you had the authority to come on here and preach to northerners about "moving on". Unbelieveable.
No, you're not right. You're ranting. Your questions are self-righteous, self-justifying, of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" variety. Who are to to decide what I should or shouldn't do, did or didn't do "for the North". What did YOU ever do for the North? Why do you assume you did more than me? I wouldn't ever dream of asking anyone that question normally, but how do you like it? Of course you could say what you like. How could I know? See why your question to me is nonsense? No matter what I said, someone here would call me a lying blueshirt or a West Brit. And I'd be supposed to take it because if I insulted in return the whinging would echo to the heavens. And now you begrudge me my sleep? You're not suggesting you didn't sleep for 30 years? Why is it OK for you to sleep, but not for me? And you say that's not ranting?
See - I can rant too. Where did that get us? I'd just like you to stop insulting me.
Dead right you can rant. How have I insulted you? I'm asking you something and your refusing to answer because you can't.
Maybe I'm making you feel guilty, I don't know, it's hardly my fault you done nothing.
What did you do again? Why do I have to answer your questions, but you don't have to answer mine? And you continue to insult me. Please stop it. For the record, I have nothing to feel guilty about (in this context anyway). Do you?
Get a room lads
I'll happily answer your questions when you answer mine. What am I insulting you about?
I'm glad you feel guilty, you should.
I was called a Northern B*stard while playing for the Poly against Dundalk RTC and I was called a FreeState B*stard playing against Queens.
I took both as compliments.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 04:58:15 PM
I'll happily answer your questions when you answer mine. What am I insulting you about?
I'm glad you feel guilty, you should.
Why did you just type a lie by stating the direct opposite of what I've just told you? I do not feel guilty. And you have no right to tell me I should feel guilty. Is that clear?
I'm finished with this childishness. Now you will finish this by accusing me of running away, which you know will be another lie. I won't insult you in return. I can't resist remarking, though, that the only running away admitted to here recently was by yourself.
Oh - I would hate to leave a question unanswered: what did I do for the North? As much as you. Feel free to answer my questions any time you're ready. Bye.
I was a kid during most of the troubles and in my twenties when the GFA was signed. Why the f**k should someone like me feel guilty about what happened in the north? I didn't kill or maim or oppress anyone. I supported the peace process and voted, like the vast majority of southerners, for the GFA, leaving the future up to the democratic wishes of the people of the north and approving Irish government involvement and investment up there. What else are we supposed to have done? I feel sympathy for those who grew up in the troubles and would like the government to do whatever it takes to facilitate a peaceful and just future, but I certainly do not feel guilty. I didn't create or escalate the situation.
Did you sleep, J70? That's a no-no.
Im disappointed in you hardy.
QuoteI can't resist remarking, though, that the only running away admitted to here recently was by yourself.
ooooh that's a low dig. Do you think you could take 5ivetimes?
Quote from: J70 on January 31, 2009, 05:15:32 PM
I was a kid during most of the troubles and in my twenties when the GFA was signed. Why the f**k should someone like me feel guilty about what happened in the north? I didn't kill or maim or oppress anyone. I supported the peace process and voted, like the vast majority of southerners, for the GFA, leaving the future up to the democratic wishes of the people of the north and approving Irish government involvement and investment up there. What else are we supposed to have done? I feel sympathy for those who grew up in the troubles and would like the government to do whatever it takes to facilitate a peaceful and just future, but I certainly do not feel guilty. I didn't create or escalate the situation.
Well that's fair enough. I wasnt saying southerners should feel guilty about what happened but about the fact they done nothing.
Someone once said on here that arguing with Pints was like ice skating uphill,i kinda see what they mean.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 31, 2009, 05:15:32 PM
I was a kid during most of the troubles and in my twenties when the GFA was signed. Why the f**k should someone like me feel guilty about what happened in the north? I didn't kill or maim or oppress anyone. I supported the peace process and voted, like the vast majority of southerners, for the GFA, leaving the future up to the democratic wishes of the people of the north and approving Irish government involvement and investment up there. What else are we supposed to have done? I feel sympathy for those who grew up in the troubles and would like the government to do whatever it takes to facilitate a peaceful and just future, but I certainly do not feel guilty. I didn't create or escalate the situation.
Well that's fair enough. I wasnt saying southerners should feel guilty about what happened but about the fact they done nothing.
I don't feel guilty about what the country did or didn't do either. I understand why someone from the north might be bitter about partition and the subsequent history and I acknowledge that all sides could (obviously!) have done things differently (not sure what you think would have been the correct things to do), but there isn't much I can do about that except support or reject whatever policies and changes over which I have some control (i.e. the current ones) that might improve the situation.
If you think the people of the south are guilty, perhaps you should petition the Irish government for an apology a la Blair's one for the famine.
I never said I thought the people of the south were guilty, I think they most of them dont give a shite about anyone but themselves (like a lot of modern societys)
Hardy, come back and give us a hug.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:46:06 PM
I never said I thought the people of the south were guilty, I think they most of them dont give a shite about anyone but themselves (like a lot of modern societys)
I'm sure many, if not most, of the people of the north are exactly the same.
Quote from: J70 on January 31, 2009, 05:51:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:46:06 PM
I never said I thought the people of the south were guilty, I think they most of them dont give a shite about anyone but themselves (like a lot of modern societys)
I'm sure many, if not most, of the people of the north are exactly the same.
I think a lot would be these days, yeah.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
Im disappointed in you hardy.
QuoteI can't resist remarking, though, that the only running away admitted to here recently was by yourself.
ooooh that's a low dig. Do you think you could take 5ivetimes?
Quote from: J70 on January 31, 2009, 05:15:32 PM
I was a kid during most of the troubles and in my twenties when the GFA was signed. Why the f**k should someone like me feel guilty about what happened in the north? I didn't kill or maim or oppress anyone. I supported the peace process and voted, like the vast majority of southerners, for the GFA, leaving the future up to the democratic wishes of the people of the north and approving Irish government involvement and investment up there. What else are we supposed to have done? I feel sympathy for those who grew up in the troubles and would like the government to do whatever it takes to facilitate a peaceful and just future, but I certainly do not feel guilty. I didn't create or escalate the situation.
Well that's fair enough. I wasnt saying southerners should feel guilty about what happened but about the fact they done nothing.
What should they have done? Invade the north? Declare total war on Britain? Send food parcels?
Ive already answered that question.
Quote from: Hardy on January 31, 2009, 03:33:01 PM
Zapatista is happy to insult us and still expect reasoned debate in return.
I only use it when talking to free staters.
I was told by a man in new york that my english was very good. He was born and reared in queens.
Quote from: mannix on February 01, 2009, 09:04:18 PM
I was told by a man in new york that my english was very good. He was born and reared in queens.
That's relatively common among the yanks mannix.
Quote from: Zapatista on January 31, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: carribbear on January 31, 2009, 04:58:33 AM
I have called many in the 26 counties free-state b**tards and still maintain that opinion. The attitude shown by the majority toward the north was nothing short of ignorant and even to this day they still dont look on the irish of the six counties as being their fellow citizen. Thats what has always annoyed me about it.They were just lucky their land wasnt drawn within a border.
Totally agree with POG on this one - the "i'm alright jack" mentality was always there.
And when you point out to them that Pearse, Casement, Plunkett etc. all lived and died under the same British identity current northerners are labled with (within that border) they get angry and don't want to talk to you anymore. :(
BTW why is there a capital S in the title?
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done. there was a very tense relationship between the two govs with all the power on the british side. the irish gov had its two hands tied behind its back and had the option of getting constantly put down or shutting up (garret fitz had a 3rd option 'licking up' ;D). thank God those dark days are gone mainly thanks to the EU imo and the two govs are now more like equal partners.
Quote from: mannix on February 01, 2009, 09:04:18 PM
I was told by a man in new york that my english was very good. He was born and reared in queens.
That's nothing, my woman went to order in a bar in london and was asked did she speak english!
Ive been asked twice now while here if I spoke english!
Quotenot going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
They could have got a backbone and opened their f**king mouths!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:45:43 PM
Quotenot going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
They could have got a backbone and opened their f**king mouths!
Yeah and what the hell did you do for the economy that gives you the right to start preaching ???
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: mannix on February 01, 2009, 09:04:18 PM
I was told by a man in new york that my english was very good. He was born and reared in queens.
That's nothing, my woman went to order in a bar in london and was asked did she speak english!
Ive been asked twice now while here if I spoke english!
Quotenot going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
They could have got a backbone and opened their f**king mouths!
So they should have entered talks?
I thought you were hinting towards Jihad.
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Well I was never an elected politican so I hadnt the chance to speak out publicly or demand answers.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Well I was never an elected politican so I hadnt the chance to speak out publicly or demand answers.
i.e. you did nothing
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Well I was never an elected politican so I hadnt the chance to speak out publicly or demand answers.
i.e. you did nothing
I did all I could considering the position I was in i.e. just another Joe soap. I attened plenty of marches and rallies in my time, I voted for who I thought would fight for us etc
I was not an elected politican in a position to speak to the media or governments was I? ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Well I was never an elected politican so I hadnt the chance to speak out publicly or demand answers.
i.e. you did nothing
I did all I could considering the position I was in i.e. just another Joe soap. I attened plenty of marches and rallies in my time, I voted for who I thought would fight for us etc
I was not an elected politican in a position to speak to the media or governments was I? ::) ::) ::)
So all southerners who were not politicians or in a position to speak to the media are ok?
Quote
So all southerners who were not politicians or in a position to speak to the media are ok?
No, obviously there are limitations on what people could do, depending on their position.
THe irish governments could have done more by speaking out/demanding answers etc
The normal southerner could have shown an interest, cared, asked their politicans what they were going to do in relation to the North, they too could have went out on to the streets in shows of solidarity but generally the "I'm alright Jack" attitude prevailed.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:02:39 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 01, 2009, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
What did YOU do about the situation that gave you grounds to criticise? easy for you to label 'spineless' from afar
Well I was never an elected politican so I hadnt the chance to speak out publicly or demand answers.
i.e. you did nothing
I did all I could considering the position I was in i.e. just another Joe soap. I attened plenty of marches and rallies in my time, I voted for who I thought would fight for us etc
I was not an elected politican in a position to speak to the media or governments was I? ::) ::) ::)
Yeah, yeah, sure you attended lots of those economic rallies the past few years. "Im alright Jack"
::) ::) ::)
;D
What are you on about, economic rallies?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 10:31:18 PM
What are you on about, economic rallies?
Are those rallies that don't cost too much to organise?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Get of the cross POG, you boys talk some shite, why dont all you boys working in Britain walk out of your jobs in protest! What side of the strike would you be on in this 'British jobs for British workers' shite they are going on with?
when the union lads come over and ask you nationality i expect you would whip out the Irish passport and leave the office ::)
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 02:22:22 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Get of the cross POG, you boys talk some shite, why dont all you boys working in Britain walk out of your jobs in protest! What side of the strike would you be on in this 'British jobs for British workers' shite they are going on with?
when the union lads come over and ask you nationality i expect you would whip out the Irish passport and leave the office ::)
Without a moment's hesitation.
I'm not sure why I should be walking out of my job in protest though?
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
In what way? Didn't the Irish government turn a blind eye to the IRA for years?
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
In what way? Didn't the Irish government turn a blind eye to the IRA for years?
Are you suggesting turning a blind eye to the IRA was helping their citizens? And since they did it for a certain time frame when did confronting the IRA become the right decision?
Who's this Jack everyone speaks of?
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:59:10 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
In what way? Didn't the Irish government turn a blind eye to the IRA for years?
Are you suggesting turning a blind eye to the IRA was helping their citizens? And since they did it for a certain time frame when did confronting the IRA become the right decision?
Are you suggesting it wasn't? I don't know what it is you or POG expected the Irish government to do
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 09:09:30 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:59:10 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
In what way? Didn't the Irish government turn a blind eye to the IRA for years?
Are you suggesting turning a blind eye to the IRA was helping their citizens? And since they did it for a certain time frame when did confronting the IRA become the right decision?
Are you suggesting it wasn't? I don't know what it is you or POG expected the Irish government to do
I don't think they turned a blind eye it is you who thinks they did. They banned Republicans voices from the airwaves, they kidnapped and burried in concrete the body of a dead IRA man, they stood aginst hungerstikers in elections, they swaped intel with the British and extradited republicans into to the British hands and locked members of the IRA in their prisons on the word of a Garda.
If they had have done none of the above it would have been the least I would have expected.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 09:22:52 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 09:09:30 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:59:10 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 01, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
not going to get into this argument too much accept to say that pre EU days there was actually f54k all the irish gov could have done.
Rather than do nothing they decided to actively work against their 'own citizens'.
In what way? Didn't the Irish government turn a blind eye to the IRA for years?
Are you suggesting turning a blind eye to the IRA was helping their citizens? And since they did it for a certain time frame when did confronting the IRA become the right decision?
Are you suggesting it wasn't? I don't know what it is you or POG expected the Irish government to do
I don't think they turned a blind eye it is you who thinks they did. They banned Republicans voices from the airwaves, they kidnapped and burried in concrete the body of a dead IRA man, they stood aginst hungerstikers in elections, they swaped intel with the British and extradited republicans into to the British hands and locked members of the IRA in their prisons on the word of a Garda.
If they had have done none of the above it would have been the least I would have expected.
And what about the 20's to early 60's (excluding 39-45) . The government allowed the IRA to border hop and ignored the border campaign. Are your examples come from the 80's when the "war" had descended in bloody sectarian battle.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 31, 2009, 10:14:53 AM
Do you have anything grown up to say chris?
There's a certain irony here considering your little performance in this thread :-*
Quote from: Gnevin on February 02, 2009, 09:53:07 AM
And what about the 20's to early 60's (excluding 39-45) . The government allowed the IRA to border hop and ignored the border campaign. Are your examples come from the 80's when the "war" had descended in bloody sectarian battle.
I see, you were talking about the 'Official IRA' all along. Sorry I misunderstood. I stand corrected. No need to answer my quetions 3 posts ago so.
Quote from: mannix on February 01, 2009, 09:04:18 PM
I was told by a man in new york that my english was very good. He was born and reared in queens.
I was once told by a Beragh man that he was surprised I could speak. He relayed his entire conversation with me through my cousin... p***k.
Was going to start a thread similar to this. Was going to ask the posters from the south if they think that england has too much of an influence on them. No point in asking fellow northern posters as it is being forced on us. The main reason I ask this is by just watching RTE TV3 and the amount of British shows running on them. If the south had any sense they would not show any British soaps as this is portraying the British way of life that southerns may start to replicate. I now it sounds stupid but TV is the true way to Brain wash people.
TV3's lion share shareholder is Granada, so it's basically ITV Ireland. Personally never watch it, except for the GAA last year.
Quote from: J70 on January 31, 2009, 05:42:26 PM
[
I don't feel guilty about what the country did or didn't do either. I understand why someone from the north might be bitter about partition and the subsequent history and I acknowledge that all sides could (obviously!) have done things differently (not sure what you think would have been the correct things to do), but there isn't much I can do about that except support or reject whatever policies and changes over which I have some control (i.e. the current ones) that might improve the situation.
If you think the people of the south are guilty, perhaps you should petition the Irish government for an apology a la Blair's one for the famine.
I think you'll find J70 that plenty of people in Donegal did give a shit, and did plenty to help their fellow Irishmen in the occupied six.
As did the people of Cavan,, Monaghan, Leitrim, Louth, Kerry etc...
Quote from: Hereiam on February 02, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Was going to start a thread similar to this. Was going to ask the posters from the south if they think that england has too much of an influence on them. No point in asking fellow northern posters as it is being forced on us. The main reason I ask this is by just watching RTE TV3 and the amount of British shows running on them. If the south had any sense they would not show any British soaps as this is portraying the British way of life that southerns may start to replicate. I now it sounds stupid but TV is the true way to Brain wash people.
I think that's taking it a bit far (or missing the point entirely). It's a little late for boycotting English soaps. Fair City isn't much better than the rest for their plots. Home & Away isn't going to make us Austrailians A better promotion of Irish culture would be welcome though. If we are concerned more about Emmerdale than we are about the entire Education system and the brain washing from the likes of Michael Mansreagh and Gregory Cambpbell then we have lost that battle.
Quote from: Hereiam on February 02, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Was going to start a thread similar to this. Was going to ask the posters from the south if they think that england has too much of an influence on them. No point in asking fellow northern posters as it is being forced on us. The main reason I ask this is by just watching RTE TV3 and the amount of British shows running on them. If the south had any sense they would not show any British soaps as this is portraying the British way of life that southerns may start to replicate. I now it sounds stupid but TV is the true way to Brain wash people.
There are more Yankee programs on than British programs on the box
Yeah Fair City really does wonders for Irish culture - current storyline is where one Dub kn**ker wants to learn irish cause she fancies the lad teaching it, once she tells this to her bud, the reply is "sure why would you want to learn Irish for anyway, sure its only the Provies that talk it!" I kid you not. ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 07:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 02:22:22 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Get of the cross POG, you boys talk some shite, why dont all you boys working in Britain walk out of your jobs in protest! What side of the strike would you be on in this 'British jobs for British workers' shite they are going on with?
when the union lads come over and ask you nationality i expect you would whip out the Irish passport and leave the office ::)
Without a moment's hesitation.
I'm not sure why I should be walking out of my job in protest though?
Well they want 'British jobs for British workers' so you wouldnt be leaving but more so getting kicked out!
Quote from: Hereiam on February 02, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Was going to start a thread similar to this. Was going to ask the posters from the south if they think that england has too much of an influence on them. No point in asking fellow northern posters as it is being forced on us. The main reason I ask this is by just watching RTE TV3 and the amount of British shows running on them. If the south had any sense they would not show any British soaps as this is portraying the British way of life that southerns may start to replicate. I now it sounds stupid but TV is the true way to Brain wash people.
Let's all move to Greenland (sounds more Irish than 'Ire' land) and burn all TVs as they were invented by a Brit. Obviously we should stop speaking english and we should turn our backs to England at all times, so we should always face west. Cars (no British parts of course) would have to be modified to allow us to face west at all times and obviously for a trip from Sligo to Dublin you would have to reverse all the way.
I'm sure you have fully thought through this wonderful ideology so let's hear it. Share it all with us.
Well a prime example of this is the BBC trying to get broadcasting rights in the middle east so that they can start spreading their bullshit. I have no doubt this has been factored into the Irag conflict. Makes sense to me.
Of course people down here cared about the plight of Catholicsup North and did whatever they could to highlight the plight of their fellow-Nationalists but what could they really do?
Pint says we should have 'spoken out.' He also says he was sold out. I think he's saying that us down here got our freedom by leaving him and others like him in the lurch when it counted most.
I'm sorry anyone in the North should feel that way, and many do, but the facts don't quite add up to that conclusion.
Since Partition up to a few short years ago, The Republic was skint. We "enjoyed" a much lower standard of living than the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. Emigration was widespread throughout the western half of the country. Our tale of woe could go on and on....
Down here previous generations hadn't much time to worry about anyone else and that's for sure. But De Valera did worry. The old devil never shut up; he refused the Allies the use of our deep sea ports during the war because the Six Counties were occupied and faced the threat of an invasion by the Allies.
Sean Lemass was next and he took up the fight for greater understanding between North and South. He damn near lost his job just because he met Terence O'Neill, the chief honcho at Stormont. O'Neill wasn't as lucky as his own shower kicked him out for being a Lundy. Charlie certainly was up for a united Ireland but he was faced by Maggie Thatcher and that cranky oul' hoor was impossible to deal with.
Talking to her was like playing handball off a haystack!
There was serious hatred and hostility on all sides back then and there was little point in 'speaking out' to anyone because no one was prepared to listen.
All along the southern Irish were trying to get support from Irfish Americans but Ronald Reagan was never going to fight with Maggie; they were two of a kind. We were 'speaking out' alright but no one was listening.
Albert Reynolds was the man responsible for getting the Provo's leadership to sit around a table. Don't forget that there were some serious head bangers in that organisation; they weren't all idealists, not by a long shot. Reynolds has sweet damn all to recommend him but getting dialogue with the IRA going was to his great credit.
Ahern, Blair and Bill Clinton brought about the GFA and Ahern left his mother's funeral to go north and sign the bloody agreement. Not many would claim that we were doing sweet eff all at our end in those days!
Now, if we weren't speaking out since the time of Partition what else could we have done?
Invade the North? When Jack Lynch considered that in 1969, he found the army didn't have the equipment to make it from Gormanstown to the border, let alone cross it. His govt. did seriously consider invading and capturing the area around Newry but it would have been madness to do this as the Brits would annihilate the Irish lads who had a serious shortage of ammo and whose lorries and (2) armoured cars were not in an roadworthy condition.
Tell me, Pints, what exactly would you consider as 'speaking out?'
One way or the other, you are going to be stuck with EG for the foreseeable future, either with us or without us. ;D
That's quite a bit of revisionism there Lar. Fair play to ye.
A much lower standard of living?
Ahern, Clinton and Blair????
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
That's quite a bit of revisionism there Lar. Fair play to ye.
A much lower standard of living?
Ahern, Clinton and Blair????
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
That's one hell of a chip Zap.
A few dreamers that back romantic nonsense aside, the 'Southern Irish' have a 100% record of voting for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Classy comment Zapatista, real classy
By the way what is the "Southern Irish"?
Surely you mean the "Irish"?
Quote from: muppet on February 02, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
By the way what is the "Southern Irish"?
Surely you mean the "Irish"?
Is that question to me?
I never refer to "Irish" unless I mean all the people of Ireland. Southern Irish seems to be the term on here for those that are from the Republic. I don't think it is the best term but I don't really care as I know what it refers to whether it's right or wrong. I would usually say 'the Irish Republic' or 'those in the Republic'.
It was really referring to the thread title and anyone who used it in the thread.
I see myself as Irish not any particular type of Irish.
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Classy comment Zapatista, real classy
His career has only ended as a success by playing the emotion card. He has regularly used the emotion card to get out of hot spots and I don't accept it from him anymore. He is the boy who cried wolf.
quote author=Roger link=topic=11033.msg468486#msg468486 date=1233585592]
A few dreamers that back romantic nonsense aside, the 'Southern Irish' have a 100% record of voting for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
[/quote]
how does Northern Ireland remain part of Northern Ireland?
i think it would have been just better to say the UK :P
Quote from: Roger on February 02, 2009, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 02, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
By the way what is the "Southern Irish"?
Surely you mean the "Irish"?
Is that question to me?
I never refer to "Irish" unless I mean all the people of Ireland. Southern Irish seems to be the term on here for those that are from the Republic. I don't think it is the best term but I don't really care as I know what it refers to whether it's right or wrong. I would usually say 'the Irish Republic' or 'those in the Republic'.
Why not free state or freestaters?
Quote from: muppet on February 02, 2009, 03:01:52 PM
I see myself as Irish not any particular type of Irish.
One size fits it all, and it's our size?
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 02, 2009, 03:14:09 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 02, 2009, 02:57:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 02, 2009, 02:42:50 PM
By the way what is the "Southern Irish"?
Surely you mean the "Irish"?
Is that question to me?
I never refer to "Irish" unless I mean all the people of Ireland. Southern Irish seems to be the term on here for those that are from the Republic. I don't think it is the best term but I don't really care as I know what it refers to whether it's right or wrong. I would usually say 'the Irish Republic' or 'those in the Republic'.
Why not free state or freestaters?
Because the rest of the big bad world won't have a clue what you are on about. Irish it is so.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Classy comment Zapatista, real classy
His career has only ended as a success by playing the emotion card. He has regularly used the emotion card to get out of hot spots and I don't accept it from him anymore. He is the boy who cried wolf.
I'm not a Ahern apologist but I don't see the relevance in regard to leaving his mother's funeral. Credit where its due and then the argument can be rational and reasoned
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 02, 2009, 03:14:09 PM
Why not free state or freestaters?
I noticed that earlier discussion and thought it much ado about nothing. I have no particular love for the Republic but whether someone calls it the Freestate or freestaters doesn't seem particularly offensive to me. I personally don't use it for no other reason than it has been the Republic of Ireland since I was born. If it or southern Irish became the common parlance then I'd probably use it. It is simply a term that refers to Irish people from a different state. Similarly if people refer to Nordies or Northerners I'm happy enough with that too as I don't consider there any agenda behind it and I know what they are referring to.
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Classy comment Zapatista, real classy
His career has only ended as a success by playing the emotion card. He has regularly used the emotion card to get out of hot spots and I don't accept it from him anymore. He is the boy who cried wolf.
I'm not a Ahern apologist but I don't see the relevance in regard to leaving his mother's funeral. Credit where its due and then the argument can be rational and reasoned
Leaving his mothers funeral has no relevance. While I can sympathise with the human loss I can't accept it as an indication of his commitment or sacrifice to the GFA.
When are we starting this Northern Ireland GAA Championship then,
at least Pints wont have to put up with us "freestaters" while watching Armagh :)
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 03:29:52 PM
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: RedandGreenSniper on February 02, 2009, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Classy comment Zapatista, real classy
His career has only ended as a success by playing the emotion card. He has regularly used the emotion card to get out of hot spots and I don't accept it from him anymore. He is the boy who cried wolf.
I'm not a Ahern apologist but I don't see the relevance in regard to leaving his mother's funeral. Credit where its due and then the argument can be rational and reasoned
Leaving his mothers funeral has no relevance. While I can sympathise with the human loss I can't accept it as an indication of his commitment or sacrifice to the GFA.
I think it does. Doing any sort of work on a day like that is unusual. Heading up to try to further the GFA, something that wouldn't be easy to do at any stage, hours after burying your mother is a real sign of commitment and a willingness to get something sorted imho
Reading this thread, I am reminded of Brendan Behan's comment that whenever a group of Irish people have a meeting, the first Item on the Agenda will be The Split! :D
Still, it's nice to see that true Irish Unity is as close as it ever was... ;)
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
That's quite a bit of revisionism there Lar. Fair play to ye.
A much lower standard of living?
Ahern, Clinton and Blair????
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Janey, Zap, you're in horrid bad form today!
Right now, you would be taken for a well-balanced individual; one with a chip on both shoulders.
Revisionism is a funny thing; it's very subjective and what's bending facts for one person is putting the record straight for another.
Unless someone can prove me wrong, I'm very much putting facts on the line here.
If you want to be sarcastic about any man who puts a solution to the Northern problem in front of attending his mother's funeral, you may snigger away but I won't be joining you.
Blair and Clinton too had a lot of serious issues to tackle. The time and trouble involved for both to take up an apparently hopeless cause needs to be acknowledged.
Now, you may fail to appreciate the efforts of all three but there are others in the North would readily acknowledge the effort put in and the political risks all of them took on.
All three may have dirtied their bibs elsewhere but getting Papa Doc and Gerry Adams to sit down and talk was a feat that has to be acknowledged.
Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush brigade would not worked as hard as Clinton did to solve a problem that did not directly involve the US. Blair was up to his oxters in all sorts of crises, involvement in Iraq being just one, yet he cannot be faulted for shirking his part in advancing the peace process.
Big Ian on the Late Late last weekend mentioned that Blair had rang him 7 times in one day. Do you think Maggie Thatcher or Gordon Brown would bother ringing a second time? If either rang even once, it would be to issue an order and not to ask a request.
How Bertie stuck at his job while the revelations about his finances were coming out thick and fast, I'll never know but he did keep the cool. Like them or not, all three earned the thanks of all on the island for bringing some sort of peace and stability to a hitherto intractable problem.
Personally, I don't like any of them but I do give credit where it's due – that's not hard to do, is it?
Tell me Zap, why do you have problems with accepting that we had a lower standard of living down here than Nationalists had in Northern Ireland?
Common sense alone would tell you that.
After Partition the South was cut adrift, cut off from financial aid from the British Treasury and with sweet damn all natural resources. Furthermore, the people in government as well as those in opposition were eminently unsuited for the job of running a country.
They could blow the b*ll*x off each other okay or use a pistol as good as John Wayne any day but statesmen they were not. Dev, when he came to power, started the Economic War against Britain and it buckled the economy big time. We lost that row and most Irish people saw more dinnertimes than dinners while it lasted and it went on for years.
WW2 came along and our economy practically ground to a halt as exports and imports went by the board. If it wasn't for emigration and the money that emigrant workers sent back home to their people, our grandparents could have starved. I suppose quite a few of the poor devils did.
No; I am not playing the violin for sympathy here; one would not need to be a genius (either of the benign or evil types) to figure out why the Republic was impoverished from Partition to the end of the last century. By contrast, inhabitants of the statelet north of the border were getting financial aid from Her Majesty's Government that their cousins down here did not.
I have been following the progress of the troubles since the Civil Rights parade was attacked by the B Specials at Burntollet in 1969 and, as the fella says, that's not today nor yesterday!
It was very noticeable that the 'Castle Catholics' were never inclined to support the local Shinners or even the SDLP candidates in their area. They have always been quite happy to keep the Union in place. They know which side their bread is buttered.
The Malone Road was never a hot bed of Nationalism and that's for sure!
In other words, not every Catholic looked across the border for help and support and I'd say one hell of a lot of them still don't.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 02, 2009, 05:37:17 PM
Reading this thread, I am reminded of Brendan Behan's comment that whenever a group of Irish people have a meeting, the first Item on the Agenda will be The Split! :D
Still, it's nice to see that true Irish Unity is as close as it ever was... ;)
I appreciate that I'm inviting ridicule by replying to one of your posts, EG, but what the hell...
Irish unity requires a change in mindset from both unionists and nationalists, but mainly nationalists since we're (cue kneejerk reply from Carribbore) the ones proposing constitutional change. Until nationalists are prepared to accept that people from the protestant / British community are every bit as Irish as anyone else on the island, unity will remain a dream.
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 07:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 02:22:22 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Get of the cross POG, you boys talk some shite, why dont all you boys working in Britain walk out of your jobs in protest! What side of the strike would you be on in this 'British jobs for British workers' shite they are going on with?
when the union lads come over and ask you nationality i expect you would whip out the Irish passport and leave the office ::)
Without a moment's hesitation.
I'm not sure why I should be walking out of my job in protest though?
Well they want 'British jobs for British workers' so you wouldnt be leaving but more so getting kicked out!
See what I've highlighted? That's what prompted my question, why would I be walking out?
If they wanted to kick me out for being Irish then that's fine, I wouldnt deny my nationality if they held a gun to my head.
I think though it's not a thing about foreign workers as such, it's employers telling people to f**k off while they bring in foreigners to do the job for half, maybe quarter, the money. I'd say you'd have an issue with that if your employer done the same. I would have an issue with it with regards to both the foreign boys being exploited and the english ones.
La Narka
I've said on this thread what I expected the Irish government to do. It would have helped if they acted like they were fighting our corner, even if no one was listening.
Myles
QuoteUntil nationalists are prepared to accept that people from the protestant / British community are every bit as Irish as anyone else on the island, unity will remain a dream.
I've no issue with Unionsits being Irish, if they consider themselves Irish then that's fine it's when the jump to one nationality from another every five minutes and dont quite seem able to make up their mind it gets silly.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 02, 2009, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
That's quite a bit of revisionism there Lar. Fair play to ye.
A much lower standard of living?
Ahern, Clinton and Blair????
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Janey, Zap, you're in horrid bad form today!
Right now, you would be taken for a well-balanced individual; one with a chip on both shoulders.
Revisionism is a funny thing; it's very subjective and what's bending facts for one person is putting the record straight for another.
Unless someone can prove me wrong, I'm very much putting facts on the line here.
If you want to be sarcastic about any man who puts a solution to the Northern problem in front of attending his mother's funeral, you may snigger away but I won't be joining you.
Blair and Clinton too had a lot of serious issues to tackle. The time and trouble involved for both to take up an apparently hopeless cause needs to be acknowledged.
Now, you may fail to appreciate the efforts of all three but there are others in the North would readily acknowledge the effort put in and the political risks all of them took on.
All three may have dirtied their bibs elsewhere but getting Papa Doc and Gerry Adams to sit down and talk was a feat that has to be acknowledged.
Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush brigade would not worked as hard as Clinton did to solve a problem that did not directly involve the US. Blair was up to his oxters in all sorts of crises, involvement in Iraq being just one, yet he cannot be faulted for shirking his part in advancing the peace process.
Big Ian on the Late Late last weekend mentioned that Blair had rang him 7 times in one day. Do you think Maggie Thatcher or Gordon Brown would bother ringing a second time? If either rang even once, it would be to issue an order and not to ask a request.
How Bertie stuck at his job while the revelations about his finances were coming out thick and fast, I'll never know but he did keep the cool. Like them or not, all three earned the thanks of all on the island for bringing some sort of peace and stability to a hitherto intractable problem.
Personally, I don't like any of them but I do give credit where it's due – that's not hard to do, is it?
Tell me Zap, why do you have problems with accepting that we had a lower standard of living down here than Nationalists had in Northern Ireland?
Common sense alone would tell you that.
After Partition the South was cut adrift, cut off from financial aid from the British Treasury and with sweet damn all natural resources. Furthermore, the people in government as well as those in opposition were eminently unsuited for the job of running a country.
They could blow the b*ll*x off each other okay or use a pistol as good as John Wayne any day but statesmen they were not. Dev, when he came to power, started the Economic War against Britain and it buckled the economy big time. We lost that row and most Irish people saw more dinnertimes than dinners while it lasted and it went on for years.
WW2 came along and our economy practically ground to a halt as exports and imports went by the board. If it wasn't for emigration and the money that emigrant workers sent back home to their people, our grandparents could have starved. I suppose quite a few of the poor devils did.
No; I am not playing the violin for sympathy here; one would not need to be a genius (either of the benign or evil types) to figure out why the Republic was impoverished from Partition to the end of the last century. By contrast, inhabitants of the statelet north of the border were getting financial aid from Her Majesty's Government that their cousins down here did not.
I have been following the progress of the troubles since the Civil Rights parade was attacked by the B Specials at Burntollet in 1969 and, as the fella says, that's not today nor yesterday!
It was very noticeable that the 'Castle Catholics' were never inclined to support the local Shinners or even the SDLP candidates in their area. They have always been quite happy to keep the Union in place. They know which side their bread is buttered.
The Malone Road was never a hot bed of Nationalism and that's for sure!
In other words, not every Catholic looked across the border for help and support and I'd say one hell of a lot of them still don't.
Great post there Lar. Sums up most of my thoughts on the issue.
I'll add that a possible united Ireland could criple the economy of the new 32 county state. As things stand, the nationalists of the six counties are doing quite well from the UK. Better than most people in the 26 counties are doing with government from Dublin. Deeply ironic
Quote from: Roger on February 02, 2009, 03:21:43 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 02, 2009, 03:14:09 PM
Why not free state or freestaters?
I noticed that earlier discussion and thought it much ado about nothing. I have no particular love for the Republic but whether someone calls it the Freestate or freestaters doesn't seem particularly offensive to me. I personally don't use it for no other reason than it has been the Republic of Ireland since I was born. If it or southern Irish became the common parlance then I'd probably use it. It is simply a term that refers to Irish people from a different state. Similarly if people refer to Nordies or Northerners I'm happy enough with that too as I don't consider there any agenda behind it and I know what they are referring to.
It has never been the Republic of Ireland. Republic of Ireland is just the description of the state .
Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 02, 2009, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on February 02, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
That's quite a bit of revisionism there Lar. Fair play to ye.
A much lower standard of living?
Ahern, Clinton and Blair????
Ahern leaving his mothers funeral???? Was that the same mother who's passing he used to explain dodgy cash dealing in the tribunal???
Janey, Zap, you're in horrid bad form today!
Right now, you would be taken for a well-balanced individual; one with a chip on both shoulders.
Revisionism is a funny thing; it's very subjective and what's bending facts for one person is putting the record straight for another.
Unless someone can prove me wrong, I'm very much putting facts on the line here.
If you want to be sarcastic about any man who puts a solution to the Northern problem in front of attending his mother's funeral, you may snigger away but I won't be joining you.
Blair and Clinton too had a lot of serious issues to tackle. The time and trouble involved for both to take up an apparently hopeless cause needs to be acknowledged.
Now, you may fail to appreciate the efforts of all three but there are others in the North would readily acknowledge the effort put in and the political risks all of them took on.
All three may have dirtied their bibs elsewhere but getting Papa Doc and Gerry Adams to sit down and talk was a feat that has to be acknowledged.
Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush brigade would not worked as hard as Clinton did to solve a problem that did not directly involve the US. Blair was up to his oxters in all sorts of crises, involvement in Iraq being just one, yet he cannot be faulted for shirking his part in advancing the peace process.
Big Ian on the Late Late last weekend mentioned that Blair had rang him 7 times in one day. Do you think Maggie Thatcher or Gordon Brown would bother ringing a second time? If either rang even once, it would be to issue an order and not to ask a request.
How Bertie stuck at his job while the revelations about his finances were coming out thick and fast, I'll never know but he did keep the cool. Like them or not, all three earned the thanks of all on the island for bringing some sort of peace and stability to a hitherto intractable problem.
Personally, I don't like any of them but I do give credit where it's due – that's not hard to do, is it?
Tell me Zap, why do you have problems with accepting that we had a lower standard of living down here than Nationalists had in Northern Ireland?
Common sense alone would tell you that.
After Partition the South was cut adrift, cut off from financial aid from the British Treasury and with sweet damn all natural resources. Furthermore, the people in government as well as those in opposition were eminently unsuited for the job of running a country.
They could blow the b*ll*x off each other okay or use a pistol as good as John Wayne any day but statesmen they were not. Dev, when he came to power, started the Economic War against Britain and it buckled the economy big time. We lost that row and most Irish people saw more dinnertimes than dinners while it lasted and it went on for years.
WW2 came along and our economy practically ground to a halt as exports and imports went by the board. If it wasn't for emigration and the money that emigrant workers sent back home to their people, our grandparents could have starved. I suppose quite a few of the poor devils did.
No; I am not playing the violin for sympathy here; one would not need to be a genius (either of the benign or evil types) to figure out why the Republic was impoverished from Partition to the end of the last century. By contrast, inhabitants of the statelet north of the border were getting financial aid from Her Majesty's Government that their cousins down here did not.
I have been following the progress of the troubles since the Civil Rights parade was attacked by the B Specials at Burntollet in 1969 and, as the fella says, that's not today nor yesterday!
It was very noticeable that the 'Castle Catholics' were never inclined to support the local Shinners or even the SDLP candidates in their area. They have always been quite happy to keep the Union in place. They know which side their bread is buttered.
The Malone Road was never a hot bed of Nationalism and that's for sure!
In other words, not every Catholic looked across the border for help and support and I'd say one hell of a lot of them still don't.
Lar i'm am generally a big fan of your posts and usually see your reason but this time I can't agree. Perhaps I reacted to that moreso than anything.
First of all the peace process started long before the 3 you mentioned came along. It started under Thatcher without her knowledge. To compare Thatcher and Regan with any moderate politician is not fair either. Maybe I should compare Blair with Mandela and Clinton with Putin?
Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern are not and were not peace keepers. Tony Blair represented the occupying British force in Ireland. He was head of a force that took part in much of the bloodshed and the continued denial of that.. He was not an observer who decided to help he was a player as was Adams and Paisley. Ahern was a token Representative. he was brought along for the ride in order to make it all seem somehow legitimate. due to the years of turning a blind eye to the northAhern was left in a position were he had nothing to offer to the peace process. He was told were his position should be by the players - the Brits the Nationalists/republicans and the Unionists. Ahern was told that if he did what was asked of him it might succeed. The Dublin Government had absolutely no negotiating power during the talks as they had nothing to offer. Bill Clinton was also a token National dimension. It is the role of the international community to be involved in peace agreements and Clinton sent Representatives along to facilitate that. If the GFA had have failed Clinton we would have heard the last of Clinton in Ireland.It was a big thing for him only because of timing.
The people responsible for the GFA are the Brits the Nationalists/Republicans and the Unionists. Everyone else played a minor role as everyone else had nothing to gain or loose.
There were very few political risks taken by those 3. Clinton, Blair and Ahern were not politically accountable to those directly affected by the GFA. In fact it was the UUP and SF who took most of the political risks. If the GFA had have failed Ahern, Blair and Clinton would still have stayed in their positions for long to follow. Espeacially since, as you say it was an apparently hopeless job.
It was not Blair, Ahern and Clinton who got Paisley and Adams around a table it was the people of the 6 counties who voted in big numbers for the GFA.Paisley and Adams were forced around that table by Unionist and Nationalists of the north.
I know it was extremely difficult living in the south during those times but it was not
a much lower standard of living than that of northern catholics. It was at the very least a similar standard. I know to well about the castle catholics. I have a relation who stood against a hungerstriker in an election. I am a firm believer that the majority of the Irish people are 'would be' castle catholics as it is certain from our history.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 12:05:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 07:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tankie on February 02, 2009, 02:22:22 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 01, 2009, 09:52:01 PM
Should have demanded answers muppet, even if they werent going to get them it would have meant something to the nationalist community in the north.
What are you on about Wsteve?
Get of the cross POG, you boys talk some shite, why dont all you boys working in Britain walk out of your jobs in protest! What side of the strike would you be on in this 'British jobs for British workers' shite they are going on with?
when the union lads come over and ask you nationality i expect you would whip out the Irish passport and leave the office ::)
Without a moment's hesitation.
I'm not sure why I should be walking out of my job in protest though?
Well they want 'British jobs for British workers' so you wouldnt be leaving but more so getting kicked out!
See what I've highlighted? That's what prompted my question, why would I be walking out?
If they wanted to kick me out for being Irish then that's fine, I wouldnt deny my nationality if they held a gun to my head.
I think though it's not a thing about foreign workers as such, it's employers telling people to f**k off while they bring in foreigners to do the job for half, maybe quarter, the money. I'd say you'd have an issue with that if your employer done the same. I would have an issue with it with regards to both the foreign boys being exploited and the english ones.
La Narka
I've said on this thread what I expected the Irish government to do. It would have helped if they acted like they were fighting our corner, even if no one was listening.
Myles
QuoteUntil nationalists are prepared to accept that people from the protestant / British community are every bit as Irish as anyone else on the island, unity will remain a dream.
I've no issue with Unionsits being Irish, if they consider themselves Irish then that's fine it's when the jump to one nationality from another every five minutes and dont quite seem able to make up their mind it gets silly.
I don't think they do jump from one nationality to another. I think what you're identifying is that individual unionists identify themselves on a spectrum which ranges from Irish to British. Nationalists should ask themselves why it is that many unionists find it difficult to class themselves simply as Irish. My view is that the traditional, dominant definition of Irishness - Gaelic, Catholic, nationalist - excludes those from a Protestant / unionist background. Put that with the underlying philosophy behind armed force republicanism - Brits Out, Ourselves Alone - and you're left with a community with an uncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
How?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
How?
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
QuoteBy widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
So what parts of unionist "culture" should be included?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 10:46:36 PM
QuoteBy widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
So what parts of unionist "culture" should be included?
Twelfth bonfires and drug selling
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 10:46:36 PM
QuoteBy widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
So what parts of unionist "culture" should be included?
20% of the citizens of this island see themselves as British, to a greater or lesser extent. The definition of Irish, therefore, needs to encompass this. People should be able to say they're British-Irish, or Chinese-Irish, or Polish-Irish or whatever, in exactly the same way as you hear people describe themselves as Irish-American, or Afro-American, etc. Irish should mean simply people from the island of Ireland, or citizens of Ireland. At the moment, the definition carries with it the assumption that at the moment of birth you were handed a hurley, a rosary and a fainne pin.
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 10:46:36 PM
QuoteBy widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
So what parts of unionist "culture" should be included?
Twelfth bonfires and drug selling
'Cos only prods light bonfires and deal drugs, yeah? ::)
Myles, what parts of unionist culture needs to be included?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:32:09 AM
Myles, what parts of unionist culture needs to be included?
You're talking about culture, I'm talking about an individual's sense of their own ethnicity. There can be an overlap in the two, but I'm not making a point about culture.
I dont understand, you said we'd to include unionists in our Irishness so tell me what part of unionism we can include with Irish dance, music, sports etc.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:56:16 AM
I dont understand, you said we'd to include unionists in our Irishness so tell me what part of unionism we can include with Irish dance, music, sports etc.
I'm saying that if someone wants to describe their nationality as British-Irish then they're still every bit a citizen of this land as the person who describes himself / herself as Irish. If the same person feels an attachment to that other island off our east coast, that person is still Irish. It doesn't have too much to do with dancing or sport. The Englishman who plays cricket and likes Morris Dancing is just as English as their neighbour who plays football and likes AC/DC. You don't have to like Aussie Rules to be a proper Australian. Why does one have to like Irish dancing to be properly Irish?
Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan are unique in Ireland. We listen to BBC/UK TV talk of "Ulster" news and weather and there is no mention of us. We were ignored when it came to funding and job creation until very recently by our own government. Our counties always had a strong republican influence and I deduce from that a strong will to help "our people" in the north. This is possibly why our own government ignored us too. The majority of people from Cavan have always been concerned with what happened in the North and I think to generalise that all Southerner don't care or should be guilty or anything along those lines is insulting.
For the record I was once called a "Nordie Bastard" and told to go back to my own country in Co Mayo. I had to listen to Fermanagh fans sing songs about Free State Ba*tards in a championship match one year in Cavan. I didn't like being called a Nordie B*stard as I do consider myself a Northerner, as I am from the northern province of Ireland. I don't like being called a freestater because where I am from a Freestater is someone that done the deal on partition and I most certainly would not have voted for that.
Moral of the story is that generalising about anything is not a good idea. There are plenty of people pn both sides of the border that never gave a crap about anything.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 03, 2009, 07:30:43 AM
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 10:46:36 PM
QuoteBy widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
So what parts of unionist "culture" should be included?
Twelfth bonfires and drug selling
'Cos only prods light bonfires and deal drugs, yeah? ::)
I did say twelfth bonfires. Can you read?
You're very touchy on this subject...anyone who didn't know better would think you're not a nationalist at all ;) :-*
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
The President of the Republic recently said Irish people can be British and Irish ie the two are not exclusive. The problem is that the dominant "Irish" and especially on here iis as you identify that Gaelic Irish = Irish and anything else is not Irish.
Pintsofguinness asks what part of unionist culture should be included? That demonstrates clearly the position. In my view all Irish people and their cultures are Irish, some just don't see themselves or their future as part of a republican Ireland/Irishness.
Quote from: Roger on February 03, 2009, 02:49:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
The President of the Republic recently said Irish people can be British and Irish ie the two are not exclusive. The problem is that the dominant "Irish" and especially on here iis as you identify that Gaelic Irish = Irish and anything else is not Irish.
Pintsofguinness asks what part of unionist culture should be included? That demonstrates clearly the position. In my view all Irish people and their cultures are Irish, some just don't see themselves or their future as part of a republican Ireland/Irishness.
I agree with that completely. I also agree that, at the moment, the Irish people are divided about how they see future constitutional arrangements on the island. My view is that the onus is on natiionalism, as the bloc of Irish people wanting change, to conviince those Irish people who are happy with the link with Britain, that their interests might be better served in an independent unitary state. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it won't happen at all unless nationalists start to see the protestant / British community as genuinely Irish, rather than as 'themmuns'.
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
From Roger's post:
'The problem is that the dominant "Irish" and especially on here iis as you identify that Gaelic Irish = Irish and anything else is not Irish.'
That's why some people have a problem saying 'I'm Irish'.
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
I declare that I am indeed Irish. I am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
Quote from: Roger on February 03, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
I declare that I am indeed Irish. I am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
That's excellent.
Altogether now....
Sinne Fianna Fáil, Atá fé gheall ag Éirinn....... ;D
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 03, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
I declare that I am indeed Irish. I am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
That's excellent.
Altogether now....
Sinne Fianna Fáil, Atá fé gheall ag Éirinn....... ;D
:D :D :D :D :D
Very good :D
Sadly your light-hearted comments are the simplistic and retarded view of what Irish means for many many people in Ireland. This simply means that Ireland will never be united on an all-island state basis in our life-times, I'm happy with that. Keep her lit.
QuoteI am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
Great. Do you take seriously your obligations as a member of the Irish people?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 03, 2009, 04:46:28 PM
QuoteI am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
Great. Do you take seriously your obligations as a member of the Irish people?
What obligations do I and other Irishmen have?
This should be interesting...
learning the words of
Amhran na bhFiann
getting a tricolour tattooed on your arse.
start listening to the wolfe tones.
join your nearest GAA Club.
what have i missed lads?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 03, 2009, 03:00:00 PM
I agree with that completely. I also agree that, at the moment, the Irish people are divided about how they see future constitutional arrangements on the island. My view is that the onus is on natiionalism, as the bloc of Irish people wanting change, to conviince those Irish people who are happy with the link with Britain, that their interests might be better served in an independent unitary state. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it won't happen at all unless nationalists start to see the protestant / British community as genuinely Irish, rather than as 'themmuns'.
So basically you are saying it is up to the majority to convince the minority before change happens as the minority got there first?
I do agree with most of what you say in that anyone who wants to be Irsih can be and anyone who doesn't shouldn't have to be. Unfortunately the state decides which you are. The idea that it boils down to identity is one of the greatest bluffs of all time. The fact is that any nation which treats all it's citizens as equally as possible does not experience conflict or division on ethnic, religious or race grounds. It's when you start treating people like crap and have class systems based along these lines you get problems.
Quote from: Roger on February 03, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: carribbear on February 03, 2009, 03:05:14 PM
Myles - How about the protestant/british community actually declaring themselves irish. Problem solved.
I declare that I am indeed Irish. I am every bit as Irish as any other man who cares to declare himself Irish.
absolutely right
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
How?
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
Myles, lets go back because you're clouding the issue.
You said, I've highlighted, that we should widen what it means to be Irish:
You also said:
Quote
at the moment, the definition carries with it the assumption that at the moment of birth you were handed a hurley, a rosary and a fainne pin.
So I'm asking YOU what do we need to include in the definition of Irishness that would make unionists fit in?
The Question i have is, Who exactly tells Unionists that they arent as irish as the rest of us just because they have a british identity???
Is it a case of Unionists listening to the filth from the likes of Republican Sinn Fein and the 32 County Council Committe or whatever the Continuity IRA are calling themselves these days,and believing that all their fellow irish people on the island outwith their own community thinks likewise??
Even that well known friend to Unionism Gerry Adams has in the past said he believes Unionists are as irish as he is, and he considers them fellow countrymen.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
How?
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
Myles, lets go back because you're clouding the issue.
You said, I've highlighted, that we should widen what it means to be Irish:
You also said:
Quote
at the moment, the definition carries with it the assumption that at the moment of birth you were handed a hurley, a rosary and a fainne pin.
So I'm asking YOU what do we need to include in the definition of Irishness that would make unionists fit in?
Ifepeople with links to this Island wish to define them self as Irish well I'm not one to question their definition , be it the unionist up north or the 2nd generation Irish in England ,so many of who lined out for Ireland during the 90's
The Definition of irishness should always be the incorporation of all the strands , beliefs and Culture that make up our society from all communities who are part of this island.
What about descendents of immigrants, whose parents, grandparents, great grandparents were Irish? Are they included in irishness? They may not watch gaelic games, nor irish dance, nor drink, but may be called "Summer O'Heir". Feck it, if they feel irish, let them be it.
Indeed Puck.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 03, 2009, 05:29:31 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 03, 2009, 03:00:00 PM
I agree with that completely. I also agree that, at the moment, the Irish people are divided about how they see future constitutional arrangements on the island. My view is that the onus is on natiionalism, as the bloc of Irish people wanting change, to conviince those Irish people who are happy with the link with Britain, that their interests might be better served in an independent unitary state. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it won't happen at all unless nationalists start to see the protestant / British community as genuinely Irish, rather than as 'themmuns'.
So basically you are saying it is up to the majority to convince the minority before change happens as the minority got there first?
I do agree with most of what you say in that anyone who wants to be Irsih can be and anyone who doesn't shouldn't have to be. Unfortunately the state decides which you are. The idea that it boils down to identity is one of the greatest bluffs of all time. The fact is that any nation which treats all it's citizens as equally as possible does not experience conflict or division on ethnic, religious or race grounds. It's when you start treating people like crap and have class systems based along these lines you get problems.
I'm saying it's up to the majority to convince the minority because that's the only way a single, independent state is going to come about. Even the Shinners have signed up to the consent principle.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 10:44:29 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:38:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 02, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 02, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Quoteuncertain sense of its own Irishness, an uncertain sense of its own place on this island.
That's something for themselves to work out.
Up to a point, I agree. But if nationalists are serious about a unitary state, then surely it's in our interests to help the process along?
How?
By widening what it means to be Irish, so that people who don't fit into the Catholic / Gaelic / nationalist bracket can also see their own ethnicity included in the definition.
Myles, lets go back because you're clouding the issue.
You said, I've highlighted, that we should widen what it means to be Irish:
You also said:
Quote
at the moment, the definition carries with it the assumption that at the moment of birth you were handed a hurley, a rosary and a fainne pin.
So I'm asking YOU what do we need to include in the definition of Irishness that would make unionists fit in?
We need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
QuoteIfepeople with links to this Island wish to define them self as Irish well I'm not one to question their definition , be it the unionist up north or the 2nd generation Irish in England ,so many of who lined out for Ireland during the 90's
I'm not questioning anyone's definition of irishness, I dont care who calls themselves Irish.
Myles
QuoteWe need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk.
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.
When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Myles
QuoteWe need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk.
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?
True. I played for Belfast at School in soccer and went away to the States--ones in the States were sayin things like "it's great havin you Irish here" and "we love Ireland" etc --the usual shit--but to a man the Prods on that team (14/15 year olds) had to say we arnt Irish we are Northern
Irish --even then i used to laugh and say to them you are Irish--the name is Northern IRELAND not Northern ENGLAND or Northern UK--they couldnt understand--i would ay this is the island of Ireland--we are in a small partitioned area in the north of that small island--it is named Northern IRELAND--but they just kept on sayin it with frown on when anyone said "are you guys Irish?." The reply from the Prods usually just left the American confused looking.
Anyway, i work in Dublin--have done for 2 years, im from Belfast--i too was shocked by how little most down here know of the North --i dont expect them to know everything but the total ignorance of many can be baffling at times. Im from Antrim--but i wa gettin Texts from ones at the start of the All Ireland Final wishin me luck--i have never had so many people congratulatin me on anything as i did in work the Monday after the game--i gave up tellin people i was not from Tyrone--many down here believe that its one County up there--i hadda guy in our work constantly asking me about Armagh and the Armagh championship last year--was i going to the Cross game on Sunday etc, was i goin to the Dubs game in Cross--i had to say in front of a good crowd at lunch that how many times did i have to tell him i was from Antrim not Armagh (part of the problem may be that Antrim are shite, and that most people not into GAA probably dont even know there is a County named Antrim.
At 5pm on Fridays a woman outta work always asks if im headin up ther road to England at the weekend--i dont know if shes windin me up or bein serious 2 years later.
We were bein brought to London for our Xmas do and i told the one in Work i had never been to London before--they actually couldnt believe it- they were sayin why havnt you been to your Capital? I told them i had as much reason as they might to travel to England --why because i close my eyes at night in a bed 100 miles North from them should i have a reason to travel to England that they dont.
Another thing is we have people in our work from Kerry who travel home at weekends and say to me--doe it not take you forever going home--how do you do it(at weekends). Im sick tellin them that it'l take me 2 hours (at most) gettin home while it takes them 5/6 hours drivin home--many, many Southerners have never been North and believe it is a land far far away.
As for the heroin epidemic, it didnt stop in the 70's and 80's --i work with many Junkies and live in the Inner City and can tell you that the problem is massive, reducing people who could be working/productive/playing sport/normal, living individuals to theiving, robbing, disease ridden beings who walk the streets zoned out in a Zombie like state.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:36:44 PM
I'm not questioning anyone's definition of irishness, I dont care who calls themselves Irish.
You are questioning what parts of unionist culture should be included in Irish culture. I'd have thought all parts if they are distinctive to people from Ireland. Is there some Irish person or people with the overall right to decide what gets to be Irish or not?
Quote from: Gold on February 03, 2009, 08:53:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Myles
QuoteWe need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk.
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?
True. I played for Belfast at School in soccer and went away to the States--ones in the States were sayin things like "it's great havin you Irish here" and "we love Ireland" etc --the usual shit--but to a man the Prods on that team (14/15 year olds) had to say we arnt Irish we are Northern Irish --even then i used to laugh and say to them you are Irish--the name is Northern IRELAND not Northern ENGLAND or Northern UK--they couldnt understand--i would ay this is the island of Ireland--we are in a small partitioned area in the north of that small island--it is named Northern IRELAND--but they just kept on sayin it with frown on when anyone said "are you guys Irish?." The reply from the Prods usually just left the American confused looking.
Anyway, i work in Dublin--have done for 2 years, im from Belfast--i too was shocked by how little most down here know of the North --i dont expect them to know everything but the total ignorance of many can be baffling at times. Im from Antrim--but i wa gettin Texts from ones at the start of the All Ireland Final wishin me luck--i have never had so many people congratulatin me on anything as i did in work the Monday after the game--i gave up tellin people i was not from Tyrone--many down here believe that its one County up there--i hadda guy in our work constantly asking me about Armagh and the Armagh championship last year--was i going to the Cross game on Sunday etc, was i goin to the Dubs game in Cross--i had to say in front of a good crowd at lunch that how many times did i have to tell him i was from Antrim not Armagh (part of the problem may be that Antrim are shite, and that most people not into GAA probably dont even know there is a County named Antrim.
At 5pm on Fridays a woman outta work always asks if im headin up ther road to England at the weekend--i dont know if shes windin me up or bein serious 2 years later.
We were bein brought to London for our Xmas do and i told the one in Work i had never been to London before--they actually couldnt believe it- they were sayin why havnt you been to your Capital? I told them i had as much reason as they might to travel to England --why because i close my eyes at night in a bed 100 miles North from them should i have a reason to travel to England that they dont.
Another thing is we have people in our work from Kerry who travel home at weekends and say to me--doe it not take you forever going home--how do you do it(at weekends). Im sick tellin them that it'l take me 2 hours (at most) gettin home while it takes them 5/6 hours drivin home--many, many Southerners have never been North and believe it is a land far far away.
As for the heroin epidemic, it didnt stop in the 70's and 80's --i work with many Junkies and live in the Inner City and can tell you that the problem is massive, reducing people who could be working/productive/playing sport/normal, living individuals to theiving, robbing, disease ridden beings who walk the streets zoned out in a Zombie like state.
Gold it seems like most of those comments are taking the piss out of you.
Quote from: Gnevin on February 04, 2009, 09:26:14 AM
Quote from: Gold on February 03, 2009, 08:53:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Myles
QuoteWe need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk.
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?
True. I played for Belfast at School in soccer and went away to the States--ones in the States were sayin things like "it's great havin you Irish here" and "we love Ireland" etc --the usual shit--but to a man the Prods on that team (14/15 year olds) had to say we arnt Irish we are Northern Irish --even then i used to laugh and say to them you are Irish--the name is Northern IRELAND not Northern ENGLAND or Northern UK--they couldnt understand--i would ay this is the island of Ireland--we are in a small partitioned area in the north of that small island--it is named Northern IRELAND--but they just kept on sayin it with frown on when anyone said "are you guys Irish?." The reply from the Prods usually just left the American confused looking.
Anyway, i work in Dublin--have done for 2 years, im from Belfast--i too was shocked by how little most down here know of the North --i dont expect them to know everything but the total ignorance of many can be baffling at times. Im from Antrim--but i wa gettin Texts from ones at the start of the All Ireland Final wishin me luck--i have never had so many people congratulatin me on anything as i did in work the Monday after the game--i gave up tellin people i was not from Tyrone--many down here believe that its one County up there--i hadda guy in our work constantly asking me about Armagh and the Armagh championship last year--was i going to the Cross game on Sunday etc, was i goin to the Dubs game in Cross--i had to say in front of a good crowd at lunch that how many times did i have to tell him i was from Antrim not Armagh (part of the problem may be that Antrim are shite, and that most people not into GAA probably dont even know there is a County named Antrim.
At 5pm on Fridays a woman outta work always asks if im headin up ther road to England at the weekend--i dont know if shes windin me up or bein serious 2 years later.
We were bein brought to London for our Xmas do and i told the one in Work i had never been to London before--they actually couldnt believe it- they were sayin why havnt you been to your Capital? I told them i had as much reason as they might to travel to England --why because i close my eyes at night in a bed 100 miles North from them should i have a reason to travel to England that they dont.
Another thing is we have people in our work from Kerry who travel home at weekends and say to me--doe it not take you forever going home--how do you do it(at weekends). Im sick tellin them that it'l take me 2 hours (at most) gettin home while it takes them 5/6 hours drivin home--many, many Southerners have never been North and believe it is a land far far away.
As for the heroin epidemic, it didnt stop in the 70's and 80's --i work with many Junkies and live in the Inner City and can tell you that the problem is massive, reducing people who could be working/productive/playing sport/normal, living individuals to theiving, robbing, disease ridden beings who walk the streets zoned out in a Zombie like state.
Gold it seems like most of those comments are taking the piss out of you.
Gotta agree with Gnevin here, Gold those comments made to you must be people taking the piss, even Primary/National School Geography would dismiss most of those statements.
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
I hope you pointed out it's Co.
Londonderry... ;)
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
I met a Dub once who thought I was from County Portlaoise...
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry... ;)
Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone. ;)
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry... ;)
Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone. ;)
With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 12:08:08 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry... ;)
Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone. ;)
With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties? ;)
;D Cheeky cnut! ;)
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 12:08:08 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on February 04, 2009, 11:06:00 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on February 04, 2009, 11:01:23 AM
I was in college with a girl from Tipp who thought that Cavan was under British rule and that Belfast was in Co Belfast. There are idiots everywhere I'm afraid.
Don'y get me wrong, I have met many "educated" people in the six counties, who think that Strabane is in Co Derry!
I hope you pointed out it's Co. Londonderry... ;)
Don't know where that is!
Anyway it's in Co Tyrone. ;)
With three rivers and a canal, surely to goodness it would be no bother to divert the flow somewhere so as to move Strabane from Tyrone to Donegal, thereby improving both counties? ;)
;D Cheeky cnut! ;)
Don't blame me - it was that Myles Na G character who put me up to it... :D
P.S. That's enough of the personal abuse - you don't know who you're dissapointing... :)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 04, 2009, 01:22:09 PM
P.S. That's enough of the personal abuse - you don't know who you're dissapointing... :)
I can categorically proclaim that I am not dissapointed by that post EG ;)
But lets not be childish and drag a discussion from one thread into another with silly little swipes.
No need for it. Lets just try to get along.
Thats all I ask :)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 03, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
Myles
QuoteWe need to recognise that the Protestant /British part of our population is as legitimately Irish as the Catholic / nationalist part. The implications of that are quite significant. It would mean accepting that the 6 north eastern counties of the island are part of the UK because a significant number of Irishmen and Irish women want it that way. It would mean accepting that Northern Ireland is an Irish state in exactly the same way that the 26 county republic is. That means that the Northern Ireland flag - the old Stormont government banner - is an Irish flag just like the tricolour. (Maybe it could even fly at Croke for rugby internationals). Once we start recognising and respecting our protestant / British neighbours as first class Irish citizens, they can maybe start taking us seriously when we tell them that their rights / culture / identity etc would be respected in an independent unitary state. Won't happen tomorrow, but if we don't start down that road it won't happen at all.
Who isn't recognising unionists as being Irish?
A bigger number of Irish men and women don't want the 6 counties to be part of the Uk.
An old flag? Is that all that unionism has to bring to the table in redefining Irishness? Is that all they'd want in the definition to allow them all to declare themselves Irish because lets not forget an awful lot would knock your teeth in if you said they were Irish.
When have Protestants/Unionsts not have been treated as first class irish citizens?
If I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.
I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.
I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.
I couldn't have put it better myself! ;)
(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey? :D)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 06, 2009, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.
I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.
I couldn't have put it better myself! ;)
(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey? :D)
Are you sure that it's not
the phrase?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 04:06:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 06, 2009, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.
I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.
I couldn't have put it better myself! ;)
(Though no offence, Myles, but I would never use a phrase like "in-group/out-group dynamic". Is it something to do with Line Dancing or the Hokey Cokey? :D)
Are you sure that it's not the phrase?
Shhhh, don't alert everyone, or before you/we/I* know it, they'll be after us for the Masonic Handshake, the Solemn & Binding Oath of Admission to the Lodge, Captain Jack Sparrow's Treasure Map and the Secret of How to Open a Milk Carton without Spilling It all over you, while Lying Severely Hungover in Bed...
* - Delete as applicable
Myles
QuoteIf I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island.
Where is your evidence for this? Do any of the main nationalist parties feel that protestant's arent Irish? Adams has said he believes them to be Irishmen like him so I dont know where that would come from.
Quote
Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.
And I've asked you what would needed to be included in this definiton of Irishness that would include protestants and the only think you've been able to suggest is a flag. So, you criticise a definiton of irishness but arent able to tell me what it should be.
QuoteThe early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion.
Well why wouldnt they? What's the issue with the Irish language? There was no ulster scots in 1922 so they could have hardly included that in the constitution. There would have been what? 90-95%? of the citizens of the freestate Catholics so that's why it was given a place in the constitution.
QuoteThe Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect.
What? That's what religions do! Do you think this was only confined to Ireland so as to marginalise protestants?
QuoteI accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
Why not? 80% or more of the Island was forced in to an arragnement in 1922.
Who was shooting and bombing them btw? ::)
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Plus a large % of Nationalist voters. The days of being at the whim of a small % of Unionists are over.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 11:49:38 AM
Myles
QuoteIf I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island.
Where is your evidence for this? Do any of the main nationalist parties feel that protestant's arent Irish? Adams has said he believes them to be Irishmen like him so I dont know where that would come from.
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
Quote
Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.
And I've asked you what would needed to be included in this definiton of Irishness that would include protestants and the only think you've been able to suggest is a flag. So, you criticise a definiton of irishness but arent able to tell me what it should be.
See above. Being Irish and British would probably cover it.
QuoteThe early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion.
Well why wouldnt they? What's the issue with the Irish language? There was no ulster scots in 1922 so they could have hardly included that in the constitution. There would have been what? 90-95%? of the citizens of the freestate Catholics so that's why it was given a place in the constitution.
QuoteThe Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect.
What? That's what religions do! Do you think this was only confined to Ireland so as to marginalise protestants?
So that makes it okay then?
QuoteI accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
Why not? 80% or more of the Island was forced in to an arragnement in 1922.
Who was shooting and bombing them btw? ::)
Spot on. 80% of the population was forced into an arrangement at the point of a gun. 90 years later we're still picking up the pieces. Why repeat the mistake?
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
I had to laugh at some stupid little f**ker from Wexford in Croke Park last year when we were playing them telling us 'loyalists' to go back up where we came from to our UVF and LVF friends!!
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
So had they IRA an Irish out policy as well?
If you cant keep it sensible dont bother.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
why dont you answer the question. what size majority would suit you?
Quote from: Our Nail Loney on February 07, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
I had to laugh at some stupid little f**ker from Wexford in Croke Park last year when we were playing them telling us 'loyalists' to go back up where we came from to our UVF and LVF friends!!
He must be really young. Or else he hasn't much grey matter between his ears. What a shocking thing to say.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 07, 2009, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: Our Nail Loney on February 07, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
I had to laugh at some stupid little f**ker from Wexford in Croke Park last year when we were playing them telling us 'loyalists' to go back up where we came from to our UVF and LVF friends!!
He must be really young. Or else he hasn't much grey matter between his ears. What a shocking thing to say.
I've heard that type of stuff a few times at matches. "Go home yis British Bastards, etc., etc."
Not very nice. Dunno which is more disappointing: the content of the taunts, or the fact that you're being taunted by fellow Gaels in the first place :-\
Quote from: AFS on February 07, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 07, 2009, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: Our Nail Loney on February 07, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
I had to laugh at some stupid little f**ker from Wexford in Croke Park last year when we were playing them telling us 'loyalists' to go back up where we came from to our UVF and LVF friends!!
He must be really young. Or else he hasn't much grey matter between his ears. What a shocking thing to say.
I've heard that type of stuff a few times at matches. "Go home yis British b**tards, etc., etc."
Not very nice. Dunno which is more disappointing: the content of the taunts, or the fact that you're being taunted by fellow Gaels in the first place :-\
Is dóca nach féidir leo Gaeilge a labhairt ach ' oiread. >:( plaidhceanna iad go léir.
Anyway why do people need to taunt other supporters or use foul language at them....isnt that what the officials are there for? ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
So had they IRA an Irish out policy as well?
If you cant keep it sensible dont bother.
Sorry, but I don't understand that comment. You'll have to say a a bit more.
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
why dont you answer the question. what size majority would suit you?
The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
why dont you answer the question. what size majority would suit you?
The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
I would say if 2/3s of the island are in support of unification, then so be it. Let the people speak.
By calling us "Free Staters" you are leaving yourselves wide open to the obvious retort.The inevitable squeals of indignation when some lowlife/drunk responds is sadly par for the course. I read recently of the death on old anti treaty IRA man (from Kerry I think) who may have been the last IRA survivor of the War of Independence who seemingly refused the Irish pension on the basis of what he saw as the illegitimacy of the Southern state.While you may or may not have agreed with him I think he could safely be in a position to call someone a "Free Stater" without being a hypocrite.
As for a UI there are imo c40% of the "nationalist population" up North who are Castle Catholics and if push came to shove wouldn't vote for an UI.This is the elephant in the parlour taboo topic which will imo have to be adressed before an UI can even be contemplated.
Now, if the British Govt pulled the massive subsidy and cut the Govt "jobs" so widespread up the North then and maybe then there might be an enforced swing towards an UI.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
If I can take your first and last statements - I would argue that the Protestant / British aren't regarded, and never have been regarded, as properly Irish by the greater number of nationalists on the island. There are the obvious historical reasons, whereby Planter and Gael, Catholic and Protestant have been traditional enemies. In more modern times, this has translated itself into a more subtle form of in - group / out-group dynamic. Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic. The early free state government formalised this by giving special place in the constitution to both the Irish language and the Catholic religion. The Catholic Church played its own role in marginalising protestants by, in the first place, teaching that anyone who wasn't a Catholic worshipped a lesser kind of God ('outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation' was part of the catechism for my parents' generation). Secondly, through the ne temere decree, it ensured that any children of mixed marrages had to be brought up as Catholics. This had the two fold effect of reducing protestant numbers on the island, as well as reinforcing the message that prods were somehow a group of our society less worthy of respect. The insistence of protestants in the north east of the island in retaining their sense of Britishness has also contributed to nationalists viewing them as second class Irish. In the minds of most nationalists, Irish and British are incompatible, therefore anyone who says they are British cannot be Irish at the same time.
I accept completely that a majority of the people on this island don't want the six counties to remain a part of the UK. The question is, how do we change it? I don't believe you can force nearly 20% of the island into an arrangement with which they are unhappy. A united Ireland only makes sense if the people within the borders of the new state are united. The consent of a sizeable majority of the population in both states is therefore necessary. Does that give unionists a veto over change? I believe the veto already exists, and has always existed, simply as a direct result of the size of the pro union population and its concentration in a handful of neighbouring counties. We could always try bombing and shooting them to see if that changes...oh, no, hang on. That's already been tried. Didn't work.
I also accept that there are some unionists who wouldn't class themselves as Irish at all. They are citizens of this island, nonetheless, and have every right to define themselves as they see fit.
you really are out of touch with reality yet again with incorrect self assumed presumptions on the rest of society.
Try telling that highlighted bit in bold to the hundreds of thousands of protestants south of the border !
the problem protestants north of the border have with any problem of 'being Irish' is with themselves.
Most people on this island call everyone born/raised etc Irish.
sure we 'allow' millions of yanks to be 'Irish' while most of them have never even been here !
How more inclusive can you get !
are you deliberately being dumb?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
think you are going to need a different source for your info than wikipedia, as its letting you down in a big way.
people were killed - no sh*t !
was it all one way , I've said to you before that there is a longer story back in the day as to who were the aggressors etc and why the whole unionist/loyalist apartheid regime and its genocidal-esque beginnings caused the nationalists to take arms and fight BACK.
Thankfully this has ceased and a normal civilisation can try to get a foothold but with idiotic mindsets like yours it will be a while yet!
Quote from: Canalman on February 08, 2009, 11:04:36 AM
By calling us "Free Staters" you are leaving yourselves wide open to the obvious retort.The inevitable squeals of indignation when some lowlife/drunk responds is sadly par for the course. I read recently of the death on old anti treaty IRA man (from Kerry I think) who may have been the last IRA survivor of the War of Independence who seemingly refused the Irish pension on the basis of what he saw as the illegitimacy of the Southern state.While you may or may not have agreed with him I think he could safely be in a position to call someone a "Free Stater" without being a hypocrite.
As for a UI there are imo c40% of the "nationalist population" up North who are Castle Catholics and if push came to shove wouldn't vote for an UI.This is the elephant in the parlour taboo topic which will imo have to be adressed before an UI can even be contemplated.
Now, if the British Govt pulled the massive subsidy and cut the Govt "jobs" so widespread up the North then and maybe then there might be an enforced swing towards an UI.
Castle Catholics (or west Brits, or Stoops) is just Shinner speak for anyone who doesn't share their unswerving commitment to building a 32 county republic over a pile of corpses. While I wouldn't try and put a figure on it, I'd agree with you that a sizeable percentage of the north's Catholics would possibly vote against a united Ireland if a vote was held tomorrow. I wouldn't stop at the north, though. I would say there'd be a good number in the south who'd also vote no once they had looked at the small print. By that I mean, when they had digested exactly what a united Ireland would mean for them financilally and culturally. If they were told that they'd be paying a couple of hundred euros extra in taxes per month, would they still be keen? When it was explained to them that they'd have to give up the tricolour and The Soldiers Song for new symbols, would they still be keen? When they realised that politicians from the 'black north' would probably hold the balance of power in any new Dail assembly and would therefore be making decisions over their lives, would they still vote yes? Answers on a postcard, please.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 12:39:33 PM
Castle Catholics (or west Brits, or Stoops) is just Shinner speak for anyone who doesn't share their unswerving commitment to building a 32 county republic over a pile of corpses. While I wouldn't try and put a figure on it, I'd agree with you that a sizeable percentage of the north's Catholics would possibly vote against a united Ireland if a vote was held tomorrow. I wouldn't stop at the north, though. I would say there'd be a good number in the south who'd also vote no once they had looked at the small print. By that I mean, when they had digested exactly what a united Ireland would mean for them financilally and culturally. If they were told that they'd be paying a couple of hundred euros extra in taxes per month, would they still be keen? When it was explained to them that they'd have to give up the tricolour and The Soldiers Song for new symbols, would they still be keen? When they realised that politicians from the 'black north' would probably hold the balance of power in any new Dail assembly and would therefore be making decisions over their lives, would they still vote yes? Answers on a postcard, please.
Whats ur address?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on February 07, 2009, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: Our Nail Loney on February 07, 2009, 08:16:23 PM
I had to laugh at some stupid little f**ker from Wexford in Croke Park last year when we were playing them telling us 'loyalists' to go back up where we came from to our UVF and LVF friends!!
He must be really young. Or else he hasn't much grey matter between his ears. What a shocking thing to say.
ye to be fair he looked about 17/18... And seemed to have some drink in him but still, what a stupid thing to say...
Quote from: Canalman on February 08, 2009, 11:04:36 AM
By calling us "Free Staters" you are leaving yourselves wide open to the obvious retort.The inevitable squeals of indignation when some lowlife/drunk responds is sadly par for the course. I read recently of the death on old anti treaty IRA man (from Kerry I think) who may have been the last IRA survivor of the War of Independence who seemingly refused the Irish pension on the basis of what he saw as the illegitimacy of the Southern state.While you may or may not have agreed with him I think he could safely be in a position to call someone a "Free Stater" without being a hypocrite.
As for a UI there are imo c40% of the "nationalist population" up North who are Castle Catholics and if push came to shove wouldn't vote for an UI.This is the elephant in the parlour taboo topic which will imo have to be adressed before an UI can even be contemplated.
Now, if the British Govt pulled the massive subsidy and cut the Govt "jobs" so widespread up the North then and maybe then there might be an enforced swing towards an UI.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is true and indeed I think its way way out. And I'm not sure it can be "addressed" as you're right to say that we simply won't know until "push comes to shove".
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
So had they IRA an Irish out policy as well?
If you cant keep it sensible dont bother.
Sorry, but I don't understand that comment. You'll have to say a a bit more.
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. You countered that point by talking about protestant and unionists the IRA killed, since the IRA also killed catholics I'm asking you had they also a Catholic out policy. We were having a sensibe discussion up until this point hence my comment about keeping it sensible.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 08, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
So had they IRA an Irish out policy as well?
If you cant keep it sensible dont bother.
Sorry, but I don't understand that comment. You'll have to say a a bit more.
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. You countered that point by talking about protestant and unionists the IRA killed, since the IRA also killed catholics I'm asking you had they also a Catholic out policy. We were having a sensibe discussion up until this point hence my comment about keeping it sensible.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
No link, I'm afraid. I'm fairly sure the interview was in The Guardian and would've been some time in the 80's (as he was in prison from 1990), but the online archive for that paper only goes back to 1991.
The IRA killed Catholics as part of their campaign against the British, either by way of 'collateral damage' (if you were caught up in one of their mistakes, which were many), or by way of an intentional act aimed at Catholics working as part of the British 'war machine'. (police, udr, contractors working for security forces, so called informers, etc). That in no way diminishes the fact that this was the outworkings of a 'Brits Out' policy.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
why dont you answer the question. what size majority would suit you?
The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
3rd time of asking, what size majority would suit you? (course you cant answer it and i only ask to highlight the nonsense your talking)
Quote from: magickingdom on February 08, 2009, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on February 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 07:42:49 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 07, 2009, 03:16:10 PM
it is not a requirement to have the consent of a majority of Unionist voters for a United Ireland.
There is little or no prospect of swinging a majority of Unionists as they are vehemently opposed to Irish unification and determined to continue with the Union.
Afaia the constitution requirement is just for a simple majority of voters in the 6 counties to consent to end membership of the UK.
Only a relatively small % of Unionist voters are required for this consent.
Bertie Ahern recently spoke out against change on the basis of a narrow majority. I'm with Bertie.
really? do you want to think about that statement again. all your lip for the last few pages and then you come out with this. any particular size of majority suit you? or is it that your just not a democrat? what shite...
ps bertie said alot of things that might or might not or did or didnt depending on the day
That's a fair summary of your post. Come back when you've a few manners on you.
why dont you answer the question. what size majority would suit you?
The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
3rd time of asking, what size majority would suit you? (course you cant answer it and i only ask to highlight the nonsense your talking)
2nd time of answering: The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
If you still have problems with that let me know and I'll post it again. ;)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 06:42:39 PM
2nd time of answering: The kind of majority that would make a new all Ireland state viable, rather than a larger version of the 6 county state with all the same problems.
If you still have problems with that let me know and I'll post it again. ;)
i still have a problem but dont bother posting again. 55%, 60% 75% why not 45% (because its already there?!) i'll hazzard a guess that nothing would actually satisfy you
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Well I worked in Dublin from 2002-2006 & I was equally shocked about their lack of knowledge of "The West"
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 12:39:33 PM
When it was explained to them that they'd have to give up the tricolour and The Soldiers Song for new symbols, would they still be keen?
Why do you say this? There appears no evidence to suggest the nationalists or republicans have ever or would ever consider changing the trickler or SS is even under circumstances envisaged in your hypothetical situation.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 03:29:12 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 08, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 08, 2009, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 07, 2009, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 07, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Myles
Quote
If you notice, I said 'properly Irish', not 'Irish like Gerry Adams'. Many unionists consider themselves both Irish and British, which I'd imagine Gerry doesn't. The 'Brits Out' policy operated by Gerry's party is as good a way of saying to one section of the population that they're not really Irish and they're not really welcome. I once read an interview with Danny Morrison when he was publicity director for the Shinners. He showed his deep knowledge and understanding of the unionist community by suggesting that their rights would be protected in a united Ireland by making sure they had access to contraception. He then went on to say that if they were really, really unhappy, they could always consider 'repatriation' to GB. How can you repatriate someone who belongs here?
The Brits out policy was not about removing protestants or unionists but about removing the British governments rule and interference in our affairs and their army.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
and shock horror religions are trying to get people to follow them :-\
The Brits Out policy removed quite a few protestants / unionists, not just from Ireland, but from the planet. Try telling their families that this wasn't a war against them.
So had they IRA an Irish out policy as well?
If you cant keep it sensible dont bother.
Sorry, but I don't understand that comment. You'll have to say a a bit more.
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists. You countered that point by talking about protestant and unionists the IRA killed, since the IRA also killed catholics I'm asking you had they also a Catholic out policy. We were having a sensibe discussion up until this point hence my comment about keeping it sensible.
Have you got a link for that Morrison interview?
No link, I'm afraid. I'm fairly sure the interview was in The Guardian and would've been some time in the 80's (as he was in prison from 1990), but the online archive for that paper only goes back to 1991.
The IRA killed Catholics as part of their campaign against the British, either by way of 'collateral damage' (if you were caught up in one of their mistakes, which were many), or by way of an intentional act aimed at Catholics working as part of the British 'war machine'. (police, udr, contractors working for security forces, so called informers, etc). That in no way diminishes the fact that this was the outworkings of a 'Brits Out' policy.
you obv dont want to acknowledge that the 'policy' was initially to protect the victimised oppressed and under seige nationalists.
Then once the pogams etc were stiffled and the outside world was now watching so the same treatment couldnt be metted out any furthe, the source of the problem was the target - ie british enforcement (ok it might not have been the source , but was the empowerment of unionist/loyalist apartheid rule).
Brits out was to get rid of the iron fist that backed up the unionist/loyalist muder death squads.
Would it have suited you better it nationalists took their beating, lives ruined and subsequent mass deaths and said/did nothing?
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
There was so much spin and propaganda in that post it sounded like it was straight out of Danny Morrison's mouth.
However, the above line is a bare-faced lie.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 10:09:18 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
There was so much spin and propaganda in that post it sounded like it was straight out of Danny Morrison's mouth.
However, the above line is a bare-faced lie.
nope yer 100% incorrect
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
nope yer 100% incorrect
The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
nope yer 100% incorrect
The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.
so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time
cop on to yourself ::)
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 10:50:25 AM
so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time
cop on to yourself ::)
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders
Your comment that targets were never about religion was a bare-faced lie. Nothing inaccurate about it. Your disproportionate rabid reply follows a simple example of why you are iinaccurate and that republicans did indeed target people because of their religion, nothing more and nothing less.
FFS listen to yourself. Your cavalier attitude regarding murder is sad, inaccurate and far more dangerous.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 08, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists.
I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.
Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.
Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.
Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:03:25 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 10:50:25 AM
so the whole MO of republicans was to target protestants etc all the time
cop on to yourself ::)
thats the kind of attitude that lead to the problems in the first place and the propagandistic incitements from ian paisley and all the other death squad leading ringleaders
Your comment that targets were never about religion was a bare-faced lie. Nothing inaccurate about it. Your disproportionate rabid reply follows a simple example of why you are iinaccurate and that republicans did indeed target people because of their religion, nothing more and nothing less.
FFS listen to yourself. Your cavalier attitude regarding murder is sad, inaccurate and far more dangerous.
your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.
republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 11:10:55 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 08, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists.
I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.
Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.
Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.
Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power.
completely incorrect as ever. You obv are oblivious to the nature of republican thinking as you are to most other things outside your wee secular world!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.
Hang on a minute here. As part of your propaganda and spin (more above again) you included a bare-faced lie that republicans never murdered people simply because of their religion. I gave two quick yet very clear and indisputable examples of when republicans massacred Protestants for nothing else but being Protestant, therefore making your "100% inaccurate" remark just another ridiculous outburst from you.
Btw, I didn't say anything else but you have gone off on a tangent make presumptions about my attitude being dangerous and ranting about God knows what.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.
Please show me when I did this.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AMI wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).
Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
republican mantra was NEVER to go out and kill people because of religion. Bad enough killing but never as simplistic as you are making out, that was a war scenario with typical grim reality that sentiment , innocence and everything else goes out the window. Targetting people because of their religion shows that you dont know the motive behind it or understand it (nor want to I would say).
However look at both sides (I wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions). If a battalion of these british soldiers were jewish or muslim - would you be whinging that the republicans were anti semetic or anti islamic too ?
Your simplistic tunnel blinkered vision of what happened needs to be expanded more. Though I presume the guilt associated with root cause stops you and others from doing so.
Is that sad? Or just playing the ostritch.
Hang on a minute here. As part of your propaganda and spin (more above again) you included a bare-faced lie that republicans never murdered people simply because of their religion. I gave two quick yet very clear and indisputable examples of when republicans massacred Protestants for nothing else but being Protestant, therefore making your "100% inaccurate" remark just another ridiculous outburst from you.
Btw, I didn't say anything else but you have gone off on a tangent make presumptions about my attitude being dangerous and ranting about God knows what.
two , a few instances - doesnt give any creedence to your notion that the republican mantra was to target protestants throughout the 35 years. It most certainly wasnt. Religion was of no consequence. Killing seemed tobe far too easy accomplished by both sides. Different motives though.
now please tell me why nationalists were targeted that caused them to fight back in the first place - would this be incorrect?
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:32:19 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.
Please show me when I did this.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AMI wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).
Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.
you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:32:19 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.
Please show me when I did this.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AMI wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).
Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.
you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!
What are you talking about? You simply came out with lies and smear. Here it is again for you......
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
That is a lie and 100% inaccurate.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:51:11 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 11:32:19 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
your labelling a small couple of years at republicans is even sadder as you dismiss the bigger picture of why republicans felt forced to respond to violence with violence.
Please show me when I did this.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:16:39 AMI wont be like yourself and blame/label one side when both were guilty of killing etc although if you want to look further, please question why the whole thing started and then try to point the finger!) and see that you not looking at the whole problem, only nit picking at what republicans did (on a number of occasions).
Please show me when I did this.
Re-read the posts and stop telling lies.
you did so by using the examples of kingsmills and darkley
again , stop trying to point the finger, open the blinkers and see the bigger picture and then tell me who was to blame for starting all this!
What are you talking about? You simply came out with lies and smear. Here it is again for you......
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
That is a lie and 100% inaccurate.
sheesh
the mantra of the provos in the 35 years was never to target protestants for their religion alone.
I would expect that by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.
I presume you mean that kingsmills/darkley targets were selected just because they were protestant, I dont really think that is the case, but either way - the republican militant mantra is not observed by one or two cases.
So again , you are incorrect that republicans targets were solely protestant/religious motivated.
I used other examples as you dont seem to be able to take off the blinkers and was trying to 'help' to to see and understand.
Now, please confirm to me that the targetting of nationalists was religiously motivated by the perportrating unionist/loyalist/crown forces/b specials etc factions before/at the beginning/after 1968 periods - and that was the reason that caused nationalists/catholics to retaliate !
thanks
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 10:27:15 AM
The mass murders at Darkley and Kingsmill by republicans were solely about religion.
That's a contradiction in terms.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 11:10:55 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 08, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
You're going on about a Brit's out policy and I pointed out that that policy was not aimed at protestants or unionists.
I know this wasn't addressed to me(!), but I can't let this excerpt from "Republican Myths, Self-Justifications and Outight Lies" (Editor: Danny Morrison) pass without challenge. As Roger has pointed out, blatant sectarian murders such as those at Kingsmill or Darkley starkly prove an essentially sectarian basis for the IRA and INLA's campaigns, but these were just the overt manifestations - the mask slipping, if you like - of a policy which was deliberately and insidiously prosecuted basically to coerce and intimidate 'the other side' and thereby gain control.
Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away? When you boil it down, each is an effort by a group of bigots to impose their will on what they see as "their" community and as such, are indistinguishable.
Which is why, for example, the IRA/INLA were quite prepared to murder Catholics, whether as "collaborators" or "collateral damage", in their pursuance of "Brits Out", just as their so-called "Loyalist" counterparts were quite prepared to murder Protestants e.g in mixed-marriages, or who cooperated with the Police etc.
Therefore, had the IRA/INLA ever achieved power in Ireland, it is quite clear the choice for (those of us Irish people who see ourselves as) Brits would have been to accept whatever treatment was given to us, or get out i.e. exactly the same "choice" as would have been granted to "Taigs", had the UVF/UDA ever gained power.
completely incorrect as ever. You obv are oblivious to the nature of republican thinking as you are to most other things outside your wee secular world!
Whereas from your posts, you are an expert not just on Republican thinking, but on Unionist thinking as well... ::)
In which case, would you like to provide me with what my answer should be to what was originally a rhetorical question of mine, namely:
"Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away?"In the end, paramilitarism was nothing more than unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative groupings taking it upon themselves to impose their will by force upon those who would disagree with them.
For propaganda purposes, it suited IRA/INLA to characterise their "struggle" as being to get the "Brits" out, but as their sordid and murderous campaign unfolded, the definition of "Brits" was successively widened, so as effectively to include virtually anyone in NI who identified themselves as "British".
First it was the British Army. Then it was the locally recruited security forces - even when those included members who were Catholic. Next it was those who "collaborated" with the "British War Machine" (e.g. suppliers and contractors), regardless of the fact that these were ordinary people who were just trying to make a living and provide for their families, by pursuing a perfectly legal trade. And it wasn't long before the definition of "Brits" was widened to include people who, by merely trying to do business in NI, were "Brits" because they contributed to the economy which "supported the British War Machine blah blah blah"
An example of this was Jeffrey Agate, a Du Pont executive murdered by the IRA in 1977. As the following report explains, the IRA murdered him because he had "played a prominent part in stabilising the British-oriented economy" (or providing jobs for workers in Derry, as some others called it). And the IRA went on to add that they would "remove the British presence even if it meant reducing Belfast to rubble" (no doubt this was the heroic motive of Bobby Sands when he was arrested later that year while trying to bomb that notorious British Military Installation, the Balmoral Furniture Company...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7162727.stm
Ditto the murder of James Nicholson, an Executive at Strathearn Audio in West Belfast.
And finally, whenever their struggle to get the "Brits Out" ran out of "legitimate targets" which might be attacked without serious risk to themselves, the IRA and INLA resorted to the "softest" of targets, despite this revealing the true nature of their campaign. This was best characterised by a ruthless campaign against vulnerable and isolated groups and individuals all along the border, or elsewhere where they could hope to strike with impunity.
Or have you forgotten e.g. the murder of Sir Norman Stronge at Tynan? He was murdered in his home alongside his son, by a gang of at least 8 IRA members. Austin Currie described him as "even at 86 years of age... still incomparably more of a man than the cowardly dregs of humanity who ended his life in this barbaric way" (Time Magazine). In his book "A Secret History of the IRA", Ed Moloney reported a Tyrone republican and Gaelic Athletic Association veteran as justifying it (and Kingsmills) as, "... a lesson you learn quickly on the football field...If you're fouled, you hit back". And Gerry Adams's terse response was "The only complaint I have heard from nationalists or anti-unionists is that he was not shot 40 years ago". (The Spectator).
Of course, IRA victims in their attempt to intimidate and coerce ordinary Unionists/Protestants etc weren't usually so well-known. I was reminded recently of Douglas Deering, murdered in Rosslea in 1977. It cannot have been his politics or his military service which caused him to be singled out, for he belonged to a small, effectively pacifist, religious sect which instructs its members to avoid both. Rather, when an IRA gunman walked into his shop in broad daylight and shot him through the head, he will doubtless have been aware that Deering ran the last Protestant business in the village.
Still, unimportant people like Deering were merely "unavoidable victims" of the IRA's noble campaign, and hence not really deserving of recognition or commemoration. As such, they hardly rank with other local heroes of the calibre of e.g. Seamus McEllwaine, regularly honoured by SF/IRA for his contribution to the struggle. McElwaine, coincidentally, was born and brought up near Scotstown, Co. Momaghan, not far over the border from Rosslea. And he subsequently died at the hands of the British Army in Rosslea, whilst on "active service". Of course, it is not known whether he was in Rosslea on the day Deering was singled out for sectarian murder. Well not officially, at least... :o
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 08, 2009, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.
you really are out of touch with reality yet again with incorrect self assumed presumptions on the rest of society.
Try telling that highlighted bit in bold to the hundreds of thousands of protestants south of the border !
Eh? Just noticed this! Hundreds of thousands of Protestants south of the border?
QuotePopulation classified by religion and nationality 2006
Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant) 86,990
Other Christian Religion 16,327
Presbyterian 13,628
Methodist 5,077
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
And surely you do know that the Protestant population in the south
was much bigger? I think it's definitely a valid argument that in the past at least, being Irish meant "being Gaelic and Catholic". Much less so now, due to the diminishing role of the Church, but i don't think you can dismiss the perception that Protestants in the north may have.
Quote from: Son_of_Sam on February 09, 2009, 01:35:32 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Well I worked in Dublin from 2002-2006 & I was equally shocked about their lack of knowledge of "The West"
And I have worked in Dublin since 1984, and am still shocked that they don't even know where Longford is (except for the few Jackeens who came down to see us in 2007).
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 09, 2009, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Son_of_Sam on February 09, 2009, 01:35:32 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Well I worked in Dublin from 2002-2006 & I was equally shocked about their lack of knowledge of "The West"
And I have worked in Dublin since 1984, and am still shocked that they don't even know where Longford is (except for the few Jackeens who came down to see us in 2007).
I think it's a 'people from cities' thing, rather than a southern ignorance regarding the North. I'd bet that a good few people from Belfast would know little about the South and in cases, little about the rest of the North outside of Belfast.
GAA people are probably better up on these things than others, due to the inter-county competitions.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 09, 2009, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Son_of_Sam on February 09, 2009, 01:35:32 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2009, 06:23:55 PM
I worked in Dublin for a year between 2004 - 2005 and I was shocked by the lack of knowledge the people I worked with had of "The North"
Well I worked in Dublin from 2002-2006 & I was equally shocked about their lack of knowledge of "The West"
And I have worked in Dublin since 1984, and am still shocked that they don't even know where Longford is (except for the few Jackeens who came down to see us in 2007).
I think it's a 'people from cities' thing, rather than a southern ignorance regarding the North. I'd bet that a good few people from Belfast would know little about the South and in cases, little about the rest of the North outside of Belfast.
GAA people are probably better up on these things than others, due to the inter-county competitions.
I agree. Talking to a friend from Dublin recently who thought there was a County Athlone. The worst of it is she has cousins from there and goes to visit them a couple of times a year!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
So again , you are incorrect that republicans targets were solely protestant/religious motivated.
You are changing your argument. You said they "never" targeted people based on religion. They did. You now agree but subsequently say I'm incorrect, but add it is "hardly surprising". Bizarre reasoning.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AMNow, please confirm to me that the targetting of nationalists was religiously motivated by the perportrating unionist/loyalist/crown forces/b specials etc factions before/at the beginning/after 1968 periods - and that was the reason that caused nationalists/catholics to retaliate !
I have claimed no such thing that there were sectarian murders. Each of the groups you list above would contend, like you do for republicans, that it has never their mantra to kill people based on their religion. It is a sad fact that actions contradict mantras. Take your blinkers off and you might see that.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 01:16:58 PM
I think it's a 'people from cities' thing, rather than a southern ignorance regarding the North. I'd bet that a good few people from Belfast would know little about the South and in cases, little about the rest of the North outside of Belfast.
GAA people are probably better up on these things than others, due to the inter-county competitions.
I think that's about right. I would be pretty knowledgable about Northern Ireland but when it comes to counties in the Republic I wouldn't be good at all especially with areas like Roscommon or Longford. Counties are an outdated British administrative carve-up anyway :o
Roger, he said religion wasnt a reason for the republicans targetting people.
You pointed out 2 incidents which contradict this.
We get it.
Lynchboys general gist is correct though, with the few exceptions which you kindly pointed out for us.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 01:43:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 01:16:58 PM
I think it's a 'people from cities' thing, rather than a southern ignorance regarding the North. I'd bet that a good few people from Belfast would know little about the South and in cases, little about the rest of the North outside of Belfast.
GAA people are probably better up on these things than others, due to the inter-county competitions.
I think that's about right. I would be pretty knowledgable about Northern Ireland but when it comes to counties in the Republic I wouldn't be good at all especially with areas like Roscommon or Longford. Counties are an outdated British administrative carve-up anyway :o
And for that you should be eternally grateful.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 01:43:50 PM
I think that's about right. I would be pretty knowledgable about Northern Ireland but when it comes to counties in the Republic I wouldn't be good at all especially with areas like Roscommon or Longford. Counties are an outdated British administrative carve-up anyway :o
As is half of Asia.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 12:51:18 PM
Whereas from your posts, you are an expert not just on Republican thinking, but on Unionist thinking as well... ::)
In which case, would you like to provide me with what my answer should be to what was originally a rhetorical question of mine, namely:
"Or would you claim that you are more threatened by seeing e.g. "Taigs Out" scrawled on one gable end than I am by seeing "Brits Out" on another wall a few streets away?"
blah
blah
blah
nope, the 'question' or more accurately, the assertion was that republican ethos was to target protestants on a religion basis only.
thats just lies.
You could however make the case of unionist/loyalist death gangs for doing that though..
It was obv that without brit enforcement the same problems wouldnt exist, as we see today as the brits slowly (but surely) pull out !
as for your taigs/brits out - I'd say that proves the whole point - it was all equal in killing but the mantra for republicans was to get rid of the british enforcement and let the nationalist/unionist/loyalists all come to the same conclusion as we now have.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 09, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Roger, he said religion wasnt a reason for the republicans targetting people.
You pointed out 2 incidents which contradict this.
We get it.
Lynchboys general gist is correct though, with the few exceptions which you kindly pointed out for us.
Thanks HH
I was starting to think I was being unclear ::)
now we know what the problem is ...same old same old - the ostrich game!
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 08, 2009, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 06, 2009, 02:04:07 PM
Being 'proper' Irish in this dynamic has meant being Gaelic and Catholic.
you really are out of touch with reality yet again with incorrect self assumed presumptions on the rest of society.
Try telling that highlighted bit in bold to the hundreds of thousands of protestants south of the border !
Eh? Just noticed this! Hundreds of thousands of Protestants south of the border?
QuotePopulation classified by religion and nationality 2006
Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant) 86,990
Other Christian Religion 16,327
Presbyterian 13,628
Methodist 5,077
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
And surely you do know that the Protestant population in the south was much bigger? I think it's definitely a valid argument that in the past at least, being Irish meant "being Gaelic and Catholic". Much less so now, due to the diminishing role of the Church, but i don't think you can dismiss the perception that Protestants in the north may have.
ok hundred thousand then
the point still stands though...
What point?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:10:30 PM
as for your taigs/brits out - I'd say that proves the whole point - it was all equal in killing but the mantra for republicans was to get rid of the british enforcement and let the nationalist/unionist/loyalists all come to the same conclusion as we now have.
Ah right, Republican killers were actually the enlightened ones, merely creating the conditions which would help the rest of us reach the (correct?) conclusion which we have now. I must say, I never saw it that way: should I be thanking you/them for that?
Except that there are just a couple of wee things which don't quite fit with that analysis. Let's leave aside e.g. the Kingsmill/Darkley/Stronge/Deering murders, since doubtless you've an "explanation" for why those weren't fundamentally sectarian in nature (even if the likes of Roger and me are so bigoted/deluded/brainwashed etc as not be able to comprehend it).
What I don't get is how the "conclusion" which we now enjoy courtesy of the Republican Armed Struggle, represents the achievement of "Brits Out", which was the mantra behind a campaign which directly killed over 2,000 people, the majority of whom were not in the British Armed Forces. I note your careful use of the phrase "get rid of british enforcement", but cannot see how that differs from "Brits Out".
For it seems to me that the Brits are still basically in charge of NI, whether that be demonstrated by the activities of those Brits in Government in Westminster, or in Stormont*, or in the Courts, or the PSNI, or HM Revenue & Customs, or even in the shape of the local Postie who empties our (red) Pillar Boxes on behalf of the (ahem) Royal Mail. And that's before we get to the sight of the Royal Irish Regiment marching proudly along Royal Avenue last year, being welcomed home undefeated by thousands of cheering "Brits"...
It wouldn't be that SF/IRA are re-writing History to try to conceal the guilt they feel over having killed thousands of their fellow Irishmen, women and children, in the name of a cause that they did not, indeed could not, ever achieve? ::)
* - And their SF collaborators ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 02:41:55 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:10:30 PM
as for your taigs/brits out - I'd say that proves the whole point - it was all equal in killing but the mantra for republicans was to get rid of the british enforcement and let the nationalist/unionist/loyalists all come to the same conclusion as we now have.
Ah right, Republican killers were actually the enlightened ones, merely creating the conditions which would help the rest of us reach the (correct?) conclusion which we have now. I must say, I never saw it that way: should I be thanking you/them for that?
Except that there are just a couple of wee things which don't quite fit with that analysis. Let's leave aside e.g. the Kingsmill/Darkley/Stronge/Deering murders, since doubtless you've an "explanation" for why those weren't fundamentally sectarian in nature (even if the likes of Roger and me are so bigoted/deluded/brainwashed etc as not be able to comprehend it).
What I don't get is how the "conclusion" which we now enjoy courtesy of the Republican Armed Struggle, represents the achievement of "Brits Out", which was the mantra behind a campaign which directly killed over 2,000 people, the majority of whom were not in the British Armed Forces. I note your careful use of the phrase "get rid of british enforcement", but cannot see how that differs from "Brits Out".
For it seems to me that the Brits are still basically in charge of NI, whether that be demonstrated by the activities of those Brits in Government in Westminster, or in Stormont*, or in the Courts, or the PSNI, or HM Revenue & Customs, or even in the shape of the local Postie who empties our (red) Pillar Boxes on behalf of the (ahem) Royal Mail. And that's before we get to the sight of the Royal Irish Regiment marching proudly along Royal Avenue last year, being welcomed home undefeated by thousands of cheering "Brits"...
It wouldn't be that SF/IRA are re-writing History to try to conceal the guilt they feel over having killed thousands of their fellow Irishmen, women and children, in the name of a cause that they did not, indeed could not, ever achieve? ::)
* - And their SF collaborators ::)
its not the first time I have to 'tell you' this.
From way back the 'establishment' and their apartheidesque regieme were brutalising innocent nationalists around the six counties. Many left, others that remained were subject to more of the same treatment. Keeping the taigs down etc.
The whole attempt to keep the nationalists as a second class citizenship was working , but as history shows - you cannot be the totalitarian master forever. Stopping young nationalists getting higher ranking jobs, even trying to stop them getting decent third level education etc.
Something was going ot give. Up until then it was token aggressive retaliation.
However the whole thing just changed with the Derry situation on blody sunday.
The people knew they had to start defending themselves from the oppression and violence towards them metted out by b specials/unionist & loyalist death squads then the british army.
So the whle thing descended as we know into what is termed the troubles or the 35 years war.
At the point where the brits realised that it was too high a price to pay for a few votes in westminster plus it wasnt their country in the first place and started making plans to integrate the two warring childish factions - they began to pull back before their ultimate pulling out.
So the point has been reached where phase one has been achieved. Nationalists are no longer oppressed in daily life, jobs, education, no longer a second class citizenship, the apartheid regieme of old has been busted apart. The brit gov no longer care and want out.
I actually want them to stay, but thats a diff debate.
However the case is that phase one has been won and phase two , with the brits leaving is under way and will continue slowly until economic (and electoral register)factors change.
please try to remember this as its prob the third time I have had to 'teach' you.
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
Clearly it's news to
you, not them.
QuoteIn 1991, the population of the Republic of Ireland was approximately 3% Protestant, but the figure was over 10% in 1891, indicating a fall of 70% in the relative Protestant population over the past century.
The effect of Protestant depopulation in the Republic of Ireland is dramatic. In 1861 only the west coast and Kilkenny had less than 6% Protestant. Dublin and 2 of the border counties had over 20% Protestant. In 1991, however, all but 4 counties have less than 6% Protestant, the rest having less than 1%. There are no counties in the Republic of Ireland which have experienced a rise in the relative Protestant population over the period 1861 to 1991.[/
And we're not talking about Ireland
now - it's not a Catholic state
now as it was in the past.
The immigrants from the baltic states? What has that got to do with this discussion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
Down here? I've lived in the north for 20 years - i thought you did too.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
According to the 1911 Census, there were 311.461 Protestants in the 26 counties = 9.92% of population;
According to the 1926 Census, there were 207,307 Protestants in the 26 counties = 6.98% of population;
According to the 2006 Census, there were 105,695 Protestants in the 26 counties = 2.85% of population.
I cannot find exactly corresponding figures for NI, but the following is interesting:
According to the 1911 Census, there were (a maximum of*) 484,821 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 38.76% of population;
According to the 1961 Census, there were 502,800 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 35.30% of population;
According to the 2001 Census, there were 737,412 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 43.76% of population.
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/popul.htm#cath
Curiously, for people bent-on "genocidal-esque" policies (as you put it), NI's Unionists weren't actually very good at pursuing a policy of "Taigs Out", whereas that bastion of tolerance and liberalism, the Free State, wasn't so good at keeping "Prods In".
Oh well, I'm sure it was all the Brits fault, really... ::)
* - Can't extrapolate the numbers listed as neither Protestant or RC
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 09, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 01:43:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 01:16:58 PM
I think it's a 'people from cities' thing, rather than a southern ignorance regarding the North. I'd bet that a good few people from Belfast would know little about the South and in cases, little about the rest of the North outside of Belfast.
GAA people are probably better up on these things than others, due to the inter-county competitions.
I think that's about right. I would be pretty knowledgable about Northern Ireland but when it comes to counties in the Republic I wouldn't be good at all especially with areas like Roscommon or Longford. Counties are an outdated British administrative carve-up anyway :o
And for that you should be eternally grateful.
SS, you made a mistake there - you included Longford in your highlighted bit. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be letting that stand. No need for thanks. :P
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:58:57 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
Clearly it's news to you, not them.
QuoteIn 1991, the population of the Republic of Ireland was approximately 3% Protestant, but the figure was over 10% in 1891, indicating a fall of 70% in the relative Protestant population over the past century.
The effect of Protestant depopulation in the Republic of Ireland is dramatic. In 1861 only the west coast and Kilkenny had less than 6% Protestant. Dublin and 2 of the border counties had over 20% Protestant. In 1991, however, all but 4 counties have less than 6% Protestant, the rest having less than 1%. There are no counties in the Republic of Ireland which have experienced a rise in the relative Protestant population over the period 1861 to 1991.[/
And we're not talking about Ireland now - it's not a Catholic state now as it was in the past.
The immigrants from the baltic states? What has that got to do with this discussion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
Down here? I've lived in the north for 20 years - i thought you did too.
better spell out the point as its going over your head
The point being that being protestant or non catholic has not held any problems for people in the 26 counties
also finally, you assume far too much !
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 03:14:22 PM
According to the 1911 Census, there were 311.461 Protestants in the 26 counties = 9.92% of population;
According to the 1926 Census, there were 207,307 Protestants in the 26 counties = 6.98% of population;
According to the 2006 Census, there were 105,695 Protestants in the 26 counties = 2.85% of population.
I cannot find exactly corresponding figures for NI, but the following is interesting:
According to the 1911 Census, there were (a maximum of*) 484,821 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 38.76% of population;
According to the 1961 Census, there were 502,800 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 35.30% of population;
According to the 2001 Census, there were 737,412 Roman Catholics in the 6 counties = 43.76% of population.
http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/popul.htm#cath
Curiously, for people bent-on "genocidal-esque" policies (as you put it), NI's Unionists weren't actually very good at pursuing a policy of "Taigs Out", whereas that bastion of tolerance and liberalism, the Free State, wasn't so good at keeping "Prods In".
Oh well, I'm sure it was all the Brits fault, really... ::)
* - Can't extrapolate the numbers listed as neither Protestant or RC
ok , so you lose one argument and try to pick up upon another.
so the protestant population is lesening in the 26 counties.
Its not because they have been persecuted, oppressed or had state forces and the local militia that they back up attacking them willy nilly (as had been the case upon nationialists in the 6 counties).
whatever other point you are attempting to make is equally as unfounded and daft as per usual !
Write as many paragraphs as you do, but as ever you try to circumvent any point rather than make or address one let alone come close to giving any adequate support for things such as my above argument!
:D
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
but I am sure 'we blame the brits' ::)
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 09, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Roger, he said religion wasnt a reason for the republicans targetting people.
You pointed out 2 incidents which contradict this.
We get it.
Lynchboys general gist is correct though, with the few exceptions which you kindly pointed out for us.
Thanks HH
I was starting to think I was being unclear ::)
now we know what the problem is ...same old same old - the ostrich game!
The two instances given were from a time when you were talking about nationalists fighting back. These were sectarian fueled slaughter by republicans. At that time which you were talking about, I believe republicans to have been really rather sectarian before they changed tack and tried to give credibility to their terrorism by developing the solely fighting the Brits matnra, even though that simply meant shooting off-duty security force Prods and their families and then running off to hide in amongst one section of the by-then polarized communities. The message then changed and has since been delivered for public consumption as a desire for Prod, Taig and Dissenter to be as one in a socialist republic with the Brits out of Ireland, mixed in with a dollop of their fleg being peace between green and orange.
At the time I was talking about, I would contend that northern republicans and Provos were rather anti-Prod and unionists were beyond hope in their mind, whilst the Official IRA developed a more Political approach which actively tried to convince Prods to unite with them. Funnily enough it's exactly what the Provos now seem to have decided is the best way forward for them. That is why I believe it wrong for you to say republicans
never targeted people on the basis of their religion, as I believe the Provos played to and stoked up the most basic level of sectarianism in the early 70s in order to start their revolution as they didn't care how it started as long as it did. The PIRA developed this beyond localised sectarian murder and division and subsequently cynically used and took human life throughout their terror campaign on all sides of the community and indeed further afield.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 04:18:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:12:58 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 09, 2009, 01:45:48 PM
Roger, he said religion wasnt a reason for the republicans targetting people.
You pointed out 2 incidents which contradict this.
We get it.
Lynchboys general gist is correct though, with the few exceptions which you kindly pointed out for us.
Thanks HH
I was starting to think I was being unclear ::)
now we know what the problem is ...same old same old - the ostrich game!
The two instances given were from a time when you were talking about nationalists fighting back. These were sectarian fueled slaughter by republicans. At that time which you were talking about, I believe republicans to have been really rather sectarian before they changed tack and tried to give credibility to their terrorism by developing the solely fighting the Brits matnra, even though that simply meant shooting off-duty security force Prods and their families and then running off to hide in amongst one section of the by-then polarized communities. The message then changed and has since been delivered for public consumption as a desire for Prod, Taig and Dissenter to be as one in a socialist republic with the Brits out of Ireland, mixed in with a dollop of their fleg being peace between green and orange.
At the time I was talking about, I would contend that northern republicans and Provos were rather anti-Prod and unionists were beyond hope in their mind, whilst the Official IRA developed a more Political approach which actively tried to convince Prods to unite with them. Funnily enough it's exactly what the Provos now seem to have decided is the best way forward for them. That is why I believe it wrong for you to say republicans never targeted people on the basis of their religion, as I believe the Provos played to and stoked up the most basic level of sectarianism in the early 70s in order to start their revolution as they didn't care how it started as long as it did. The PIRA developed this beyond localised sectarian murder and division and subsequently cynically used and took human life throughout their terror campaign on all sides of the community and indeed further afield.
that would be a common perception from folk from your side of the divide.
I can see where you are coming from but I can say that being on the other side of the coin and from what was said and the mindsets abound with such people at those times, I have to disagree with your sentiments as this is not what provos, provo supporters and other types of 'Ra heads would be thinking.
I would bet there was a number of people scattered through the 6 counties who did have the mentality you suggest, and I would go further to say they still exist.
But I see similar (and more of) this kind of mentality on th eunionist/loyalist side to be honest.
dont think we are going to agree ...do you !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
dont think we are going to agree ...do you !
I'm not sure whether perception is relevant. In the early 70s the IRA did kill people for solely being Protestant and those two instances in South ARmagh were hardly done by the poor wee downtrodden taigs under the jackboot of Brit occupation in IReland. The South Armagh IRA have always had a pretty affluent life-style imo. Amazing how much money you can find in hay sheds down those parts.
Are we going to agree? No, you seem to be supportive of republican's murder campaign and I cannot agree with that whether you believe it sectarian or anti-British or both. However, the IRA did kill people for solely being Protestant, now they want to "convince" unionists whom they've been bombing/shooting at for years with Anderson, the convicted terrorist Anderson!! If it wasn't so pathetic you could laugh at them.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:58:57 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
Clearly it's news to you, not them.
QuoteIn 1991, the population of the Republic of Ireland was approximately 3% Protestant, but the figure was over 10% in 1891, indicating a fall of 70% in the relative Protestant population over the past century.
The effect of Protestant depopulation in the Republic of Ireland is dramatic. In 1861 only the west coast and Kilkenny had less than 6% Protestant. Dublin and 2 of the border counties had over 20% Protestant. In 1991, however, all but 4 counties have less than 6% Protestant, the rest having less than 1%. There are no counties in the Republic of Ireland which have experienced a rise in the relative Protestant population over the period 1861 to 1991.[/
And we're not talking about Ireland now - it's not a Catholic state now as it was in the past.
The immigrants from the baltic states? What has that got to do with this discussion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
Down here? I've lived in the north for 20 years - i thought you did too.
better spell out the point as its going over your head
The point being that being protestant or non catholic has not held any problems for people in the 26 counties
also finally, you assume far too much !
That's the second time you've used that term in as many posts. I don't think you appreciate how arrogant it sounds. How would you feel if someone were to announce that there are two kinds of football supporter in the world, Rangers fans and non Rangers fans. The rest of the world should not be defined by the fact that they don't belong to the Catholic church.
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 04:48:50 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
dont think we are going to agree ...do you !
I'm not sure whether perception is relevant. In the early 70s the IRA did kill people for solely being Protestant and those two instances in South ARmagh were hardly done by the poor wee downtrodden taigs under the jackboot of Brit occupation in IReland. The South Armagh IRA have always had a pretty affluent life-style imo. Amazing how much money you can find in hay sheds down those parts.
Are we going to agree? No, you seem to be supportive of republican's murder campaign and I cannot agree with that whether you believe it sectarian or anti-British or both. However, the IRA did kill people for solely being Protestant, now they want to "convince" unionists whom they've been bombing/shooting at for years with Anderson, the convicted terrorist Anderson!! If it wasn't so pathetic you could laugh at them.
this is all formed from your 'opinion' and 'perception'
its not fact and instancesof who was killed and so on dont prove a whole lot. Killing peopl eis nonsensical at the best of times and while you can throw all you like at my opinions of 'murder campaigns' etc etc
it does not get away from the fact that these people had to do so to protect themselves from further oppression, persecution, apartheid and near/effectively genocidal acts from the people that were suppposed to be upholding the law - and they did so by aiding and abbetting the equally murderous unionist/ loyalist death squads.
so if you wish to condemn people, then first do so on the people that caused this shame.
Then you can cast the stones on the nationalists that felt they had to take to arms etc. BUT and there is a pause here, you have to admit that there was some serious life threatening reasons of survival that caused the formation of the IRA and nationalists to go to war.
None of your self righteous babble about supporting murder campaigns etc can gloss over this.
I am supportive of the nationalist peoples right to life and to live not as second class citizens. That the unionist/loyalist establishment had to be taught this by retaliation is sad.
I know for a fact that when the power swwings over to the nationalist/Irish people, this same kind of persecution mentality wont be reciprocated.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on February 09, 2009, 04:55:41 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:58:57 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:24:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
What point?
go read BEFORE the part you posted ::)
I have tried.
I gathered that your point was that Protestants in the South had no issues with living in what was essentially a Catholic state. Indeed there are hundreds of thousands of them. Only there aren't. And the fact that their numbers have depleted so significantly since partition surely counters your argument, rather than making your point.
But do feel free to clarify. Or you could just roll your eyes again.
::)
have they really !
well thats news to them and the pockets of non catholics that live fully integrated with the rest of Ireland (that add up to over 100,000 - and that survey didnt inc the recent immigrants from baltic states etc)
check out any GAA or rugby club if you like...thats always a good start.
Clearly it's news to you, not them.
QuoteIn 1991, the population of the Republic of Ireland was approximately 3% Protestant, but the figure was over 10% in 1891, indicating a fall of 70% in the relative Protestant population over the past century.
The effect of Protestant depopulation in the Republic of Ireland is dramatic. In 1861 only the west coast and Kilkenny had less than 6% Protestant. Dublin and 2 of the border counties had over 20% Protestant. In 1991, however, all but 4 counties have less than 6% Protestant, the rest having less than 1%. There are no counties in the Republic of Ireland which have experienced a rise in the relative Protestant population over the period 1861 to 1991.[/
And we're not talking about Ireland now - it's not a Catholic state now as it was in the past.
The immigrants from the baltic states? What has that got to do with this discussion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 02:40:17 PM
but youd know I'm sure having lived down here for so long :D
Down here? I've lived in the north for 20 years - i thought you did too.
better spell out the point as its going over your head
The point being that being protestant or non catholic has not held any problems for people in the 26 counties
also finally, you assume far too much !
That's the second time you've used that term in as many posts. I don't think you appreciate how arrogant it sounds. How would you feel if someone were to announce that there are two kinds of football supporter in the world, Rangers fans and non Rangers fans. The rest of the world should not be defined by the fact that they don't belong to the Catholic church.
the topic was the mindset of non catholics in the 26 counties
get over yourself or are you some kind of amadan
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
That's church
attendance. A different thing altogether. If the census was based on church attendance rather than religious background, there would be a lot fewer people under the 'Catholic'
or 'Protestant' headings.
My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending. What perception and opinion are people to conclude???? FFS catch yourself on.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
better spell out the point as its going over your head
Clearly.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
The point being that being protestant or non catholic has not held any problems for people in the 26 counties
On what basis do you make that assumption? On the basis that the proportion of Protestant people in the 26 counties has fallen from 10% to 3%? Or have you other reasons to back it up.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
also finally, you assume far too much !
What assumptions am i making? Are you the only one allowed to make assumptions? Is it okay for me to 'assume', if it agrees with you?
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 05:03:38 PM
My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending. What perception and opinion are people to conclude???? FFS catch yourself on.
and that contitutes that republicanism and its mantra was purely to kill protestants ?
No I am afraid that we are back to square one and you are incorrect with this assertion.
Are you going to get around to what caused the violence in the first place?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
better spell out the point as its going over your head
Clearly.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
The point being that being protestant or non catholic has not held any problems for people in the 26 counties
On what basis do you make that assumption? On the basis that the proportion of Protestant people in the 26 counties has fallen from 10% to 3%? Or have you other reasons to back it up.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
also finally, you assume far too much !
What assumptions am i making? Are you the only one allowed to make assumptions? Is it okay for me to 'assume', if it agrees with you?
still missing the point that people in the 26 counties (irrespective of you red herring about howmany or even how few) were treated fairly and similarly to all others regardless of religion.
Proving the point we have had multitudes of protestants elected that were TD's, Irish presidents and GAA presidents etc.
So how were protestants badly affected ?
you assume I live in the 6 counties!
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
That's church attendance. A different thing altogether. If the census was based on church attendance rather than religious background, there would be a lot fewer people under the 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' headings.
I am not sure of your point.
It is different but not entirely different.
You would have to provide accurate enough churchgoing stats in Ireland about Protestant churchgoing and measure it's decline.
The census stats are far from an accurate indicator.
Because the Irish census decline in numbers who claim to be Protestant is not matched by a similar decline in nrs who claim to be Catholics could well reflect that Irish Catholic numbers buck the decline trend evident in many other countries. Irish catholicism could well be a particularly resiliant brand of conservative religion.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7112 (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7112)
While around half of the British population believe in a God, some 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian. Yet 65% of the population have no significant connection to any religion or church, it seems.
There has been a dramatic decline in regular churchgoing between 1979 and 2005, and organised religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s and 1960s.
"Arguing about the latest statistics misses the point," commented Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia. "The overall trend for many years has been a falling away of active affiliation from inherited church institutions."
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
still missing the point that people in the 26 counties (irrespective of you red herring about howmany or even how few) were treated fairly and similarly to all others regardless of religion.
Proving the point we have had multitudes of protestants elected that were TD's, Irish presidents and GAA presidents etc.
So how were protestants badly affected ?
I'm not missing the point at all. Yes, many Protestants have prospered in the Republic. And no, there wasn't widespread discrimination against them as there was against Catholics in Northern Ireland.
And yes, there are a number of reasons for their decline (significantly inter-faith marriages and Catholic Church's insistence on children from such marriages being Catholic).
I'd be interested to hear your understanding of why the number of Protestants in RoI have dropped so significantly. I think it's a bit cheap to just dismiss it as a red herring.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
you assume I live in the 6 counties!
Well if you don't live in the 6 counties, then you're from the 6 counties. A fair assumption on the basis of your avatar. I'm happy to stand corrected.
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 05:39:55 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
That's church attendance. A different thing altogether. If the census was based on church attendance rather than religious background, there would be a lot fewer people under the 'Catholic' or 'Protestant' headings.
I am not sure of your point.
It is different but not entirely different.
You would have to provide accurate enough churchgoing stats in Ireland about Protestant churchgoing and measure it's decline.
The census stats are far from an accurate indicator.
Because the Irish census decline in numbers who claim to be Protestant is not matched by a similar decline in nrs who claim to be Catholics could well reflect that Irish Catholic numbers buck the decline trend evident in many other countries. Irish catholicism could well be a particularly resiliant brand of conservative religion.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7112 (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7112)
While around half of the British population believe in a God, some 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian. Yet 65% of the population have no significant connection to any religion or church, it seems.
There has been a dramatic decline in regular churchgoing between 1979 and 2005, and organised religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s and 1960s.
"Arguing about the latest statistics misses the point," commented Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia. "The overall trend for many years has been a falling away of active affiliation from inherited church institutions."
My point was simply that the number of Protestants who go to Church is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the total number of Protestants. Added to that, 'church attendance' data must be extremely crude. How is it measured? It's not like churches keep a record of numbers through the door. I'd imagine the census would be significantly more reliable.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:44:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
still missing the point that people in the 26 counties (irrespective of you red herring about howmany or even how few) were treated fairly and similarly to all others regardless of religion.
Proving the point we have had multitudes of protestants elected that were TD's, Irish presidents and GAA presidents etc.
So how were protestants badly affected ?
I'm not missing the point at all. Yes, many Protestants have prospered in the Republic. And no, there wasn't widespread discrimination against them as there was against Catholics in Northern Ireland.
And yes, there are a number of reasons for their decline (significantly inter-faith marriages and Catholic Church's insistence on children from such marriages being Catholic).
I'd be interested to hear your understanding of why the number of Protestants in RoI have dropped so significantly. I think it's a bit cheap to just dismiss it as a red herring.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
you assume I live in the 6 counties!
Well if you don't live in the 6 counties, then you're from the 6 counties. A fair assumption on the basis of your avatar. I'm happy to stand corrected.
I dont really care about why the numbers have dropped - coul dit be that people of protestant faith like those of catholic faith no longer give a fiddlers ?
either way it doesnt matter to my point,you brought up the aspect of numbers (I was incorrect saying multiples of hundred thousands when its only one hundred thousand)
either way its off track.
yes to your second question, but again thats in relation to the point you posed , I merely answered it (eg 'down here' which I am).
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
Bloody Hell! That's up there with your post about the "banning" of Jim Murphy and Ziggy from OWC for idiocy! ::)
The statistics I quoted about Protestants and RC's etc in Ireland were of those who identified themselves as belonging to the respective communities by census. They were
not a reflection of their church-going habits.
For the purposes of this argument, I would be considered an NI "Prod", despite the fact that I am actually an Atheist who, weddings or funerals aside, hasn't set foot in Church or Chapel for decades. ::)
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
My point was simply that the number of Protestants who go to Church is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the total number of Protestants. Added to that, 'church attendance' data must be extremely crude. How is it measured? It's not like churches keep a record of numbers through the door. I'd imagine the census would be significantly more reliable.
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
All common sense points to churchgoing as a much more sound indicator. This is what an organised religion expect as a minimum from those they regard as being of their faith.
Reseasch has been professionally carried out by Christian Research, the methods used and figures obtained are published formally and have not been challenged. In fact they have been more or less accepted.
Attendance is broken down to daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quaterly,, bi annual or annual attendance.
Census stats are just the result of a mere mark on a page, what effort it takes to put a stroke in the right box?
Churchgoing is measured by visible bums on seats.
It's a no brainer which of the statistics carry more weight.
so what are we talking about here? who's right and who's wrong? does it matter? will it make a difference? and what the F*uck is happening on Lost
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 09, 2009, 05:57:25 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
There doesn't appear to be anything remarkable about dwindling nr.s of Protestants in the South.
Part of a wider trend.
For instance in England, Anglican church goers have dwindled by a startling 100% since 1979
(from 1.6m to .8m approx) according to figures published by Christian Research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece)
Bloody Hell! That's up there with your post about the "banning" of Jim Murphy and Ziggy from OWC for idiocy! ::)
Which indicates that you have a peculiar understanding of idiocy
QuoteThe statistics I quoted about Protestants and RC's etc in Ireland were of those who identified themselves as belonging to the respective communities by census. They were not a reflection of their church-going habits.
So what.
QuoteFor the purposes of this argument
What argument are you talking about?
QuoteI would be considered an NI "Prod", despite the fact that I am actually an Atheist who, weddings or funerals aside, hasn't set foot in Church or Chapel for decades. ::)
Which is anecdotal proof that census stats mean feck all ;)
QuoteCuriously, for people bent-on "genocidal-esque" policies (as you put it), NI's Unionists weren't actually very good at pursuing a policy of "Taigs Out", whereas that bastion of tolerance and liberalism, the Free State, wasn't so good at keeping "Prods In".
A couple of points about this. This intermarriage thing would have had exactly the same effect regardless of the government in power, this resulted from social relationships freely entered into. But many protestants in the ROI were descended from those who changed religion when the times suited, to preserve land inheritance in penal times, soupers and so on. These people didn't place much value on being protestants and hardly regarded changing back as major trauma.
But as a general point from the 1920's to the 1960's Britain was twice as prosperous as the 26 counties, if you thought of yourself as British it is perfectly logical to go to the place you identify with, especially as it is more prosperous. What is less reasonable are those who identify with Britain but rather than just going there who persist in staying here causing trouble.
People who regard themselves simply as Irish citizens have done well in the ROI from all faiths.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:54:27 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:44:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
still missing the point that people in the 26 counties (irrespective of you red herring about howmany or even how few) were treated fairly and similarly to all others regardless of religion.
Proving the point we have had multitudes of protestants elected that were TD's, Irish presidents and GAA presidents etc.
So how were protestants badly affected ?
I'm not missing the point at all. Yes, many Protestants have prospered in the Republic. And no, there wasn't widespread discrimination against them as there was against Catholics in Northern Ireland.
And yes, there are a number of reasons for their decline (significantly inter-faith marriages and Catholic Church's insistence on children from such marriages being Catholic).
I'd be interested to hear your understanding of why the number of Protestants in RoI have dropped so significantly. I think it's a bit cheap to just dismiss it as a red herring.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:10:49 PM
you assume I live in the 6 counties!
Well if you don't live in the 6 counties, then you're from the 6 counties. A fair assumption on the basis of your avatar. I'm happy to stand corrected.
I dont really care about why the numbers have dropped - coul dit be that people of protestant faith like those of catholic faith no longer give a fiddlers ?
either way it doesnt matter to my point,you brought up the aspect of numbers (I was incorrect saying multiples of hundred thousands when its only one hundred thousand)
either way its off track.
The numbers of those identifying themselves as "Protestant" in the ROI have declined by two thirds since Partition i.e. from just over 300k, to just over 100k. The fact that many may no longer "give a fiddlers" about organised religion is irrelevant, since that also applies to RC's, yet the proportion of "Neithers" etc has not increased correspondingly.
Therefore, that social/religious/ethnic grouping commonly identified as "Protestants" has now declined to an extent as to be deemed "statistically irrelevant" by demographers.
Now I'm not claiming that this alarming drop was solely down to intimidation and violence - although that was undoubtedly a factor for a significant number, including some of my own relatives. (Or just Google "Cork"+"Protestants" etc to see how many were forced out from there at gunpoint during the early 1920's).
Nor would I claim that straightforward Discrimination in the Republic was to blame, either, (though I know of examples of that, too).
But as Maguire01 has pointed out, objectionable Catholic religious zealotry such as the
Ne Temere Doctrine (which has no direct equivalent in Protestantism, btw) has specifically led to a decline in numbers, reinforced by a state which openly espoused the "Special Positition" of Catholicism in its very Constitution.
And more generally, there was a feeling by many Protestants that if life in the Republic was tolerable, even privileged for some, nonetheless it was not a welcoming place for them, nor never would be, so long as they insisted on choosing a different path from that of the majority.
Consequently, the choice for many was Conversion, Emigration or Re-Settlement North of the Border.
Still, Sam Maguire was a Prod, so there can have been nothing to complain about, can there? ::)
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:08:28 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
My point was simply that the number of Protestants who go to Church is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the total number of Protestants. Added to that, 'church attendance' data must be extremely crude. How is it measured? It's not like churches keep a record of numbers through the door. I'd imagine the census would be significantly more reliable.
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
All common sense points to churchgoing as a much more sound indicator. This is what an organised religion expect as a minimum from those they regard as being of their faith.
Reseasch has been professionally carried out by Christian Research, the methods used and figures obtained are published formally and have not been challenged. In fact they have been more or less accepted.
Attendance is broken down to daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, quaterly,, bi annual or annual attendance.
Census stats are just the result of a mere mark on a page, what effort it takes to put a stroke in the right box?
Churchgoing is measured by visible bums on seats.
It's a no brainer which of the statistics carry more weight.
Yes, i would have thought so.
Research by Christian Research is no doubt based on sampling. (I've no doubt that they've got the trend correct by the way.)
Census is based on 100% (or as close as possible) of the population. Even given the couple of % to those putting a stroke in the wrong box (there can't be that many!), i'd imagine census figures to be a good indicator.
But back to my first point. You say:
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?My point is that church attendance does not equal 'faith' or 'religious identity'. The figures originally quoted in this thread were not in relation to church attendance.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 06:25:08 PM
But back to my first point. You say:
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
My point is that church attendance does not equal 'faith' or 'religious identity'. The figures originally quoted in this thread were not in relation to church attendance.
And my point simply is that those census stats for decline in prods in the South don't have any special significance.
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:30:26 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 06:25:08 PM
But back to my first point. You say:
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
My point is that church attendance does not equal 'faith' or 'religious identity'. The figures originally quoted in this thread were not in relation to church attendance.
And my point simply is that those census stats for decline in prods in the South don't have any special significance.
Why not?
You'd have to compare another census to say that. You'd have to compare like with like surely. You can't compare a census and a survey.
Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.
In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.
There is no evidence to indicate that the decline in census numbers in the South is anymore than the severe decline evident elsewhere.
Even if you imagine that the census question has significance, even if you surmise there are reasons for the decline in numbers of Prods in the South there is no evidence to suggest that that the decline is any greater than that which has happened elsewhere.
I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.
edit
comparing the different results of a faulty method is muddy waters.
Why did the starter of this thread put Irish in commas?
Surely it should have been "Southern"(sic) in commas?
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.
I still do!
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.
But the trend is in church
attendance - not affilliation. Is the number of Protestants in other countries declining (i.e. not the number actually attending Church)? That would be the compaison.
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.
We're not. :P
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2009, 09:06:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.
I still do!
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.
But the trend is in church attendance - not affilliation. Is the number of Protestants in other countries declining (i.e. not the number actually attending Church)? That would be the compaison.
Quote from: Main Street on February 09, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.
We're not. :P
This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.
No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.
They belong to a special distinct group, we shall call it the Church of the Invisible Connection - to a non manifested religious belief.
You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy ::)
Previously I gave you the church attendance figure for Anglicans.
Lets keep focussed on Anglicans.
Shall we look at Baptisms, surely the bare minimum is a fecking baptism, no matter what a person says in a census form, if they are not baptised then they have absolutly no connection to that Church.
Are we agreed on that?
No Baptism - No Way
sources
Grace Davie - Religion in Britain since 1945 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631184449/vexencrabtree (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631184449/vexencrabtree)
Steve Bruce - Religion in the Modern World http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/bruce_religion.html (http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/bruce_religion.html)
Anglican baptisms have declined from 70 out of 100 babies born in 1930 to 27 out of a 100 babies born in 1990
"The decline in this number from the 1930s was slow, from a peak of about 70%, from the 1950s the decline has been rapid. In the 1990s, 3 out of 10 newborns have been baptised. Infant baptism has always been an important source of recruitment for Anglican churches, the slight increase in adult baptisms has not made up the numbers."Terry Sanderson,from the National Secular Society said,
"Things got so slow, the church seemed to be losing its "core business", - the "hatch, match and dispatch" trilogy of births, marriages and deaths. "People want to welcome their child into the world without welcoming them into the church."http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/394203.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/394203.stm)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 05:03:38 PM
My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending. What perception and opinion are people to conclude???? FFS catch yourself on.
and that contitutes that republicanism and its mantra was purely to kill protestants ?
No I am afraid that we are back to square one and you are incorrect with this assertion.
I am totally correct in my assertion that republicans killed Protestants for simply being Protestants. I am also correct in asserting that they also killed indiscriminately men, women and children of all faiths and none. The also murdered security force members, usually by the most cowardly of terrorist tactics.
No matter what their 'mantra' or what you would like to believe to be their mantra, these facts remain and any analysis of their actions proves it.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PMAre you going to get around to what caused the violence in the first place?
No, as this is simply a diversionary tactic to draw the discussion into another area and away from your bare-faced lie that you told.
Quote from: Roger on February 10, 2009, 09:20:53 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 09, 2009, 05:03:38 PM
My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending. What perception and opinion are people to conclude???? FFS catch yourself on.
and that contitutes that republicanism and its mantra was purely to kill protestants ?
No I am afraid that we are back to square one and you are incorrect with this assertion.
I am totally correct in my assertion that republicans killed Protestants for simply being Protestants. I am also correct in asserting that they also killed indiscriminately men, women and children of all faiths and none. The also murdered security force members, usually by the most cowardly of terrorist tactics.
No matter what their 'mantra' or what you would like to believe to be their mantra, these facts remain and any analysis of their actions proves it.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PMAre you going to get around to what caused the violence in the first place?
No, as this is simply a diversionary tactic to draw the discussion into another area and away from your bare-faced lie that you told.
judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.
Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.
Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' ::) side, you will continue to run away from it.
have you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.
You being the expert, please tell me why republicans burst into a church service and massacred the Protestants at Darkley. Please explain the nationalist/republican thinking behind picking out Catholics from a group of people and then shooting all the Protestants. What about a shop keeper in the city-side of Londonderry who was a Protestant and one of the catalysts for mass movement of almost thousands of Protestants from the republican stronghold of the west-bank there. FFS these things happened but if you care to tell me it was because they were not targeted and murdered because of their religion you are simply a liar. What on earth were these people targeted for if not for their religion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.
Another lie. I have never said their only motive was purely to kill protestants. I have said that there have been cases were republicans killed Protestants for being Protestant though. You deny this and are a liar, adding insult by trying to bury it along with other murders that you feel were worthy of calling a "war".
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).
What the f**k are you on about. Your argument is all over the place trying to justify the injustifiable and telling lies which you claimed didn't happen, then said they did but it was understandable and then hiding behind a "mantra" for justifying murder.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.
They were. You know it and everyone else knows it. Catholics were also targeted and security force personnel were also targeted. The "revolution" turned out to be non-sectarian and has now gone full circle with unionists needing to be "convinced" by the honey-trap terrorist herself.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' ::) side, you will continue to run away from it.
Lynch I have not run away from engaging or answering your question about the cause of violence. As I have told you it is not relevant as to whether there were sectarian murders by republicans. It is a different issue and not one you can sidetrack to hide your lies.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PMhave you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.
I can identify murder and happy to call it as such by whoever commits it. I would not call it anything else and would never try to excuse it or deny it. You have frequently shown that you excuse and deny murder. There is no point in debating other issues when you tell lies about the most simple and basic issue.
Quote from: Roger on February 10, 2009, 12:35:44 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.
You being the expert, please tell me why republicans burst into a church service and massacred the Protestants at Darkley. Please explain the nationalist/republican thinking behind picking out Catholics from a group of people and then shooting all the Protestants. What about a shop keeper in the city-side of Londonderry who was a Protestant and one of the catalysts for mass movement of almost thousands of Protestants from the republican stronghold of the west-bank there. FFS these things happened but if you care to tell me it was because they were not targeted and murdered because of their religion you are simply a liar. What on earth were these people targeted for if not for their religion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.
Another lie. I have never said their only motive was purely to kill protestants. I have said that there have been cases were republicans killed Protestants for being Protestant though. You deny this and are a liar, adding insult by trying to bury it along with other murders that you feel were worthy of calling a "war".
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).
What the f**k are you on about. Your argument is all over the place trying to justify the injustifiable and telling lies which you claimed didn't happen, then said they did but it was understandable and then hiding behind a "mantra" for justifying murder.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.
They were. You know it and everyone else knows it. Catholics were also targeted and security force personnel were also targeted. The "revolution" turned out to be non-sectarian and has now gone full circle with unionists needing to be "convinced" by the honey-trap terrorist herself.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' ::) side, you will continue to run away from it.
Lynch I have not run away from engaging or answering your question about the cause of violence. As I have told you it is not relevant as to whether there were sectarian murders by republicans. It is a different issue and not one you can sidetrack to hide your lies.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PMhave you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.
I can identify murder and happy to call it as such by whoever commits it. I would not call it anything else and would never try to excuse it or deny it. You have frequently shown that you excuse and deny murder. There is no point in debating other issues when you tell lies about the most simple and basic issue.
whataboutery at its best
who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.
You half acknowledge this then you run off in the other direction.
You dont know - you are wrong -so admit it !
what are you talking about yourself, see-sawing all round the houses to try and hide away from giving me an answer.
I responded to your question, so you are saying you cant/wont respond tomine about the beginnings and blame for the origination of all this trouble and war ?
it is relevent, as you cannot have effect without cause !
Your convenient labelling of republicans killing sounds oh so much better when you factor out who it was that started all the atrocities !
if yer gonna keep flinging that childish abusive tone of 'liar' about, you better have something to back it up !
You cant 'order taigs about' these days ya know :D
I certainly dont endorse any killing, but am not going to allow blinkered folks like you re-writing history, ignoring the earlier and important parts where the problems came from.
Is it just guilt you are feeling thats causing you to refuse to acknowledge the unionists/loyalist blame?
Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a British Army review of the war.
"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe. from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:49:55 PM
who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.
This one really has gone around the houses. I don't think that
anyone is saying that the IRA's
sole or
pure mission/objective was to kill Protestants. But that may well have been the reason in
some cases - some Protestants were killed because of their religion. You've admitted that much yourself.
So what's the issue?
It may have been the reason for some killings, but was not the primary objective - is it not that simple?
And yes, we all know what started it all etc - and whilst it's obviously relevant to the bigger picture, it's just a diversion from what is being discussed here.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.
I know how you feel.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.
Yes, you may be right.
But this topic was regarding what was basically a sectarian headcount. It's about religious affilliation, not practice. It's like applying for public sector jobs in NI - regardless of whether you practice, your family/community background (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is asked for.
In this respect, the census does what it is supposed to do. And as the original figures at the turn of the last century (i.e. the 10% Protestant figure) came from a census, that's my rationale for comparing with current census figures - like with like (assuming a similar margin for error).
Furthermore, prior to the recent immigration influx, Catholic mass attendance was in similar freefall, yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy ::)
Very patronising.
But i'll clarify - my issue is not with the research itself, but the fact that you're comparing like with like.
And just to clarify - i do not dispute the declining numbers of church attendance or religious practice.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 01:12:28 PM
Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a British Army review of the war.
"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe. from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.
never heard of it MS
but I'd agree with al that especially the last line !
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2009, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 12:49:55 PM
who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.
This one really has gone around the houses. I don't think that anyone is saying that the IRA's sole or pure mission/objective was to kill Protestants. But that may well have been the reason in some cases - some Protestants were killed because of their religion. You've admitted that much yourself.
So what's the issue?
It may have been the reason for some killings, but was not the primary objective - is it not that simple?
And yes, we all know what started it all etc - and whilst it's obviously relevant to the bigger picture, it's just a diversion from what is being discussed here.
not in disagreement with what you are saying
yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.
I wouldnt call it a diversion, but if rog wants to look at thinks in isolation, then I felt the need to open up to the bigger picture.
Plus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.
No Maguire said that on occasion they probably did target Prods for their religion and that you had admitted it too. You have argued differently throughout this thread and said "never". Well except on the one occasion you dropped your guard and seemed to agree and admit it.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 02:36:32 PMPlus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!
Is that aimed at me?
Quote from: Roger on February 10, 2009, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.
No Maguire said that on occasion they probably did target Prods for their religion and that you had admitted it too. You have argued differently throughout this thread and said "never". Well except on the one occasion you dropped your guard and seemed to agree and admit it.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 02:36:32 PMPlus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!
Is that aimed at me?
I agreed with this
I don't think that anyone is saying that the IRA's sole or pure mission/objective was to kill Protestantsthe rest is effectively irrelevent because this does not constitute the republican movement as being out to target people because of their religion.
The guard being dropped is my saying that there are instances where protestants have been killed that to some could be constituted as so, but as I made you aware of before , not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.
you certainly dont. I dont pretend to know.
So to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.
(did you see Main street's post)
Also I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2009, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.
I know how you feel.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.
Yes, you may be right.
But this topic was regarding what was basically a sectarian headcount. It's about religious affilliation, not practice. It's like applying for public sector jobs in NI - regardless of whether you practice, your family/community background (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is asked for.
In this respect, the census does what it is supposed to do. And as the original figures at the turn of the last century (i.e. the 10% Protestant figure) came from a census, that's my rationale for comparing with current census figures - like with like (assuming a similar margin for error).
Furthermore, prior to the recent immigration influx, Catholic mass attendance was in similar freefall, yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy ::)
Very patronising.
But i'll clarify - my issue is not with the research itself, but the fact that you're comparing like with like.
And just to clarify - i do not dispute the declining numbers of church attendance or religious practice.
Sorry for appearing patronising, it's more exasperation.
I think you might have understood that I did not dispute declining numbers of protestants in the South.
Get that clear.
I think you might have understood that I was trying to explain that numbers of Protestants have declined elsewhere, even that they declined in greater numbers in England. That the decline in the South was part of a wider trend.
You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.
You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.
Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.
The declining numbers in protestants in the South has been used as some sort of evidence of some sort of underhand pogrom.
The totally discredited Peter Hart, even proclaimed as some sort of historian ::)
Protestants married Catholics in England and in Ireland.
Protestants lost interest in England and they lost interest in Ireland
Protestants numbers have radically declined in England.
Nobody in England afaik comes out and uses the declining numbers as anything other than a natural phenonomen.
Quoteyet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.
Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PM
not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.
For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMSo to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.
To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion. All identified Prods were shot.
You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all? The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMAlso I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!
I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue. I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.
I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967. ;)
Quote from: Roger on February 10, 2009, 05:41:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PM
not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.
For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMSo to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.
To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion. All identified Prods were shot.
You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all? The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMAlso I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!
I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue. I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.
telling lies :D
there are a few examples of where protestants were killed, but this does not mean let alone prove that republicans targetted protestants specifically for their religion alone - far from it.
You wont understand or cannot understand. Its not a case of anyone saying it was right, again I dont think this, but you are attempting to re-write history her with these isolated incidents.
However you wont even reciprocate with answers to my questions, you could use your own words here when you dismiss the cause, beginning and genocidal aims of protestant ranked establishment .
As for targettin nationalists, I think there are a number of incidents and actual prescribed govenmental documents on shoot to kill policy, plus you are getting back to where I am asking you to start from - the pre 1968 era when nationalists were victimised, oppressed, persecuted - all of whch has been witnessed and noted by UN and various independent bodies plus the Brit gov archives speak volumes when these documents are annually released!
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted. The beginning, when there was no provocation no military /armed fightback.
then tell me about who was targetting who based solely on religion.
However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.
talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:00:31 PM
I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967. ;)
I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank with 'lies and smokescreens' on that topic at the moment!
:D
I have no doubt that different members of the IRA and INLA etc had different motives for becoming involved in what they term the "armed struggle". Some of these motives will be understandable, some might even be thought "noble" (defending your homes etc) - at least until the reality of what that involvement required them to do kicked in.
Anyhow, I have no doubt that the motives of at least some other of those activists were essentially sectarian, no matter how much they or their colleagues would like to deny it.
The consequences are to be found in any number of massacres of people for no other reason than that they were Protestants. For how else can one explain the "Catholic Action Force" [sic] (INLA) entering a Gospel Hall in Darkley, South Armagh during a service and spraying the congregation - men, women and children - with machine guns? And it is not just by their deeds that they may be judged; the proof is to be found in the words of some of those activists, too.
One particular such example is Sean O'Callaghan, a Kerryman from an ardent, traditional Republic background, who became involved in his early teens. Eventually, of course, he came to regret his involvement and leave the Provos, subsequently rejecting them and "blowing the whistle" on what he and his colleagues had been up to. Here is one excerpt from his Memoirs, describing the naked sectarian hatred of some of them, including even direct involvement by individual members of the RC clergy:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n1_v49/ai_19071766/pg_3?tag=content;col1
"In May 1974 I was sent to the Mid Ulster Brigade of the IRA. On May 2, along with up to forty IRA men from the East Tyrone Brigade, I took part in an attack on an army/UDR [Ulster Defense Regiment] base at the Deanery in Clogher, County Tyrone. There was a heavy gun battle which lasted up to twenty minutes before we withdrew. We made our way to safe houses over the border in Monaghan. It was not until we listened to the early morning radio news that we heard that a UDR Greenfinch named Eva Martin had been killed. It would be wrong to say that any of us were disappointed at the news.
I stayed in Tyrone until August of 1975. During that period I took part in about seventy attacks, mainly against members of the security forces. In one of those attacks, I along with two others murdered a detective inspector in the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary] special branch called Peter Flanagan. We shot him dead in a public house in Omagh, County Tyrone. The two people who carried out this murder with me were both younger than me. Both were from Belfast. The driver was little more than a young girl. The other was 17 years old and had escaped from youth custody in Belfast while charged with murdering a soldier. He was arrested in 1975 and charged with attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and is still in custody today. He was transferred to Northern Ireland and will probably be released in the next year or so. He has never been charged with the murder which he committed with me.
BY the time that I murdered Flanagan doubts were already forming in my mind about the real nature of the Provisional IRA. IRA volunteers in Tyrone were on the whole far more sectarian than I was or ever could be. Their Catholicism was of a virulent and hate-filled brand. It is, in retrospect, hard to see how it could have been otherwise. Militant Irish nationalism and Irish Catholicism have a deep and complex relationship, nowhere more so than in rural areas of Northern Ireland like Tyrone, Fermanagh, and Armagh.
During this period I was involved in recruiting new IRA volunteers. One of our main safe houses was a parochial house outside Omagh. Sometimes we used that house to initiate new members. Imagine the effect on a young uneducated country lad brought to his parochial house under cover of darkness to be inducted into the IRA. Try telling him that the Church was not on his side. One of the local priests usually called on another house in that area where I and other IRA men often stayed. He took great delight in asking us to relate our latest escapades. He was also forever passing on information about local Protestants: usually members or ex-members of the UDR or RUC. At least one of these was later murdered by the Provisional IRA.
This was, in reality, a war against Protestants. There was a deep, ugly hatred, centuries old, behind all of this. The prods had the better farms, the better jobs that belonged by right to the Catholics, and they wanted them. If I wanted to attack a British army patrol or barracks, the local Provos wanted to shoot a part-time UDR or police reservist. They wanted to murder their neighbors. They wanted to drive the Protestants off the land and reclaim what they believed was their birthright. Gradually the reality was getting through to me. This was no romantic struggle against British imperialism but a squalid sectarian war directed against the Protestant people of Northern Ireland.
In March or April of 1975, I was in a flat in Monaghan town. The flat was a base for IRA men from the East Tyrone Brigade. That evening there were perhaps eight people, all full-time IRA activists, all on the run from Northern Ireland. I was making tea when a news item on the television about the death of an RUC woman in a bomb explosion was greeted with, "I hope she's pregnant and we get two for the price of one."
I felt utterly sickened and revolted. More so even when I realized who had spoken -- a Tyrone man who was second in command of the Provisional IRA and a man I held in the highest regard; a man to whom I had thought seriously about addressing my doubts and fears. I went to another room where I just wanted to cry my eyes out. That man later became the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA"
Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one ::) God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:17:39 PM
Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one ::) God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.
I'd love to know where you'd find an unbiased observer, either on this board or on this island!
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.
For what purpose? For comparison. You're comparing 1900
census figures based on
religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of
research based on
church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison.
I have also accepted that interfaith marriages played a big part in the diminishing number of Protestants. But it is also evident that many left the Republic following partition - presumably for various reasons. It is not simply the case that the same number/proportion of people from a Protestant background are still in the Republic, only they don't bother with religion anymore. It's probably a bit of both.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.
Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.
Again, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
Quoteyet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.
Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
92% of Irish people are Catholic / 87% of all people (including immigrants)
I'm not sure of the criteria, but my point is that it is the same criteria used to count the number of Protestants.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
You have mickey moused around using "like for like" evidence, for what purpose I don't know.
I suspect that it's a refusal to look at something which challenges a preconception.
For what purpose? For comparison. You're comparing 1900 census figures based on religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of research based on church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison.
I have also accepted that interfaith marriages played a big part in the diminishing number of Protestants. But it is also evident that many left the Republic following partition - presumably for various reasons. It is not simply the case that the same number/proportion of people from a Protestant background are still in the Republic, only they don't bother with religion anymore. It's probably a bit of both.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
You challenge my use of church attendance figure in displaying the decline of the numbers of protestants in England.
I then offered you baptisimal evidence. You appear to have ignored that evidence as a decline in the nr of protestants in England.
Then you offer some sort of an acceptance of decline in numbers in protestants in England but on the other hand you appear not to accept.
mentioning like for like.
Again, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
Quoteyet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.
Apparantly to who?
Who claims this?
Does the Catholic Church claim membership of 90% of the people?
What is the criteria in order for one to be claimed as a part of that 90%.
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm
92% of Irish people are Catholic / 87% of all people (including immigrants)
I'm not sure of the criteria, but my point is that it is the same criteria used to count the number of Protestants.
What about the 20% in the north who are protestant? Are they not Irish too?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
You're comparing 1900 census figures based on religious affiliation with a 2007/8 piece of research based on church attendance.
It's not refusal on my part. I accept the findings of that resarch - it's just not a direct comparison
No I am not just comparing a research from 2007/8.
I am using figures research throughout the 20C from a wide range of researchers, I gave you some of the more prominant links.
Figures produced through meticulous methods of research, published down through the decades and have not been disputed or discredited as proof that the numbers of Protestants have seriously dwindled in England, just like they have dwindled in number in Ireland.
If you accept those figures then there is no need to stretch this issue out any longer.
QuoteAgain, i challenged it because it's not strictly about faith or belief, but about affiliation. Do unbaptised people have no traditional affiliation with a religious group? Maybe their parent's religion? I don't know the answer to that one myself.
If you are not baptised into a mainstream religion you have no minimum connection with that religion, unless you are a Quaker or Salvation Army.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Roger on February 10, 2009, 05:41:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PM
not knowing the reasoning or motive ofr particular incident - who knows.
For someone who hasn't a clue about republicans, how can you know the motive of unionists, loyalists, and HMG whom you stated targeted people solely based on their religion?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMSo to recap yet again.
the republican side did NOT set out to target protestants, please show me evidence where this can be proved otherwise.
To recap again I gave you three examples of this, one example even included holding people at gunpoint and selecting people for murder having asked them their religion. All identified Prods were shot.
You either seem to think it didn't happen, or it's ok as it was a war (in which case it would be a war crime) or else it's not important because the real issue is who started it all? The dead Protestants gunned down like rats in a barrel for no other reason than their religion aren't asking about who started what, and when someone like you can't admit what happened nor will I be suggesting any answers.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 04:03:57 PMAlso I wasnt pointing you out in particular for being one of those running away from soliciting me with an answer regarding the cause of all the problems etc as there have been a good few on here who I have asked,
but you are just the latest one to avoid the question and run away!
I have stated why I am not getting involved in a side issue. I am happy to discuss it but not in this context as it is irrelevant when you are telling lies, excusing and providing smoke-screens about what actually happened.
telling lies :D
there are a few examples of where protestants were killed, but this does not mean let alone prove that republicans targetted protestants specifically for their religion alone - far from it.
You wont understand or cannot understand. Its not a case of anyone saying it was right, again I dont think this, but you are attempting to re-write history her with these isolated incidents.
However you wont even reciprocate with answers to my questions, you could use your own words here when you dismiss the cause, beginning and genocidal aims of protestant ranked establishment .
As for targettin nationalists, I think there are a number of incidents and actual prescribed govenmental documents on shoot to kill policy, plus you are getting back to where I am asking you to start from - the pre 1968 era when nationalists were victimised, oppressed, persecuted - all of whch has been witnessed and noted by UN and various independent bodies plus the Brit gov archives speak volumes when these documents are annually released!
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted. The beginning, when there was no provocation no military /armed fightback.
then tell me about who was targetting who based solely on religion.
However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.Get over it.
talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise ::)
Their motives weren't entirely sectarian, I agree. They were more racist, IMO.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 10, 2009, 01:12:28 PM
Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a British Army review of the war.
"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe. from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".
The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.
never heard of it MS
but I'd agree with al that especially the last line !
It is a British Army document, so the starting point of approach to its utterances are one of serious disbelief.
Nevertheless it is an interesting account of the 30 year war from their perspective.
Where torture reads as "deep interrogation techniques" ::)
The document was withdrawn from public access after protests about it wrongfully claiming that an unarmed Derry youth of 15 shot dead, was a "terrorist".
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted.
Despite your diversionary accusations, at no stage have I used whataboutery. I have no doubt that Catholics were targeted because of their religion by 'Loyalist' paramilitaries. I condemn them for the murdering bastards that they are. To me all paramilitary groups are terrorist scum and cannot be excused or defended. However, for you to say "for all your wee incidents" and make light of some of the most heinous crimes is pathetic.
I have also stated my view on the development of the Provos and how they shifted their targets and clarifying their 'enemy'
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.
You can kid yourself about what you know if you like. Their actions, particularly in the early 70s were extremely sectarian.
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise ::)
Lynch, you have defended the indefensible saying you don't know republican motives for the atrocities they committed yet you seem to know the motives of "unionist/loyalist/crown forces". See below the quote that I have singularly accused you of lying about were you stated that republicans NEVER targeted anyone because of their religion.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
This is a bare faced lie and you subsequently tried to dilute your false statement by adding "mantra" into the whole things. You then stated this.....
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
I would expect that by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.
Your dilution is just hiding behind the word "default" which all paramilitaries could argue when the unionist / nationalist communities had been largely polarized into Prod / Catholic, and then you hide behind not knowing their motives yet when given clear evidence, which you yourself requested, hide again by saying isolated incident etc. These men were murdered by republicans solely because of their religion which you said NEVER happened.
You have consistently peppered your silly position defending the indefensible before squirming with demands like this below.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Now, please confirm to me that the targetting of nationalists was religiously motivated by the perportrating unionist/loyalist/crown forces/b specials etc factions before/at the beginning/after 1968 periods - and that was the reason that caused nationalists/catholics to retaliate !
I am happy to discuss causes of the terror campaigns or other historical events with you, "Rossfan" (btw why the inverted commas?) or others if a reasonable position is taken. But there is simply no point when you demand confirmation of your own opinion yet deny factual events that happened and add propaganda to your arguments mixed in with smug, condescending and patronising shite that plays to the gallery of nationalists who are predominant on this board. Maybe they are impressed, who knows? However, this is not running away, it's just there is point for either of us doing so for the reasons above.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:17:39 PM
Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one ::) God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.
yes - the testimony of one man (even if this was to be believed and not another hyped up episode) is now supposedly the rationale for all republicans?
thats what some of these people would like you to believe !
It fits in with their demonisation and how they can try to drag the story or retaliation down into the mire along with themselves who are already guilty for their crimes of death squads, apartheid,oppression etc and goes towards their desire to 'equalise' the retaliation with the original sin !
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276
For all your wee incidents, you can look back to many on the nationalist side where they were targetted.
Despite your diversionary accusations, at no stage have I used whataboutery. I have no doubt that Catholics were targeted because of their religion by 'Loyalist' paramilitaries. I condemn them for the murdering b**tards that they are. To me all paramilitary groups are terrorist scum and cannot be excused or defended. However, for you to say "for all your wee incidents" and make light of some of the most heinous crimes is pathetic.
I have also stated my view on the development of the Provos and how they shifted their targets and clarifying their 'enemy'
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276However it matters not, we know that the provos motives were not religion based.
Get over it.
You can kid yourself about what you know if you like. Their actions, particularly in the early 70s were extremely sectarian.
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=11033.msg476276#msg476276talking of telling lies and smoke screens - yer floundering here - no decent reason for running away from defending the indefensible?
quelle surprise ::)
Lynch, you have defended the indefensible saying you don't know republican motives for the atrocities they committed yet you seem to know the motives of "unionist/loyalist/crown forces". See below the quote that I have singularly accused you of lying about were you stated that republicans NEVER targeted anyone because of their religion.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
The targets were never protestant or catholic for their religion (unlike the unionist/loyalist/crown forces targets)
This is a bare faced lie and you subsequently tried to dilute your false statement by adding "mantra" into the whole things. You then stated this.....
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
I would expect that by default some targets on a number of occasions were protestant. Hardly surprising.
Your dilution is just hiding behind the word "default" which all paramilitaries could argue when the unionist / nationalist communities had been largely polarized into Prod / Catholic, and then you hide behind not knowing their motives yet when given clear evidence, which you yourself requested, hide again by saying isolated incident etc. These men were murdered by republicans solely because of their religion which you said NEVER happened.
You have consistently peppered your silly position defending the indefensible before squirming with demands like this below.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 09, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
Now, please confirm to me that the targetting of nationalists was religiously motivated by the perportrating unionist/loyalist/crown forces/b specials etc factions before/at the beginning/after 1968 periods - and that was the reason that caused nationalists/catholics to retaliate !
I am happy to discuss causes of the terror campaigns or other historical events with you, "Rossfan" (btw why the inverted commas?) or others if a reasonable position is taken. But there is simply no point when you demand confirmation of your own opinion yet deny factual events that happened and add propaganda to your arguments mixed in with smug, condescending and patronising shite that plays to the gallery of nationalists who are predominant on this board. Maybe they are impressed, who knows? However, this is not running away, it's just there is point for either of us doing so for the reasons above.
As your examples have started to bring the bigger stage into the debate (after I mentioned that you cannot look at small isolated incidents without regarding the build up etc) you have proven that there is no diversion or side show when discussing the beginning and reasons for what happened afterwards. I have had this same argument with someone else on here in an almost exact manner. If it is yourself , then you really should take note or reality.
No one is rejoycing in any deaths, including myself. However I am pointing out yet again that republicans ethos and mantra was not one of killing protestants. Otherwise it would have been completly indiscriminate- which is on record by british army/UN etc that it wasnt.
You are now guilty of sidetracking by attempting to accuse me of backing up murder campaigns etc. I have to laugh at your wee idiocy! :D
you have yet to provide ANY evidence other than festered notions of 'what them bad boyz did' etc. Please provide some if this exists.
However unless you have a link to all IRA army council men in the 35 years war, I doubt if you will prove my point for me. I will just continue to let you know what the truth is as you seem to be under complete disillusionment inspired by hatred/sectarianism/fear/living in the past/retaining old blinkered values etc etc etc
its great you accept that killing is abhorrent, however you again run away from discussing he beginning of the 35 years war - who caused it, why did nationalists retaliate back etc etc
The role of the unionist/loyalist peoples in creating and enforcing the oppressive/supressive environment.
Its not playing to any gallery I would like to see if there are any unionist/loyalists out there that have been dragged into the new century and can now admit to their guilt. Its not any subjective view I have - its pretty obvious that something caused 35 years killing and I dont think the euro courts of justice and courts of human rights would differ on what I am saying based on a multitude of reviews and findings on the situation.
But make your excuses are run away again.
Some things never change.
There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 11:01:41 AM
There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.
so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 11:01:41 AM
There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.
so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)
:D
FFS grow up and read the thread.
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 11:11:32 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 11:01:41 AM
There is just no talking to a joker who can't see beyond the end of his nose and accusing people of his own failings. End.
so you concede then that your personal assumptions are wrong !
Especially as this notion has been plucked out of the ether and you (and other hardliners) cannot actually back it up with proof (which you couldnt as none exists because YER WRONG!)
:D
FFS grow up and read the thread.
Read it, I wrote most of it - well all the real aspects of it ! You have only entered fantasy !
Running away again I see ::)
You still never gave me the courtesy of an answer regarding the beginnings etc etc...
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 10:14:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:17:39 PM
Good oul Sean O'Callaghan .... an unbiased observer if ever there was one ::) God help us.
I bet he didnt mention the man who was allowed to be killed so his cover wouldnt be blown.
yes - the testimony of one man (even if this was to be believed and not another hyped up episode) is now supposedly the rationale for all republicans?
thats what some of these people would like you to believe !
It fits in with their demonisation and how they can try to drag the story or retaliation down into the mire along with themselves who are already guilty for their crimes of death squads, apartheid,oppression etc and goes towards their desire to 'equalise' the retaliation with the original sin !
Re. Rossfan's comment, I never claimed that O'Callaghan was "unbiased" - as Maguire01 rightly points out, no-one can be saidtruly to lack bias on such matters. But that is very different from whether or not he is being
truthful in his account of the overt sectarianism he describes amongst his (former) colleagues in the East Tyrone IRA. Gerry Adams is "biased" - does that mean he never tells the truth when, eg, he is questioned about his IRA Membershi.... OK, poor example, but it's clear what I mean.
As for the man Rossfan alleges was killed to maintain O'Callaghan's cover, that attempt to discredit him is misplaced, since responsibility for that lies with his handlers, not him. Moreover, whether O'Callaghan mentions it or not does not affect the veracity (or otherwise) of what he says he witnessed whilst in the IRA in NI.
Re. LB's follow-up, to include so much lies, denial and distortion in just 3-4 lines is pretty good, even by his standards.
First, I did not say that O'Callaghan's testimony attempts to represent
all Republicans, and neither does he. In fact, I specifically stated the following, conveniently ignored by LB and Rossfan:
"I have no doubt that different members of the IRA and INLA etc had different motives for becoming involved in what they term the "armed struggle". Some of these motives will be understandable, some might even be thought "noble" (defending your homes etc) - at least until the reality of what that involvement required them to do kicked in.
Anyhow, I have no doubt that the motives of at least some other of those activists were essentially sectarian, no matter how much they or their colleagues would like to deny it."Second, I am not condemning Republican atrocities in an attempt to avoid, excuse, deny or "cancel out" similar atrocities by e.g. their "Loyalist" counterparts; on the contrary, I am quite happy to condemn them utterly without reservation. (The same goes for Roger, btw).
Third, if LB or Rossfan etc wants a debate on the origins of The Troubles etc, then fire away - I have nothing to hide or avoid on such matters.
But whether for a separate thread, or as a continuation of this one, that wider issue should not be used to allow LB and Rossfan etc to avoid the simple point that I (and I think Roger) are attempting to make. Namely, amongst all the various activists on the Republican side during The Troubles, there was a faction which was motivated by little better than naked sectarian hatred. This has been graphically described by O'Callaghan* and others and the proof is there for all to see in all the murders etc of all the people who had no connection with the Security Forces, British Government or "Establishment etc whom Roger and I and others have listed (there are very many others, btw).
More importantly, the leadership of the IRA and INLA were at least unable, if not unwilling, to curb or control the sectarian murderers within their ranks whom they had recruited, trained and deployed on such a wide scale. Then again, if O'Callaghan is accurate in his description of the "Two for the Price of One" Provo who went on to become "Chief of Staff" of the IRA, why should anyone be surprised by that?
* - I note that LB hasn't taking the obvious road of accusing O'Callaghan of simply making it all up. Might that be because this would present the other Members of this Board with a stark choice between whose account they believe: LB's or O'Callaghan's? After all, LB has not had too much support to date for his claim that Myles Na G and I are one and the same. Oh well, I'm sure he believes there's no damage to his credibility which cannot be repaired by another rant about "genocide" and "apartheid" in the "Occupied Six" etc... ::)
evil myles , your entire argument there lies (sic) in the subjectiveness of one persons testimony. Not far removed from the 'reality' on some of your own ideas of proposed 'facts' :D.
also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp - that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.
My experience is that people rarely tell the truth when talking about themselves.
More especially so, when in the account, they paint themselves in a better light, akin to boasting about their humanity.
Also, some of us are quite good at sniffing out the spoofers ;D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp
That's another thread - albeit a valid discussion, but one that would sidetrack what is being talked about here.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.
I don't think anyone is talking about the ethos or primary objective of the IRA.
But the fact is that things were done in the name of the IRA that were not entirely consistent with that ethos.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do, rather than re-iterating the same twitter that roger cannot grasp
That's another thread - albeit a valid discussion, but one that would sidetrack what is being talked about here.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
that the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.
I don't think anyone is talking about the ethos or primary objective of the IRA.
But the fact is that things were done in the name of the IRA that were not entirely consistent with that ethos.
hardly a sidetrack when other elements roger is pulling up reference the bigger picture.
also I think you will find that these two chaps ARE saying this was the objective of republicans (its also pretty much the same blanket accusation by all unionists/loyalists people that dont want to admit the reality and who still live in the dark ages when it comes to truth and progression).
yes things were done, but that doesnt alter the mantra of republicans.
Quotethat the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.
How do you know it was never never?
You have said that noone can know the motivation for kingsmill, so how can you say it wasnt based on religion?
Why do you suspect the catholics where let go?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
evil myles , your entire argument there lies (sic) in the subjectiveness of one persons testimony.
Bullshit! My argument is based on undeniable fact, namely overtly sectarian murders by the Provos (or "Republican Action Force") and the INLA (or "Catholic Action Force"), such as Kingsmill and Darkley respectively. And nor were these two sectarian massacres isolated incidents, either - there were many, many more where they deliberately targeted people with no connection with the British Government or Security Forces etc.
As for O'Callaghan, his
opinions may be "subjective" (or objective), but his
testimony is either truthful or untruthful. And I am saying I believe O'Callaghan in this instance, both because of the evidence of what his fellow Provos actually did and also because it is of no real benefit to him to lie about this. After all, if murderous sectarianism is to be abhorred, the question must be why he tolerated it for so long before deciding to leave.
By contrast, your need to reject O'Callaghan's testimony is obvious, since to accept it would make a lie out of everything else you have claimed.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
Not far removed from the 'reality' on some of your own ideas of proposed 'facts' :D.
Gibberish
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
also if you would fancy answering the question of the unionist/loyalist establishments persecution of nationalists being the cause of the troubles then please do,
Start another thread on the origins of The Troubles and I may do just that. In the meantime I prefer to concentrate on your palpable lie that Republicans never murdered Protestants etc, solely on account of their religion.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
the republican movements ethos was never (never never) to target protestants purely based on religion.
During nearly 40 years of conflict, various Republic groups declared a number of different
raisons d'etre: e.g United Ireland, Brits Out, Civil Rights, Marxism, Socialism etc etc etc.
However, many activists were motivated by little more than naked, sectarian hatred. And having recruited, armed and trained these people, the leadership of the IRA and INLA etc were either unwilling or unable (or both) to prevent the inevitable consequences. Indeed, there is clear evidence that at least some of those leaders (e.g. Dominic McGlinchey) shared those motives.
Below is an extract from an article by Fintan O'Toole, about the murderous sectarian activities of the Provos on the Fermanagh border. To take just one example of the dozens, when the IRA came to murder retired UDR man Tommy Bullock, it was not enough for them to kill him as he sat watching TV in his home. For when his wife unwittingly answered the door to a gang of heavily armed Provos in masks etc, they made no attempt to push past her to get to her husband. Instead, they simply murdered her in the hallway, then stepped over her body before seeking him out.
"Guilt for the murderous campaign against Border Protestants was kept at bay by the insistence that the victims were UDR men and therefore mere ciphers of British imperialism. The IRA, and the wider Catholic community that has made Sinn Féin its political voice, likes to see the IRA campaign in retrospect as a 'war' in the classic sense, a conflict in which soldier was pitted against soldier. While Loyalist paramilitaries killed Catholics out of psychotic sectarian hatred, Republican paramilitaries killed Protestants only because they were, in IRA-speak, 'part of the imperial war machine'. The formula magics away the inconvenient truth that the murders of UDR men like the Grahams were not military operations, but conducted and experienced as sectarian killings. Most UDR men, like the Grahams, were part-timers, who lived in their communities and worked in ordinary jobs. More than two hundred members or former members of the UDR, and of the Royal Irish Regiment which replaced it, were killed during the Troubles. The vast majority of them – 162 out of 204 – were off-duty at the time. One in five of them, indeed, had actually left the UDR. They were not heavily armed and uniformed combatants, on patrol or manning checkpoints. They were delivering letters, feeding cattle, serving in shops, driving school buses, working on building sites or sitting in their own kitchens or living-rooms.
Many, like David McQuillan, Winston McCaughey, Ritchie Latimer, Albert Beacom, Robert Bennett, Thomas Loughran and James McFall were with their children when they were attacked. William Gordon's 10-year-old-daughter, Lesley, and seven-year-old son, Richard, were beside him in the family car when an IRA booby-trap bomb exploded. He and Lesley were killed; Richard was blown out onto the footpath and seriously injured. Tommy Bullock was watching television with his wife when she answered the door to the IRA gunmen who had come for him. They killed her, stepped over her body, then went inside and killed him. Sean Russell's 10-year-old daughter was injured by the bullets that killed him as they watched television together. Victor Foster's girlfriend was blinded by the booby-trap bomb that killed him. They were both 18 years old. She left Northern Ireland shortly afterwards, having been repeatedly taunted when she went to the shops in the border town of Strabane. One man asked her the difference between a Twix bar and Victor Foster. When she didn't answer, he told her that a Twix lasted longer" http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n17/otoo01_.html
P.S. The above article actually concentrates on the murders by the IRA of three Fermanagh brothers, Ronnie, Cecil and Jimmy Graham. GAA fans may not know much of those individuals, but should be familiar with Cecil's son, Darren...
superb, more of the same this time from evil myles!
So you have no more of a clue that our buddy roger as to this!
Its great you are digging out excerpts from fintan otoole, he really was drip fed a host of bullsh*it and he gobbled it all up.
You can attribute marxism , differing wee republican groups all you like but the status quo remains intact that you have yet to scratch - republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
So please try harder to prove something that is actually indisputable!
now are you going to answer my other question?
doubtful! :D
Quoterepublicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
How can you call that indisputable? Your reasoning is unreal.
You say one minute that nobody knows the motivation of the people who carried out certain acts, then a post later you say that is was definitely not because of religion.
Quote from: nifan on February 11, 2009, 04:36:45 PM
Quoterepublicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
How can you call that indisputable? Your reasoning is unreal.
You say one minute that nobody knows the motivation of the people who carried out certain acts, then a post later you say that is was definitely not because of religion.
roll up roll up and all come in to 'have a go'
my reasoning is that from a republican viewpoint they never targetted protestants because of their religion, this has always been accepted within nationalist/republican (plus international investigative/human rights committees etc) peoples.
I would be fairly sure that folk from within that group would know better than the ethos.
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
this is a rather poor effort of 'equalising' even by your standards !
:D
Quoteroll up roll up and all come in to 'have a go'
sorry i missed where the written invitations where given out. You and a few others "having a go" must have got one ::)
QuoteI would be fairly sure that folk from within that group would know better than the ethos.
I can no more speak for all prods as any individual can speak for all republicans
Quote(plus international investigative/human rights committees etc)
Show me where human rights committees have said republicans NEVER targeted anyone because of their religion
Quote
this is a rather poor effort of 'equalising' even by your standards !
Questioning your argument is "equalising" :D
As for your comments about people running away from your questions, forgive me for finding that ironic. When youve regularly run away from questions what was the phrase you used? No tugging the forelock.
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
removed response to lynchbhoys lie about my family.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:12:07 PM
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
if you had read a few threads up you would see this has been answered
The republican ethos was never about targetting protestants purely because of their religion.
however a few isolated incidents throughout the 35 years war cannot constitute whloesale change of attitude and mantra of the organisation
with even less known about the intent or planning of the actual acts themselves.
Do you know if any of the poor victims were in some way connected to unionist/loyalist death gangs - obv the official line was always 'never' (never never) but we all know that quite often these utterings from such spokespeople were not quite the truth !
Therefore we dont know what reasoning these guys were targetted. Simply sad and tragic loss of lives (as they all are).
comprendez?
i dont get it?
but bringing my family in to this is bad form - though i dont know anyone who has a problem with them
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:12:07 PM
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
Don't be silly, it's more important to talk about Mantras, which that eejit probably thinks was made by Opel around the time of the Kingsmill massacre. He'll write anything but deal with reality yet he knows what the motivation of everyone else but republicans was, yet he declares what he knows their motivation was. Then he trots out the standard lets change the subject by asking opinions on what started what. Complete joker.
Seriously, are you trying to imply something about my parents?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Blah, blah blah... republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion... blah, blah, blah
If Republicans never targeted Protestants because of their religion, how do you explain this eyewitness account by Alan Black, the only Protestant survivor of Kingsmill, in the Newsletter?"The talk on the minibus that night was no different than normal. There had been talk earlier in the factory that day about the killing of the young Reavey brothers from Whitecross. It horrified us all. We passed through Whitecross village shortly after 5-30pm and when our minibus was stopped, a short distance up the road past Kingsmills crossroads, we thought it was the army.
"A group of about 12 armed men, who were unmasked but with their faces blackened and wearing combat jackets, surrounded the vehicle and ordered us all out onto the road. Even then few of us thought there was something amiss. One man, with a English accent, did all the talking and proceeded to ask each of us our religion. Our Roman Catholic works colleague was ordered to clear off and the shooting started.
"It was all over within a minute and after the initial screams there was silence. I was semi-conscious and passed out several times with the deadly pain and the cold. A man appeared on the scene. He was in a terrible state and was praying loudly as he passed along the rows of bodies. He must have heard my groans and came across to comfort me. I must have been lying at the roadside waiting on the ambulance for up to 30 minutes. It was like an eternity and I can remember someone moving my body from one side to the other to help ease the pain."
He added " I remained in the Bessbrook area for a time, but as I left my young daughter to school every morning I was confronted by the orphans of men murdered in the massacre. It brought it all back on a daily basis and I decided to move to Scotland. Two years in Scotland helped me to adjust but I knew I had to return home to Bessbrook.
Even now when I hear of a innocent person being killed the horror of the massacre all comes back and I can feel every bullet hitting me. Bessbrook lost its heart through that massacre. It was once a vibrant happy community full of life and enjoyment. What was done that night was a sheer waste, a futile exercise that advanced no cause."
When the funerals were held they took place in "Constant drizzle and a dank grey mist added to the almost tangible atmosphere of grief which enveloped the heart broken village. All shops closed today and the streets were almost deserted as the 2,000 villagers prepared to pay their final tribute to the men they had grown up with. Despair and sorrow were etched on the faces of the few villagers who ventured out of doors and many were red eyed from tears.
"Last night the nine coffins of the murdered men were carried from their homes through the village in an impressive public show of sorrow. They were taken at intervals along the village's broad main street. The coffins of the six Presbyterian victims lay beside each other in the Presbyterian church. The other three coffins lay in Christ Church Parish Church."
And when you've finished explaining that sectarian atrocity, you might then explain the motives of the "Catholic Action Force" when they murdered three civilians in a machine gun attack on the Gospel Hall at Darkley whilst a service was actually being conducted (20/11/83). Or the attack by the "South Armagh Republican Action Force" on a Lodge Meeting at Tullyvallen Orange Hall (01/09/75), which left five men dead - three of them OAP's?
In case you've forgotten, you may look them up here - http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/
Quote from: Roger on February 11, 2009, 05:23:49 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:12:07 PM
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
Don't be silly, it's more important to talk about Mantras, which that eejit probably thinks was made by Opel around the time of the Kingsmill massacre. He'll write anything but deal with reality yet he knows what the motivation of everyone else but republicans was, yet he declares what he knows their motivation was. Then he trots out the standard lets change the subject by asking opinions on what started what. Complete joker.
so yer back...couldnt stay away, obv getting tanned the last time got to you eventually !
:D
ok
republicans ethos as a movement/organisation was as stated.
isolated incidents are not party to the overall ethos/mantra/mo etc etc of the republican movement.
how many times do you have to have this explained to you.
the only joke here is the amount of times you keep coming back with dumb and dumber questions asking the same thing and showing yourself up.
OK so it doesnt agree with your unionist/loyalist categorisation and villification, but you must understand the world does not revolve around you and quite a lot of things unionism/loyalism states isnt quite true.... eg the creationist principle
so like that you must realise there are other things your 'gospel' is incorrect about also !
Wake up :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 11, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
If Republicans never targeted Protestants because of their religion, how do you explain this eyewitness account by Alan Black, the only Protestant survivor of Kingsmill, in the Newsletter?
In case you've forgotten, you may look them up here[/i] - http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/
Jeez if we are quoting the cain research again , then your argument really is in the sihtehouse !
keep quoting a few isolated incidents , really threatens the overall principle - esp when it spanned 35years and more !
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:12:07 PM
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
if you had read a few threads up you would see this has been answered
The republican ethos was never about targetting protestants purely because of their religion.
however a few isolated incidents throughout the 35 years war cannot constitute whloesale change of attitude and mantra of the organisation
with even less known about the intent or planning of the actual acts themselves.
Do you know if any of the poor victims were in some way connected to unionist/loyalist death gangs - obv the official line was always 'never' (never never) but we all know that quite often these utterings from such spokespeople were not quite the truth !
Therefore we dont know what reasoning these guys were targetted. Simply sad and tragic loss of lives (as they all are).
comprendez?
Yes indeed - i thought it had been answered. But your posts on this thread are a mess on contradictions.
All you had to say to answer was:
The republican ethos was/is XYZ, however, over the years, certain activities inconsistent with this ethos, such as killing on the basis of religion may have been carried out in the name of republicanism.You could add extortion and punishment beatings to that list too, but that's beside the point. The issue is that the 'ethos' is not as relevant as the reality. Actions speak louder than words etc...
There's no need to qualify this by the 'whataboutery' (as you would call it) of who threw the first stone. Start another thread for that.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 05:12:07 PM
But is this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
republicanism never targeted protestants because of religion.
not contradicted by this:
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
However you are referring to the indivial number of acts cited - this is different as again who would know the 'motivation' for such.
?
if you had read a few threads up you would see this has been answered
The republican ethos was never about targetting protestants purely because of their religion.
however a few isolated incidents throughout the 35 years war cannot constitute whloesale change of attitude and mantra of the organisation
with even less known about the intent or planning of the actual acts themselves.
Do you know if any of the poor victims were in some way connected to unionist/loyalist death gangs - obv the official line was always 'never' (never never) but we all know that quite often these utterings from such spokespeople were not quite the truth !
Therefore we dont know what reasoning these guys were targetted. Simply sad and tragic loss of lives (as they all are).
comprendez?
Yes indeed - i thought it had been answered. But your posts on this thread are a mess on contradictions.
All you had to say to answer was:
The republican ethos was/is XYZ, however, over the years, certain activities inconsistent with this ethos, such as killing on the basis of religion may have been carried out in the name of republicanism.
You could add extortion and punishment beatings to that list too, but that's beside the point. The issue is that the 'ethos' is not as relevant as the reality. Actions speak louder than words etc...
There's no need to qualify this by the 'whataboutery' (as you would call it) of who threw the first stone. Start another thread for that.
Indeed I thought it was.
Part two - not really, you cant really discuss certain aspects as were highlighted here unless you are willing to bring in the bigger picture.
Its all part of the same lump of history . Bad and all as it was, you cant nit pick the entire sequence of events. Though some prefer to.
Such history and its constant review will hopefully stop us from repeating previous mistakes.
some prefer to try to re-write it though it seems !
Lynchboy
please remove the references to another posters family or get reported and banned.
I appreciate that this is for you a very emotive subject but cut the crap.
To be honest I think his post is an attempt to discredit me, and even removing it now will imply something insidious regarding my family.
Id like to know what he is trying to say about my family.
The views I express here are the views I grew up being taught by my parents, who are very much not sectarian in anyway.
If he has something to say about my family let me know, because I dont know what he is on about.
Quote from: heganboy on February 11, 2009, 05:55:52 PM
Lynchboy
please remove the references to another posters family or get reported and banned.
I appreciate that this is for you a very emotive subject but cut the crap.
correct haganboy , prob shouldnt have posted info like that in view of the general public.
taken these off now.
taken them off, but not rescinded.
best i could expect i suppose
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 11, 2009, 05:35:28 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 11, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
If Republicans never targeted Protestants because of their religion, how do you explain this eyewitness account by Alan Black, the only Protestant survivor of Kingsmill, in the Newsletter?
In case you've forgotten, you may look them up here[/i] - http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/
Jeez if we are quoting the cain research again , then your argument really is in the sihtehouse !
keep quoting a few isolated incidents , really threatens the overall principle - esp when it spanned 35years and more !
:D
I for one would love to read your justification of a comment such as "republicanism never targetted protestants because of religion" without a bundle of nonsense ended and started with a smiley face.
Either republicans frequently did target protestant communities, or, the republican leadership had an army which did not follow orders and frequently attacked protestants against the very "ethos" which you are suggesting?
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
Quote from: Main Street on February 11, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
No doubt they didnt. What does that have to do with Lynchbhoys assertion?
Does that make his assertion
justifiable? Or is it still a huge mistruth?
For the context of this discussion I dont care what exactly the British armies, the loyalists or the republican movement did - there comes a time when the continued attempts by people from all sides to justify the unjustifiable becomes laughable at best.
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Quote from: Main Street on February 11, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
I don't see anyone denying that Main Street.
But the credibility of an argument against the 'other side' is seriously undermined if you don't acknowledge (or you deny) that aspects of the 'republican war' were far removed from the ethos of the republican cause.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people
were shot because of their religion.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
You're absolutely right of course. It did stop further sectarian violence in South Armagh at that time. I read that it was also sanctioned according to the Toby Hardnen book by the republican leadership in the area. I cant recall the direct quote.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
I would say so.
I will add that I don't think that this was a deliberate policy by any of the armed groups involved.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 11, 2009, 07:08:55 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
You're absolutely right of course. It did stop further sectarian violence in South Armagh at that time. I read that it was also sanctioned according to the Toby Hardnen book by the republican leadership in the area. I cant recall the direct quote.
You could well be right. I wouldn't rule it out.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:23:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 11, 2009, 07:08:55 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
You're absolutely right of course. It did stop further sectarian violence in South Armagh at that time. I read that it was also sanctioned according to the Toby Hardnen book by the republican leadership in the area. I cant recall the direct quote.
You could well be right. I wouldn't rule it out.
I know somebody who probably would. ::)
Quote from: Puckoon on February 11, 2009, 07:03:35 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 11, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
No doubt they didnt. What does that have to do with Lynchbhoys assertion?
Does that make his assertion justifiable? Or is it still a huge mistruth?
For the context of this discussion I dont care what exactly the British armies, the loyalists or the republican movement did - there comes a time when the continued attempts by people from all sides to justify the unjustifiable becomes laughable at best.
we are not talking about justification we are talking about the ideology of the republicanmovement.
Never was it a strategy/motive/ethos/mantra etc call it what you will , to kill people purely because of religion.
End of
god help you if smiley faces put you off !
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?
It means that when you said
never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 10:01:38 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?
It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)
again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.
I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals
I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.
I read the celtic thread like i do all the soccer threads. I made one jibe on the celtic thread, and it was a light one, get over it. You have made a few gentle jibes about me before which dont really bother me, it is the implications that i am somehow bigted that get me.
I didnt bring your family into things.
Quote from: nifan on February 12, 2009, 10:21:44 AM
I read the celtic thread like i do all the soccer threads. I made one jibe on the celtic thread, and it was a light one, get over it. You have made a few gentle jibes about me before which dont really bother me, it is the implications that i am somehow bigted that get me.
I didnt bring your family into things.
and I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.
but as for the other assertions, I had left you well alone for quite a while/quite a number of months thinking you'd reciprocate.
While this is a discussion board and everyone has theright to post where and when they want,
However you continue to jump in leaving remarks and so on where it makes no logical sense to do so.
I cite the Celtic thread as an example. you know yourself what you do so I dont have to tell you.
this and the other thread from last week only goes to prove that you are the 'equalising' type and not what you set out to portray.
Its not even that I dislike anyone. I dislke falseness.
Quoteand I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.
yet you still have comments related to them on here, and a post about how it is somehow proof of what you say about me but you cant say it.
Previously you used my first name (probably against board rules, or at least usual board protocol) when i said you knew nothing about me, presumably to imply to me, and others that you DO know something about me.
Its obvious that your attempting to discredit me with handy, underhand posts that imply something without ever having the need to say it.
Im dissappointed only heganboy has taken you to task so far.
Quote from: nifan on February 12, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
Quoteand I shouldnt have brought yours into it on here. I acknowledge that.
yet you still have comments related to them on here, and a post about how it is somehow proof of what you say about me but you cant say it.
Previously you used my first name (probably against board rules, or at least usual board protocol) when i said you knew nothing about me, presumably to imply to me, and others that you DO know something about me.
Its obvious that your attempting to discredit me with handy, underhand posts that imply something without ever having the need to say it.
Im dissappointed only heganboy has taken you to task so far.
wouldnt agree there ted
So are you not going to remove the underhand references?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:00:31 PM
I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967. ;)
I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank..... on that topic at the moment!
:D
4 pages later and still waiting.......... ::) ;)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 10:16:11 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 10:01:38 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?
It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)
again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.
I never said it did! I'm not missing any point - you're just not reading my posts. I know what the mantra/ethos is/was - you don't need to keep repeating that bit. But the ethos/mantra wasn't always complied with.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 10:16:11 AM
I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals
I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.
Such an example is a bit of an insult to innocent people who are murdered. Did the 'republicans' have a 'bad game' on those occassions?
It's not even a suitable comparison anyway. A slightly more suitable comparison would be if one of those teams, 'known for their greatness', on occassion used underhand/unsporting tactics to 'win their games'.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 12:03:25 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 10:16:11 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 10:01:38 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 11, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Kingsmill happened because of the numbers of Catholics who were being targeted because of their religion. It was like saying 'If youse can do it, so can we' - as a sidenote, sectarian killings by Loyalists in South Armagh stopped as a direct result.
Darkley happened because someone got access to guns and went and shot up the nearest place where they knew 100% that Protestants would be in attendance. The person responsible for it had a family member killed a short time previously by Loyalists.
I am not excusing either event but rather providing something of a background to the whys of both incidents. I think all killings were absolutely deplorable.
Yes, so regardless of justifications for the killings, or the background of the perpetrators, those people were shot because of their religion.
and this single incident means what exactly in the context of 35 years plus and countless incidents to the overall ethos/strategy etc of republicans?
It means that when you said never, you were talking rubbish.
(And it's not a single incident - there are two incidents cited above, and there are plenty more examples of incidents that wouldn't be consistent with that 'ethos'.)
again you are missing the point
an incident, a couple a few incidents dont change what the mantra was.
I never said it did! I'm not missing any point - you're just not reading my posts. I know what the mantra/ethos is/was - you don't need to keep repeating that bit. But the ethos/mantra wasn't always complied with.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 10:16:11 AM
I'll give you a sporting example
thee are certain teams out there who are known for their 'greatness' and how the team ethos it win , but win by entertaining at the same time.
Kerry football team, Barcelona, LA Lakers, NZ rugby etc
but when they win (or lose) game(s) that look horrible - it doesnt change their outlook/ethos/ideals
I am hoping that such an example will help you understand.
Such an example is a bit of an insult to innocent people who are murdered. Did the 'republicans' have a 'bad game' on those occassions?
It's not even a suitable comparison anyway. A slightly more suitable comparison would be if one of those teams, 'known for their greatness', on occassion used underhand/unsporting tactics to 'win their games'.
but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc
which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)
call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?
I dont think it can get much worse for the people that were killed , on eithe side - no one is gloating in the death of anyone. Are you trying to 'sidetrack' now?
I am merely trying to give you an anser that you still dont seem to be able to assimilate
But again, does this...
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 12:12:54 PM
but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc
which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)
not contradict this?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 12:12:54 PM
call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?
You're tying yourself in knots.
The bit highlighted would suggest that all republican killings (indeed all killings on any side) were wrong, regardless of mantra or ethos. That goes against all your previous attempts to downplay 'a few incidents' (not that it should boil down to a numbers game anyway).
And a mantra or ethos is worthless if it isn't adhered to.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
But again, does this...
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 12:12:54 PM
but
it
still
doesnt
detract
from
the
ethos/motivation/strategy/ideals etc etc etc
which is what I am saying !
you have said yourself in the above post that it doesnt ?
a few instances dont do that ! (even a number, but spread out over 35 years ! come off it)
not contradict this?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 12:12:54 PM
call it a 'bad game' or whatever, people killed is never right irrespective of motive so are you insulting the dead ?
You're tying yourself in knots.
The bit highlighted would suggest that all republican killings (indeed all killings on any side) were wrong, regardless of mantra or ethos. That goes against all your previous attempts to downplay 'a few incidents' (not that it should boil down to a numbers game anyway).
And a mantra or ethos is worthless if it isn't adhered to.
fairly obv that its yourself that is being self contradictory and tying all sorts of knots because of your lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise).
ok this shows you def do not undertand what I wrote and the point made.
all death is undesirable.
However what part of that interferes with what mantra/ethos republicans have
Also what aspect of a couple of instances over there years that deviated from the mantra constitute the 'change' of any ethos of mantra - dont think you are thinking rationally if at all here.
to clear up any ambiguity about my opinion of deaths, I wrote that other part - which seems to have confused you greatly for some reason.
We still seem to be waiting on any takers regarding the beginning the violence and what caused it, and why netionalists HAD to take up arms in defence of themselves after decades of abuse and persecution.
This debate would show what gave rise to the beginning of the retaliation by nationalists and why they/republicans retained the ethos of not to target protestants for their religion - as the memory of nationalists own persecution remaind steadfastly in their minds.
I belive it is a valid expansion of the immediate discussion (although off topic on this actual thread).
Quote from: Rossfan on February 12, 2009, 11:50:57 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:00:31 PM
I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967. ;)
I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank..... on that topic at the moment!
:D
4 pages later and still waiting.......... ::) ;)
Aren't you clever "Rossfan"? ::)
Read this thread over the last lot of pages and you will see that I said I was happy to do so but as someone else also has stated it isn't for this thread as it is completely irrelevant. If you start another thread I would be happy to contribute with my opinion.
Quote from: Roger on February 12, 2009, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 12, 2009, 11:50:57 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 10, 2009, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on February 10, 2009, 06:00:31 PM
I wonder could "Roger" give us a summary of events from 1968 onwards or more interestingly tell us his thoughts about the 6 Cos between 1922 and 1967. ;)
I wish you luck, as his memory seems to be going blank..... on that topic at the moment!
:D
4 pages later and still waiting.......... ::) ;)
Aren't you clever "Rossfan"? ::)
Read this thread over the last lot of pages and you will see that I said I was happy to do so but as someone else also has stated it isn't for this thread as it is completely irrelevant. If you start another thread I would be happy to contribute with my opinion.
so its 'irrelvent' so you refuse to debate on a point that a couple of people now have asked yo uabout.
Also for tha above reasons in my post above I believe this is part of what is being discussed.
If you are simply incapable of defending the indefensible or to even accept the guilt/apportion it to the unionist/loyalist run 'establisment' and would rather run away, then fine.
We understand ::)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:42:04 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 11, 2009, 07:03:35 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 11, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
No doubt they didnt. What does that have to do with Lynchbhoys assertion?
Does that make his assertion justifiable? Or is it still a huge mistruth?
For the context of this discussion I dont care what exactly the British armies, the loyalists or the republican movement did - there comes a time when the continued attempts by people from all sides to justify the unjustifiable becomes laughable at best.
we are not talking about justification we are talking about the ideology of the republicanmovement.
Never was it a strategy/motive/ethos/mantra etc call it what you will , to kill people purely because of religion.
End of
god help you if smiley faces put you off !
Fair enough ideology/ethos/mantra it is then. So would you agree that more often than it should that the ideology went right out the window?
Did the ideology include money from racketeering and drugs?
Quote from: Puckoon on February 12, 2009, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 09:42:04 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 11, 2009, 07:03:35 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 11, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Of course we all know that the British Army and the different guises of the local militia followed orders to the letter.
I wonder why only nationalists were interned in 1971? a minor discrepency?
No doubt they didnt. What does that have to do with Lynchbhoys assertion?
Does that make his assertion justifiable? Or is it still a huge mistruth?
For the context of this discussion I dont care what exactly the British armies, the loyalists or the republican movement did - there comes a time when the continued attempts by people from all sides to justify the unjustifiable becomes laughable at best.
we are not talking about justification we are talking about the ideology of the republicanmovement.
Never was it a strategy/motive/ethos/mantra etc call it what you will , to kill people purely because of religion.
End of
god help you if smiley faces put you off !
Fair enough ideology/ethos/mantra it is then. So would you agree that more often than it should that the ideology went right out the window?
Did the ideology include money from racketeering and drugs?
no, if people and instanced ocurred the were contrary to the mantra/ethos/ideology etc
as for racketeering and drugs, pre-ceasefire most of these drug groups were targetted (irrespective of religion) and generally kept at bay.
Obv not welcomed in republican circles. Certain 'rackets' went on - obv had to raise money somehow, but dont think selling of ciggarettes/diesel etc flouting the law really bothered too many given what else was going on.
though I think you know all this already.
Whose ideology was it for the british army to introduce drugs and drug selling into Derry city I wonder.
Why then did so many things which were contrary to the republican ethos (lets just stick to that word!) get carried out by republican paramilitaries over the course of the troubles?
Rackets are not the selling of cigarrettes and/or diesel. Thats a neat sidestep- but a sidestep none the less. Im talking extortion, threat, and theft at the end of a gun. Hardly the ideals of a nation of equals?
What about the policing of their own communities by force, threat and violence? Now im not condemming, as there were instances when this served a greater good - but were these activities all part of a "republican ethos"?
I am not here to discuss the activities of the british government, and I would condemn them as quickly as I condem the events which you are trying to suggest were so infrequent and isolated that they didnt shatter into a thousand pieces this notion of republican ethos that you take as gospel.
On paper perhaps there was an ethos, an ideal. In real life during the troubles however, it more often than not went right out the window.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 04:57:15 PM
Whose ideology was it for the british army to introduce drugs and drug selling into Derry city I wonder.
I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
But if we apply
your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 04:57:15 PM
Whose ideology was it for the british army to introduce drugs and drug selling into Derry city I wonder.
I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
But if we apply your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
please explain as this one above all your others defies all known logic ! ! !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:18:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 04:57:15 PM
Whose ideology was it for the british army to introduce drugs and drug selling into Derry city I wonder.
I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
But if we apply your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
please explain as this one above all your others defies all known logic ! ! !
It's not my logic, it's yours! I couldn't give a crap about ideals or the ethos - i'm more interested in actions and what
actually happened. I don't think
anyone should be allowed to hide behind an 'ideology' if their actions were inappropriate.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:18:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 04:57:15 PM
Whose ideology was it for the british army to introduce drugs and drug selling into Derry city I wonder.
I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
But if we apply your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
please explain as this one above all your others defies all known logic ! ! !
It's not my logic, it's yours! I couldn't give a crap about ideals or the ethos - i'm more interested in actions and what actually happened. I don't think anyone should be allowed to hide behind an 'ideology' if their actions were inappropriate.
you are still not making sense on either count point there
1. explain\I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
But if we apply
your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
2.you obv still dont get the point that I am making for what seems like 100 pages now.
An ideology is an ideology. You are now talking about something off-tangent !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:42:42 PM
you are still not making sense on either count point there
1. explain\I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
You're defending all republican actions by way of saying that the basic ideology was sound, so really the indiscretions don't matter so much. If so, surely someone else could defend all British actions using the same logic?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:42:42 PM
But if we apply your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
2.you obv still dont get the point that I am making for what seems like 100 pages now.
An ideology is an ideology. You are now talking about something off-tangent !
An ideology is an ideology? Really? What wonderful insight!
Not quite sure what's off-tangent.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2009, 06:05:15 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:42:42 PM
you are still not making sense on either count point there
1. explain\I'm sure they would tell you that their ideology/ethos/mantra is the defence of UK interests.
You're defending all republican actions by way of saying that the basic ideology was sound, so really the indiscretions don't matter so much. If so, surely someone else could defend all British actions using the same logic?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:42:42 PM
But if we apply your logic, it doesn't really matter about any of their underhand or questionable practices, because they had their 'ethos'!
2.you obv still dont get the point that I am making for what seems like 100 pages now.
An ideology is an ideology. You are now talking about something off-tangent !
An ideology is an ideology? Really? What wonderful insight!
Not quite sure what's off-tangent.
again
applying what logic to this, I dont see any connection or logic in what you have said
please explain
correct an ideology is an ideology and thats just that - its not any blueprint for forthcoming actions - do you not think?
I am not defending anything apart from that these few incidents do not alter the actual ethos/ideology etc etc
what is your point regarding underhand or questionable practices ? how is this relevent?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 12, 2009, 05:42:42 PM
An ideology is an ideology.
Right, so which part of their "ideology" was served by Enniskillen/Bloody Friday/Darkley/Warrington/La Mon/Birmingham/Tullyvallen/Jean McConville/Claudy/La Mon/Abercorn or any of the countless other barbaric atrocities where entirely innocent men, women and children were shot, tortured or blown to pieces?
Where does the "human bomb" technique fit into this ideology? Or were these just some more "isolated incidents"?
At least the Taliban have the courage to blow
themselves up with their human bombs, not kidnap some poor harmless individual and hold his terrified family hostage, while they tie him to the seat of his car and order him to drive a live bomb across town to some army base...
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.irish/2005-08/msg01952.html
Thursday August 11, 2005
Republicans hijacked a delivery driver, planted a bomb in his car and
ordered him to park outside a police station in county Armagh, politicians
said yesterday.
The driver was threatened at gunpoint late on Tuesday night as explosives
were placed on the back seat of his car in Lurgan. He was told to drive to
the police station but abandoned his car outside a Gaelic football club
about 400 yards from the station.
Police responding to the alert were attacked by youths who threw more than
30 petrol bombs as well as bricks, bottles and ball bearings. Seven
officers were injured and one was treated in hospital.
24/10/1990 -
While his family was held hostage in their Londonderry home, Patrick
Gillespie, RC, 42, married, 3 children was forced to drive a car loaded
with a bomb into the Buncrana Road checkpoint in Coshquin. The explosion
killed Patsy as well as 5 young soldiers from the Kings Regiment. Stephen
Burrows 30, from Blackpool. He left behind a wife and a 3 year old son.
Stephen Beachem, 20, from Warrington, Cheshire Vincent Scott, 21, from
Walton, Liverpool David Sweeney, 19, from Widnes, Cheshire Paul Worrall,
23, from Runcorn, Cheshire As the bomb exploded, gunmen opened fire from
the safe haven across the border. Four years earlier Patsy had narrowly
escaped death when he was forced to drive another human bomb to a local
Army base. RC Bishop of Derry, Dr Edward Daly accused the IRA of "crossing
a new threshold of evil" 17 civilians were injured in the attack.
24/10/90 -
68 year old James McEvoy escaped injured after being forced to drive a bomb
into a checkpoint at Killeen, outside Newry. Cyril Smith, 21, P, from the
Royal Irish Rangers, died in the explosion, 13 of his colleagues were
injured. He was from Carrickfergus. At the inquest into the atrocity James
McEvoy said he was awakened in the middle of the night to see two figures
standing over him wearing balaclavas. They blindfolded him before taking
him some distance. He was ordered to drive a car towards the checkpoint and
if he did not comply two of his sons would be murdered. He was to tell the
soldiers there was a bomb and they had 40 minutes to get clear. In reality
though, within seconds of Mr. McEvoy abandoning the car, the bomb was
detonated. James McEvoy died 7 months later. A relative said he "never got
over what happened that night in October".
24/10/90 -
Another Proxy attempt on the same day at Lisanelly Army base, Omagh, failed
when the main bomb didn't explode. A man had been strapped to the car seat
and forced to drive the bomb in, while his wife and 7 year old child were
held hostage.
22/11/90 -
At around 9:30pm, a number of armed and masked men took over a house in
Newtownbutler. A man was taken out while his elderly parents were tied up
in a toilet. He was driven to the IRA's safe haven of the Irish Republic
were they held him in a derelict house. From there he was taken away in a
Toyota pickup truck accompanied by two armed men. He was made to drive the
truck to Annaghmartin, Fermanagh checkpoint and told that the truck carried
a bomb on a 5 minute timer. At the checkpoint he shouted a warning and
there was a small explosion. The bomb itself failed to go off. On
examination, the bomb contained 3,500lb of homemade explosives, the biggest
IRA bomb to date. Had it exploded it would have caused enormous havoc,
destruction and certain death.
3/2/91 -
IRA force a man to drive a 500lb human bomb into a UDR base in Magherafelt,
Co. Londonderry by holding his wife hostage in another car. The driver
shouted a warning and escaped before the bomb exploded. Part of the base
and 50 surrounding houses were badly damaged. 3 members of the man's
company had already been murdered by nationalists because the firm survived
by building for the security forces.
24/3/93 -
On the day before John Hume and Gerry Adams issued their first joint
statement, the IRA exploded a one ton bomb in Bishopsgate, London. The bomb
caused damage estimated at upwards of a billion pounds. On the same day two
taxi drivers were used as human bombs in nationalist attempts to blow up
London, it failed when the drivers managed to abandon their taxi's and
shout warnings.
It could be said that the actions render the ethos useless.
If I constantly preached honesty and good will, yet when I was short a few quid I robbed old ladies - would it be ok because I had an ethos of peace? Or could people say - listen horse youre full of shite.
This topic is now locked.
It has long since moved from its initial subject and spiralled downwards.
Attempts to re-start the squabbling elsewhere will incur warnings/bans.