How things may have changed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210141/Irish-generals-plotted-attack-UK-forces-Ulster.html?ITO=1490
As someone stated in the previous related thread, if this had gone ahead the Union Jack would be flying in Dublin, Cork and Galway today.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 31, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
As someone stated in the previous related thread, if this had gone ahead the Union Jack would be flying in Dublin, Cork and Galway today.
I think it would have been a more symbolic gesture, get the yanks in and sort out the mess that was the wee six. EEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 31, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
As someone stated in the previous related thread, if this had gone ahead the Union Jack would be flying in Dublin, Cork and Galway today.
I think it would have been a more symbolic gesture, get the yanks in and sort out the mess that was the wee six. EEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
By invading it would of been us who had declared war on Britain and in 1969 the eec was a lose bunch of nations . The Yanks would of supported the Brits due the the soviet being the other side of the wall in Berlin .
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PMEEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
But they'd allow the Repubic to invade and attack another member state?
Quote from: Roger on August 31, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PMEEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
But they'd allow the Repubic to invade and attack another member state?
Just a point of order but both Ireland and the UK where not members in 69
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Roger on August 31, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PMEEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
But they'd allow the Repubic to invade and attack another member state?
Just a point of order but both Ireland and the UK where not members in 69
Fair point. Don't think the Republic intended to declare war. Just a terror campaign on strategic areas of NI. It was reported in the Times that the RTE programme states that they were approx 500 soldiers short of the required number to tackle NI's security forces. The 500 must have been on their lunch break or had no bicycle available for the land force assault or something.
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on August 31, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
As someone stated in the previous related thread, if this had gone ahead the Union Jack would be flying in Dublin, Cork and Galway today.
I doubt it. The whole idea of the north is to control and gerrymander. The Brits couldn't control all 32 before and they couldn't do it now either.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Roger on August 31, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PMEEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
But they'd allow the Repubic to invade and attack another member state?
Just a point of order but both Ireland and the UK where not members in 69
Fair enough forgot that, but Ireland as was said were not intending on "invading" from what I can gather from the piece they were intending to engage in guerilla activities (alá IRA), also imo international sympathy would have been with the Irish/Nationalist people and the yanks would have put massive pressure on the brits to sort things out the Irish american lobby was still very strong then.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 02:17:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Roger on August 31, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on August 31, 2009, 01:44:10 PMEEC wouldn't have allowed Britain to declare war on another member state.
But they'd allow the Repubic to invade and attack another member state?
Just a point of order but both Ireland and the UK where not members in 69
Fair enough forgot that, but Ireland as was said were not intending on "invading" from what I can gather from the piece they were intending to engage in guerilla activities (alá IRA), also imo international sympathy would have been with the Irish/Nationalist people and the yanks would have put massive pressure on the brits to sort things out the Irish american lobby was still very strong then.
Sympathy is all well and good look and Palestine what you need is action the ground and no one would of offered that unless the Brits wanted it .
What the difference between invading and a guerilla activities surely guerilla activities are just the tatics you carry out after you invade.
These still would have been Irish troops, operating under Irish government orders.
Quote from: Orior on August 31, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 31, 2009, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on August 31, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.
Would course of action would you suggest the Irish government at the time should of followed? A bloody and pointless invasion which could of taken down the entire state seems to the tipple of choice lately
Would you of taken up the Brits offer and joined ww2?
QuoteWould you of taken up the Brits offer
what does this mean?
Quote from: heganboy on August 31, 2009, 09:43:40 PM
QuoteWould you of taken up the Brits offer
what does this mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29#Unification_refused.3F
Probably the closest a UI has been since 1921.
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: heganboy on August 31, 2009, 09:43:40 PM
QuoteWould you of taken up the Brits offer
what does this mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29#Unification_refused.3F
Probably the closest a UI has been since 1921.
[/quote
Of course Britain would have defended Ireland if Germany had invaded. After all thats why England invaded, to close a back door attack. Would Germany have said if they had won the war, do what you wamt paddy, no. Jews and others would have been rounded up and killed. Ireland should have delared war. A credit to Ireland men went and fought.]
Quote from: Gnevin on August 31, 2009, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: heganboy on August 31, 2009, 09:43:40 PM
QuoteWould you of taken up the Brits offer
what does this mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28Ireland%29#Unification_refused.3F
Probably the closest a UI has been since 1921.
Ever.
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow bastards that hid in those years.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Exactly, I've always said all I would have ever asked from the Irish government is to open their mouths in defence of their citizens in the six counties. Simple as that.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Exactly, I've always said all I would have ever asked from the Irish government is to open their mouths in defence of their citizens in the six counties. Simple as that.
Too who and to what end?
The government at the time condemned the actions of the British in the North. So I don't know what else you think they should of done . Even if it was done you'd be on here spouting on about meaningless words and no action.
Scream from the rooftops to anyone that would listen G, and get the heads out of Britain's ass.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:07:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Exactly, I've always said all I would have ever asked from the Irish government is to open their mouths in defence of their citizens in the six counties. Simple as that.
Too who and to what end?
The government at the time condemned the actions of the British in the North. So I don't know what else you think they should of done . Even if it was done you'd be on here spouting on about meaningless words and no action.
You say they condemned the actions of the brits and then go on to say "even if it was done" - well which was it ? Bottom line is you let us down, but to the average freestater that doesnt really matter because you're alright jack.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:07:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Exactly, I've always said all I would have ever asked from the Irish government is to open their mouths in defence of their citizens in the six counties. Simple as that.
Too who and to what end?
The government at the time condemned the actions of the British in the North. So I don't know what else you think they should of done . Even if it was done you'd be on here spouting on about meaningless words and no action.
You say they condemned the actions of the brits and then go on to say "even if it was done" - well which was it ? Bottom line is you let us down, but to the average freestater that doesnt really matter because you're alright jack.
In other words you don't know what you want . Nothing would make you happy as the Irish states was in reality powerless in the situation it found itself in. I agree with POG that more of a effort could of been made to highlight the plight of Northern nationalist but at the end of the day it would of achieved nothing .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:07:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
Exactly, I've always said all I would have ever asked from the Irish government is to open their mouths in defence of their citizens in the six counties. Simple as that.
Too who and to what end?
The government at the time condemned the actions of the British in the North. So I don't know what else you think they should of done . Even if it was done you'd be on here spouting on about meaningless words and no action.
You say they condemned the actions of the brits and then go on to say "even if it was done" - well which was it ? Bottom line is you let us down, but to the average freestater that doesnt really matter because you're alright jack.
In other words you don't know what you want . Nothing would make you happy as the Irish states was in reality powerless in the situation it found itself in. I agree with POG that more of a effort could of been made to highlight the plight of Northern nationalist but at the end of the day it would of achieved nothing .
We know what we wanted then but now its different, the free state has shown that it cares not a jot for nationalists in the 6 counties. Id seriously wonder why we ever bothered.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
:D
So people in the 26 today should feel ashamed about what our Government did or didn't do as the case maybe for the Nationalist people in the six even though a lot of us were not even born at the time. I'm not going to argue the point our Government did not do enough for the people in the north of Ireland but that last part of your post is nonsense Man in Black.
Quote from: Galwaybhoy on September 01, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
:D
So people in the 26 today should feel ashamed about what our Government did or didn't do as the case maybe for the Nationalist people in the six even though a lot of us were not even born at the time. I'm not going to argue the point our Government did not do enough for the people in the north of Ireland but that last part of your post is nonsense Man in Black.
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Galwaybhoy on September 01, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
:D
So people in the 26 today should feel ashamed about what our Government did or didn't do as the case maybe for the Nationalist people in the six even though a lot of us were not even born at the time. I'm not going to argue the point our Government did not do enough for the people in the north of Ireland but that last part of your post is nonsense Man in Black.
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
I never said if they did or didn't let you down, but to basically say that everyone from the 26 counties should feel ashamed and sorry for what happened when they had nothing to do with it and a lot were not even born at the time is wrong.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is
Éire, or, in the English language,
Ireland.
Pick one.
Mate's dad is a retired Irish army officer and says that virtually all army defence stategies are designed to thwart a British invasion. According to him the strategy is to "blend" in and carry out a guerrilla war against the invader. According to him ambush sites have already been identified.
Very interesting stuff indeed......... although he had drink taken when he told me all this. (He wasn't drunk though).
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
Exactly and they gave up the right to call it Ireland when they rolled over for the brits (again) by giving up the constitutional claim on the north.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
Exactly and they gave up the right to call it Ireland when they rolled over for the brits (again) by giving up the constitutional claim on the north.
So the bitter rump in the North want to dictated to us what to call our country ::) . Even as they refuse to acknowledge it's right to exist in some cases .
We reworded the claim for peace just as others had to compromise for peace
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
Exactly and they gave up the right to call it Ireland when they rolled over for the brits (again) by giving up the constitutional claim on the north.
So the bitter rump in the North want to dictated to us what to call our country ::) . Even as they refuse to acknowledge it's right to exist in some cases .
We reworded the claim for peace just as others had to compromise for peace
And who was threatening your peace ? ::)
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
And who was threatening your peace ? ::)
Would you rather we rejected the GFA and the constitutional changes required?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
And who was threatening your peace ? ::)
Would you rather we rejected the GFA and the constitutional changes required?
Yep
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:27:11 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
And who was threatening your peace ? ::)
Would you rather we rejected the GFA and the constitutional changes required?
Yep
Grand so run outside , wrap a tricolour around you and start shooting at the Brits if you want to live in the middle of a war and in the past
The vast majority of people on this Island voted for peace. We don't shed a tear when you and your lot are gone .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:27:11 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:25:24 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 03:22:48 PM
And who was threatening your peace ? ::)
Would you rather we rejected the GFA and the constitutional changes required?
Yep
Grand so run outside , wrap a tricolour around you and start shooting at the Brits if you want to live in the middle of a war and in the past
The vast majority of people on this Island voted for peace. We don't shed a tear when you and your lot are gone .
What would you know about being in the middle of a war ?
Hang on. Man in Black has a valid point which is getting lost in the mud slinging.
The free state did let us Nationalists down. Why? I dont know. Residents don't necessarily need to feel shame. All it takes is for an apology at Taoiseach level, in the same way that the British Prime Minister has apologised for other atrocities overseas.
Thats not too much to ask, is it?
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 04:06:45 PM
Hang on. Man in Black has a valid point which is getting lost in the mud slinging.
The free state did let us Nationalists down. Why? I dont know. Residents don't necessarily need to feel shame. All it takes is for an apology at Taoiseach level, in the same way that the British Prime Minister has apologised for other atrocities overseas.
Thats not too much to ask, is it?
Are we talking about 1969 here?
That will do for starters.
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
That will do for starters.
I'm lost so . Why would a SA province be apologising?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
That will do for starters.
I'm lost so . Why would a SA province be apologising?
Stop being pedantic! Dubs are never pedantic. Frantic, yes. Gigantic, yes. Romantic, definitely no. Pedantic, no.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 31, 2009, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on August 31, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.
Just to dispel this myth - the provos never protected Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 31, 2009, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on August 31, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.
Just to dispel this myth - the provos never protected Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.
Complete and utter bollix, old chap.
It's not complete and utter bollix,
that's what was said on the short recent history guide to the North dvd that came free with the jumbo packs of cornflakes some 2 years ago.
or was it just written on the back of the cereal packet?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Then use Ireland the state, the 26, The republic of Ireland ,the republic or even the south. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 04:38:17 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 04:11:45 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
That will do for starters.
I'm lost so . Why would a SA province be apologising?
Stop being pedantic! Dubs are never pedantic. Frantic, yes. Gigantic, yes. Romantic, definitely no. Pedantic, no.
Then refer to the state with a name that isn't intended as an insult
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Then use Ireland the state, the 26, The republic of Ireland ,the republic or even the south. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
No it's not. The 26 is a Free state isnt it? So why get insulted when it's refered to as such. but obviously, with me being from the North and you not you'd know whether northerners use such terms when they mean to insult.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 06:10:11 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Then use Ireland the state, the 26, The republic of Ireland ,the republic or even the south. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
No it's not. The 26 is a Free state isnt it? So why get insulted when it's refered to as such. but obviously, with me being from the North and you not you'd know whether northerners use such terms when they mean to insult.
Its not referred to as
the Free state not
a free state . Clearly referring to IFS from 22-37.
If it's not an insult they why are the words free staters often preceded with the word f**king?
I am speaking from personally experience I've never heard either Free State or Free Stater being using in a non disparaging way. And this thread is no different .
The use of the term Free State - Free Stater is regarded as archaic in the Republic, the stuff of backwood hillbillies.
That would be the general perception in the Republic.
I would not be offended by the term being used, just backwoods hillbilly comes to mind.
I don't know why.
QuoteIts not referred to as the Free state not a free state . Clearly referring to IFS from 22-37.
If it's not an insult they why are the words free staters often preceded with the word f**king?
I am speaking from personally experience I've never heard either Free State or Free Stater being using in a non disparaging way. And this thread is no different .
What? It's normally referred to as the free state, so what? That would be the correct terminologly. "IN the free state such and such" no one would say "in a free state such and such" because that would make no sense.
As I say, I'm from the North, I know that the term is not generally used as an insult and people would use it in every day conversation. Yes, it can be used as an insult depending on how it's said but generally it's not. But clearly, you'd know better than me. ::)
Mainstreet, a lot of people, including myself wouldnt say the republic because I'll never accept anything other than a 32 county republic!
I think it's true to say that we in the South should be ashamed of our lack of actions in the North of this country. I also think it's fair to say we deserted our Northern brothers and sisters.
Not only did we decide against military action in the North, we also failed to draw necessary attention to the situation there. The reason for this was self interest and cowardice.
Now it can be argued what result of military action by the Irish army in 1969 would be. It could of ended in many different ways, it mightn't even have ended yet but if the reasons given for the lack of action back then and now (ie. the whole country would be under British rule, we would of been squashed), then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
If we say that we couldn't invade and we say there was no-one we could get to help the Northern Nationalists then what did we expect them to do? Did we expect the British to help :o Surely an armed struggle was their only option.
QuoteNow it can be argued what result of military action by the Irish army in 1969 would be. It could of ended in many different ways, it mightn't even have ended yet but if the reasons given for the lack of action back then and now (ie. the whole country would be under British rule, we would of been squashed), then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because they've their head stuck up britain's hole and because they're alright, it's easier to get on a high horse and preach to others when you're not in the situation and when the generations before you done the fighting for you.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 06:33:43 PM
Mainstreet, a lot of people, including myself wouldnt say the republic because I'll never accept anything other than a 32 county republic!
I don't use the term Republic much myself,
but even within the occasional reference of its use, one (like me) can accept the incompleteness of what is being referred to.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
[Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.
And of course you omitted ::) to mention that the Soldiers were then put under the control of Stormont and were then used against the Nationalist population ( Falls Curfew/one sided arms searches/Bloody Sunday ring any oul bells at all)
Quote from: Orior on September 01, 2009, 05:21:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 31, 2009, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: Orior on August 31, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
In my opinion, any sort of action would have been justified. Considering the injustices that have gone before and after it is to their shame that the Irish Government didnt do more.
Not sure if I should be apologising on behalf of the 26 counties but as a citizen I think the government of Ireland didn't do half enough to protect Catholics from blatant discrimination all throughout the period 1922-1972. The Provos tried to protect the Catholic areas from then onwards but it was too late and the troubles were born.
Just to dispel this myth - the provos never protected Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.
Complete and utter bollix, old chap.
Oh right. I must be wrong then. Thanks for clearing that up. ::)
Orior, don't you know that Myles knows best. He obviously knows all the major players of that time when he can say what he does so emphatically ;)
Doogie Browser summed up myles perfectly in two words, Forest Gump.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 08:03:17 PM
Doogie Browser summed up myles perfectly in two words, Forest Gump.
:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/northern_ireland/2001/provisional_ira/1969.stm
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=coldwar-imperialism/ira-dirty-war/british-agent-posing-as-IRA-networks-with-PLO.txt
http://www.triskelle.eu/history/britishtroops.php?index=060.170.040
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/analysis-ira-admitted-that-years-of-carnage-among-civilians-damaged-its-cause-648593.html
Just to save you looking for the relevant bit in that last quote (I'm kidding, POG! I know you don't like reading anything that contradicts your prejudices) I'll copy the relevant section:
'Those who are often most frequently remembered are the large number of civilians killed when major IRA operations "go wrong". These include the casualties of the Enniskillen bombing in 1987 and three members of a family – father, mother and child – who were killed in an IRA attempt to kill a judge.'
Protectors of the Catholic community my hole.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 01, 2009, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
[Catholic areas. They weren't around - or at least, weren't organised or armed - when the areas really needed protecting when all hell broke loose in 1969 and the reputation of the IRA suffered as a result: IRA I Ran Away was painted on walls in Belfast. That was why the British Army (put in by the British government at the request of Catholic clergy and politicians) was welcomed in many Catholic areas with cups of tea - much to the disgust of local republicans. Even when the provos did get organised, they were never interested in protecting Catholic areas. They were simply interested in stiffing Brits. In the process, they often put the lives of local residents at risk and occasionally killed or injured them. Protection my arse.
And of course you omitted ::) to mention that the Soldiers were then put under the control of Stormont and were then used against the Nationalist population ( Falls Curfew/one sided arms searches/Bloody Sunday ring any oul bells at all)
We all know what happened but the original point about the IRA not being protectors stands .
I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.
That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 08:52:39 PM
I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.
That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.
The point I'm making is that in the very early days of the troubles they failed to protect the Catholic community. Further, the people regarded them as failures and welcomed the arrival of British soldiers onto their streets. That fact may stick in the craw of republicans, but it's fact. The situation viv a vis the British Army changed over a matter of months, when they responded to a deteriorating security situation with a heavy handed and one sided clamp down in Catholic areas. That doesn't alter my original point, that the IRA didn't protect Catholic communities. Nor did they as the troubles continued. They failed to stop loyalist murders of Catholics (their stated policy was they didn't want to get involved in a sectarian war) and continued to put the lives of the people in Catholic areas at risk with their 'operations' against the security forces.
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: Galwaybhoy on September 01, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 01:05:22 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on September 01, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
If there was a such a mechanism the free state gombeens should be charged with cowardice for the period 1916 to date. To leave us in the lurch is unforgivable in my view. Id near rather have the brits than a bunch of yellow b**tards that hid in those years.
Why , what did the South African Province do?
You know well - the free state left us in the shit, and they have they cheek to call themselves Irishmen. The biggest military contribution made by the freestaters was building motorways in England so they could transport more troops to the north.
Oh thats the reason, i just thought we just didn't care as we didn't want bombings on our door steps and the "free state" as you call it was piss poor and relying on the UK for its economic survival. But that comment clears it all up, how do you manage to get through the day with that large chip on your shoulder? When youv'e finished primary school and start to learn something about history i'm sure you will become more enlightened person.
Fact is the free state stood idly by. Prove otherwise. Oh thats right you cant.
What is it you suggest the Republic could of done in 69 ? Or the IFS/Republic could of done in the other years?
Pull their noses out of the brits asses for a start. Pressurise them through international opinion - no one would expect them to lift a finger in anger after all. It should remain a stain on everyone in the 26 the same way as Germans still carry their shame.
:D
So people in the 26 today should feel ashamed about what our Government did or didn't do as the case maybe for the Nationalist people in the six even though a lot of us were not even born at the time. I'm not going to argue the point our Government did not do enough for the people in the north of Ireland but that last part of your post is nonsense Man in Black.
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
Its not something anybody in the South would be proud off and would be hard for anyone to admit but it is hard to disagree with alot of what the Man InBlack is saying.Im from Cavan and I was born in 1984.Its only in the last few years that I really have grown an interest in recent Irish history and in particular the North and the troubles.I have read a number of books detailing what went on in the Troubles.I have to say it always made me angry when it came to the way the Government in Dublin was so evasive of its responsibilities to try and represent and protect Nationalists in the north. Even when Sinn Fein was trying its best to get the Peace Process on the road Dail Eireann seemed to be doing its best to stop it.Like little pawns for Downing street.
The Irish Government couldn't even get it together to catch the perpetrators of the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan FFS.If they couldn't even protect their own State from attack,its no wonder they stood idly by when fellow countrymen were dying in the North.
But it has to be said that the Government in Dublin would have been alienated from the opinion of alot of people in the South at the time.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 09:02:37 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 08:52:39 PM
I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.
That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.
The point I'm making is that in the very early days of the troubles they failed to protect the Catholic community. Further, the people regarded them as failures and welcomed the arrival of British soldiers onto their streets. That fact may stick in the craw of republicans, but it's fact. The situation viv a vis the British Army changed over a matter of months, when they responded to a deteriorating security situation with a heavy handed and one sided clamp down in Catholic areas. That doesn't alter my original point, that the IRA didn't protect Catholic communities. Nor did they as the troubles continued. They failed to stop loyalist murders of Catholics (their stated policy was they didn't want to get involved in a sectarian war) and continued to put the lives of the people in Catholic areas at risk with their 'operations' against the security forces.
Of course they did, catholics in republican strongholds were generally safe from Loyalist attacks.
. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
[/quote]
What, like the N word :)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 09:09:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 01, 2009, 09:02:37 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 08:52:39 PM
I dont know what point you're trying to make myles, the IRA killed civillians, we all know that.
That doesnt mean they didnt protect cathalic communites also, particularly in the early part of the troubles.
The point I'm making is that in the very early days of the troubles they failed to protect the Catholic community. Further, the people regarded them as failures and welcomed the arrival of British soldiers onto their streets. That fact may stick in the craw of republicans, but it's fact. The situation viv a vis the British Army changed over a matter of months, when they responded to a deteriorating security situation with a heavy handed and one sided clamp down in Catholic areas. That doesn't alter my original point, that the IRA didn't protect Catholic communities. Nor did they as the troubles continued. They failed to stop loyalist murders of Catholics (their stated policy was they didn't want to get involved in a sectarian war) and continued to put the lives of the people in Catholic areas at risk with their 'operations' against the security forces.
Of course they did, catholics in republican strongholds were generally safe from Loyalist attacks.
Not in Belfast they weren't, and most of the sectarian murders took place in Belfast.
Myles, Myles, Myles.
I guess the next thing you're gonna tell us is that the IRA started the troubles?
A bunch of planes to fly over the Irish to scare them home. Jaysus! ::)
I have to agree with Hardstation. I was looking forward to this show but it is total crap. Mike Dewer has come across a total gobshit and very bitter, I wonder does he post on this site.
Quote from: hardstation on September 01, 2009, 10:39:57 PM
This programme is the biggest pile of shite I've seen in a long time.
It should go into the WTF thread.
Wild Boring and very much hypothetical with little fact! All it's doin is portrayin Lynch as not a very strong character who needed everyone's approval! Maybe it's the crap reconstructions but the guy who is playin Lynch constantly looks like he's petrified. Tough times needed strong, assertive men, this programme isn't really portraying him as such. Even choosing Newry to head for and not Derry was weak, they could run away from newry a lot quicker.
Quote from: Sandino on September 01, 2009, 10:43:49 PM
Mike Dewer has come across a total gobshit and very bitter, I wonder does he post on this site.
Now he's saying the Irish Army would have been wiped out!
Zig slaughtered was his phrase. The skills aquired in africa would have been used in ireland. As they were in the end anyway
This is just total crap, they have just given 2.30 as being the time of the end of the conflict. Did I every tell you how my life would have turned out IF I had been a great footballer, could they make a tv show out of it?
The north is now Yugoslavia
I didn't watch the program, I just assumed the exercise was a sop by Lynch to a few in cabinet who wanted some plan for some action in case there was another event like the Battle of Bogside.
Very disappointing programme, with little insight. The invasion scenario is hardly credible, the supposed takeover of the RUC station on the Northern edge of Newry, when it was in Corry Sq, and the Irish Army sitting out in the middle of fields waiting to be straffed from the air. A load of bollix.
Comic book fantasy stuff. 120 soldiers camped outside Newry?! What would have been the point? Pub talk dressed up as a serious documentary.
I was looking forward to that for a long time no. Load of nonsense.
The loud dramatic music with strings and horns and what have ya done my fuckin head in.Tryin to make a big thing out of nothing. 120 troops,slaughtered by 2.30.FFS.
Although it was hard to listen to some of them British Army veterans like Dewer,it would be hard to disagree with them.
total rubbish.
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
I think it's true to say that we in the South should be ashamed of our lack of actions in the North of this country. I also think it's fair to say we deserted our Northern brothers and sisters.
Not only did we decide against military action in the North, we also failed to draw necessary attention to the situation there. The reason for this was self interest and cowardice.
Now it can be argued what result of military action by the Irish army in 1969 would be. It could of ended in many different ways, it mightn't even have ended yet but if the reasons given for the lack of action back then and now (ie. the whole country would be under British rule, we would of been squashed), then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
If we say that we couldn't invade and we say there was no-one we could get to help the Northern Nationalists then what did we expect them to do? Did we expect the British to help :o Surely an armed struggle was their only option.
its a pity your fellow countrymen (especially the dubs) didnt feel the same.
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
The provos fought a sectarian war ? What planet do you reside on - you west brit tool.
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
The provos fought a sectarian war ? What planet do you reside on - you west brit tool.
Explain the choice of targets so?
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
The provos fought a sectarian war ? What planet do you reside on - you west brit tool.
Explain the choice of targets so?
Ruc / Brit Army was the bulk of them
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
The provos fought a sectarian war ? What planet do you reside on - you west brit tool.
Explain the choice of targets so?
Ruc / Brit Army was the bulk of them
Yes but not all of them and the others are very hard to justify at least for me .
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
The provos fought a sectarian war ? What planet do you reside on - you west brit tool.
Explain the choice of targets so?
Ruc / Brit Army was the bulk of them
Yes but not all of them and the others are very hard to justify at least for me .
Collatoral damage
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
f**k me that's idiotic. Do you think the IRA or IRB never killed civillians before 1922 or something? More civillians were killed in 1916 than British soldiers.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: Dont Matter on September 01, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
then why is the majority of the people down south anti IRA?
Because the PIRA fought a dirty sectarian war and were happy to kill civilians rather than kill legitimate targets. The PIRA disgraced the name IRA.
f**k me that's idiotic. Do you think the IRA or IRB never killed civillians before 1922 or something? More civillians were killed in 1916 than British soldiers.
There is a slight difference between being caught in the cross fire and the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilians areas such as pubs.
civilians were targeted and killed in the War of independence too, look in to the casualties of the time, sectarian killings took place, particularly in the North, by both sides.
Yet you view the IRA that done that through rose tinted glasses and the IRA who done it 30 years ago were bad.
The PIRA, in the troubles, btw, largely targeted military targets. Yes, they did target civilians on occasions but most of the campaign was aimed towards the military. If they were just out to take part in a sectarian war killing civilians why would they risk their lives attacking military targets?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 12:08:55 PM
civilians were targeted and killed in the War of independence too, look in to the casualties of the time, sectarian killings took place, particularly in the North, by both sides.
Yet you view the IRA that done that through rose tinted glasses and the IRA who done it 30 years ago were bad.
The PIRA, in the troubles, btw, largely targeted military targets. Yes, they did target civilians on occasions but most of the campaign was aimed towards the military. If they were just out to take part in a sectarian war killing civilians why would they risk their lives attacking military targets?
Ok fair enough ,you make a valid point . Perhaps I should of said the PIRA where far more sectarian than the IRA of old
Quote from: Gnevin on September 02, 2009, 12:22:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 12:08:55 PM
civilians were targeted and killed in the War of independence too, look in to the casualties of the time, sectarian killings took place, particularly in the North, by both sides.
Yet you view the IRA that done that through rose tinted glasses and the IRA who done it 30 years ago were bad.
The PIRA, in the troubles, btw, largely targeted military targets. Yes, they did target civilians on occasions but most of the campaign was aimed towards the military. If they were just out to take part in a sectarian war killing civilians why would they risk their lives attacking military targets?
Ok fair enough ,you make a valid point . Perhaps I should of said the PIRA where far more sectarian than the IRA of old
That's still idiotic.
The man in black has the semblance of a valid point - if the question is ever asked (referendum) I wouldn't be surprised if the people of the 26 counties voted to keep the border.
Can you point to any evidence to suggest such a result in a referendum poll?
Quote from: stephenite on September 02, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
The man in black has the semblance of a valid point - if the question is ever asked (referendum) I wouldn't be surprised if the people of the 26 counties voted to keep the border.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Quote from: Main Street on September 02, 2009, 12:31:43 PM
Can you point to any evidence to suggest such a result in a referendum poll?
No - nothing that could be backed up with evidence. That's why I said
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISEDIt's an opinion derived from mainly anecdotal experiences and conversations I've had with people over the years. I also think that if such a plebiscite was to happen a few well positioned bomb scares in strategic locations around the Republic by those who would be against re-unification would do enough to cause any of those with more romantic visions of a United Ireland to think again.
I should add that I would be in favour of re-unification - I'm just not convinced that many of those living down South are.
I wouldnt be surprised either, sure the free state is full of cowards and "I'm alright" types.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
I wouldnt be surprised either, sure the free state is full of cowards and "I'm alright" types.
I would imagine that comment will go unchallenged! ::)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 02, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
I wouldnt be surprised either, sure the free state is full of cowards and "I'm alright" types.
I would imagine that comment will go unchallenged! ::)
Sure it's only Pints on another wee fishing trip
It's ridiculous to suggest that the PIRA besmirched the name of the IRA, in the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that the RIRA besmirched the name of the PIRA. All three organisations killed civilians and were in full knowledge of what they were doing. To act as if there is no comparison between any of them is naive and idiotic.
Quote from: stephenite on September 02, 2009, 01:12:51 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 02, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 02, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
I wouldnt be surprised either, sure the free state is full of cowards and "I'm alright" types.
I would imagine that comment will go unchallenged! ::)
Sure it's only Pints on another wee fishing trip
It is not. I would have thought it would be a fact at this stage, no other reasons for those in the South not voting for a United Ireland. You said as much as yourself, a few threats would put people off voting for it.
Quote from: stibhan on September 02, 2009, 01:18:46 PM
It's ridiculous to suggest that the PIRA besmirched the name of the IRA, in the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that the RIRA besmirched the name of the PIRA. All three organisations killed civilians and were in full knowledge of what they were doing. To act as if there is no comparison between any of them is naive and idiotic.
So your saying planting a bomb in a town centre or a pub or a war memorial is the same as civilian being killed in the attempt to get legitimate military targets?
I sense some hostility ;D
No wonder, the 6 counties is chock full of the persecuted and the deranged, playing blame.
Despite all that, the good citizens in the Republic have indicated their positive affirmation towards a united Ireland in overwhelming numbers.
I think the Southern lot should exercise much more caution in these matters.
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Then use Ireland the state, the 26, The republic of Ireland ,the republic or even the south. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
Well they insult me if II was called a Free Stater. And I was only 10 when the GFA was passed and I remember saying to my dad 'Why are you voting yes when we'ree giving up the North?'
Those same words were later immortalised in the Michael Collins film
'Jaysus Mick, we're giving up the North'
Quote from: Main Street on September 02, 2009, 07:08:32 PM
Those same words were later immortalised in the Michael Collins film
'Jaysus Mick, we're giving up the North'
Reincarnation?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 02, 2009, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on September 01, 2009, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on September 01, 2009, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 01, 2009, 02:42:03 PM
Why is it nonsense ? The 26 counties let us down and continue to do so. The removal of the constitutional claim was just another surrender and a further stab in the back for us in the 6
You won't even address the state by its correct name and seem to hate it and it's people so why do you give a shit what Bunreacht na hÉireann says?
What would you like me to call it? The Republic of Ireland i suppose - an irony if ever i heard one.
Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Pick one.
But the state isnt Ireland, Ireland has 32 counties.
The island of Ireland has 32 counties . We the people of the state called Ireland can call our state what ever we like. If you think Ireland is too ambiguous use Éire or the Republic of Ireland if you must
You can call the state whatever you want but you can't expect others to refer to it in the same way when the name makes no sense and people need to be able to tell the difference between Ireland (the 26 county one yous have seemed to settle for) and the real Ireland, you know the 32 county one.
Then use Ireland the state, the 26, The republic of Ireland ,the republic or even the south. Free state and free stater is said with hate in the North and is intended as an Insult .
Well they insult me if II was called a Free Stater. And I was only 10 when the GFA was passed and I remember saying to my dad 'Why are you voting yes when we'ree giving up the North?'
At 10 you probably just didn't realise you couldn't give up something you've never had.
Quote from: Main Street on September 02, 2009, 07:08:32 PM
Those same words were later immortalised in the Michael Collins film
'Jaysus Mick, we're giving up the North'
Very good Main Street
Laughed at that
I was in my late teens at the time and I remember clearly the state of confusion and fear that was evident in the Republic. I really don't recall much of the details as the situation seemed to be changing up North by the hour.
Most homes had TVs by this time and the footage coming through of mob rioting had everybody up in a heap. The sight of St. Matthew's church being burnt down and Bombay Street on fire really spooked everyone down here.
Everyone was convinced that huge numbers of Catholics were going to be murdered and there was no sign of Britain getting involved to curb the violence.
The sight of Paisley in his trademark long white coat, ranting and raving, was terrorising enough but William Craig was the devil himself as far as we were concerned.
It was obvious that the government here was in a heap and that Lynch seemed unsure of what he was doing, never mind what he planned to do next.
It's against that background that you'd need to consider the plans to invade the area around Newry. Looking back, I feel it was never really on. The hard wing activists in the cabinet, Blaney in particular, were in overdrive and had absolutely no respect whatsoever for Lynch and their 'cowardly' colleagues.
I'd say that the army did meet to draw up contingency plans alright- but for them to assess the situation was what you'd expect. There were rumours alright about the army being mobilised and units had been dispatched to the border areas to control the flood of refugees and to set up tents for them. But the army was in no fit state to advance as far as Dundalk, never mind Newry. Much of its vehicles had been lying about unused for ages and was obsolete and second hand anyway. The top brass and the politicians said very little but ordinary soldiers and service personnel were reporting that they army was searching like mad to get tyres for the lorries and we knew that many of the lorries being sent to Dundalk were breaking down on the way up.
In spite of the panic and confusion, I doubt if anyone really expected the Irish army to invade although Blaney & co. were calling for this every day.
Can you just imagine what would have happenned if the Cabinet had hit on the idea to set up an emergency fund for the relief of the distressed and surreptitiously used the funds to purchase arms and hand them over to representatives of the distressed, preferably from the boot of a car.
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Collatoral damage
Describing the murder of innocent people in terrorist attacks as "collatoral damage" is a pretty good example of why even now Sinn Fein has such small political support in the south.
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Collatoral damage
Describing the murder of innocent people in terrorist attacks as "collatoral damage" is a pretty good example of why even now Sinn Fein has such small political support in the south.
the majority of sf'ers - esp in the south - are nothing to do with the IRA
however your statement goes to show that the old unionist line of 'sf/ira' has stuck in the minds of many !
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Quotehowever your statement goes to show that the old unionist line of 'sf/ira' has stuck in the minds of many !
seems to be SF/IRA/Someone on internet discussion board.
Get it hard to believe that SF's position in the south has got to do with what someone says on Gaaboard.com!
Yes, lynchbhoy you are correct, there are very very few people in the south who do not believe that Sinn Fein were strongly connected with PIRA throughout the troubles. Those oul unionists codded us solid.
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 01:26:49 PM
Yes, lynchbhoy you are correct, there are very very few people in the south who do not believe that Sinn Fein were strongly connected with PIRA throughout the troubles. Those oul unionists codded us solid.
I assume you wouldnt vote for FF or FG either then?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Was it an all-island state run by Dublin?
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 01:26:49 PM
Yes, lynchbhoy you are correct, there are very very few people in the south who do not believe that Sinn Fein were strongly connected with PIRA throughout the troubles. Those oul unionists codded us solid.
am sure plenty of folks like the thoughts of mary lou running round with an armalite alright ::)
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Was it an all-island state run by Dublin?
were the six counties then conjoined to england and physically separated by the Irish sea ?
Or was it even then the island of Ireland !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Was it an all-island state run by Dublin?
were the six counties then conjoined to england and physically separated by the Irish sea ?
Or was it even then the island of Ireland !
An island does not mean a state. It is a laughable position best described as 'salt-waterism'. Ireland was previously divided up and never ruled on the whole by Dublin. Ever.
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Was it an all-island state run by Dublin?
were the six counties then conjoined to england and physically separated by the Irish sea ?
Or was it even then the island of Ireland !
An island does not mean a state. It is a laughable position best described as 'salt-waterism'. Ireland was previously divided up and never ruled on the whole by Dublin. Ever.
What about Grattan's parliament???
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 03, 2009, 07:11:45 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 03, 2009, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Was it an all-island state run by Dublin?
were the six counties then conjoined to england and physically separated by the Irish sea ?
Or was it even then the island of Ireland !
An island does not mean a state. It is a laughable position best described as 'salt-waterism'. Ireland was previously divided up and never ruled on the whole by Dublin. Ever.
What about Grattan's parliament???
Pre-Cromwell ???
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Collatoral damage
Describing the murder of innocent people in terrorist attacks as "collatoral damage" is a pretty good example of why even now Sinn Fein has such small political support in the south.
the majority of sf'ers - esp in the south - are nothing to do with the IRA
however your statement goes to show that the old unionist line of 'sf/ira' has stuck in the minds of many !
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Sure Britain's never been at that divide & conquer craic. Weren't India & Pakistan always two seperate countries as well ???
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 04, 2009, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 03, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Hound on September 03, 2009, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: man in black on September 02, 2009, 11:09:43 AM
Collatoral damage
Describing the murder of innocent people in terrorist attacks as "collatoral damage" is a pretty good example of why even now Sinn Fein has such small political support in the south.
the majority of sf'ers - esp in the south - are nothing to do with the IRA
however your statement goes to show that the old unionist line of 'sf/ira' has stuck in the minds of many !
had to laugh at rogers attemt to wind up there - 'cant give back what you never owned'.
So Ireland existed only upon the arrival of cromwell then !
:D
Sure Britain's never been at that divide & conquer craic. Weren't India & Pakistan always two seperate countries as well ???
hong kong sets the tone for us to follow suit soon !
Roger,
On the point of why these plans were drawn up: do you believe intervention was needed on behalf of the nationalist community (particularly in Derry and parts of Belfast) from some quarter?
What would have happened if the London government/British Army had not intervened?
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 04, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
On the point of why these plans were drawn up: do you believe intervention was needed on behalf of the nationalist community (particularly in Derry and parts of Belfast) from some quarter?
The nationalist community (rightly or wrongly which is not the question) had created a situation where law and order was seriously threatened and the army was needed. What the nationalist community did not need was a (half-cocked / crack force) invasion by the Republic.
Quote
What would have happened if the London government/British Army had not intervened?
Who knows? It wouldn't have been good for either community in Northern Ireland if they hadn't.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 12:01:01 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 04, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
On the point of why these plans were drawn up: do you believe intervention was needed on behalf of the nationalist community (particularly in Derry and parts of Belfast) from some quarter?
The nationalist community (rightly or wrongly which is not the question) had created a situation where law and order was seriously threatened and the army was needed. What the nationalist community did not need was a (half-cocked / crack force) invasion by the Republic.
::)
people like this are still in denial !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 12:01:01 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 04, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
On the point of why these plans were drawn up: do you believe intervention was needed on behalf of the nationalist community (particularly in Derry and parts of Belfast) from some quarter?
The nationalist community (rightly or wrongly which is not the question) had created a situation where law and order was seriously threatened and the army was needed. What the nationalist community did not need was a (half-cocked / crack force) invasion by the Republic.
::)
people like this are still in denial !
I am not denying anything.
Jesus so now according to Roger it was all our own fault, silly taigs making life difficult for themselves!! ::)
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 12:29:57 PM
Jesus so now according to Roger it was all our own fault, silly taigs making life difficult for themselves!! ::)
Eh? I did not say rightly or wrongly or blame anyone.
Not that you had any creditability anyway Rodger but you just lost whatever you had with the statement that Nationalists had created a situation. Unless you mean that by trying to achieve basic human rights Nationalists had created this situation thus ignoring all other factors prior to these demands that may have created this situation.
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 01:15:49 PM
Not that you had any creditability anyway Rodger but you just lost whatever you had with the statement that Nationalists had created a situation. Unless you mean that by trying to achieve basic human rights Nationalists had created this situation thus ignoring all other factors prior to these demands that may have created this situation.
The security situation (requiring army intervention and the plans by the Republic) was created by nationalists and made worse by the handling of the situation by the authorities. I am not commenting on any of the reasons for the security situation.
You just have!
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 01:23:32 PM
You just have!
Was the nationalist protest not designed to challenge the authorities?
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 01:23:32 PM
You just have!
Was the nationalist protest not designed to challenge the authorities?
So it was our fault all along.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 01:23:32 PM
You just have!
Was the nationalist protest not designed to challenge the authorities?
So it was our fault all along.
I did not say whether nationalists were right or wrong I simply commented to Jim that the security situation meant that intervention from the army was needed.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:00:15 PM
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 01:23:32 PM
You just have!
Was the nationalist protest not designed to challenge the authorities?
So it was our fault all along.
I did not say whether nationalists were right or wrong I simply commented to Jim that the security situation meant that intervention from the army was needed.
Really -
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 01:21:09 PM
The security situation (requiring army intervention and the plans by the Republic) was created by nationalists and made worse by the handling of the situation by the authorities. I am not commenting on any of the reasons for the security situation.
Is this train of thought commonplace amongst unionists?
Do you not think that nationalist protest was designed to challenge the authorities? Do you think the authorities handled it well or made the security situation worse?
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:48:28 PM
Do you not think that nationalist protest was designed to challenge the authorities? Do you think the authorities handled it well or made the security situation worse?
you might want to try and use a smaller shovel...
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:48:28 PM
Do you not think that nationalist protest was designed to challenge the authorities? Do you think the authorities handled it well or made the security situation worse?
Who's fault was it, that there was any need for protests?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:48:28 PM
Do you not think that nationalist protest was designed to challenge the authorities? Do you think the authorities handled it well or made the security situation worse?
Who's fault was it, that there was any need for protests?
That's a whole different discussion and irrelevant to the subject matter. There was not going to be any invasion from the Republic based on jobs for the boys and preferential treatment on housing. The invasion plans were drawn up because of what the security situation in NI presented at the time of the plans.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 02:34:40 PM
I did not say whether nationalists were right or wrong I simply commented to Jim that the security situation meant that intervention from the army was needed.
It was needed to protect the Nationalist Community from murderous attacks by the Stormont Security forces(RUC/B Specials) and their associated Unionist mobs.
Roger's comments are a bit like white Mississipians/Alabamans/Georgians the way they blamed the "niggers" for all the violence done to Black people by white racists. >:(
Disgraceful blind cannot accept reality etc etc
Rossfan, your comments are untrue about me and a complete disgrace. Comparisons of my comments (try bloody reading them!) and likening me to racist supremacists in America is disgusting.
However, there is sadly a track record of this type of behaviour and that it is apparently acceptable on this board for these comments against other board members who disagree with a certain element here. Pathetic.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:19:04 PM
Rossfan, your comments are untrue about me and a complete disgrace. Comparisons of my comments (try bloody reading them!) and likening me to racist supremacists in America is disgusting.
However, there is sadly a track record of this type of behaviour and that it is apparently acceptable on this board for these comments against other board members who disagree with a certain element here. Pathetic.
:D
priceless
'physician, heal thyself' !
Lads to be fair ,leave out the personal attacks and insulting comments. Roger has never from what ive seen,been insulting or agressive in any way,He argues his own points alright,but some of the attacks himself and some of the other OWC contingent take are out of order.
Roger what is your opinion on the RUC/UDR/B Specials,legitimate security forces or paramilitary forces alligned to Loyalism?
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on September 04, 2009, 03:25:06 PM
Lads to be fair ,leave out the personal attacks and insulting comments. Roger has never from what ive seen,been insulting or agressive in any way,He argues his own points alright,but some of the attacks himself and some of the other OWC contingent take are out of order.
Roger what is your opinion on the RUC/UDR/B Specials,legitimate security forces or paramilitary forces alligned to Loyalism?
...surely its a tad (if not very) insulting to say that the nationalists brought it upon themselves?
I am pretty sure he knows this too and has continued to back up this insensitivity rather than apologise for its crassness.
no one is insulting roger - people are having a go at his very inflammatory and insulting comment.
It does give insight into the perspective of loyalist/unionists on this matter (and all other connected matters) ie the nationalists/taigs etc 'got what they were looking for' !
some kind of notion that the nationalist/catholic/Irish should have continued to take the beatings/oppression/sectarianism/bigotry/aparthied from the be specials /ruc / loyalist and unionist militia and the sectarian establishment local gov and say nothing - certainly not protest against any of the aforementioned!
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on September 04, 2009, 03:25:06 PM
Lads to be fair ,leave out the personal attacks and insulting comments. Roger has never from what ive seen,been insulting or agressive in any way,He argues his own points alright,but some of the attacks himself and some of the other OWC contingent take are out of order.
Roger what is your opinion on the RUC/UDR/B Specials,legitimate security forces or paramilitary forces alligned to Loyalism?
They were certainly legitimate security forces. Where the disagreement would come is whether they were good or bad, managed right or managed wrong, a total disgrace or courageous defenders, set up correctly or set up wrongly, influenced by others or in cahoots with others etc etc is really the area for discussion and very unlikely that we would agree. Somewhere in the middle is probably the answer. I'm happy enough with the current policiing and security situation and find that discussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:19:04 PM
Rossfan, your comments are untrue about me and a complete disgrace. Comparisons of my comments (try bloody reading them!) and likening me to racist supremacists in America is disgusting.
Unionists via the Stormont administration discriminated against Nationalists for 50 years until the Brits closed it down.
By 1968 Nationalists had enough and held some marches which were attacked by RUC/B Specials/Unionists. The RUC invaded the Bogside several times to bate the shite outs the locals several times during 1969 which ended with the fightback by the kids in the Bogside in August.
When Belfast Nationalists tried to help by blocking off their areas they were savagely attacked ( 9 deaths including a 9 year old in his bed killed by a RUC bullet).
Now in most parts of the world ( well ok ..places with elected Governemnts) protest marches by large numbers of people usually cause the rulers to look at the grievances and try to ameliorate them.
There were 2 exceptions ...White controlled Southern U S States and the 6 Counties where it was the "underdog's fault"
Unionists still cant accept they caused the problem and Roger's comments about a situation caused by Nationalists reinforces my belief in that.
I suppose those who died in the famine brought it on themselves too. ::)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:30:46 PM
...surely its a tad (if not very) insulting to say that the nationalists brought it upon themselves?
I am pretty sure he knows this too and has continued to back up this insensitivity rather than apologise for its crassness.
no one is insulting roger - people are having a go at his very inflammatory and insulting comment.
It does give insight into the perspective of loyalist/unionists on this matter (and all other connected matters) ie the nationalists/taigs etc 'got what they were looking for' !
Try reading my post instead of reading into it what you want followed by your usual insults and hysterical rants.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:37:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:30:46 PM
...surely its a tad (if not very) insulting to say that the nationalists brought it upon themselves?
I am pretty sure he knows this too and has continued to back up this insensitivity rather than apologise for its crassness.
no one is insulting roger - people are having a go at his very inflammatory and insulting comment.
It does give insight into the perspective of loyalist/unionists on this matter (and all other connected matters) ie the nationalists/taigs etc 'got what they were looking for' !
Try reading my post instead of reading into it what you want followed by your usual insults and hysterical rants.
maybe read your own posts to realise the idiotic insulting rubbish - that is historically incorrect - you have written !
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm not pretending it never happened but simply recognise there is division. It is certainly not something I would discuss with you as you are clearly unable to control yourself and discuss it rationally without flying off into personal insults though.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm not pretending it never happened but simply recognise there is division. It is certainly not something I would discuss with you as you are clearly unable to control yourself and discuss it rationally without flying off into personal insults though.
point out where he 'flew off into personal insults'
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:37:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:30:46 PM
...surely its a tad (if not very) insulting to say that the nationalists brought it upon themselves?
I am pretty sure he knows this too and has continued to back up this insensitivity rather than apologise for its crassness.
no one is insulting roger - people are having a go at his very inflammatory and insulting comment.
It does give insight into the perspective of loyalist/unionists on this matter (and all other connected matters) ie the nationalists/taigs etc 'got what they were looking for' !
Try reading my post instead of reading into it what you want followed by your usual insults and hysterical rants.
maybe read your own posts to realise the idiotic insulting rubbish - that is historically incorrect - you have written !
Did the nationalists challenge the security forces? Did this challenge, subsequent reaction and resultant security situation require and justify the intervention by the army? For me both answers are yes. At the time the this was considered to be a good result by nationalists and seemingly claimed as such.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm not pretending it never happened but simply recognise there is division. It is certainly not something I would discuss with you as you are clearly unable to control yourself and discuss it rationally without flying off into personal insults though.
point out where he 'flew off into personal insults'
:D
I thought it was just my posts but it's strange that you can't read Rossfan's posts either.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:45:02 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm not pretending it never happened but simply recognise there is division. It is certainly not something I would discuss with you as you are clearly unable to control yourself and discuss it rationally without flying off into personal insults though.
point out where he 'flew off into personal insults'
:D
I thought it was just my posts but it's strange that you can't read Rossfan's posts either.
so either you cant answer the question or everyone else is wrong but you !
Then theres you wonderful justification for attacking nationalists and so on - they brought it upon themselves.
It Reminds me of what those people said about the victims of the hillsborough disaster.
As I said before, you'd be better off using a smaller shovel...
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 03:38:30 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:34:35 PMdiscussions about this particular period of time was divisive then and actually maintains the division now.
Oh dear !!! ::)
Let's pretend it never happened ... ?
:-X :-X :-X :-X
I'm not pretending it never happened but simply recognise there is division. It is certainly not something I would discuss with you as you are clearly unable to control yourself and discuss it rationally without flying off into personal insults though.
I never insulted YOU. I commented on the similarity of your comments/views with those of American white racists.
In fact you are the chap who doesnt want to discuss anything to do with the disgraceful Stormont regime of 1922 - 72 and it's awful policies against the then 35 - 40% of the population in the area it misadministered.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:47:56 PM
Then theres you wonderful justification for attacking nationalists and so on - they brought it upon themselves.
I have never said that nationalists brought anything on themselves. What I have said is that nationalists challenged the authorities and the results led to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order. Nationalists at the time considered this to be a victory. What part of that is so inaccurate or offensive?
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 04:45:37 PM
to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order.
The intervention was needed to protect a large section of the population FROM the supposed forces of Law and Order and their disgraceful camp followers.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 04, 2009, 04:49:48 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 04:45:37 PM
to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order.
The intervention was needed to protect a large section of the population FROM the supposed forces of Law and Order and their disgraceful camp followers.
Imo that was not the reason for intervention.
It was Roger ...it was.
So what was the reason for intervention? You say Nationalists challenged the government. I say to you the the Nationalists asked for basic human rights. Stormont choose to respond as if this were a challenge, the rest as they say is history.
Quote from: Sandino on September 04, 2009, 05:06:53 PM
So what was the reason for intervention? You say Nationalists challenged the government. I say to you the the Nationalists asked for basic human rights. Stormont choose to respond as if this were a challenge, the rest as they say is history.
It is hard to sumarise it as simplistically as you put it but imo nationalists and unionists demanded their rights. Predominantly nationalists though. The small number of unionists involved quickly backed out when these demands were interpreted as a threat to the existence of the state. Nationalists continued with street politics and raised it to a level that violent confrontation with security forces occurred. Heavy handed retaliation was the result and this fueled the uncertainty within the entire unionist community. The security forces were overstretched by a calculated campaign of violence strategically around NI to have this result. The army intervened as the security forces were too small and couldn't cope with the situation. The nationalists saw this a success on their part. According to people on here it wasn't success because they didn't make it happen. If people think that the army on the streets in NI because of policies of the Stormont government or that an invasion by the Republic would take place because of that then they are laughable. The intervention that did take place happened because of the security situation which nationalists calculatingly created and boasted about afterwards and the army came in because the security forces could not keep law and order or both sides apart.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:43:10 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 03:37:51 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:30:46 PM
...surely its a tad (if not very) insulting to say that the nationalists brought it upon themselves?
I am pretty sure he knows this too and has continued to back up this insensitivity rather than apologise for its crassness.
no one is insulting roger - people are having a go at his very inflammatory and insulting comment.
It does give insight into the perspective of loyalist/unionists on this matter (and all other connected matters) ie the nationalists/taigs etc 'got what they were looking for' !
Try reading my post instead of reading into it what you want followed by your usual insults and hysterical rants.
maybe read your own posts to realise the idiotic insulting rubbish - that is historically incorrect - you have written !
Did the nationalists challenge the security forces? Did this challenge, subsequent reaction and resultant security situation require and justify the intervention by the army? For me both answers are yes. At the time the this was considered to be a good result by nationalists and seemingly claimed as such.
Roger, the only reason that the so called security forces at the time may or may not have been challenged was due to
the fact that these security forces (paramilitary forces, some would say) were only there to try to keep a faltering and
at best out of date & out of touch, at worst a bigotted Stormont Regime clinging on to power.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:47:56 PM
Then theres you wonderful justification for attacking nationalists and so on - they brought it upon themselves.
I have never said that nationalists brought anything on themselves. What I have said is that nationalists challenged the authorities and the results led to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order. Nationalists at the time considered this to be a victory. What part of that is so inaccurate or offensive?
Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.
'Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.'
Odd - when I posted something almost identical to this I was accused of being Forrest Gump.
'It is hard to sumarise it as simplistically as you put it but imo nationalists and unionists demanded their rights. Predominantly nationalists though. The small number of unionists involved quickly backed out when these demands were interpreted as a threat to the existence of the state. Nationalists continued with street politics and raised it to a level that violent confrontation with security forces occurred. Heavy handed retaliation was the result and this fueled the uncertainty within the entire unionist community. The security forces were overstretched by a calculated campaign of violence strategically around NI to have this result. The army intervened as the security forces were too small and couldn't cope with the situation. The nationalists saw this a success on their part. According to people on here it wasn't success because they didn't make it happen. If people think that the army on the streets in NI because of policies of the Stormont government or that an invasion by the Republic would take place because of that then they are laughable. The intervention that did take place happened because of the security situation which nationalists calculatingly created and boasted about afterwards and the army came in because the security forces could not keep law and order or both sides apart. '
I don't think the 'threat to the state' bit came from nationalists, Roger, at least not initially. The Civil Rights marches were a demand for basic democratic rights and an end to discrimination in housing. There was nothing sinister in this, which is why a small number of protestants felt able to take part. The threat to the state bit came from Ian Paisley, who in his usual manner stirred the fears of the protestant people by talking about IRA uprisings, croppies under the bed and so on. It was Paisley's followers who upped the ante by attacking the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet, while the RUC stood by and watched. The Civil Rights marchers, remember, were following the example of Martin Luther King and his followers. Non violence was at the heart of their campaign. The tragedy is that their protest set off a chain of events which led to the troubles, but I'd blame Paisley for this before I'd blame the Civil Rights people.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2009, 07:20:25 PM
'It is hard to sumarise it as simplistically as you put it but imo nationalists and unionists demanded their rights. Predominantly nationalists though. The small number of unionists involved quickly backed out when these demands were interpreted as a threat to the existence of the state. Nationalists continued with street politics and raised it to a level that violent confrontation with security forces occurred. Heavy handed retaliation was the result and this fueled the uncertainty within the entire unionist community. The security forces were overstretched by a calculated campaign of violence strategically around NI to have this result. The army intervened as the security forces were too small and couldn't cope with the situation. The nationalists saw this a success on their part. According to people on here it wasn't success because they didn't make it happen. If people think that the army on the streets in NI because of policies of the Stormont government or that an invasion by the Republic would take place because of that then they are laughable. The intervention that did take place happened because of the security situation which nationalists calculatingly created and boasted about afterwards and the army came in because the security forces could not keep law and order or both sides apart. '
I don't think the 'threat to the state' bit came from nationalists, Roger, at least not initially. The Civil Rights marches were a demand for basic democratic rights and an end to discrimination in housing. There was nothing sinister in this, which is why a small number of protestants felt able to take part. The threat to the state bit came from Ian Paisley, who in his usual manner stirred the fears of the protestant people by talking about IRA uprisings, croppies under the bed and so on. It was Paisley's followers who upped the ante by attacking the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet, while the RUC stood by and watched. The Civil Rights marchers, remember, were following the example of Martin Luther King and his followers. Non violence was at the heart of their campaign. The tragedy is that their protest set off a chain of events which led to the troubles, but I'd blame Paisley for this before I'd blame the Civil Rights people.
Well done, Myles; that's as succinct an analysis as I have come across.
The US President had to send in Federal Troops to protect the Black citizens of Mississippi etc from the local forces of "Law and Order" just as the Brits had to send their soldiers in to protect the Northern Nationalist population from the RUC/B Specials/Orange mobs.
It was never a "cunning plan" by Nationalists to upset the poor little RUC. The fighting in Derry came about when Bogside residents stopped the RUC from coming in to gas/baton charge and beat up the residents as they had been doing since the previous October. Belfast Nationalists erected barricades to draw some RUC/B Specials etc away from Bogside and were subjected to the worst attack on a Community in Europe since the 2nd World war.
Unfortunately the troops were then put under Stormont control and ........
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 04, 2009, 07:20:25 PM
I don't think the 'threat to the state' bit came from nationalists, Roger, at least not initially. The Civil Rights marches were a demand for basic democratic rights and an end to discrimination in housing. There was nothing sinister in this, which is why a small number of protestants felt able to take part. The threat to the state bit came from Ian Paisley, who in his usual manner stirred the fears of the protestant people by talking about IRA uprisings, croppies under the bed and so on. It was Paisley's followers who upped the ante by attacking the Civil Rights marchers at Burntollet, while the RUC stood by and watched. The Civil Rights marchers, remember, were following the example of Martin Luther King and his followers. Non violence was at the heart of their campaign. The tragedy is that their protest set off a chain of events which led to the troubles, but I'd blame Paisley for this before I'd blame the Civil Rights people.
Myles for once I think I have to agree with you in the majority of what you have said - well said. :o
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 04, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.
Well apparently what I wrote was offensive, insulting, has no credibility and in fact I am like the KKK in the 50s / 60s in the deep south of USA. There seems no basis for this other than bigotry and prejudice because I have a different opinion on the future of our country.
Leaving that aside, I see where you are coming from regarding the reasons for demanding civil rights. Fair enough, but this thread has focussed on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert. I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events. For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point? Loyalists across the country perceived rightly or wrongly that there was a threat to the state and HMG believed the region was in serious danger of descending into anarchy. Hence the intervention that Jim Murphy asked about. Any intervention by the ROI would have been bad for both main communities in NI and possibly for the ROI too. It's hard to call what the result might have been.
Ffs roger at this stage your making a monkeys arse of yourself give it up - incidently do you think that the people that died on Bloody Sunday deserved to be shot because there was a riot going on and some may have been involved in it, so they brought the army on the streets and deserved it?
?
I know i maybe being silly here. In 1969 did the Irish Army have A General? And do they have now? Anyway, back to the nonsense
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 04, 2009, 03:47:56 PM
Then theres you wonderful justification for attacking nationalists and so on - they brought it upon themselves.
I have never said that nationalists brought anything on themselves. What I have said is that nationalists challenged the authorities and the results led to a security situation that needed intervention to restore law and order. Nationalists at the time considered this to be a victory. What part of that is so inaccurate or offensive?
"The nationalist community had created a situation "ring any bells ?
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 04, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.
Well apparently what I wrote was offensive, insulting, has no credibility and in fact I am like the KKK in the 50s / 60s in the deep south of USA. There seems no basis for this other than bigotry and prejudice because I have a different opinion on the future of our country.
Leaving that aside, I see where you are coming from regarding the reasons for demanding civil rights. Fair enough, but this thread has focussed on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert. I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events. For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point? Loyalists across the country perceived rightly or wrongly that there was a threat to the state and HMG believed the region was in serious danger of descending into anarchy. Hence the intervention that Jim Murphy asked about. Any intervention by the ROI would have been bad for both main communities in NI and possibly for the ROI too. It's hard to call what the result might have been.
And of course all this trouble & mayhem had nothing to do with housing issues, gerrymandering,voting rights which were
denied time & time again to the Nationalist Community by what we shall laughingly refer to as the Government of Northern Ireland? Keep taking the happy pills Roger ::)
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 05, 2009, 12:04:01 AM
And of course all this trouble & mayhem had nothing to do with housing issues, gerrymandering,voting rights which were
denied time & time again to the Nationalist Community by what we shall laughingly refer to as the Government of Northern Ireland? Keep taking the happy pills Roger ::)
Housing, gerrymandering and voting had nothing to do with HMG sending in the troops or the Eire government outlining plans for invasion. Neither seemed in any way interested since partition (the Republic routinely and lamely brought up nationalist concerns and UK routinely and lamely nodded and agreed that it would be looked at). This discussion has been about the security situation that brought about the army being deployed. You might want to add bits to get your Political point across but whether you like it or not, neither the ROI nor GB really gave a shite about those things until the security / law and order situation became critical.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on September 04, 2009, 10:22:33 PM
Ffs roger at this stage your making a monkeys arse of yourself give it up - incidently do you think that the people that died on Bloody Sunday deserved to be shot because there was a riot going on and some may have been involved in it, so they brought the army on the streets and deserved it?
No.
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 12:35:33 AM
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 05, 2009, 12:04:01 AM
And of course all this trouble & mayhem had nothing to do with housing issues, gerrymandering,voting rights which were
denied time & time again to the Nationalist Community by what we shall laughingly refer to as the Government of Northern Ireland? Keep taking the happy pills Roger ::)
Housing, gerrymandering and voting had nothing to do with HMG sending in the troops or the Eire government outlining plans for invasion. Neither seemed in any way interested since partition (the Republic routinely and lamely brought up nationalist concerns and UK routinely and lamely nodded and agreed that it would be looked at). This discussion has been about the security situation that brought about the army being deployed. You might want to add bits to get your Political point across but whether you like it or not, neither the ROI and GB really didn't give a shite about those things until the security / law and order situation became critical.
So it was just a case of things getting a little out of hand overnight then? Nothing to do with the regime of
the previous 40+ years? I dont think i need to add any bits to get any political points across. The inability/unwillingness
of the stormont government to address all the needs & aspirations of all its citizens, especially nationalists, led directly to
the scenarios you have described. Do you honestly believe that this so-called government were even-handed in dealing
with unionists & nationalists alike? Was gerrymandering to everyones advantage? Were homes allocated on an equal
basis? I dont think so.
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 05, 2009, 12:52:16 AM
So it was just a case of things getting a little out of hand overnight then? Nothing to do with the regime of
the previous 40+ years? I dont think i need to add any bits to get any political points across. The inability/unwillingness
of the stormont government to address all the needs & aspirations of all its citizens, especially nationalists, led directly to
the scenarios you have described. Do you honestly believe that this so-called government were even-handed in dealing
with unionists & nationalists alike? Was gerrymandering to everyones advantage? Were homes allocated on an equal
basis? I dont think so.
I am not disagreeing with your last bit but these were not issues that caused invasion plans or the eventual troop deployment. These are bits that you have added to justify the confrontation with the authorities / security forces in NI. These are not bits that caused the troop deployment or Lynch's mobilisation of his version of Capt Manwaring and Co. If the ROI was so concerned with the impact of NI government on the minority community over almost 5 decades then why could they not muster enough troops (estimated to be only 500 short of an already paltry requirement) to deal with the situation even after it was escalated and had hit crisis point?
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 05, 2009, 12:52:16 AM
So it was just a case of things getting a little out of hand overnight then? Nothing to do with the regime of
the previous 40+ years? I dont think i need to add any bits to get any political points across. The inability/unwillingness
of the stormont government to address all the needs & aspirations of all its citizens, especially nationalists, led directly to
the scenarios you have described. Do you honestly believe that this so-called government were even-handed in dealing
with unionists & nationalists alike? Was gerrymandering to everyones advantage? Were homes allocated on an equal
basis? I dont think so.
I am not disagreeing with your last bit but these were not issues that caused invasion plans or the eventual troop deployment. These are bits that you have added to justify the confrontation with the authorities / security forces in NI. These are not bits that caused the troop deployment or Lynch's mobilisation of his version of Capt Manwaring and Co. If the ROI was so concerned with the impact of NI government on the minority community over almost 5 decades then why could they not muster enough troops (estimated to be only 500 short of an already paltry requirement) to deal with the situation even after it was escalated and had hit crisis point?
Of course they caused troop deployments etc etc. I have not added anything to justify the confrontations you speak of.
These are the facts. You make it sound like a crowd of Nationalists/Fenians/Taigs or whatever decided one night that
"we've had enough of this shite lads, we'll take no more". It was a build up of the frustration of being treated as second
class citizens over a number of years that eventually led to the British Government sending in the troops. One thing i do agree with you is that the reason the ROI govt stood by for almost 5 decades is basically, they got what they wanted and couldnt give a fiddlers f**k about its citizens in the 6 counties, that is until Lynchs "involvement" or lack of.
Btw, I didn't say that is the reason that they 'stood by'.
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 12:35:33 AM
Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on September 05, 2009, 12:04:01 AM
And of course all this trouble & mayhem had nothing to do with housing issues, gerrymandering,voting rights which were
denied time & time again to the Nationalist Community by what we shall laughingly refer to as the Government of Northern Ireland? Keep taking the happy pills Roger ::)
Housing, gerrymandering and voting had nothing to do with HMG sending in the troops or the Eire government outlining plans for invasion. Neither seemed in any way interested since partition (the Republic routinely and lamely brought up nationalist concerns and UK routinely and lamely nodded and agreed that it would be looked at). This discussion has been about the security situation that brought about the army being deployed. You might want to add bits to get your Political point across but whether you like it or not, neither the ROI nor GB really gave a shite about those things until the security / law and order situation became critical.
???
I didn't say they got what they wanted.
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 01:56:42 AM
I didn't say they got what they wanted.
Sorry, you've lost me?
You said that you agreed with me that the ROI got what they wanted and so didn't care. I didn't give a reason why they didn't give a shite about nationalist complaints.
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 02:38:15 AM
You said that you agreed with me that the ROI got what they wanted and so didn't care. I didn't give a reason why they didn't give a shite about nationalist complaints.
I meant they got what they wanted, ie 26 counties.
Quote from: Roger on September 04, 2009, 09:19:54 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 04, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
Roger, I would never regard your opinions as offensive or personally vindictive in any way to anyone but you have your perspective and I have mine.
So what? After all, this is a discussion board, isn't it?
Bearing this in mind, I have no disagreement with your analysis above. I agree that you have summed up what happened accurately but I'd be concerned about the reasons for this being so.
Certainly, the nationalists challenged the forces of law and order but that was because they perceived them to be neither lawful nor orderly. I need only refer back to the (then) recent events at Burntollet to say that their reaction was quite in order.
When St Matthew's Church and Bombay Street were burnt down, there was little or no sign of police protection and in fact there were widespread suspicions that the large sections of the security forces were acting in collusion with the loyalist extremists.
The IRA in the area at the time were taunted by nationalists for their inability to protect their areas and were told that IRA = I Ran Away. They were to set about rectifying this, probably with help from the hawks in the Irish cabinet.
I would respectfully suggest that the prime reason for the major upswing of support for 'the boys' was that there was no one else the nationalists could turn to for protection.
The calls for army intervention came, first and foremost, from nationalist spokespeople and it was damn slow in arriving. When it did, they first arrivals were welcomed with open arms by the nationalist community in the areas under threat.
Well apparently what I wrote was offensive, insulting, has no credibility and in fact I am like the KKK in the 50s / 60s in the deep south of USA. There seems no basis for this other than bigotry and prejudice because I have a different opinion on the future of our country.
Leaving that aside, I see where you are coming from regarding the reasons for demanding civil rights. Fair enough, but this thread has focussed on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert. I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events. For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point? Loyalists across the country perceived rightly or wrongly that there was a threat to the state and HMG believed the region was in serious danger of descending into anarchy. Hence the intervention that Jim Murphy asked about. Any intervention by the ROI would have been bad for both main communities in NI and possibly for the ROI too. It's hard to call what the result might have been.
I certainly wouldn't use those words to describe you or any other members of the 'cavalry.' You are all entitled to express your opinions but I would point out that Rossfan has said:
"I never insulted YOU. I commented on the similarity of your comments/views with those of American white racists."
I think the matter is best left to the pair of you to sort out.
QuoteFair enough, but this thread has focused on the mobilisation of troops which put NI on alert. I think your analysis does not regard the sequence of events. For example I always though that Bombay Street occurred after Lynch's mobilisation of the Republic's army and the perceived invasion threat never mind the orchestrated violence by nationalists which stretched the security forces to breaking point?
I'd say that NI was on the brink long before Lynch opened his mouth.
When he did it was to say that we could no longer stand by and he was going to direct the Irish army to set up field hospitals along the border to treat wounded nationalists that were coming across the border in their hundreds. He was also going to ask the UN to send in a peacekeeping force. He did not mention any sort of physical invasion. That may have been read into his speech by some Unionists and by his political enemies at home but I am satisfied that Lynch did not say allude to an armed intervention. Footage of him making this famous speech has been have been shown on TV in recent days and confirms that he made no such threat.
A recent RTE report says that the army drew up contingency plans to invade the North in September '69; this was the month following the violence that prompted Lynch's speech. I would contend that examining all the options open to it in the event of a Doomsday event is what any rational army command would have done. The TV report also stated that the army had decided against any invasion.
I can't say at this time whether his speech preceded the Bombay Street burning or not but both happened within a matter of a day at most. I think it logical to assume that Lynch's speech was in response to this escalation of violence but I don't think this really matters. There had been literally hundreds upon hundreds of people fleeing from nationalist areas and many were coming with serious injuries and accounts of organised attacks by loyalist mobs while the security forces failed to intervene. Mosney holiday camp had been filled with refugees and rows of tents had been erected in most border areas. There were long tailbacks at border crossings and hospitals, guesthouses, public buildings etc, were filled to capacity.
Certainly, there was orchestrated violence coming form the nationalist areas but in ferocity and scale it nowhere matched that coming from loyalist mobs that seemed to be ignored or even encouraged by the forces of 'law and order.'
Was the nationalist rioting led by the IRA? I doubt it as the IRA was totally disorganised and ineffective at this time. I have no way of knowing but all reports I have come across since that time put the number of IRA men with guns of any sort at 20 or less. The security forces may very well have been stretched to the limit during the middle of August '69 and Stormont may have called for British intervention but nationalist have been looking for this intervention along time before that.
You may remember too that Ian Paisley and his followers had defied the security forces more times than the nationalists ever could and would continue to do so long after the British soldiers arrived to a rapturous reception from the Nationalists of Belfast.
Lar Naparka, not sure about being one of the cavalry but maybe that isn't meant to be a bad or a good thing? There is plenty of content in your post that I would agree; it's just too late on a weekend of sport that I can really comment on.
The thing with this discussion and others on here is that you see events through different viewpoint and so do I. No bother there and totally understandable, acceptable and not a bother. I don't see your interpretation as being 'without credibility' as others would see mine simply just because of my interpretation / opionin. For me, when people write-off others' opinion, view or interpretation especially with such vitriol (I'm certaintly not considering you here) they are simply adding to the mess that this country and this island has been in.
Just a few thoughts after the disappointment of dropping 2 points that were there for taking. I'm sure we'll pick it up again at some stage 8)
Quote from: Roger on September 05, 2009, 11:51:08 PM
Lar Naparka, not sure about being one of the cavalry but maybe that isn't meant to be a bad or a good thing? There is plenty of content in your post that I would agree; it's just too late on a weekend of sport that I can really comment on.
The thing with this discussion and others on here is that you see events through different viewpoint and so do I. No bother there and totally understandable, acceptable and not a bother. I don't see your interpretation as being 'without credibility' as others would see mine simply just because of my interpretation / opionin. For me, when people write-off others' opinion, view or interpretation especially with such vitriol (I'm certaintly not considering you here) they are simply adding to the mess that this country and this island has been in.
Just a few thoughts after the disappointment of dropping 2 points that were there for taking. I'm sure we'll pick it up again at some stage 8)
The 'cavalry' reference is not meant as an insult. It's a fairly widely used term to describe those with non-nationalist points of view that tend to arrive en masse when a political discussion gets under way. Chrisowc has adapted it for his sig and it's often used for a bit of banter between the sides.
I am a patron on the OWC board. I joined up not for political arguments but to see what things are like from a mainly Unionist point of view. I stick to the sports section because I don't feel competent enough to add my tuppence worth anywhere else.
I haven't been there for a while as I completely forgot about it.
I'd like to record that I have been impressed by your contributions and those for the likes of Belfast Dove and GPJim. Anyone who tries to slip a bit of sectarianism from either side is promptly discouraged by a good number of other posters. As Frank Henry I posted a few times but generally I don't have the time to follow up threads over there and here at the one time. I've never felt unwelcome or closed out and I've no doubt you post here from a sense of conviction and not for the sake of waving a flag of any kind.
I don't think we will come to total agreement on the topic in question here but I am very interested in finding out what things look like from your perspective.
BTW; I understand ho you feel about the result yesterday but south of the border things are looking up. ;)
I didn't know you posted over on OWC and not sure about the 'cavalry' people are on here. I've never met or spoken to any of them in person ever or if I have I haven't been aware. Nobody seems to use their proper names on these boards so it's hard to know. I've met GPJim and Belfast Owl though neither of them post on here.
Tbh when discussing the past events it is very hard to know what the faults and blames were. How much can be blamed on one side or the other, the way the government ran things, what policies were wrong or justified etc? With hindsight, it is clear that actions were wrong. The use of violence was wrong from all sides. Then and now. However, with two communities so diametrically opposed and combined with the fear of the future in both camps, the events were bound to be prejudiced, turbulent and spiral out of control. E.G. the Bombay Street attack and the massive population shifts seemed to spiral out from Lynch's remarks/actions and nationalist violence and I can understand unionists' fear at the time that brought that about (although not agreeing with the action) but from a nationalist POV this was well on the way to be like this due to previous actions by the unionist government policies and realisation / perception of what the secrurity forces were like and also driven by fear about things like remarks from people like Ian Paisley. It is difficult for me to blame anyone as with hindsight if I'd been in charge I would have done things differently but I can't be sure if I actually would have if I lived during that time (even if now I wish that I would have).
Specific instances are easier to analyse but then it is difficult when placing them in a chain of events as this discussion shows about the reasons for the violence that erupted. I don't feel I should inherit any guilt (as some on here seem to think ashes and sack cloth are required by all unionists) for any Unionist Party mis-rule just because I am a unionist. Many unionists were adversely affected by government policy at that time too but these seem to get overlooked. I didn't live then and remaining part of the Union is still the best thing for the future of my country in my opinion.
It is probably easier and more beneficial to agree on what should be done rather that what should have or should not have been done. It is interesting to discuss the past but just difficult to agree on it.
That said, since you've asked about the ROI invasion plans I'll state that I can understand why the plans were drawn up. Any country with a land border with another would be advised to draw up contingency plans to cover eventualities. It seems prudent to me even if they seem comical and would have been disasterous with hingsight. These plans were secret at the time so that's fine. The problem for me was that the ROI mobilised troops and Lynch went on air with his remarks which were very badly timed and led to more strife for both communities here. He hadn't the ability to do anything other than 'stand idly by' so all he did was stoke the fire unnecessarily. Some people rightly blame Paisley for rabble rousing, but Lynch out-Paisleyed even him imo.
What a post at 20 to 1 in the morning and no-one even talking about this subject :P. You've a lot going on there Roger... oiche mhaith
Quote from: longrunsthefox on September 07, 2009, 12:42:04 AM
What a post at 20 to 1 in the morning and no-one even talking about this subject :P. You've a lot going on there Roger... oiche mhaith
Wasn't talking to you. Now go to bed you ;D
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 12:39:50 AM
I didn't know you posted over on OWC and not sure about the 'cavalry' people are on here. I've never met or spoken to any of them in person ever or if I have I haven't been aware. Nobody seems to use their proper names on these boards so it's hard to know. I've met GPJim and Belfast Owl though neither of them post on here.
Tbh when discussing the past events it is very hard to know what the faults and blames were. How much can be blamed on one side or the other, the way the government ran things, what policies were wrong or justified etc? With hindsight, it is clear that actions were wrong. The use of violence was wrong from all sides. Then and now. However, with two communities so diametrically opposed and combined with the fear of the future in both camps, the events were bound to be prejudiced, turbulent and spiral out of control. E.G. the Bombay Street attack and the massive population shifts seemed to spiral out from Lynch's remarks/actions and nationalist violence and I can understand unionists' fear at the time that brought that about (although not agreeing with the action) but from a nationalist POV this was well on the way to be like this due to previous actions by the unionist government policies and realisation / perception of what the secrurity forces were like and also driven by fear about things like remarks from people like Ian Paisley. It is difficult for me to blame anyone as with hindsight if I'd been in charge I would have done things differently but I can't be sure if I actually would have if I lived during that time (even if now I wish that I would have).
Specific instances are easier to analyse but then it is difficult when placing them in a chain of events as this discussion shows about the reasons for the violence that erupted. I don't feel I should inherit any guilt (as some on here seem to think ashes and sack cloth are required by all unionists) for any Unionist Party mis-rule just because I am a unionist. Many unionists were adversely affected by government policy at that time too but these seem to get overlooked. I didn't live then and remaining part of the Union is still the best thing for the future of my country in my opinion.
It is probably easier and more beneficial to agree on what should be done rather that what should have or should not have been done. It is interesting to discuss the past but just difficult to agree on it.
That said, since you've asked about the ROI invasion plans I'll state that I can understand why the plans were drawn up. Any country with a land border with another would be advised to draw up contingency plans to cover eventualities. It seems prudent to me even if they seem comical and would have been disasterous with hingsight. These plans were secret at the time so that's fine. The problem for me was that the ROI mobilised troops and Lynch went on air with his remarks which were very badly timed and led to more strife for both communities here. He hadn't the ability to do anything other than 'stand idly by' so all he did was stoke the fire unnecessarily. Some people rightly blame Paisley for rabble rousing, but Lynch out-Paisleyed even him imo.
nothing wrong with what you have written
I understand and can see where you are getting some of your sentiments.
However, people dont want you to be wearing sackcloth and ashes - just want unionists/loyalists to admit that what caused this all was their apartheid system and their discrimination/treatment/oppression/victimisation/violence towards nationalists/catholics/Irish.
thats all. Even above you gloss over the 'cause'.
Violence wasnt from 'both sides' prior to this - certainly apart from the very odd isolated incident.
I'm talking years and decades not weeks and months - as the discrimination/treatment/oppression/victimisation/violence towards nationalists/catholics/Irish was happening for a long time prior to this.
Lynch and the Irish people saw a bit of what the northern Irish/catholics/nationalists were being subjected to and ordnary people react badly to such horrific treatment when it is put in front of their faces. Prior to this they could not see or hear much about it so it was grand and buried from their sight.
So while the Irish people were horrified, they in reality couldnt do anything without knowingly start another civil war, this time with a much stronger England with heavier weaponry than before. I am sure Lynch and co remembered the last civil war stories and legacy and didnt / couldnt affort to lose the new republic.
There wasnt much he could do. Sadly I think his actions were correct.
I ind if amusing that unionists/loyalists have hyped up the propaganda to have alleged him as saying that Ireland was going to attack, when clearly he didnt.
It suited unionist/loyalist agenda to portray this.
this incident and the tit for tat violence came along after a prolonged period of unionist/loyalist establishment backed sectarian backed violence backed oppression and apartheid.So when roger et all speak of nationalists/catholic/Irish/republicans and their violence, it is only at around this time that they grouped together in retaliation.
Retaliation.
Most people including myself are happy enough to alow the past to slip on into history, but people I know and myself draw the line at the revisionism that the likes of roger etc bring on here in terms of that 'nationalists brought it upon themselves' etc.
(why ? from just living there?)
No one expects you or unionists/loyalists to have guilt over this, but I find it hard to comprehend that such people try to argue the indefensible and brazen it out rather than feel shame or guilt for their bullyboy ways that tried to trample innocents into the ground and destroy a 'race' or people - instead of seeing, knowing and admitting that this was way wrong and the cause of the 40 years war in the north of Ireland.
I am sure that with reunification, in time the history books will show the reality of what was done and by whom. Just like the chapters of 1916 now reflect the truth of what happened, with no propaganda (though with a touch of romance). I expect the same in the history books of the six counties 1921-1996.
If roger and co want to continue to deny all - then thats fine. Deep down we all know whats the truth!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 10:40:45 AM
If roger and co want to continue to deny all - then thats fine. Deep down we all know whats the truth!
An arrogant position. You can wait for your day to come (which I don't believe it will) for history to be written in the manner that suits you. In the meantime nationalists need unionists to be persuaded to want an island state for it to be created and if your's is typical of the nationalist position this day will not come in any of our life-times.
You are yet again inaccurate to say I said nationalists brought anything on themselves. I ask you again to read my posts and you will see that at no time I said nationalists brought anything on themselves and clarified my comments when accused of this. If you can't be bothered at least stop making things up.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 10:40:45 AM
If roger and co want to continue to deny all - then thats fine. Deep down we all know whats the truth!
An arrogant position. You can wait for your day to come (which I don't believe it will) for history to be written in the manner that suits you. In the meantime nationalists need unionists to be persuaded to want an island state for it to be created and if your's is typical of the nationalist position this day will not come in any of our life-times.
You are yet again inaccurate to say I said nationalists brought anything on themselves. I ask you again to read my posts and you will see that at no time I said nationalists brought anything on themselves and clarified my comments when accused of this. If you can't be bothered at least stop making things up.
arrogant wording perhaps, but mirroring your own (and many of your contempories) on these matters.
I dont think you can stop what is going to happen. I only hope that it doesnt come too soon as economically and infrastructurally we cannot take the change for the forseeable future imo.
As with hong kong etc, former co,onies will be handed back. Esp as it is a financial burden on the british gov and they have been stating such for quite a while now.
But unionists/loyalists will find that there will be no repercussions or massive 'cultural' changes in the reunification. Just the same old work/life quest for balance. Their 'fears' will not be realised.
Normal people just dont care.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 10:40:45 AM
If roger and co want to continue to deny all - then thats fine. Deep down we all know whats the truth!
An arrogant position. You can wait for your day to come (which I don't believe it will) for history to be written in the manner that suits you. In the meantime nationalists need unionists to be persuaded to want an island state for it to be created and if your's is typical of the nationalist position this day will not come in any of our life-times.
You are yet again inaccurate to say I said nationalists brought anything on themselves. I ask you again to read my posts and you will see that at no time I said nationalists brought anything on themselves and clarified my comments when accused of this. If you can't be bothered at least stop making things up.
arrogant wording perhaps, but mirroring your own (and many of your contempories) on these matters.
I dont think you can stop what is going to happen. I only hope that it doesnt come too soon as economically and infrastructurally we cannot take the change for the forseeable future imo.
As with hong kong etc, former co,onies will be handed back. Esp as it is a financial burden on the british gov and they have been stating such for quite a while now.
But unionists/loyalists will find that there will be no repercussions or massive 'cultural' changes in the reunification. Just the same old work/life quest for balance. Their 'fears' will not be realised.
Normal people just dont care.
If they don't care, why change?
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 12:24:32 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 10:40:45 AM
If roger and co want to continue to deny all - then thats fine. Deep down we all know whats the truth!
An arrogant position. You can wait for your day to come (which I don't believe it will) for history to be written in the manner that suits you. In the meantime nationalists need unionists to be persuaded to want an island state for it to be created and if your's is typical of the nationalist position this day will not come in any of our life-times.
You are yet again inaccurate to say I said nationalists brought anything on themselves. I ask you again to read my posts and you will see that at no time I said nationalists brought anything on themselves and clarified my comments when accused of this. If you can't be bothered at least stop making things up.
arrogant wording perhaps, but mirroring your own (and many of your contempories) on these matters.
I dont think you can stop what is going to happen. I only hope that it doesnt come too soon as economically and infrastructurally we cannot take the change for the forseeable future imo.
As with hong kong etc, former co,onies will be handed back. Esp as it is a financial burden on the british gov and they have been stating such for quite a while now.
But unionists/loyalists will find that there will be no repercussions or massive 'cultural' changes in the reunification. Just the same old work/life quest for balance. Their 'fears' will not be realised.
Normal people just dont care.
If they don't care, why change?
...reunification is a nice notion, squaring the circle for most in the south - but they wont go all out mad for it.
The decision however is actually withthe british gov, it is they who will trigger Irish reunification.
they want rid of the money haemorraging six counties.
It makes perfect economic sense.
they no longer care about the 'empire' and unlike scotland who have financial resources that are both viable and attractive (oil and gas) therefore the desire to keep the scots from gaining independence, the british gov would be happy to pay off the Irish gov as soon as they can get rid of the six counties and save themselves a packet, plus redirect thousands of jobs back to england and give themselves a double shot in the arm of their economy.
Its a win-win for them but with the inpetitude of all politicians on this island, I'd be fearful of what we are left unless we negotiate strongly for foreign investment and industry for northern, border and non dublin regions.
The decision isnt ours, pro-nationalist camps inc sf will have little or no effect in this, but will undoubtedly claim victory when it happens.
The decision in the first instance is in the hands of the electorate of NI.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 12:38:50 PM
The decision in the first instance is in the hands of the electorate of NI.
correct, and as we see that majority is ebbing away quickly.
the next step is for the brit gov to then show both sides of the 'community' what economic advantages there will be in voting to jettison the brit gov.
I 'd expect a lot of changes made prior to this - taking alot of civil service jobs away back to england first. they will dilute the polulationand make if very difficult for people to want to either stay or to vote toretain the status quo.
It could be a funny one, with unionists/loyalists voting to release the 'union' with the southern Irish voting in fear/suspicion of the change and wanting to 'keep' the 'union'.
It will show a lot that people no longer care about the political stuff and are voting for themselves and for their financial /livlihood.
Its great that we have almost reached that level/mindset now.
Until there is a plan for this new state to assess there's not much point in talking about this.
I'll be dead when any referendum creates your fantasy island.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 12:51:22 PM
Until there is a plan for this new state to assess there's not much point in talking about this.
I'll be dead when any referendum creates your fantasy island.
dont know how old you are but maybe you willbe. It wont be far away though.
You obv dont like planning or looking to the future. a 'live for the moment' type of guy eh !
A lot of folks are stuck in the past. However that doesnt help keep the 'wolf from the door' !
:D
Don't know how old you are but you'll be dead too.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HJrGkCIwYOg/SEA1t0g4nBI/AAAAAAAADdo/njPqQAOt2a0/s400/High+Noon.jpg)
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 01:11:23 PM
Don't know how old you are but you'll be dead too.
I expect to be living for another 20 years.
anyhow - this doesnt bother you, you already have shown you dont plan for the future !
Am sure we will all enjoy it when it comes. some people could become quite well off out of it ! !
;)
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 12:39:50 AM
I didn't know you posted over on OWC and not sure about the 'cavalry' people are on here. I've never met or spoken to any of them in person ever or if I have I haven't been aware. Nobody seems to use their proper names on these boards so it's hard to know. I've met GPJim and Belfast Owl though neither of them post on here.
Tbh when discussing the past events it is very hard to know what the faults and blames were. How much can be blamed on one side or the other, the way the government ran things, what policies were wrong or justified etc? With hindsight, it is clear that actions were wrong. The use of violence was wrong from all sides. Then and now. However, with two communities so diametrically opposed and combined with the fear of the future in both camps, the events were bound to be prejudiced, turbulent and spiral out of control. E.G. the Bombay Street attack and the massive population shifts seemed to spiral out from Lynch's remarks/actions and nationalist violence and I can understand unionists' fear at the time that brought that about (although not agreeing with the action) but from a nationalist POV this was well on the way to be like this due to previous actions by the unionist government policies and realisation / perception of what the secrurity forces were like and also driven by fear about things like remarks from people like Ian Paisley. It is difficult for me to blame anyone as with hindsight if I'd been in charge I would have done things differently but I can't be sure if I actually would have if I lived during that time (even if now I wish that I would have).
Specific instances are easier to analyse but then it is difficult when placing them in a chain of events as this discussion shows about the reasons for the violence that erupted. I don't feel I should inherit any guilt (as some on here seem to think ashes and sack cloth are required by all unionists) for any Unionist Party mis-rule just because I am a unionist. Many unionists were adversely affected by government policy at that time too but these seem to get overlooked. I didn't live then and remaining part of the Union is still the best thing for the future of my country in my opinion.
It is probably easier and more beneficial to agree on what should be done rather that what should have or should not have been done. It is interesting to discuss the past but just difficult to agree on it.
That said, since you've asked about the ROI invasion plans I'll state that I can understand why the plans were drawn up. Any country with a land border with another would be advised to draw up contingency plans to cover eventualities. It seems prudent to me even if they seem comical and would have been disasterous with hingsight. These plans were secret at the time so that's fine. The problem for me was that the ROI mobilised troops and Lynch went on air with his remarks which were very badly timed and led to more strife for both communities here. He hadn't the ability to do anything other than 'stand idly by' so all he did was stoke the fire unnecessarily. Some people rightly blame Paisley for rabble rousing, but Lynch out-Paisleyed even him imo.
I've been somewhat taken about your assessment of Jack Lynch's actions at the time.
Certainly, given the mood of the times, Unionists might have been alarmed at his decision to mobilise the army but any firm decision of any sort was widely unexpected from most quarters.
On the surface anyway, he came across as a shy, somewhat diffident individual who seemed powerless to direct policy and was unable to keep the hawks in cabinet under control.
To me, he would have been the antithesis of Paisley in every conceivable way.
He never appeared to become agitated or even to raise his voice. He certainly never delivered a rabble rousing speech in public and was heavily caricatured in the British tabs as being a pawn of the IRA. His trademark pipe and his look of total sincerity were lampooned to the extreme and to most observers he was in fear of the IRA- or at least the likes of Neil Blaney.
Blaney too sucked his pipe but he was a charismatic politician who had had a good track record in cabinet and he undoubtedly had a popular following. Haughey kept a low profile and Kevin Boland would have been regarded as a crank by most.
Given the mood of total hysteria that gripped the island at this time, Lynch might indeed come across as the Antichrist to Unionists but I would have thought that his apparent failure to keep the diehards in control would have been the reason for this.
I've seen no reason then or since to link him to any moves for outright confrontation.
Looking back with hindsight, I think he was not the lightweight he was widely assumed to be. After all, a man with his glorious sporting record would never have made it onto an intercounty team let alone pick up six All Ireland medals between football and hurling if he was a total wimp.
He had plenty of steel then and I doubt if he left it all behind him at the cabinet table or in the corridors of Leinster House. A contemporary report of one of those matches claimed that he had not been 'grassed' even once in a particularly dirty and hard-fought game, even though he tried to be in the thick of it from start to finish.
We now know that Lynch was forced to take on the extremists when a phone call from the leader of the opposition (Liam Cosgrave) tipped him off that revelations about the arms conspiracy were about to break.
But senior Fianna Fail politicians since then have claimed that Lynch was aware of what was going on and had instructed his Defence minister, Jim Gibbons, to monitor events. IMO, he was in the mould of John Major. (Keep the b**tards out where you can see them or something like that when Major was referring to the Euroskeptics in his own party.)
Not only had Lynch to contend with developments on the ground in the North as well as the genuine feelings of concern among Nationalists throughout the land but there was a mood for rebellion and change right across the world. Martin Luther King had drawn world attention to the plight of the blacks in the Deep South and there was student unrest in many countries.
I think Myles has done an excellent job at describing the prevailing sentiment here as the demand for Civil Rights for nationalists in the North took hold.
Civil Rights had been at the root of the disturbances that led to The Troubles in the north and Lynch was already under huge pressure to DO SOMETHING before events at Burntollet were to be "the spark that lit the prairie fire,' as Paul Bew was to describe it.
(I assume that you are familiar with Paul Bew's work and will know of the series of historical analyses he has come up with. For me, his Unionist pedigree is irrelevant and he comes across as a thoughtful and unbiased observer and who lays the blame at whatever door deserves it most.)
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Do you think that was more irresponsible than Paisley and bombay st etc ?
Quote from: man in black on September 07, 2009, 03:33:58 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Do you think that was more irresponsible than Paisley and bombay st etc ?
this is all a little confusing.
Some have said on here that Lynch did not make such references about 'attacking' etc and this was misquotation and embelishment by the unionists/loyalists of the day - to whip up a frenzy to their own gain.
If so then your question is somewhat irrelevant MIB - as you cannot compare the frenzy whipping by paisley with a non event !
Sure it was all them Fenians' fault ::) in the Rogerhistory of the 6 Cos.
Just like it was ML King's fault that white supremacists were forced to bomb a church killing 3 or 4 little girls plus all the other things they did.
Werent they "provoked" by upstart blacks wanting to sit in the front seats of buses and vote and the like.
If they had stayed in their underdog places there would have been no trouble.
And on a point of order Lynch said "will not stand by" The word idly wasnt said. ;)
Quote from: man in black on September 07, 2009, 03:33:58 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Do you think that was more irresponsible than Paisley and bombay st etc ?
The impact was greater than the bluster of Paisley imo. As head of a state Lynch should have known better than make such an inflammatory remark. Bombay was mob rule. I don't equate heads of state with that.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:45:53 PM
Sure it was all them Fenians' fault ::) in the Rogerhistory of the 6 Cos.
Just like it was ML King's fault that white supremacists were forced to bomb a church killing 3 or 4 little girls plus all the other things they did.
Werent they "provoked" by upstart blacks wanting to sit in the front seats of buses and vote and the like.
If they had stayed in their underdog places there would have been no trouble.
And on a point of order Lynch said "will not stand by" The word idly wasnt said. ;)
Apples and Potatoes are probably the same to you too.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:45:53 PM
Sure it was all them Fenians' fault ::) in the Rogerhistory of the 6 Cos.
Just like it was ML King's fault that white supremacists were forced to bomb a church killing 3 or 4 little girls plus all the other things they did.
Werent they "provoked" by upstart blacks wanting to sit in the front seats of buses and vote and the like.
If they had stayed in their underdog places there would have been no trouble.
And on a point of order Lynch said "will not stand by" The word idly wasnt said. ;)
Apples and Potatoes are probably the same to you too.
pomme de terre
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
While 4 million watched on tv and said "mary stick the kettle on there, them belfast nutters are on da news again"
Quote from: man in black on September 07, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:45:53 PM
Sure it was all them Fenians' fault ::) in the Rogerhistory of the 6 Cos.
Just like it was ML King's fault that white supremacists were forced to bomb a church killing 3 or 4 little girls plus all the other things they did.
Werent they "provoked" by upstart blacks wanting to sit in the front seats of buses and vote and the like.
If they had stayed in their underdog places there would have been no trouble.
And on a point of order Lynch said "will not stand by" The word idly wasnt said. ;)
Apples and Potatoes are probably the same to you too.
pomme de terre
Similar name in a different country but completely different in reality for comparison purposes. That's why it is apt.
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
The sad thing is you have no comprehension of how a unionist thinks and when you get the opportunity to discuss rationally you misrepresent them by assumptions and nonsense like that above. The funny bit is that with people like you around the all Ireland Republic you harp on about remains and will remain nothing more than fantasy island.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
The sad thing is you have no comprehension of how a unionist thinks and when you get the opportunity to discuss rationally you misrepresent them by assumptions and nonsense like that above.
ah jaysus roger - pot, kettle !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:05:12 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
The sad thing is you have no comprehension of how a unionist thinks and when you get the opportunity to discuss rationally you misrepresent them by assumptions and nonsense like that above.
ah jaysus roger - pot, kettle !
You continuously misrepresent me too. You even say that as a unionist I have no plans for the future when the union is the only plan on the table. Your whole plan is "the Brits'll pay for it". Comical.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:06:59 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:05:12 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
The sad thing is you have no comprehension of how a unionist thinks and when you get the opportunity to discuss rationally you misrepresent them by assumptions and nonsense like that above.
ah jaysus roger - pot, kettle !
You continuously misrepresent me too. You even say that as a unionist I have no plans for the future when the union is the only plan on the table. Your whole plan is "the Brits'll pay for it". Comical.
to quote you
"Until there is a plan for this new state to assess there's not much point in talking about this. "
you just dont want to plan for th future as you know whats impending !
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
British gov officials have also been known to say this is their desire too (to jettison the six counties)...so hardly unfounded speculation !
you misrepresent what the then taoiseach (lynch) said, yet say that you are being misrepresented (though to be fair to you , you are just reiterating what all the other unionists/loyalists have said then and since then).
But it suits unionism/loyalism to imply that there was a big bad wolf at the door about to attack....it was a means to justify their acts at he time I suppose.
to quote you
"Until there is a plan for this new state to assess there's not much point in talking about this. "
you just dont want to plan for th future as you know whats impending !
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
British gov officials have also been known to say this is their desire too (to jettison the six counties)...so hardly unfounded speculation !
you misrepresent what the then taoiseach (lynch) said, yet say that you are being misrepresented (though to be fair to you , you are just reiterating what all the other unionists/loyalists have said then and since then).
But it suits unionism/loyalism to imply that there was a big bad wolf at the door about to attack....it was a means to justify their acts at he time I suppose.
[/quote]
The Union is the only planned future. If a referendum is to be successful for an island state then unionists need to be persuaded yet you want unionists to come up with the plan to end the union. You are deluded if you think that will happen especially whilst you continue to ridicule them.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:30:54 PM
to quote you
"Until there is a plan for this new state to assess there's not much point in talking about this. "
you just dont want to plan for th future as you know whats impending !
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
British gov officials have also been known to say this is their desire too (to jettison the six counties)...so hardly unfounded speculation !
you misrepresent what the then taoiseach (lynch) said, yet say that you are being misrepresented (though to be fair to you , you are just reiterating what all the other unionists/loyalists have said then and since then).
But it suits unionism/loyalism to imply that there was a big bad wolf at the door about to attack....it was a means to justify their acts at he time I suppose.
The Union is the only planned future. If a referendum is to be successful for an island state then unionists need to be persuaded yet you want unionists to come up with the plan to end the union. You are deluded if you think that will happen especially whilst you continue to ridicule them.
[/quote]
:D - good chap - you reckon I am deluded !
I said before and will say again, unionists wont have to come up with a plan for reunification, neither will nationalists and the Irish Gov.
The British Gov are known to want to not have to spend so much money on the six counties through policing/military presence and so on.
they would also not only save a fortune not having to do this, but create jobs in england by having all those civil servicy things back on home soil.
Various british chancellors of exchequer and 'home secretaries' have sad as much.
the 'voters' will have little or no choice when the vote comes. The British gov are pretty good at sneaky and dirty tactics.
All they have to do is pull out the civil service jobs, move people back to england on temp contracts, with the promise of jobs and investment if the vote is passed and thats a lot of the naysayers that will have to vote accordingly or live on the breadline.
When it comes to money matters, the unionists/loyalists have never had a problem stepping over their 'principles' ! (we saw this in the Irish Celtic tiger, where prev steadfast unionist/loyalists who had cried never never never - cross the border, to conveniently forget and suddenly they were all down in Dublin taking the punt/euro !)
;)
its on its way. ;)
Great plan. Well done you ::)
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:52:55 PM
Great plan. Well done you ::)
dont thank me
thank the british gov!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:52:55 PM
Great plan. Well done you ::)
dont thank me
thank the british gov!
I'm not thanking you for anything. I'm sarcastically applauding your plan of sitting back and letting the Brits deliver your dreams :D :D :D
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on September 07, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The Roger version of history is that the 6 Cos was a grand wee place till one night Jack Lynch said his government wouldnt stand by ( while people were being murdered by the so called forces of law and order an their camp followers) which caused the RUC/B Specials and Orange mobs to start killing Catholics and burning them out of whole streets.
And the sad thing is half a million more of them probably believe that too. :( :( :(
The sad thing is you have no comprehension of how a unionist thinks
Well I've certainly sussed you out anyway. Mind you it wasnt too hard when you came out with all that tripe about the "Troubles" ::) in the North being all Jack Lynch's fault.
Just one final little hint ... the Stormont Regime's discriminatory gerrymandering misGovernment from 1922 and it's violent reaction to people holding Civil Right's marches ,invasions of Bogside etc etc.
the 'voters' will have little or no choice when the vote comes. The British gov are pretty good at sneaky and dirty tactics.
All they have to do is pull out the civil service jobs, move people back to england on temp contracts, with the promise of jobs and investment if the vote is passed and thats a lot of the naysayers that will have to vote accordingly or live on the breadline.
When it comes to money matters, the unionists/loyalists have never had a problem stepping over their 'principles' ! (we saw this in the Irish Celtic tiger, where prev steadfast unionist/loyalists who had cried never never never - cross the border, to conveniently forget and suddenly they were all down in Dublin taking the punt/euro !)
You keep harping on about the British government taking back their civil service jobs. Which ones did you have in mind precisely? The thousands of public sector jobs here are mainly to do with administering local affairs. If the British withdraw, they'll no longer be responsible for collecting our taxes, licensing our cars, organising our agricultural industry, etc. Therefore, these jobs won't be going back to England. They might take back a handful of mandarins who sit at the top of the civil service, but that's about the heap. If that's the best argument you have for bringing about a united Ireland, then we're stuffed.
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Therein, perhaps, is the difference between our points of view.
There is no credible evidence to suggest he ever used that term anywhere at any time.
Probably many Unionists did take that meaning out of what he said and his political opponents down here were to claim he did in later times but there is only one recorded instance of him making any reference to the mobilisation of the Irish army and that was re-shown on RTE last week.
In that recorded interview, he clearly used the term, 'stand by.'
Furthermore, he went on to state explicitly what he was going to do and that did not include invasion in any shape or form.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 07, 2009, 08:52:04 PM
the 'voters' will have little or no choice when the vote comes. The British gov are pretty good at sneaky and dirty tactics.
All they have to do is pull out the civil service jobs, move people back to england on temp contracts, with the promise of jobs and investment if the vote is passed and thats a lot of the naysayers that will have to vote accordingly or live on the breadline.
When it comes to money matters, the unionists/loyalists have never had a problem stepping over their 'principles' ! (we saw this in the Irish Celtic tiger, where prev steadfast unionist/loyalists who had cried never never never - cross the border, to conveniently forget and suddenly they were all down in Dublin taking the punt/euro !)
You keep harping on about the British government taking back their civil service jobs. Which ones did you have in mind precisely? The thousands of public sector jobs here are mainly to do with administering local affairs. If the British withdraw, they'll no longer be responsible for collecting our taxes, licensing our cars, organising our agricultural industry, etc. Therefore, these jobs won't be going back to England. They might take back a handful of mandarins who sit at the top of the civil service, but that's about the heap. If that's the best argument you have for bringing about a united Ireland, then we're stuffed.
there are a lot of non-local civil service 'call centre' type instances based in the
north of Ireland from what I saw listed in the not too distant past.
There are plenty of jobs that can be moved.
Also there are plenty of 'local' civil service jobs that can be migrated over to
England also - and I would expect that a proportion of these will also go when the
British gov starts to play 'hardball'.
Basic economics and business principles really. If you question that then fine.
Thats how the money makers and shakers do business. The 'protection' of the statelet
will no longer apply at that stage. Prepare for a rough time from the British gov.
It will be far more accomodating re-instated back with the Irish Gov.
I hope to heck those fools can broker a decent deal first though or we are all fecked!
yes roger - it would be slightly ironic to a lot of people who end up getting their
united Ireland delivered by the british Gv in the end ....but after all, who else could
ever deliver it.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 07, 2009, 10:02:50 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 07, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
My remark about Lynch was not about his oratory or personal presence. Lynch was no Paisley when it comes to shouting and hollering from platforms but stating that he wouldn't 'stand idly by' was better rabble rousing than Paisley could have managed through shouting and roaring at rallies. Since the guy could do nothing other than stand idly by he would have been better saying nothing as his comments were enough to send parts of an already paranoid population into a frenzy. Probably the most irresponsible input from an elected politician at the time and clearly out of touch with the Political situation never mind the people his country claimed were citizens.
Therein, perhaps, is the difference between our points of view.
There is no credible evidence to suggest he ever used that term anywhere at any time.
Probably many Unionists did take that meaning out of what he said and his political opponents down here were to claim he did in later times but there is only one recorded instance of him making any reference to the mobilisation of the Irish army and that was re-shown on RTE last week.
In that recorded interview, he clearly used the term, 'stand by.'
Furthermore, he went on to state explicitly what he was going to do and that did not include invasion in any shape or form.
welcome to the world of unionist/loyalist-speak
deliberate misunderstanding or forked tongues doesnt even come close !
On a complete tangent, in response to Lar_Naparka it's actually an interesting point by Lynchboy on forked tongues (albeit used in silly manner to pursue his own agenda).
I'm not sure what others think but for me I observe that Northern Irish unionists are generally used to straight talking, no flannel and 'call a spade a spade' type language. Maybe Paisley was scarey to nationalists but to unionists he might just well have been seen to have been speaking his mind to be agreed with or disagreed with. I've certainly heard that before by many who agreed and also disagreed with him. However, for many unionists there is a deep mistrust of southern Irish Politicians and a view point that they seem to be able to work within a level of ambiguity that is just misunderstood and considered to be forked tongues whilst still having a republican agenda to take over NI. I don't know if this is the case for the way Lynch's comments were taken, I'd have to have a closer look at the sequence of events and what exactly was said. One thing for certain was that there was and still is a deep mistrust of the Republic's intentions and imo with a fair degree of merit. Whether that is right or wrong, either now or then is open for debate and criticism but may have been a factor. One thing for certain is that there was definitely a fear of the Republic and for the future of NI at the time which contributed massively to the mayhem and that is what was evident and what Lynch stoked up by his comments however much we analyse them with benefit from hindsight in 2009.
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 12:29:29 AM
One thing for certain was that there was and still is a deep mistrust of the Republic's intentions and imo with a fair degree of merit.
It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.
Earlier in this thread you stated that the Irish Free State/Irish Republic never had any interest in intervention in Northern Ireland until the security situation developed that warranted their attention.
As for currently, all major parties have over the last 30 years have supported the Peace Process and previously the Anglo-Irish agreement. I know Fianna Fáil state as a goal to have an "agreed" All-Ireland Republic but it's hardly the stuff of "forked tongues".
I know unionists got in a lather about the Anglo-Irish agreement but I have never seen subsequent actions that would change my perception that the likes of Haughey or in particular Garret Fitzgerald were motivated by anything other than ending IRA violence. Unionists could argue that such interventions were driven by self-interest but I can't say there was any ill-intention towards Northern Ireland.
I know unionist like to point to articles 2 & 3 that previously existed but they were (shamefully imo) ignored as the situation in Northern Ireland developed prior to 1969.
/Jim.
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 12:29:29 AM
On a complete tangent, in response to Lar_Naparka it's actually an interesting point by Lynchboy on forked tongues (albeit used in silly manner to pursue his own agenda).
I'm not sure what others think but for me I observe that Northern Irish unionists are generally used to straight talking, no flannel and 'call a spade a spade' type language. Maybe Paisley was scarey to nationalists but to unionists he might just well have been seen to have been speaking his mind to be agreed with or disagreed with. I've certainly heard that before by many who agreed and also disagreed with him. However, for many unionists there is a deep mistrust of southern Irish Politicians and a view point that they seem to be able to work within a level of ambiguity that is just misunderstood and considered to be forked tongues whilst still having a republican agenda to take over NI. I don't know if this is the case for the way Lynch's comments were taken, I'd have to have a closer look at the sequence of events and what exactly was said. One thing for certain was that there was and still is a deep mistrust of the Republic's intentions and imo with a fair degree of merit. Whether that is right or wrong, either now or then is open for debate and criticism but may have been a factor. One thing for certain is that there was definitely a fear of the Republic and for the future of NI at the time which contributed massively to the mayhem and that is what was evident and what Lynch stoked up by his comments however much we analyse them with benefit from hindsight in 2009.
this is a prime example of what I was saying.
unionists and straight talking.
It is fairly obv that the toothless Lynch was not jumping up and down on the sidelines in a braveheart manner and posed no thread and indeed uttered no threat.
unionists/loyalists deliberately stated otherwise.
their 'straight talking' was based on a fallacy.
No benefit of hindsight needed, just common sense.
This was true of a lot of unionist/loyalist propaganda throughout those years.
unioniss/loyalists may have mistrusted southern politicians - funnily enough a hell of a lot of southern voters do also - but for completely different reasons.
There was no threat from southern politicians, apart from the odd one or two - but with no mandate or power blaney or haughey were at nothing.
What southern politicians are mistrusted for is their ineptitude and self serving greed.
There is not a shread of example or reason for unionist/loyalists then to actually fear southern politicians.
if they knew how funny this actually is. Its like being afraid of podge and rodge (no pun intended).
I suppose this has recently gone from taking signs of violence to the modern day 'taking offence'.
Certainly if it isnt forked tongues, its reverse polish notation chinese whisper translation done by unionists/loyalists.
Theres nothing to be afraid of lads !
QuoteI'm not sure what others think but for me I observe that Northern Irish unionists are generally used to straight talking, no flannel and 'call a spade a spade' type language.
I've no problem with that perception.
To me, that description matches most Unionists but many take it to extreme lengths; it's a case of form over substance at all times for them.
A prominent member of the southern negotiators once told me that in the meetings that led to the GFA Unionists reps would examine each proposal document with great care. Promises or guarantees from any quarter would mean nothing to them. The DUP delegation in particular would take each proposal as it was presented and retire into a huddle to examine it minutely. Anything they felt uncomfortable about would not be accepted without clarification or indeed amendment. They had to be satisfied that every full stop, never mind subjunctive clause, did not contain a hidden meaning. To my informant, they came across as totally paranoid; a guarantee from Blair carried as much weight as a promise from Ahern and the fact that any deviation from the intended meaning would be spotted by the world at large meant nothing to them. It had to be explained to their satisfaction.
QuoteMaybe Paisley was scarey to nationalists but to unionists he might just well have been seen to have been speaking his mind to be agreed with or disagreed with. I've certainly heard that before by many who agreed and also disagreed with him.
Can you understand why he seemed scary to nationalists?
Mainstream unionists seemed indifferent to the consequences of his oratory and action. To me, their acceptance of his 'freedom of expression' should have been qualified by the adjective 'reasonable.'
QuoteHowever, for many unionists there is a deep mistrust of southern Irish Politicians and a view point that they seem to be able to work within a level of ambiguity that is just misunderstood and considered to be forked tongues whilst still having a republican agenda to take over NI. I don't know if this is the case for the way Lynch's comments were taken, I'd have to have a closer look at the sequence of events and what exactly was said.
I can accept this without problem. It is generally accepted that nationalists can be freer with the way they express things. I'm told this is a relict from the times of the protestant Ascendancy where common people had to be extremely careful about what they said to their masters and evolved a way of saying one thing and meaning quite another. I really don't know or care much.
Ahern and co. had to be extremely careful that what they did in the future matched what they said and in any event unionists at the time appeared to distrust everybody including the Brits.
There is a widespread perception down here that unionists can also mask their true feelings and will fight over meanings of inconsequential terms to the point where agreement is delayed or negotiations completely break down. The devil is in the detail, or so it seems.
QuoteOne thing for certain is that there was definitely a fear of the Republic and for the future of NI at the time which contributed massively to the mayhem and that is what was evident and what Lynch stoked up by his comments however much we analyse them with benefit from hindsight in 2009.
I can accept this also.
But what sort of future was envisaged by those people at a time when they appeared unconcerned about the consequences of Paisley's action and uncaring about the sight of thousands from nationalist ghettos fleeing for sanctuary in the south?
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:22:27 PM
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
Where did you get the info that britain made a large payout to china for taking hong kong. I don't think i've ever read that. Hong Kong has been self sufficent since 1948 so that wouldn't explain the need/cause for a payout.
In fact as i recall the chinese were miffed at the bristish administration as they undertook massive infrastructure projects (new airport etc) that effectively emtied the coffers of Hong Kong.
Regardlesss of that though the handover of territory, large parts of which were leased and had to be handed over anyway to a world economic and military superpower doesn't really stand much comparison to the situation in northern Ireland vis-a-vis the republic IMO.
Quote from: delboy on September 08, 2009, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:22:27 PM
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
Where did you get the info that britain made a large payout to china for taking hong kong. I don't think i've ever read that. Hong Kong has been self sufficent since 1948 so that wouldn't explain the need/cause for a payout.
In fact as i recall the chinese were miffed at the bristish administration as they undertook massive infrastructure projects (new airport etc) that effectively emtied the coffers of Hong Kong.
Regardlesss of that though the handover of territory, large parts of which were leased and had to be handed over anyway to a world economic and military superpower doesn't really stand much comparison to the situation in northern Ireland vis-a-vis the republic IMO.
which is it
no precedent for handing back former colonies - hong kong, united states, canada,india/pakistan, Burma etc etc etc
or no precedent for investing in the colonies when withdrawing -india/pakistan, burma and as far as I know - hong kong too.
Maybe it was to write off any claims to the local industry wealth rather than to pay them off. It wasnt taking the money with them and it def cost them a pretty penny in withdrawal.
Oh also, I dont think that India/pakistan or burma were superpowers either...
the precedents are all there.
Reason why I have said that there will be a pay off as I have heard if from Irish Gov sources (when this is to happen) and fairly reliable sources attribute british cabinet MP's as saying much the same.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 08, 2009, 01:30:04 PM
Quote from: delboy on September 08, 2009, 12:37:39 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 07, 2009, 04:22:27 PM
also there is historical precedent there - with former colonies getting large payouts when handed back ...hong kong being not so long ago.
so when there is precedent, you shouldnt be so quick to ridicule.
Where did you get the info that britain made a large payout to china for taking hong kong. I don't think i've ever read that. Hong Kong has been self sufficent since 1948 so that wouldn't explain the need/cause for a payout.
In fact as i recall the chinese were miffed at the bristish administration as they undertook massive infrastructure projects (new airport etc) that effectively emtied the coffers of Hong Kong.
Regardlesss of that though the handover of territory, large parts of which were leased and had to be handed over anyway to a world economic and military superpower doesn't really stand much comparison to the situation in northern Ireland vis-a-vis the republic IMO.
which is it
no precedent for handing back former colonies - hong kong, united states, canada,india/pakistan, Burma etc etc etc
or no precedent for investing in the colonies when withdrawing -india/pakistan, burma and as far as I know - hong kong too.
Maybe it was to write off any claims to the local industry wealth rather than to pay them off. It wasnt taking the money with them and it def cost them a pretty penny in withdrawal.
Oh also, I dont think that India/pakistan or burma were superpowers either...
the precedents are all there.
Reason why I have said that there will be a pay off as I have heard if from Irish Gov sources (when this is to happen) and fairly reliable sources attribute british cabinet MP's as saying much the same.
Which one is it? LB I would have thought that was pretty obvious from the post considering it was about an alleged payout to china for the handing back of hong kong.
It really is a bit disingenuous to equate the use of a territorys
own wealth on massive long term infrastructure projects to some sort of pay-off to the chinese for adminstering the territory (quite the contrary).
You've sited an example of payouts from the british to the new adminstrators of a region as
the hand over of hong kong and its leased territory to china. I've called you on it, not because im some sort of expert on the affairs of hong kong but simply because it makes no logical sense
and i've personally never heard or read anything that supports your claim.
If you have some reliable information though that backs up your assertion by all means post it, its always good to learn something new.
I have no links or evidence to back up what I had heard about china getting 'paid off' over HK.
Nor do I have any quotes or evidence that I can use to back up what the Irish TD's and British cabinet MP's said regarding paying off Ireland.
However I dont think that my sources were flippant in either case.
Agan there is precedent in regards using another country's resources - as the fight for 'Rockall' and its gas/oil fields have shown.
There have been payoffs on many places after occupation - USA paid off both Berlin and Tokyo (though I dont recall USA being 'there' now that I think of it ).
Britain subsidised sub continent countries, former african/indian ocean colonies and probably more.
Do you not think that in order to save themselves multi billions, the british gov will pay some billions ?
The Irish Gov have the British Gov by the short and curlies here - as long as they dont go all inept and feck up again. theres a lot of money to be had out of this. Precedent shows that british gov have paid in the past.
I'd hope that they wont use 'rockall' as a bargaining chip - as it is Irish after all !
there are a lot of non-local civil service 'call centre' type instances based in the
north of Ireland from what I saw listed in the not too distant past.
There are plenty of jobs that can be moved.
Also there are plenty of 'local' civil service jobs that can be migrated over to
England also - and I would expect that a proportion of these will also go when the
British gov starts to play 'hardball'.
There might be call centre jobs that would leave, but these tend to belong to private companies such as banks and phone companies. I repeat my assertion, that most of the civil service jobs here deal with local services: taxes, rates, vehicles, agriculture, housing and so on. These are jobs that can't be taken back to Britain because they deal with specific north of Ireland issues. If I'm wrong, name the departments you think will go back.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2009, 08:16:24 PM
there are a lot of non-local civil service 'call centre' type instances based in the
north of Ireland from what I saw listed in the not too distant past.
There are plenty of jobs that can be moved.
Also there are plenty of 'local' civil service jobs that can be migrated over to
England also - and I would expect that a proportion of these will also go when the
British gov starts to play 'hardball'.
There might be call centre jobs that would leave, but these tend to belong to private companies such as banks and phone companies. I repeat my assertion, that most of the civil service jobs here deal with local services: taxes, rates, vehicles, agriculture, housing and so on. These are jobs that can't be taken back to Britain because they deal with specific north of Ireland issues. If I'm wrong, name the departments you think will go back.
Well for a start i work in a civil service post that deals with benefits in the London area. There are around 500 people that work in our building. These jobs can be done almost anywhere and are only done here as the rate of civil service pay is lower here than it is in London.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on September 08, 2009, 08:20:07 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 08, 2009, 08:16:24 PM
there are a lot of non-local civil service 'call centre' type instances based in the
north of Ireland from what I saw listed in the not too distant past.
There are plenty of jobs that can be moved.
Also there are plenty of 'local' civil service jobs that can be migrated over to
England also - and I would expect that a proportion of these will also go when the
British gov starts to play 'hardball'.
There might be call centre jobs that would leave, but these tend to belong to private companies such as banks and phone companies. I repeat my assertion, that most of the civil service jobs here deal with local services: taxes, rates, vehicles, agriculture, housing and so on. These are jobs that can't be taken back to Britain because they deal with specific north of Ireland issues. If I'm wrong, name the departments you think will go back.
Well for a start i work in a civil service post that deals with benefits in the London area. There are around 500 people that work in our building. These jobs can be done almost anywhere and are only done here as the rate of civil service pay is lower here than it is in London.
Fair enough. Anyone know any others?
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 08, 2009, 09:56:56 AM
It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
QuoteEarlier in this thread you stated that the Irish Free State/Irish Republic never had any interest in intervention in Northern Ireland until the security situation developed that warranted their attention.
I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.
QuoteAs for currently, all major parties have over the last 30 years have supported the Peace Process and previously the Anglo-Irish agreement. I know Fianna Fáil state as a goal to have an "agreed" All-Ireland Republic but it's hardly the stuff of "forked tongues".
There is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed. There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969. However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.
QuoteI know unionists got in a lather about the Anglo-Irish agreement but I have never seen subsequent actions that would change my perception that the likes of Haughey or in particular Garret Fitzgerald were motivated by anything other than ending IRA violence. Unionists could argue that such interventions were driven by self-interest but I can't say there was any ill-intention towards Northern Ireland.
If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it. That's how unionists felt and understandably so.
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=13614.msg637989#msg637989
Theres nothing to be afraid of lads !
With your views on unionists I'm sure that's very comforting ::)
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 08, 2009, 09:56:56 AM
It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
When did the 6 North Eastern Irish Counties become independent? :o
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 08, 2009, 09:56:56 AM
It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
QuoteEarlier in this thread you stated that the Irish Free State/Irish Republic never had any interest in intervention in Northern Ireland until the security situation developed that warranted their attention.
I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.
QuoteAs for currently, all major parties have over the last 30 years have supported the Peace Process and previously the Anglo-Irish agreement. I know Fianna Fáil state as a goal to have an "agreed" All-Ireland Republic but it's hardly the stuff of "forked tongues".
There is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed. There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969. However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.
QuoteI know unionists got in a lather about the Anglo-Irish agreement but I have never seen subsequent actions that would change my perception that the likes of Haughey or in particular Garret Fitzgerald were motivated by anything other than ending IRA violence. Unionists could argue that such interventions were driven by self-interest but I can't say there was any ill-intention towards Northern Ireland.
If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it. That's how unionists felt and understandably so.
Sure yous trust no one Roger, as the Poles, Romas and the Phillipino nurses can testify..
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 08, 2009, 11:15:31 AMTo me, that description matches most Unionists but many take it to extreme lengths; it's a case of form over substance at all times for them.
A prominent member of the southern negotiators once told me that in the meetings that led to the GFA Unionists reps would examine each proposal document with great care. Promises or guarantees from any quarter would mean nothing to them. The DUP delegation in particular would take each proposal as it was presented and retire into a huddle to examine it minutely. Anything they felt uncomfortable about would not be accepted without clarification or indeed amendment. They had to be satisfied that every full stop, never mind subjunctive clause, did not contain a hidden meaning. To my informant, they came across as totally paranoid; a guarantee from Blair carried as much weight as a promise from Ahern and the fact that any deviation from the intended meaning would be spotted by the world at large meant nothing to them. It had to be explained to their satisfaction.
Tony Blair wrote a lot of pledges too to satisfy these concerns at the same negotiations and regardless of the world at large watching, the pledges proved nothing but lies. Politicians are bad enough but why would Unionists ever trust a Politician from the Republic??
QuoteCan you understand why he seemed scary to nationalists?
I can. I can also see why he was considered by others to be simply straight talking. I don't agree with Paisley's words and rabble-rousing but it was easy to see where he was coming from.
QuoteMainstream unionists seemed indifferent to the consequences of his oratory and action. To me, their acceptance of his 'freedom of expression' should have been qualified by the adjective 'reasonable.'
Many liberal unionists saw a disloyal crowd bent on opposing the state, causing violence and were extremely wary of the Republic's intentions. Paisley 'fanned those flames'.
QuoteAhern and co. had to be extremely careful that what they did in the future matched what they said and in any event unionists at the time appeared to distrust everybody including the Brits.
Unionists might be painted as having a weird psyche but it seemed prudent to me then, and with hindsight now, when dealing with Aherne and BLiar.
QuoteThere is a widespread perception down here that unionists can also mask their true feelings and will fight over meanings of inconsequential terms to the point where agreement is delayed or negotiations completely break down. The devil is in the detail, or so it seems.
I don't see that as a criticism one bit.
QuoteBut what sort of future was envisaged by those people at a time when they appeared unconcerned about the consequences of Paisley's action and uncaring about the sight of thousands from nationalist ghettos fleeing for sanctuary in the south?
Hard to know. I suppose they saw their fellow British fleeing from the south to the sanctuary of Northern Ireland since partition and it didn't seem that much different. Certainly the Republic didn't seem to be damaged by any exodus of those opposed to the state they found themselves in.
Quote from: Yes I Would on September 08, 2009, 09:04:56 PM
Sure yous trust no one Roger, as the Poles, Romas and the Phillipino nurses can testify..
Thank you for your valued insight. Btw, you'll obviously be aware that unionists are KKK, eat Catholic babies, and have hair on the palms of their hand. ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on September 08, 2009, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 08, 2009, 09:56:56 AM
It is odd that you state that in your opinion that such mistrust is merited.
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
When did the 6 North Eastern Irish Counties become independent? :o
Would statelet be a more suitable term for you to cope with?
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust. Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?
Quote
I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.
I'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles. I suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.
QuoteThere is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed. There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969. However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.
Fair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't. (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't). What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?
Quote]If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it. That's how unionists felt and understandably so.
I don't actually agree that it's all that understandable. The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests. I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments. Were there any? What were there?
Also the irish government is not just any foreign government. Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).
I'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 09, 2009, 07:58:30 AM
I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust. Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?
No. But the government of the Republic is not simply someone with a different view.
QuoteI'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles.
Than what? I do not understand what you mean. The word "arose" was used and was hoped that it did not cause offense.
QuoteI suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.
I don't understand your point.
QuoteFair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't. (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't). What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?
A country founded the way it was, with aggressive policy towards Northern Ireland and to this day an irredentist / imperialistic outlook. I would not trust the Republic in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland one bit.
QuoteI don't actually agree that it's all that understandable. The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests. I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments. Were there any? What were there?
The government you describe had been prorogued 13 years previously. Imposing the involvement of the Republic in internal affairs of Northern Ireland was outrageous and the only benefit to NI was improved cross-border security arrangements. These arrangements never materialized into anything very reasonable given that they should have been in place as of right.
QuoteAlso the irish government is not just any foreign government. Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).
The Irish government is a foreign government and to unionists has done nothing but be an aggressive foreign government to NI. It has a land border with us and therefore there are things that can be done for mutual benefit. This is not Political accommodation of nationalists or terror supporting organisations. This is simply common sense. That does not mean they should have a say in internal affairs. They should not.
QuoteI'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....
I don't expect you to.
Roger, I am being curious here and not argumentative in any way.
I wonder if you would consider yourself as a mainstream Unionist or would you feel that you are expressing a minority viewpoint?
My reason for asking you this is that I would completely agree with Jim Murphy and also with Myles back in post #180, and I'd like to know if you could ever see yourself budging from your present position to try and find a compromise with those who think like we do.
In other words, what would you be prepared to accept if a GFA 2 was being discussed?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2009, 10:37:31 AM
Roger, I am being curious here and not argumentative in any way.
I wonder if you would consider yourself as a mainstream Unionist or would you feel that you are expressing a minority viewpoint?
My reason for asking you this is that I would completely agree with Jim Murphy and also with Myles back in post #180, and I'd like to know if you could ever see yourself budging from your present position to try and find a compromise with those who think like we do.
In other words, what would you be prepared to accept if a GFA 2 was being discussed?
I think I would be fairly mainstream in unionism but it is a broad church with regard to specific policies. I don't see how post #180 and its observations have any bearing on the GFA. What happened, happened and different viewpoints are made on it. As I have said, what matters is the future. I'm not sure what GFA2 is or would be or even what my observations on the events up to the early 1970s needs budged from.
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 10:24:13 AM
No. But the government of the Republic is not simply someone with a different view.
Correct it is a government with a duty of care towards those people in northern ireland who are entitled to call themselves citzens of it's state. That is clearly stated in the GFA, an agreement which I understand mainstream unionists accept as the democratic will of the people of northern ireland. This whether you, other unionists accept it or not, at the very least opens the possibility that the republic's intentions towards northern ireland are motivated by dutiful and altruistic reasons rather than imperialist or irredentist reasons.
Quote
Than what? I do not understand what you mean. The word "arose" was used and was hoped that it did not cause offense.
I don't care about the word arose or other's offense at your interpretation of who started what in 1969. What I mean is that your need to use the adjective "puny" appears prima facia to be calculated to cause offense. It is irrelevant to the discussion (unless you believe that a strong irish army would have had more of a right to intervene) so why put it in?
The same puny army gallantly contributed to UN peace missions in the Congo during the 60's when the british army was still knocking the locals around Aden. But hey...we're the imperialists aren't we?
Quote
I don't understand your point.
My point is that you won't open yourself to any possibility other than Lynch and his government greeted the kick-off of the troubles with a gleeful rattle of their sabres and chance to have a cut off the brits. You should at least accept there is a possibility that the were just as fearful as unionists (or anyone else) and wanted to help those nationalists they felt a duty of care too.
QuoteA country founded the way it was, with aggressive policy towards Northern Ireland and to this day an irredentist / imperialistic outlook. I would not trust the Republic in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland one bit.
I still haven't read an example of the current governments failings in this light. How the state was founded has been usurped by many events since.
QuoteThe government you describe had been prorogued 13 years previously. Imposing the involvement of the Republic in internal affairs of Northern Ireland was outrageous and the only benefit to NI was improved cross-border security arrangements. These arrangements never materialized into anything very reasonable given that they should have been in place as of right.
The elapse of 13 years was insignificant given the vacum in the interim. How do you think nationalists fear should have been dealt with (if at all) as an alternative to what they wanted?
QuoteThe Irish government is a foreign government and to unionists has done nothing but be an aggressive foreign government to NI. It has a land border with us and therefore there are things that can be done for mutual benefit. This is not Political accommodation of nationalists or terror supporting organisations. This is simply common sense. That does not mean they should have a say in internal affairs. They should not.
It maybe a foreign government in some senses but it not just any kind of foreign government. If unionists don't accept that then they don't accept the GFA as far as I am concerned.
QuoteI don't expect you to.
Maybe I do, but maybe they are not all wearing green..............
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on September 09, 2009, 07:58:30 AM
Quote from: Roger on September 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM
Odd given that that state claimed ownership of this state???
I can see how as a unionist you wouldn't agree but why does it also invoke mistrust. Must someone of a differring viewpoint necessarily engender mistrust?
Quote
I stated that they did not plan to invade or 'not stand by' due to the way they thought NI was governed. They did nothing for nationalists in NI but they still wanted to complete their island and govern it. The security situation that arose (please God that word doesn't instigate offense to the prickly skinned ones here) simply allowed them to rattle sabres and flex their (puny) muscles.
I'd rather be more prickly that you think that the Irish government were looking for an excuse to allow them to "rattle sabres" or that you have a need to comment on our "puny" military muscles. I suppose it is this "merited" mistrust that assumes that was the reason rather than concern for those nationalists that looked to the southern state for help.
QuoteThere is no doubt better relations between the states has been developed. There is no doubt that the ROI is a vastly different state now than it was in 1969. However, whilst I am in favour of good neighbourly relations and operating for mutual benefit, I wouldn't trust the Republic one bit and feel that that is the general mood within unionism even if constitutionally the Union is secure.
Fair enough, you wouldn't trust the republic one bit but you haven't actually given a reason why you don't. (apart from the fact that other unionists generally don't). What is it you fear we are planning behind our lying, forked tongues?
Quote]If another country was given a say in your affairs you'd be pretty much in a lather no matter how nice they were about it. That's how unionists felt and understandably so.
I don't actually agree that it's all that understandable. The idea of the irish government having a non-executive involvement in some minor aspects of northern ireland was (to me at least) an eminently reasonable reassurance to the nationalist population that someone would speak up for their interests. I don't know what alternatives unionist were willing to offer constitutional nationalism protection from the types of injustices that had happened under past governments. Were there any? What were there?
Also the irish government is not just any foreign government. Just like republicans must get over the fact unionism is a result of the shared history of these islands and have to be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to republicans) also unionist need to get over the fact that nationalists exist (in large numbers) in northern ireland and their relationship with the republic must be accomodated (however unpalatable that accomodation is to unionists).
I'm still not seeing the forked tongues and lies though.....
/Jim.
We might have disagreed in the past Jim, but I have to applaud that post.
In short, there is no merit for what unionism say or pretends to fear from the southern 26 counties, its politicians and its people (esp after half of the unionists went down to dublin to work and get their share of the celtic tiger coffers- after years of 'never will we cross the border !').
roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.
As for republicans well I think that apart from th very small mindless minority who are either hell bent on fighting 'someone' or peddling illegal goods/smuggling - then close to 100% of republicans realise and understand that any future Ireland contains unionists, non nationals, 'west brits', communists and whatever else makes up a modern day society.
Most people have come a long way in their acceptance. So I dont see any problem there.
All I see as being a problem is the acceptance of the southern people in wanting the northern contingent being allowed into the full Ireland.
anyhow - as you have pointed out, unionists dont have any particular reason. They like to throw them up and use half baked notions and age old (1916) precedent to attempt to give some kind of rationale to their spoofy claims.
You have smoked this lie out well. Well done.
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 11:09:18 AM
I think I would be fairly mainstream in unionism but it is a broad church with regard to specific policies. I don't see how post #180 and its observations have any bearing on the GFA. What happened, happened and different viewpoints are made on it. As I have said, what matters is the future. I'm not sure what GFA2 is or would be or even what my observations on the events up to the early 1970s needs budged from.
Roger, I accept your sincerity of opinion and that applies to all your posts throughout our discussion but it also means I see problems ahead for Unionism and the future of Northern Ireland.
To me, post 180 described the sequence of event that led up to Burntollet and the happenings that led to The Troubles in detail and with accuracy.
Almost thirty years on, the GFA was designed to bring an end to those troubles, hence my linking both.
Jim Murphy addresses many of the problems I would have with the ongoing Unionist reservations about the terms of the agreement.
Given that you and by implication mainstream Unionism, appear to be still suspicious of the intent of both HMG and the Irish Government and probably everyone else that signed up for the agreement, what if anything could be achieved if all parties sat down again to renegotiate the original GFA?
Fair enough?
[quote author=Jim_Murphy_74 link=topic=13614.msg638936#msg638936
Correct it is a government with a duty of care towards those people in northern ireland who are entitled to call themselves citzens of it's state. That is clearly stated in the GFA, an agreement which I understand mainstream unionists accept as the democratic will of the people of northern ireland. This whether you, other unionists accept it or not, at the very least opens the possibility that the republic's intentions towards northern ireland are motivated by dutiful and altruistic reasons rather than imperialist or irredentist reasons. [/quote]The Republic may have obligations under the Belfast Agreement but that doesn't mean I would trust them. Do you trust the government in the Republic?? SF also have obligations under the same agreement but there is absolutely nothing that they would say or do that I would trust.
QuoteI don't care about the word arose or other's offense at your interpretation of who started what in 1969. What I mean is that your need to use the adjective "puny" appears prima facia to be calculated to cause offense. It is irrelevant to the discussion (unless you believe that a strong irish army would have had more of a right to intervene) so why put it in?
The wording wasn't aimed at you (as the post stated). The use of puny was relevant to the subject as per title of thread but the derisory capability of the Republic's army at the time makes me wonder what they were playing at when drawing up invasion plans and making comments on telly. Sabre rattling at best. Downright irresponsible and toothless though.
QuoteThe same puny army gallantly contributed to UN peace missions in the Congo during the 60's when the british army was still knocking the locals around Aden. But hey...we're the imperialists aren't we?
Very nice but not relevant to the thread or my comments.
QuoteMy point is that you won't open yourself to any possibility other than Lynch and his government greeted the kick-off of the troubles with a gleeful rattle of their sabres and chance to have a cut off the brits. You should at least accept there is a possibility that the were just as fearful as unionists (or anyone else) and wanted to help those nationalists they felt a duty of care too.
I accept the possibility alright but can understand unionist concerns and reactions at the time.
QuoteI still haven't read an example of the current governments failings in this light. How the state was founded has been usurped by many events since.
Like WW2, the troubles, extradition issues, pathetic security arrangements, pan-nationalist front with SF and SDLP etc. The Republic has never done anything with a duty of care in mind for unionists so I don't think that you can expect unionists to be gullible because people say they are ok to be sure to be sure etc.
QuoteThe elapse of 13 years was insignificant given the vacum in the interim. How do you think nationalists fear should have been dealt with (if at all) as an alternative to what they wanted?
In your view maybe but the involvement of the Republic forced on the majority community without consultation was silly and proved to be so. What would have suited nationalists in 1985 is a longer subject than I have time for at moment. Sorry.
QuoteIt maybe a foreign government in some senses but it not just any kind of foreign government. If unionists don't accept that then they don't accept the GFA as far as I am concerned.
Unionists do accept that. They are fully aware that the ROI is a foreign government with mechanisms for mutual co-operation north/south/east/west. If nationalists don't accept that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland lies with the UK and that an all-island state can only happen with the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland in the first instance then they do not accept the Belfast Agreement. Nationalists don't even be able to accept the name of the place, so your criticism shouldn't be aimed at unionists in the first instance imo.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 12:51:00 PM
roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.
I have implied no such thing. I was referring to you. You were trying to convince unionists there is nothing to be afraid of. I just think this is bonkers given that all you ever do is aggressively oppose, ridicule and criticise them with what must surely be seen by many nationalists as an embarrassing level of bigotry and propaganda.
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 02:04:13 PM
The Republic may have obligations under the Belfast Agreement but that doesn't mean I would trust them. Do you trust the government in the Republic?? SF also have obligations under the same agreement but there is absolutely nothing that they would say or do that I would trust.
You state your mistrust was based on their imperialist/irredentists reasons. I am merely stating that I don't believe that the current government of the republic are involved for such reasons. I explained what I believe their reasons for this involvement are. You seem to concur. It's immaterial who I trust/don't trust. You maintain is perfectly logical for unionists to mistrust the current governments intentions towards nothern ireland. I am trying desperately to understand what the logic is? You talk of forked tongues: is it that you have reason to believe they are paying lip-service to principle of consent in the GFA while secret planning some kind of secret political/military plot on the side?
QuoteThe wording wasn't aimed at you (as the post stated). The use of puny was relevant to the subject as per title of thread but the derisory capability of the Republic's army at the time makes me wonder what they were playing at when drawing up invasion plans and making comments on telly. Sabre rattling at best. Downright irresponsible and toothless though.
You are flip-flopping here now. Earlier in the thread you said the army's actions (although not Lynch's) were the correct course of action. I re-iterate that I don't see the relevance of the state of the irish army. Would their actions be more responsible if they had a strong army. As for comments on telly, they may have been ill-advised. However if they were sabre-rattling is a matter of opinion and conjecture. Many on this thread such as Lar Naparka have given back-up to their opinions to the contrary (events of the time/nature/past behaviour of Lynch.) Your punchline appears to be that unionists politicians are straight talking whereas the republic variety are snakes.
QuoteVery nice but not relevant to the thread or my comments.
Quite relevant when you use derogatory terms about the same army.
QuoteI accept the possibility alright but can understand unionist concerns and reactions at the time.
That is the first acknowledgement I have ever read from you. You seem dismissive of these possibilities in general.
QuoteLike WW2, the troubles, extradition issues, pathetic security arrangements, pan-nationalist front with SF and SDLP etc. The Republic has never done anything with a duty of care in mind for unionists so I don't think that you can expect unionists to be gullible because people say they are ok to be sure to be sure etc.
I don't see the relevance of of the above to the current government. Although all the above could be discussed in their context.
QuoteIn your view maybe but the involvement of the Republic forced on the majority community without consultation was silly and proved to be so. What would have suited nationalists in 1985 is a longer subject than I have time for at moment. Sorry.
Hmmm but in the previous sentence you were exercised by what suited unionists right back to WW2?? In my opinion unionist intransgience towards non-violent, democratic nationlism (SDLP for example) forced the hand to go over their heads. The most british of british and conservative of conservative governments saw fit to give this accomodation. Ever countenance it was for more reasons than just their untrustworthyness? Is it a case for unionism that everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny
QuoteUnionists do accept that. They are fully aware that the ROI is a foreign government with mechanisms for mutual co-operation north/south/east/west. If nationalists don't accept that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland lies with the UK and that an all-island state can only happen with the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland in the first instance then they do not accept the Belfast Agreement. Nationalists don't even be able to accept the name of the place, so your criticism shouldn't be aimed at unionists in the first instance imo.
I am not criticising unionists, I am trying to parse and understand your criticisms/fears of the irish government. (criticisms/fears your are representing as those of mainstream unionism). Your criticisms of nationalism are just a bit of whataboutery in this context.
/Jim
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 12:51:00 PM
roger has implied that because of peoples views on unionists they are right to be afraid etc.
Utter horsesh*t.
I have implied no such thing. I was referring to you. You were trying to convince unionists there is nothing to be afraid of. I just think this is bonkers given that all you ever do is aggressively oppose, ridicule and criticise them with what must surely be seen by many nationalists as an embarrassing level of bigotry and propaganda.
so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !
Far from convincing unionsts there is nothing tobe afraid of from a nationalist/Irish perspective
you still have as yet (from reading your last post above to Jim) not given one single bone fide instance of where nioniss/loyalists have a reason to be fearful, let alone any reason why they were 'in fear' of Lynch et al in 1969.
Was this the same fear that made them wreak havoc, oppression, persecution, violent terror an the apartheid type system on nationalists - was it that theyfeared something might happen them if they didnt!
this kind of rationalistaion by you and other unionists/loyalists is comical.
You state you are in fear of something but there has been nothing ever said regarding the safety , rights or status in the eventual reunified republic. It is a sham of an act and a ostrich-like pretence that you folks keep up.
Give Jim and Lar their answers if you wont do so with me. Tell them what actual fears are manifested as. What is it - other than people on the internet or some horrible fenians called you (or 'might' call you names !)
:D
Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2009, 01:21:53 PM
Roger, I accept your sincerity of opinion and that applies to all your posts throughout our discussion but it also means I see problems ahead for Unionism and the future of Northern Ireland.
To me, post 180 described the sequence of event that led up to Burntollet and the happenings that led to The Troubles in detail and with accuracy.
Almost thirty years on, the GFA was designed to bring an end to those troubles, hence my linking both.
Jim Murphy addresses many of the problems I would have with the ongoing Unionist reservations about the terms of the agreement.
I just don't think blame, opinions etc for what happened in the 60s and 70s has a big bearing on what happens now. Equality of opportunity and the rule of law are completely different now and set up to be so. What can law abiding citizens see so wrong with that? Sure some policies will be disagreed on but there will be more that is agreed on by all imo.
QuoteGiven that you and by implication mainstream Unionism, appear to be still suspicious of the intent of both HMG and the Irish Government and probably everyone else that signed up for the agreement, what if anything could be achieved if all parties sat down again to renegotiate the original GFA?
Fair enough?
I think there needs to be a bedding in period for the current institutions and for a generation to grow older. The lack of trust within NI of themmuns (both ways) is unbelievable but it is merited imo. I have no time for SF because of the terrorism and even their tactics to this day are deplorable. Totally untrustworthy. They are the lowest of the low for me and always will be. Maybe a future generation of unionists will find them as a party more acceptable, I don't know, but their current Politicians are abhorrent to me and many others. That said, unionists have to work with them as they represent the majority of nationalists and this acknowledged and accepted by the majority of unionists however unpalatable it is. But don't ask me or many other unionists to trust them. It just won't happen. The ROI government's role is accepted to but they are treated with suspicion and there is no love for them. My view is that unionists should not let them away with operating here without being in on top of them ie no boycotting stuff just because they are about. I would watch them like a hawk and ensure that unionists get a fair hearing and have representatives to argue their case. There are areas of benefit to all on this island through mutual co-operation and that is where unionists should be too.
In future years the arrangements needs to be redesigned. I don't believe the current situation is workable as there is no opposition to the government in NI. In democracy that just doesn't work imo. The daily constitutional Politics needs to end and socio-economic Politics needs to take hold as this place needs to sort itself out. That being the case then a democratic government could be elected with an opposition and let the constitutional issue sort itself out if a referendum was called. Unfortunately since the Politics are still so tribal and consistently pursuing silly stuff like Irish Act, Maze Development, Ulster Scots etc. This stuff takes up so much time following party policies in a rainbow government that the important stuff gets low priority. Unfortunately it needs to bed in for the benefit in the long run (and it is right to do so) but I'd personally prefer Direct Rule from Whitehall in the meantime. If that is anti-GFA then so be it. The reasons I voted against the agreement and I (and I believe the majority of unionists would too) would do so again hindsight are now now irrelevant but leave a bitter taste and mistrust.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 link=topic=13614.msg639037#msg639037
You state your mistrust was based on their imperialist/irredentists reasons. I am merely stating that I don't believe that the current government of the republic are involved for such reasons. I explained what I believe their reasons for this involvement are. You seem to concur. It's immaterial who I trust/don't trust. You maintain is perfectly logical for unionists to mistrust the current governments intentions towards nothern ireland. I am trying desperately to understand what the logic is? You talk of forked tongues: is it that you have reason to believe they are paying lip-service to principle of consent in the GFA while secret planning some kind of secret political/military plot on the side?
As per previous posts, the ROI government has a track record of being anti-unionist and also a bunch of liars. If that is not the case then it certainly the perception with merit in my view. Do you not see a track record of lies and deceipt in ROI governments? I don't see how you expect unionists to be so trustworthy just because the current crop say their intentions are benign. The current crop have been demonstrates as up to their ears in all sorts of double dealing which doesn't stand for a very good character reference.
QuoteYou are flip-flopping here now. Earlier in the thread you said the army's actions (although not Lynch's) were the correct course of action. I re-iterate that I don't see the relevance of the state of the irish army. Would their actions be more responsible if they had a strong army. As for comments on telly, they may have been ill-advised. However if they were sabre-rattling is a matter of opinion and conjecture. Many on this thread such as Lar Naparka have given back-up to their opinions to the contrary (events of the time/nature/past behaviour of Lynch.) Your punchline appears to be that unionists politicians are straight talking whereas the republic variety are snakes.
Don't know what it means but liking the word "flip-flopping". I see the relevance of the state of the ROI army because if they had no capability, what were they up to? Why draw up plans that couldn't be delivered? Why go on air if standing by was all that could be done?
QuoteQuite relevant when you use derogatory terms about the same army.
I'm trying to stick to the thread title here and you want to talk about the UN. The report on this showed that the ROI army was poorly equipped to deal with the situation. If puny muscles is offensive then so be it but there's not intent Jim.
QuoteThat is the first acknowledgement I have ever read from you. You seem dismissive of these possibilities in general.
Hang on. I have been observing a time when I wasn't born or at least was very young. I didn't vote for any of the unionists then and have never had any of this so-called apartheid system which benefited me and kept themmuns down. I have stated this clearly that I understand where unionists were coming from whether right or wrong is open to debate. I also stated that this debate is of little value now for the future given that there is so much division on the issue and it is such a flammable subject.
QuoteHmmm but in the previous sentence you were exercised by what suited unionists right back to WW2?? In my opinion unionist intransgience towards non-violent, democratic nationlism (SDLP for example) forced the hand to go over their heads. The most british of british and conservative of conservative governments saw fit to give this accomodation. Ever countenance it was for more reasons than just their untrustworthyness? Is it a case for unionism that everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny
Ok, tell me one thing that unionists could point to that the ROI has done for their benefit that wouldn't be against everything they stand for? Tell me what this duty of care by the Republican state has ever done for them even though they are supposedly citizens of this state where they weren't born or want to join? Why would a unionists in 1985 ever want a foreign government involved in their affairs against their will? Tell me what the Republic's response would have been like if UK had a say in the affairs of the Republic because the minority there feel they are British and got a rotten time from the majority? Maybe Turkey should have a say in Germany? How about Morocco in France? Tell me of any country around the globe would have welcomed that in the same situation?
QuoteI am not criticising unionists, I am trying to parse and understand your criticisms/fears of the irish government. (criticisms/fears your are representing as those of mainstream unionism). Your criticisms of nationalism are just a bit of whataboutery in this context.
Only slightly fair point about whataboutery because unionists have to be joined at the hip with nationalists yet you want them to trust nationalists yet won't see the faults there as relevant that cause mistrust.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !
Are you the Republic's government? Are you representative of nationalism?
If you are then you will not convince unionists in general as you are abusive and simply a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. If not then you are simply abusive and a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. Either way it doesn't matter much and that's the end of the conversation on this.
Off to match now, bye.
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !
Are you the Republic's government? Are you representative of nationalism?
If you are then you will not convince unionists in general as you are abusive and simply a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. If not then you are simply abusive and a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. Either way it doesn't matter much and that's the end of the conversation on this.
Off to match now, bye.
which is it ?
you still havent disclosed any real aspects as to why you are 'afraid' ?
voting no to the gfa discloses a lot !
;)
Roger,
I haven't the time or energy for another round of tit for tat on each small point. I accept you have issues of mistrust based on past actions which you list back to WW2 but find it odd that you do that on one hand but yet dismiss other issues as something to be consigned to the past because they are devisive.
You ascribe the qualities of plain-talking to unionist politicians in contrast to nationalist counterparts. I don't understand that and to be honest assigning such qualities or labels to groups is not something I am comfortable with.
It maybe easier for me looking from outside northern ireland to look at things you list dispassionately and not see the bogey-man behind all actions. In my experience these things are far more complex than you paint it.
My experience of the republic is that there is a rump of republicanism that hates all things british but the is a far greater group who don't bear them any particular ill-will but do feel a loyalty/duty of care to to nationalists for historical reasons. I am only trying to articulate that sentiment to you.
In light of my expressed discomfort at assigning qualities to a whole group of people I will thread carefully in my conclusion: I find, in my limited experience of unionists that many are quick to present their interpretation of other's motivations as a statement of fact. When in fact I can see many other (often opposing) motivations. This can be regarded as "straight talking" in some parts, but can also be seen as plain old arrogance.
Past unionist leaders (notably Mr. Trimble) have painted the picture of one all-pervasive republican/anti-british movitating society in the republic. That makes it easy to assign ill-intentions to all interactions but it is wrong, very wrong. If one accepts that, then one can look at previous and current matters in a different light.
/Jim.
Jim, I can see what you are saying. Interesting. While I have fielded all the questions in this thread to the best of my time, I am still bewildered why you should think that unionists should accept a republican government's purported goodwill simply because they say so.
If you are signing off on the conversation, fair do's. I'm more gutted tonight about the performance of an eastern Euro country tonight than that of a southern Euro country.
:( :( :(
Quote from: Roger on September 10, 2009, 12:59:17 AM
Jim, I can see what you are saying. Interesting. While I have fielded all the questions in this thread to the best of my time, I am still bewildered why you should think that unionists should accept a republican government's purported goodwill simply because they say so.
If you are signing off on the conversation, fair do's. I'm more gutted tonight about the performance of an eastern Euro country tonight than that of a southern Euro country.
:( :( :(
Goodwill is a strong word and maybe overstates it. They have now gone from them being liars (forked tongues), untrustworthy to lacking goodwill.
My point is that differing political viewpoints doesn't mean imply malice.
By your reasoning northern nationalists should never trust unionists because unionist political aims are to ensure nationalist aims are never realised??
So everyone has to be suspicious of everyone else?? Forever?
And as for perception/belief/observation that unionist politicians are honest straight talking folk while the irish republic's equivalent are a both of fork tongued liars is just pants, to be honest.
I will always argue against generalisations.
/Jim.
P.S. Haven over the last week had occasion to see both the FAI XI and IFA XI in action I am glad my interest in international soccer is minimal. One thing in common north and south is the quality of team.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 link=topic=13614.msg639677#msg639677
Goodwill is a strong word and maybe overstates it. They have now gone from them being liars (forked tongues), untrustworthy to lacking goodwill.
My point is that differing political viewpoints doesn't mean imply malice.
By your reasoning northern nationalists should never trust unionists because unionist political aims are to ensure nationalist aims are never realised??
So everyone has to be suspicious of everyone else?? Forever?
And as for perception/belief/observation that unionist politicians are honest straight talking folk while the irish republic's equivalent are a both of fork tongued liars is just pants, to be honest.
Jim, I was asked why I thought unionists didn't trust the ROI government at the time of the invasion plans. I don't believe they did trust the ROI government. I'm not fussed on generalisations either and you can shape my observations into whatever you want and call it pants, but is there some other way you wanted me to answer the questions? I am certainly not saying I believe nationalist = bad, unionists = good. I have stated that I wouldn't trust the ROI government either then or now but am supportive of NI working with them for mutual benefit. Is that such a bad thing? Tell me why I should trust the ROI government or tell me what the ROI government have ever done for unionists that makes you think I or any other unionist should trust the ROI government. I have also stated on this thread that I believe that to get away from this suspicion, mistrust, division etc on constitutional lines the NI government needs to be voted on socio-economic lines and let a referendum take care of the constitutional issue. Otherwise there will continually be win-lose situations based on community background which furthers the division, suspicion etc.
Maybe since you like asking all the questions and then having a pop at my opinion you might like to offer some of your own thoughts on why unionists don't trust the Republic; why they should have trusted Lynch; what makes the ROI government trustworthy at all and based on what evidence; why there is division and mistrust in NI society and who is to blame etc etc.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 04:29:35 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !
Are you the Republic's government? Are you representative of nationalism?
If you are then you will not convince unionists in general as you are abusive and simply a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. If not then you are simply abusive and a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. Either way it doesn't matter much and that's the end of the conversation on this.
Off to match now, bye.
which is it ?
you still havent disclosed any real aspects as to why you are 'afraid' ?
I didn't say I was afraid of anyone or anything. I simply said you are an unconvincing person to me as a unionist and I imagine this would be the same for other unionists because you are abusive and a propaganda machine.
Quotevoting no to the gfa discloses a lot !
;)
It probably gives you more material to make up lies and tell me what I think again whilst bounding your falsehoods all over this board. Nothing new in that.
Quote from: Roger on September 10, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 04:29:35 PM
Quote from: Roger on September 09, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 09, 2009, 02:39:46 PM
so you and unionists/loyalists like you are actually just in fear of being called names and being disliked !
Are you the Republic's government? Are you representative of nationalism?
If you are then you will not convince unionists in general as you are abusive and simply a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. If not then you are simply abusive and a propaganda machine with nothing to offer unionists. Either way it doesn't matter much and that's the end of the conversation on this.
Off to match now, bye.
which is it ?
you still havent disclosed any real aspects as to why you are 'afraid' ?
I didn't say I was afraid of anyone or anything. I simply said you are an unconvincing person to me as a unionist and I imagine this would be the same for other unionists because you are abusive and a propaganda machine.
Quotevoting no to the gfa discloses a lot !
;)
It probably gives you more material to make up lies and tell me what I think again whilst bounding your falsehoods all over this board. Nothing new in that.
yep those are your opinions alright. fine.
But at least my opinions have a dose of reality attached.
You still have given Jim or Lar no semblence of a concrete answer as to why you 'fear' all things Irish/Southern Irish gov etc etc.
The elephant in the room here is roaring 'bigotry' as your reasons though!
unionists/loyalists never (never never) want to change from the old apartheid type state,allowing equality and more recently power sharing (need photographs as 'proof' etc) - so its no surprise that they dont want to be shifted further away from their previous position of single power system.
Unfortunately the times are changing and its a one way street.
unionists/loyalists dont see or realise the benefits will be like the gains (financial and other) from their daring to cross the border and work /live in dublin.
If that can be done and they had no problems with it - then there is no issue.
dinosaurs like yourself will be stuck in the past and become extinct while the world and All Ireland move on.
Its not that I am hell bent on a united Ireland, republicans dont like my views on it and the economy of it, but thats how I see things going. thats business reality. Money and peace dont care for creed, colour or petty squabbles.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 10, 2009, 10:51:13 AM
yep those are your opinions alright. fine.
But at least my opinions have a dose of reality attached.
You still have given Jim or Lar no semblence of a concrete answer as to why you 'fear' all things Irish/Southern Irish gov etc etc.
The elephant in the room here is roaring 'bigotry' as your reasons though!
unionists/loyalists never (never never) want to change from the old apartheid type state,allowing equality and more recently power sharing (need photographs as 'proof' etc) - so its no surprise that they dont want to be shifted further away from their previous position of single power system.
Unfortunately the times are changing and its a one way street.
unionists/loyalists dont see or realise the benefits will be like the gains (financial and other) from their daring to cross the border and work /live in dublin.
If that can be done and they had no problems with it - then there is no issue.
dinosaurs like yourself will be stuck in the past and become extinct while the world and All Ireland move on.
Its not that I am hell bent on a united Ireland, republicans dont like my views on it and the economy of it, but thats how I see things going. thats business reality. Money and peace dont care for creed, colour or petty squabbles.
Referring to the bit in bold, I won't be giving any reasons because I don't fear all things Irish/southern Irish gov etc etc. Telling me what I think and then slagging me off is bloody silly.
Roger, I think that the time has come for me to opt out of this thread. I admit that you never resorted to "what aboutery" or going tit for tat throughout our discussion and I'd like to think that I did not either.
I have picked up quite a bit from you along the line that helps me to see things from a Unionist point of view. The fact that I still can't accept many of your points is irrelevant and so it should be. I think we have had a good discussion along the line and we both set out to discuss and not argue.
At the moment I don't think I have anything relevant to the topic to contribute; many of those who posted from either side appear to think the same. The numbers contributing have dwindled and the thread has gone way off-topic.
Still, I'll be happy to respond if you should raise any issues with me or ask me to answer any questions. Other than that, I don't intend to post further.