Margaret Thatcher....

[LCohen]

LC, you yourself hit the nail on the head in your second response to Eamonn1's post.  You write, "I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it."  In that statement, you are upholding the primacy of the democratic will of the people, a will that was torpedoed not by a "vocal majority" but by a vocal armed-to-the teeth minority, in an act of terror to which the British government acquiesced.

As for the IRA, I repudiate their methods but at the same time acknowledge the virtual certainty of their formation in the face of state violence against perfectly reasonable civil rights demands, in the face of a violent and sectarian police force, and in the face of the unrestrained violence of loyalist terror gangs.  I can't endorse the IRA, but for a while they offered protection to a beleaguered Catholic population experiencing the membership benefits of belonging to that democratic entity that you seem to admire.

I deal with your first paragrapgh they way I always have. At time of partition partition was the only answer. Majority positions in 2 distinct parts of the island wanting different things. Think what would have happened without partition (surely a bloddy mess of a different hue) and Britain having to answer some serious questions in the international arean. Apply the same questions to 1969 or 2013 and you are still faced with a requirement to address the will of the majority.

As for your second paragraph I like you repudiate the methods of the IRA. By that i don't simply mean that I abstain from utilising their methods but I did and do criticise IRA for using them and work personally with peaceful means. I and my family stood up to the oppression we suffered at the hands a state that was ran on a fundamentally unjust basis but did so on a peaceful basis. In doing so we improved our lot and that of those around us - nobody died as a result of our own actions. I and we also suffered intimidation from republicans because we sought to help families prevent their children becoming involved in terrorism. Whilst the imtidation did not prevent us trying I will always be saddened by the number of (what were then merely) young lads who had their lives ruined/blighted/disrupted by time spent in prison, on the run or the even more tragic circumstances of their own early death or having to live with the memory of how the helped to end someone elses life.

[LCohen]

But this business that you're talking about of repartition and gerrymandering the border a second time to placate the "we have a right to be in charge because we're pradistints" crowd?  Get that out of your head right now.

I'm not the one arguring for this. Others are raising it, I am reacting by pointing out that if they want it and vote fro it in sufficint numbers they can have it.

You say you're not arguing for it and then you turn around and say you'd support it, which is not respecting democracy. You can't go on rigging electoral boundaries until you're in the majority. If you lose a vote, you suck it up. That's what your crowd spent 50 years sanctimoniously lecturing us about.

Eamonca1

Theres very little more I can do to help understand what is a very simple concept. I will try though.
1) I am ot calling for a redrawing of the border.
2) other poster on this thread have called for a redrawing of the border
3) In response to the posters referred to at 2) I have said that if sufficient numbers called for a redrawing of the border then democracy would dictate that the border is re-drawn.

The points at 1 and 3 are not the same.

So to be absolutely clear, I personally am not calling for the border to be redrawn.

[LCohen]

lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?

You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.

any questions have been answered.

funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.

you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.

My questions have been answered? Where?

An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.

NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?

Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.

Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?

What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?

I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.

When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.

A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.

On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?

Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?

Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)

Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.

What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?

A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.

Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?

In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?

I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.

A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.

I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.

Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.

Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.

And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?

[red hander]

Christ, he's back

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.

If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence  but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?

In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.

Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?

[tyssam5]

Anyway, Thatcher.... What a ****!

[camanchero]

lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?

You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to en gage in the dialogue and defend my position.

any questions have been answered.

funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.

you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.

My questions have been answered? Where?

An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.

NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?

Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.

Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?

What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?

I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.

When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.

A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.

On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?

Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?

Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)

Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.

What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?

A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.

Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?

In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?

I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.

A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.

I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.

Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.

Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.

And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?

Your questions have been addressed.

In answer to your question about taxi drivers or betting shops - I don't know whether the targets were legitimate or not.
A lot of innocents were killed too which is terrible, but like the hunger strikers , they were casualties of war whatever way you look at it.it was all avoidable, if only the persecution and oppression on apartheid lines had not been enforced for the decades pre reding the late 1960's retaliation.
Maybe tell us what actions among these by unionist/loyalist/b specials/ruc/udr caused the need for retaliation and why did these people have to try and tread down on the 'second class citizen' Irish/catholic/nationalist? Why did they kill, kidnap, maim and destroy?
We're they any better or worse than the IRA?
Any other people in history who have been violated have generally had to fight back. No different here.

We, the original 'victims' want to move on and are tryi g to 'trust' our former persecutors- that's why I know it's not beyond the unionist/loyalist community to now do likewise- though the fear to do so is more out of knowing it will faster facilitate a reunited Ireland.

[BennyHarp]

Is this oul cows name ever going to leave the fist page of this forum?

[Milltown Row2]

Is this oul cows name ever going to leave the fist page of this forum?

Aye I know, someone lock this thread ffs. She's getting more air time now that she's had in the past 20 odd years

[LCohen]

LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.

If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence  but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?

In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.

Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?

Your refence to the Faroe islands might indicate your grasp of the situation in Scotland.

In the modern era partition of Scotland (like a further re-drawing of the NI/RoI border) would need a more sophisticated question to be asked in the referendum. That question will not be asked in Scotland. SF are the only ones calling for a refernedum in NI and they don't want that questioned asked here either.

On your second paragragh I would clearly state that I am not calling for a redrawing of the border or for there to be a smaller NI.

As for the Falklands. There were 3 votes against continuing there curent status. It is possible that some of those don't even count as a majority in their own household. Talk of redrawing that border seems fanciful.

[LCohen]

lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?

You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to en gage in the dialogue and defend my position.

any questions have been answered.

funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.

you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.

My questions have been answered? Where?

An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.

NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?

Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.

Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?

What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?

I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.

When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.

A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.

On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?

Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?

Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)

Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.

What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?

A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.

Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?

In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?

I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.

A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.

I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.

Yep the majority of those have been dealt with or discussed on the thread I believe, if not in direct answer to your posts.
Others are non questions - such as the drawing up of/re-drawing of the border, only you seem keen on this.

Its not me who is calling for a redrawing of the border.

And no the questions have not been answered. May I should pick 3 or 4 as an initail batch and ask you to pint out where they have been answered?

Your questions have been addressed.

In answer to your question about taxi drivers or betting shops - I don't know whether the targets were legitimate or not.
A lot of innocents were killed too which is terrible, but like the hunger strikers , they were casualties of war whatever way you look at it.it was all avoidable, if only the persecution and oppression on apartheid lines had not been enforced for the decades pre reding the late 1960's retaliation.
Maybe tell us what actions among these by unionist/loyalist/b specials/ruc/udr caused the need for retaliation and why did these people have to try and tread down on the 'second class citizen' Irish/catholic/nationalist? Why did they kill, kidnap, maim and destroy?
We're they any better or worse than the IRA?
Any other people in history who have been violated have generally had to fight back. No different here.

We, the original 'victims' want to move on and are tryi g to 'trust' our former persecutors- that's why I know it's not beyond the unionist/loyalist community to now do likewise- though the fear to do so is more out of knowing it will faster facilitate a reunited Ireland.

Just one un-answered question would expose your first statement as a lie.

As for taxi drivers. The ploy was to phone a form. There was no knowing who the driver would be. The only knowledge was their religion. To even contemplate that that could have been a legitimate target is saddening.

The IRA are no better  or worse than any loyalist/unionist commiting the same act. Equal in my eyes. I'm really not sure where you think you have evidence that I feel differently? You should point out the evidence as right know you comment looks bizarre.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

LCohen your just plain wrong, there was no justification for partition at all.

If West Scotland, the Islands, Highlands, Edinburgh, North-East choose independence  but some communites in Glasgow, Borders, Orkney and Faroe Islands choose to stay in the UK and one argument wins overall (either way) say by 80% -20% (excluding spoilt votes), are you saying Scotland should be partitioned, or are you suggesting (which seems the more likely) that it should be partitioned if Scotland chooses indepndence, but it all stays in if it chooses the Union?

In your partition what will you do if Counties Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, the South of Armagh, South of Down, North East of Antrim and Belfast City choose to join the Republic, and the rest of the U.K. give you a choice join the Republic or go it alone without all those areas? It's likely with such undemocratic values you will be kicked out of the European Union too.

Should the 2% or so of Falklanders who voted for Argentina get to partition their houses off from British rule and Argentina get to station troops in them?

Your refence to the Faroe islands might indicate your grasp of the situation in Scotland.

In the modern era partition of Scotland (like a further re-drawing of the NI/RoI border) would need a more sophisticated question to be asked in the referendum. That question will not be asked in Scotland. SF are the only ones calling for a refernedum in NI and they don't want that questioned asked here either.

On your second paragragh I would clearly state that I am not calling for a redrawing of the border or for there to be a smaller NI.

As for the Falklands. There were 3 votes against continuing there curent status. It is possible that some of those don't even count as a majority in their own household. Talk of redrawing that border seems fanciful.

Shetlands 

[Myles Na G.]

lads - what about all those questions I been asking? Not a wee not embarrassed by the lack of answers?

You may not like the answers I provide but I do at least have the decency to engage in the dialogue and defend my position.

any questions have been answered.

funnily enough, you dont seem to like the answes you are getting either - running away from them or attempting to deflect by claiming 'typo' !
unless you figure out what democracy actually is, there is no point in you pretending you are engaging in any actual debate.

you will find out soon enough though, that unlike your community and their behaviour in the apartheidesque days of the 6 county abhoration, the reunited Ireland will be an easy place to live in for you folks - far from the picture you seem to have in your minds.
just the problems of normal society to contend with - once you lose the chip on your shoulder and the notion of looking to take offence.

My questions have been answered? Where?

An international border is redrawn to reflect majority different views either end of the new border gets labelled here a "false political entity". The inference is that the former Yugoslav republics are to be abolished. I ask must Yugoslavia be re-united against the democratic wishes of its people(s)? Point out the answer please.

NI has been labelled a "gerrymandered state". I have asked is the problem the precise line of the border? Who has answered this?

Some seem to favour a redrawing of the border - who is leading the political campaign for this? Would SF accept a re-drawing of the border? No answer.

Would the people in border areas of the 6 counties who voted Yes for a united Ireland in a future referendum be happy for their votes to be used to re-draw the border but not achieve a united Ireland?

What was Britain to do in the face of a vocal majority pre-partition? What are they do now with a pro-union majority? How would these proposals have played out internationally? How would it play out today? Can there ever be a United Ireland that does not have majority support north and south? Surely these are fundamental questions. I have asked them Who has answered them?

I asked two different posters if they would respect a vote by a majority in the 6 countes to stay in UK? No answers.
I asked why nobody was out in front of the cameras defending that particular political stance? No answer.

When was there last a political will in RoI to unify the island in circumstances other than in the presence of a majority in favour in NI? Question asked but not answered.

A smaller NI could have been created at the outset - who pushed for it? No answer.

On the point of violence and murder who has pointed out the achievement of Repulicans in respect of the border? Which violent acts/murders were worth it? Who has been able to justify the republican terror campaign?

Which acts of violence/murder relieved the oppression of Catholics?

Which IRA acts achieved their stated goal? (plenty to chose from)

Were the acts of violence/murder ever going to achieve a British withdrawal? How would that have played out internationally? No answers.

What good does murder motivated by retaliation do? Can retaliation be used to justify murder? No answers?

A poster indicated that because peaceful protest did not achieve its goals immediately that that was evidence enough cease operating on peaceful means and starting a campaign of terror. I asked the poster whether the campaign of violence achieved its goals immediately? No reply.

Who has pointed out the Irish ruler who has ruled the entire Island?

In the absence of this where does the obviousness of the united island come from?

I was accused of denying protestant misrule/discrimination and of defending both crimes. I asked for the refernces that form the basis of this accusation. No answers.

A poster claimed that the IRA committed acts of violence and murder to STOP unionist/loyalist violence. I asked for peer reviewed works that detail and endorses this strategy. No answers.

I asked how phoning a firm of taxis and shooting the driver, walking into a protestant owned shop and shooting someone behind the counter or planting a bomb in the centre of a majority protestant town not be considered targeting? No answer.
I asked whether broad brush targeting made acts more justifable? No answers.

The international border that was under scrutiny at that time did not run through Ireland. It was between Great Britain and Ireland, as in 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. A clear and quite significant majority of people in Ireland wanted out of this union. A minority did not. This minority did not constitute a separate 'people'. Depending on your perspective, they were either Irish or British. If they were Irish, then they should've been bound by the democratic decision of the majority of their fellow citizens. If they were British, then they should've been bound by whatever democratic decision the rest of the British people made. Yet if you look at the history of northern unionism in the latter part of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th, what you see is a consistent rejection by Ulster unionists of the decisions by the British parliament. Every attempt at introducing Home Rule was met with shouts of 'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right'. The UVF was formed to fight, if necessary, any British government attempt to impose Home rule. Ulster unionism, therefore, is not the story of a people asserting their right to self determination. It is the story of a small group determined to assert their own will against democratic decisions on both sides of the Irish sea and being allowed to get away with it.

[Eamonnca1]

Make up your mind. You're either for repartition or you're agen it.

(Anyone not interested in this thread is cordially invited to not read it.  I'm not terribly interested in all them threads about English soccer clubs but I don't go sticking my neb in there telling people to lock the thread so I don't have to look at the title.)

[armaghniac]

Thatcher & Ireland - RTÉ now.