Irish Republicans object to having to swear an Oath to the Queen, whether this be to take a seat in Parliament or become a Barrister etc. They also object to the UK's Constitutional requirement that the Monarch be Protestant etc, eg citing that as a reason why Queen Elizabeth II should not be invited to the Republic, for instance (though I note they never seem to voice any such objections to the Protestant-only Danish Royal Family!)
Anyhow, whether I personally agree or not, all this seems fine enough to me as a matter of principle.
Except that in an Irish Times commentary on Dermot Ahern's imminent new Blasphemy Law (I can't believe that hasn't got its own thread on this Board, btw), noted Irish Atheist Michael Nugent makes the following observations:
"The preamble to our Constitution states that all authority of the State comes from a specific god called the Most Holy Trinity. It also humbly acknowledges all of the obligations of the people of the State to a specific god called Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Up to a quarter of a million Irish atheists cannot become President or a judge unless they take a religious oath. These religious declarations are contrary to Ireland's obligations under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0710/1224250387007.html
I find it astonishing that Irish Republicans can be so concerned about Civil and Religious Freedoms etc in the UK (and NI especially), whilst remaining completely silent about the clearly discriminatory practices enshrined in the very Constitution of the state which they would have subsume Northern Ireland.
P.S. If anyone wants to comment on the new anti-Blasphemy Law specifically, I'd appreciate if they were to open a separate thread.
I think the swearing of oaths is a bit outdated and should be done away with. If necessary a declaration of some sort undertaking to act ethically and professionally should more than suffice.
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
Don't see why you single out irish republicans. its stoopid all right but laying it at the door of the republicans is silly.
in order for there to be 'more' - please show us where the first 'double standard' is !
will it be yet more rhetoric with the exact same 'hypocricy' as littered throughout 'history' as per every other state and state leaders/activists !
I'd expect so !
::)
Quote from: ziggysego on July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.
Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.
Are these not double standards?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.
Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.
Are these not double standards?
EG - I think you're reaching slightly. I would possibly accept that there is a double standard if you are being completely letter of the law about it. I would say the ROI's "discriminatory practices" in this area are of a much lesser extent that in NI. God only vs. God and Monarch. The Monarch thing is the main problem for Republicans, God is a seperate issue.
you're completely correct it is indeed a double standard.
The Danish royal family and their lack territorial claims over the territory of Ireland, or to the fealty of the people of the Ireland probably keep them off most folks radar.
I for one don't believe that anyones faith should prevent them from holding any non religious post, but thats just me.
I think that the issue of the oath to the queen is an objection of all but the monarchists, and should be removed.
Similarly I feel it should not be a requisite of any non religious office in Ireland to take any religious oath so if that is indeed the case then it should be removed.
The creation of a state and the historical context of a preamble within that text is a different matter. Should the USA remove one nation under God, or In God we trust from it's texts. All authority from a state comes from the will of the people of that state despite the sentiment of those who documented the creation of that state who in many cases believe a higher power grants them some moral superiority to create a state different from their previous territorial claims to a piece of land or indeed sea...
Quote from: DuffleKing on July 14, 2009, 02:46:41 PM
Don't see why you single out irish republicans. its stoopid all right but laying it at the door of the republicans is silly.
I'm tempted to reply something about this being the Constitution of the
Irish Republic we're talking about here(!), but that might be a bit trite.
Anyhow, I declined to open a thread on the new anti-Blasphemy Law, since I am not a citizen of thew Irish Republic, so it doesn't really affect me.
However, I am directly affected by the workings of the UK's Constitution etc. On which point, in my experience those people who complain loudest about various discriminatory practices in the UK are Irish Republicans, most obviously those in NI. Which, as I said, is fair enough.
Yet as someone who is from NI himself, those same Irish Republicans would have my country joined with/taken over by a Republic which
itself discriminates directlu in similar manner against Atheists like me (as well as all my non-Christian compatriots).
As a distinguished Lawyer, with an interest in Human Rights, I wonder whether it didn't occur to Mary McAleese that in taking the Oath of the Presidency, she was actually condoning, even conniving with, a clearly discriminatory and anachronistic practice, which imo should have no place in any modern, secular, 21st Century democracy?
P.S. For the sake of clarity, may we assume that President McAleese may be fairly called an Irish Republican? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.
Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.
Are these not double standards?
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs. There is NOT 1 person on this planet who is PERFECT or indeed that isnt a hypocrite about something in their lives.
Will ya give this Republican bashing a rest for a while, its getting boring. You clearly have 2 chips on each shoulder and agenda against Republicans.
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2009, 03:04:03 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.
Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.
Are these not double standards?
EG - I think you're reaching slightly. I would possibly accept that there is a double standard if you are being completely letter of the law about it. I would say the ROI's "discriminatory practices" in this area are of a much lesser extent that in NI. God only vs. God and Monarch. The Monarch thing is the main problem for Republicans, God is a seperate issue.
OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.
Does this mean that Irish Republicans only care about reilgious discrimination when it is RC's who are effected, and don't care about people of other faiths, or none?
Blame the dissidents. It's all their fault. So says Gerry Kelly.
I had a look at what the oath says:
QuoteIn the presence of Almighty God I, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me
The whole God thing is anachronistic and I would be content to see it removed. To compare it the tone and scope of the Act of Settlement is a stretch though.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Given the length of time it took for Unionism to get used to all the Irish Nationalists / Republicans / Whateveryourehavingyourself in their midst, if we start now we might be ready by, ooh, 2090 ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2009, 03:04:03 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on July 14, 2009, 02:45:35 PM
Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.
I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.
Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.
Are these not double standards?
EG - I think you're reaching slightly. I would possibly accept that there is a double standard if you are being completely letter of the law about it. I would say the ROI's "discriminatory practices" in this area are of a much lesser extent that in NI. God only vs. God and Monarch. The Monarch thing is the main problem for Republicans, God is a seperate issue.
OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.
Does this mean that Irish Republicans only care about reilgious discrimination when it is RC's who are effected, and don't care about people of other faiths, or none?
Most Irish Republicans (and I use this term loosely as I think it should be) would not be in favour of any type of religious discrimination. I don't believe (and I am sure you will correct me if I'm wrong) that other faiths are discriminated against in the ROI. Those of no faith undoubtedly are and things should be changed to reflect this.
The simple answer is at the time these laws/oaths were written no-one ever thought of non-believers. As I said before you could portray it as a double standard - yes, but I think its a bit of a stretch.
Quote from: deiseach on July 14, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Given the length of time it took for Unionism to get used to all the Irish Nationalists / Republicans / Whateveryourehavingyourself in their midst, if we start now we might be ready by, ooh, 2090 ;)
Fair point.
Mind you, it's always a mistake to arrive at a party long before its even begun, so I'd leave off starting to get ready for another few decades, if I were you... ;)
Since when was there a State called "The Irish Republic" ??? :o
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Wow. I need to get over to Leitrim more often, get a look at a few of these Unionists
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 02:41:57 PM
I find it astonishing that Irish Republicans can be so concerned about Civil and Religious Freedoms etc in the UK (and NI especially), whilst remaining completely silent about the clearly discriminatory practices enshrined in the very Constitution of the state which they would have subsume Northern Ireland.
They only seem silent because you have not looked. Many Irish republicans do not recognise the southern state as coming anywhere near a 'Republic' and have been very vocal in their criticism of deValeras Constitution, including myself on this board.
Quote
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Some things never change no matter how many holidays I take - death, taxes and Eg spinning lies on GaaBoard. There are no million unionists in Ireland or anywhere else, never have been and never will - a point you conceded to me some time ago.
And what's all this "get plenty used to
us then" - sure you don't even have a vote here never mind live in Ireland. Whatever future has in store for Ireland, north or south, will have absolutely nothing to do with you have you'll have absolutely no say in it. Ireland's future will be decided by those that live here, not interfering Brits from outside.
Quote from: tyssam5 on July 14, 2009, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
Wow. I need to get over to Leitrim more often, get a look at a few of these Unionists
Hmm, I'm not quite sure why I inserted the "and" between North East, but on reflection, maybe I'll leave it ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8145650.stm
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
Some things never change no matter how many holidays I take - death, taxes and Eg spinning lies on GaaBoard. There are no million unionists in Ireland or anywhere else, never have been and never will - a point you conceded to me some time ago.
OK, how about you tell me how many Unionists
you think there are in Ireland?
I'm saying there are "around a million"; if you think that is incorrect, then you presumably have some idea what the correct figure is.
(And btw, do you care to quote exactly where/when I "conceded" the point earlier? For if I did do so, I'm sure it was only in order to draw from you your estimate of the true figure)
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
And what's all this "get plenty used to us then" - sure you don't even have a vote here never mind live in Ireland. Whatever future has in store for Ireland, north or south, will have absolutely nothing to do with you have you'll have absolutely no say in it. Ireland's future will be decided by those that live here, not interfering Brits from outside.
In referring to "us", I meant Irish Unionists. Where I
presently live or vote* etc does not alter my status.
As for "whatever
future has in store for Ireland", how do you know where I'll be living next?
Mind you, when it comes to "interfering Brits from outside" not determining Ireland's future, I'll certainly give you that - it'll be around a million Brits, "interfering" or otherwise, from
inside Ireland who will decide! ;)
P.S. When other posters who live outside Ireland, such as (Aussie) Aerlik or (Yankee) Stew etc comment on matters Irish in personal terms, do you ever take them up on it? No?
* - As a British citizen, I am happy to have exercised my vote in elections to the British Parliament ever since I turned 18. Assuming you are an Irish citizen, may I ask how many elections to the Irish Parliament you have voted in? ;)
I'm sure British [as in people who live in Great Britain] republicans object to taking any oath to a monarchy. Equally i'm sure any British Catholic would not be overly happy with the present constitutional arrangements in Britain which bars them from taking certain posts because of their religion.
As you rightly point out the Irish constitution, which as you say, you don't live under, has a discriminatory clause which needs to be updated to reflect the make up of it's people which is increasingly secular.
Perhaps you might be better to try to change the constitution you live under first and when you are successful you can take the campaign international. With such a track record you are sure to prevail. I'm tempted to quote about motes and beams etc but since i'm sure you could hardly see the keyboard when you started the thread i'll not bother.
By the way nationalists and republicans are not seeking a United Ireland nor do we want 'NI joined with/taken over by the Republic' [your quote].
We are seeking a RE-UNITED Ireland!! ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
Some things never change no matter how many holidays I take - death, taxes and Eg spinning lies on GaaBoard. There are no million unionists in Ireland or anywhere else, never have been and never will - a point you conceded to me some time ago.
OK, how about you tell me how many Unionists you think there are in Ireland?
I'm saying there are "around a million"; if you think that is incorrect, then you presumably have some idea what the correct figure is.
(And btw, do you care to quote exactly where/when I "conceded" the point earlier? For if I did do so, I'm sure it was only in order to draw from you your estimate of the true figure)
I'd go for the amount that vote for unionist parties but as it's you that are putting the claim forward the onus in on you to produce the supporting evidence.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
And what's all this "get plenty used to us then" - sure you don't even have a vote here never mind live in Ireland. Whatever future has in store for Ireland, north or south, will have absolutely nothing to do with you have you'll have absolutely no say in it. Ireland's future will be decided by those that live here, not interfering Brits from outside.
In referring to "us", I meant Irish Unionists. Where I presently live or vote* etc does not alter my status.
As for "whatever future has in store for Ireland", how do you know where I'll be living next?
Mind you, when it comes to "interfering Brits from outside" not determining Ireland's future, I'll certainly give you that - it'll be around a million Brits, "interfering" or otherwise, from inside Ireland who will decide! ;)
P.S. When other posters who live outside Ireland, such as (Aussie) Aerlik or (Yankee) Stew etc comment on matters Irish in personal terms, do you ever take them up on it? No?
* - As a British citizen, I am happy to have exercised my vote in elections to the British Parliament ever since I turned 18. Assuming you are an Irish citizen, may I ask how many elections to the Irish Parliament you have voted in? ;)
You can comment all you like, I'm just saying neither you or they will have any say in the future of this country (Ireland). That privilege is left to those of us who choose to stay when the going was tough.
* - reread the first part of my original reply again maybe a litter slower and you might find the answer - you know the bit that actually addresses and completely refutes your point for starting this thread in the first place and the bit you conveniently choose to ignore.
As a republican I would like to see all mention of religion removed from our constitution. Of course, the constitution was moulded by Dev and his religious opinions are clearly present. I believe the thinking behind this idiotic bill is that it would be too expensive to hold a referendum to remove reference to the points above. The alternative is to ignore it or to legislate in such a way to make blasphemy pretty much impossible.
As for the UK and monarchy. The danish monarchy did not slaughter Irish people nor claim to be head of the state in Ireland nor force people to take oaths against their will to enter certain jobs etc etc. I find the whole notion of monarchy distasteful but if the danes want one I have no issue with them sending that monarch here on a visit. The UK monarch is of course a different matter given the history between our nations. Maybe in the time a visit would be acceptable. I am thinking of when the 6 northern counties are reunited it might be a nice gesture to the unionists in the north to have a fancy reception of the Queen of Britain.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
[
OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.
while i disagree with oaths unless for breakfast this is more lazy sh1te from eg, non christians CAN become head of state of ireland (even if they mutter an oath they dont like) non protestants CANT become head of state of britian (no matter what they mutter).
Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2009, 09:34:49 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
[
OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.
while i disagree with oaths unless for breakfast this is more lazy sh1te from eg, non christians CAN become head of state of ireland (even if they mutter an oath they dont like) non protestants CANT become head of state of britian (no matter what they mutter).
Correction MK, non protestants can become the Head of State but Catholics or those who marry them cannot. So Osama bin Laden potentially could but Prince Michael of Kent could not.
my mistake even tho i knew that, that what i get for copying eg's sh1te. i should have said catholics
Quote from: Keyser soze on July 14, 2009, 07:05:36 PM
By the way nationalists and republicans are not seeking a United Ireland nor do we want 'NI joined with/taken over by the Republic' [your quote].
We are seeking a RE-UNITED Ireland!! ;)
I don't think Irish nationalists or republicans seek re-unification.
Ireland reunited within the UK? Only time Ireland was united.
orly?
united kingdom was created in 1800- you believe ireland was not united before that?
Consider posting on the neighbours or home and away thread...
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 15, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
No.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 15, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
No.
Is threre any excuse for your post?
Quote from: Roger on July 15, 2009, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 15, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
No.
Is threre any excuse for your post?
Is there any excuse for this thread?
QuoteI for one don't believe that anyones faith should prevent them from holding any non religious post, but thats just me.
Nope heganboy, me too.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: Roger on July 15, 2009, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 15, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
No.
Is threre any excuse for your post?
Is there any excuse for this thread?
I'd agree with you sligonian, while there are a couple of unionist fellas on here that are decent enough (though I always wonder why they have to chip in to back up or save evil guttersnipes bacon) there are a couple that just want to chip away at matters that might actuall concen one person in every 10000 - they are here in a twisted bitter way and its sad to see the hatred gushing out of them , its the rat in the corner mentality and we will see more of this bitterness as the re-united Ireland draws ever closer.
Its not completely their fault, its what was induced into them form an early age.
I'd agree with Billy et al - anyone of any faith should be capable of the highest office in Ireland, I'd actually bet that if someone of a non christian faith did get elected , they would not be stopped from taking office and the oath would at least be temporarily be done away with. Thats how our country is (north and south) we bend the rules and kind of make it up as we go along - the unionists have done so for years and in latter times our Dail representatives and financial bodies have done the same !
Not directly related, but an interesting press release from a few days ago ...
Count Me Out (http://www.countmeout.ie), a web campaign providing information on how to leave the Catholic church, was officially launched this week.
Countmeout.ie provides an online service for those who wish to formally defect from the Catholic church, perhaps in response to the scandals revealed in the Ryan Report or to protest against the close relationship between church and state in Ireland. It offers a fast and simple three-step process which generates all the forms necessary in order to formally defect from the Catholic church. Alternatively, an individual can automatically mail a message of protest to their diocese of birth.
The creators of Countmeout.ie set up the site in the wake of the publication of the Ryan Report. Wishing to make a direct response to its findings, they discovered a lack of clear, concise information on how one goes about leaving the Catholic church. Countmeout.ie not only allows individuals to register their protest, it includes information on how the process works, why someone might wish to defect, a gallery of responses that have already been received from the church and a comprehensive FAQ that addresses many of the common concerns people have when considering a defection.
"We hope the website will encourage people to re-evaluate their position in relation to the Catholic church", said campaign co-ordinator Paul Dunbar. "There are many so-called 'lapsed' Catholics as well as agnostics and atheists in Ireland but the the church continues to count them as members. Formally defecting will mean the church can no longer use their large membership to justify continued involvement in the provision of education and health services. People might also like to consider it a strong, unambiguous way of reacting to the appalling findings of the Ryan Report".
For further information see www.countmeout.ie.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 15, 2009, 09:57:21 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: Roger on July 15, 2009, 09:00:38 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 07:39:39 AM
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 15, 2009, 06:23:50 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet. Makes sense now the rubbish you come out with. You know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
If Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
The last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Big night?
No.
Is threre any excuse for your post?
Is there any excuse for this thread?
I'd agree with you sligonian, while there are a couple of unionist fellas on here that are decent enough (though I always wonder why they have to chip in to back up or save evil guttersnipes bacon) there are a couple that just want to chip away at matters that might actuall concen one person in every 10000 - they are here in a twisted bitter way and its sad to see the hatred gushing out of them , its the rat in the corner mentality and we will see more of this bitterness as the re-united Ireland draws ever closer.
Its not completely their fault, its what was induced into them form an early age.
I'd agree with Billy et al - anyone of any faith should be capable of the highest office in Ireland, I'd actually bet that if someone of a non christian faith did get elected , they would not be stopped from taking office and the oath would at least be temporarily be done away with. Thats how our country is (north and south) we bend the rules and kind of make it up as we go along - the unionists have done so for years and in latter times our Dail representatives and financial bodies have done the same !
There is only so much I can take though, every 2nd thread by Gnevin is a bitter dig at Republicans, some cheek on GAA forum, why should I take take take. Im just giving a bite back, but ya there brainwashed as kids and are just robots now fulfilling there parents hand me down words and ethics. You know for peace sake it takes the few that can get past the habitual brainwashing from generation to generation to change our society. I can just about tolerate most things Unionism (free will) but there is a line, ie coming on here inciting Republicans and oo marches which is just more bitterness and incitement.
I agree on the religion thing a joke that people of different religions can go as far in some professions because of an oath swear in. But what does that have to do with Republicans.
Quotebut ya there brainwashed as kids
do you really believe that unionist kids are brainwashed anymore than republican kids? All kids will be heavily influenced by their upbringing obviously.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 10:14:28 AM
some cheek on GAA forum
If the GAA is not open to all then it would indeed be some cheek for people to air different views on matters even if it is in the non-GAA section.
Quote from: nifan on July 15, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
Quotebut ya there brainwashed as kids
do you really believe that unionist kids are brainwashed anymore than republican kids? All kids will be heavily influenced by their upbringing obviously.
No but what Im getting at is the bitterness and Incitement seems worse on the unionism side and I think its been passed on from generation. I would say that to on the Republican side too to alot lesser extent. I wasnt brought up one but have my own views btw.
Quote from: Roger on July 15, 2009, 11:05:07 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 10:14:28 AM
some cheek on GAA forum
If the GAA is not open to all then it would indeed be some cheek for people to air different views on matters even if it is in the non-GAA section.
Well roger, the GAA is not open to incitement or bitterness like threads like this IMO. Can you see the bitterness on EGs part or are you blind to it? Infairness his incitement worked because I reacted and I just think itd better off not coming on here just piss off Republicans.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 11:15:20 AM
Well roger, the GAA is not open to incitement or bitterness like threads like this IMO. Can you see the bitterness on EGs part or are you blind to it? Infairness his incitement worked because I reacted and I just think itd better off not coming on here just piss off Republicans.
This board has many threads that criticise Political viewpoints.
Your response and personal views were displayed clearly.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: nifan on July 15, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
Quotebut ya there brainwashed as kids
do you really believe that unionist kids are brainwashed anymore than republican kids? All kids will be heavily influenced by their upbringing obviously.
No but what Im getting at is the bitterness and Incitement seems worse on the unionism side and I think its been passed on from generation. I would say that to on the Republican side too to alot lesser extent. I wasnt brought up one but have my own views btw.
Quote from: Roger on July 15, 2009, 11:05:07 AM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 10:14:28 AM
some cheek on GAA forum
If the GAA is not open to all then it would indeed be some cheek for people to air different views on matters even if it is in the non-GAA section.
Well roger, the GAA is not open to incitement or bitterness like threads like this IMO. Can you see the bitterness on EGs part or are you blind to it? Infairness his incitement worked because I reacted and I just think itd better off not coming on here just piss off Republicans.
the same level of bitterness is not forthcoming from republicans or indeed nationalists
it always seems to be the unionist/loyalists (and the 'MODERATES' at that !) who are always starting out the spouting of venom.
The republicans and indeed nationalist side have their own idiots round the place, but these are the few nutcases that no one pays any attention to - However the unionist/loyalist side seems to have every second one throwng out anti Irish , anti Irish language, anti GAA, anti everything that isnt part of the status quo that has remiined in the cess pit thatcaused 35 years of violence.
I know there are a lot of progressive unionists that want to embrace the coming change, and theres prob one or two on here - but there are so many bitter unionist/loyalists that want to keep what once was and want to stay in the past !
Do they not see that the majority of people on this island dont give a fiddlers about marches and triumphalism , that all that stuff is in the past and all just want to live in thepresent and create a democratic level equal society for the future (economics our only other obstacle apart from the dinosaur mentality of some).
Its hard to fathom the mindset of these jurassic lovers!
QuoteNo but what Im getting at is the bitterness and Incitement seems worse on the unionism side and I think its been passed on from generation. I would say that to on the Republican side too to alot lesser extent.
Theres plenty of anti british (and anythign even vaguely associated) sentiment about there, i dont know how you can compare who is worse. How do you compare?
Quote from: nifan on July 15, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
Theres plenty of anti british (and anythign even vaguely associated) sentiment about there, i dont know how you can compare who is worse. How do you compare?
Deaths caused by sectarian attacks might be a starting point?
Maybe some sort of document analysis of the speeches by politicians?
A study of community cultural events, say comparison of the West Belfast Festival and the Twelfth for inclusiveness?
Comparison of the number of racist and sectarian attacks in each community?
Maybe some in-depth analysis of interviews on the line of Susan McKay's, 'Northern Protestants'?
I read somewhere the other day that the unionist part of the community is a generation behind the nationalist part in terms of cultural inclusiveness and acceptance - I'd say that is being very generous.
Donagh, certainly would be interesting factors, however I dont know if that could be used to back up assertions that even moderate unionists are much more brainwashed than their counterparts.
Quote from: nifan on July 15, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Donagh, certainly would be interesting factors, however I dont know if that could be used to back up assertions that even moderate unionists are much more brainwashed than their counterparts.
Well if by the term 'brainwashed' you mean influenced or reflecting the views of the parents/environment, both sides of the community are probably even but the problem is with what is being handed down. If you take any of the 5 methods of comparison I've suggested I'd be pretty certain they'd indicate that the unionists must be handing down some very extreme and intolerant views to their children, more so than within the nationalist section of the community. I guess that is what Sligonian is getting at.
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Id be interested to know stats as mentioned, though im sure there would be the usual discourse over what incidents where sectarian and which where not, which "count" etc.
MW, agreed though that there is a very similar attitude handed down to some on the unionist side as well (minus the supremacist bit). The attitude that some have that everyone involved in the GAA is a rampant republican and fits some sort of stereotype is a very similar attitude for example.
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Where did you get this idea from?
i think the unionist posters make some very valid points on here so its good they post. why do they post? same reason everyone else posts to get their view across, its an discussion board after all. from my replys i obviously disagree with them but then i come from a completely different background. unionism has a sh1t load of problems to sort out (- when your 'culture celebration' consists of celebrating a beating of your neighbour by marching by his house every year things are never going to be great) but so do the rest of us
we are all braiwashed in many ways. orange order man--kids join too? kids see their fathers riot, they follow? like a circle, how can it be broke?
g
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 09:47:30 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on July 14, 2009, 09:34:49 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
[
OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.
while i disagree with oaths unless for breakfast this is more lazy sh1te from eg, non christians CAN become head of state of ireland (even if they mutter an oath they dont like) non protestants CANT become head of state of britian (no matter what they mutter).
Correction MK, non protestants can become the Head of State but Catholics or those who marry them cannot. So Osama bin Laden potentially could but Prince Michael of Kent could not.
Unless Osama bin Laden is descended from Electress Sophie of Hanover, then no, he couldn't.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on July 15, 2009, 07:16:54 PM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Where did you get this idea from?
Various things including (to pick one relveant example) comments on message boards such as these. For example, the posts single transferable posts of lynchbhoy ("oo/dup/loyalist bigotted mentality you've been brainwashed into", blah, blah), or for example when pintsofguinness throws out the "bigot" word (="Protestant I disagree with" - c.f. Tony Fearon) (one classic example, when I said the PIRA had take some of the responsibility for sustaining the Troubles, and I was accused of being a bigot whot thought "it was all the Taigs' fault". To read these, or the various outpourings of bile on for example, Slugger (sort of sub-Brian Feeney style demonisation) does put that though in my head - and I've been called a "bigot" or similar too many times for daring to have a contrary opinion to dismiss this thought as groundless.
Quote from: nifan on July 15, 2009, 06:53:49 PM
MW, agreed though that there is a very similar attitude handed down to some on the unionist side as well (minus the supremacist bit). The attitude that some have that everyone involved in the GAA is a rampant republican and fits some sort of stereotype is a very similar attitude for example.
I think you're right about that. Attitudes on Protestant/unionist side that perpetuate would include things like that - it's somewhat ironic that on the "other side" one of the main sectarian sibboleths is that 'themmuns', unlike 'ussuns', are supremacist bigots who are in-bred with sectarian shibboleths and attitudes, whereas ussuns are generally superior when it comes to all that.
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 09:55:48 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on July 15, 2009, 07:16:54 PM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Where did you get this idea from?
Various things including (to pick one relveant example) comments on message boards such as these. For example, the posts single transferable posts of lynchbhoy ("oo/dup/loyalist bigotted mentality you've been brainwashed into", blah, blah), or for example when pintsofguinness throws out the "bigot" word (="Protestant I disagree with" - c.f. Tony Fearon) (one classic example, when I said the PIRA had take some of the responsibility for sustaining the Troubles, and I was accused of being a bigot whot thought "it was all the Taigs' fault". To read these, or the various outpourings of bile on for example, Slugger (sort of sub-Brian Feeney style demonisation) does put that though in my head - and I've been called a "bigot" or similar too many times for daring to have a contrary opinion to dismiss this thought as groundless.
To give another classic example drawn from Slugger, one blogger, Mark McGregor, made a post questioning the motives of the socialists/anarchists who organised protests after Romanian residents fled their homes recently, and also whether their en mass move has been orchestrated - quick as a flash came the response that he was clearly a planter supremacist bigot. The reasoning seemed to go in the order of, raising these questions = racist = planter = yet another planter showing his bigoted supremacist attitude. Even though the blogger concerned is, as far as I'm aware, of the nationalist/republican persuasion...
I was watching that film about Steve Biko the other night "Cry Freedom" and it struck me that (Justice Minister) Kruger's script could have been copied verbatim from various oft repeated lines trotted out on GAABoard by the owc equalising brigade.
Quote from: magickingdom on July 15, 2009, 08:53:41 PM
i think the unionist posters make some very valid points on here so its good they post. why do they post? same reason everyone else posts to get their view across, its an discussion board after all. from my replys i obviously disagree with them but then i come from a completely different background. unionism has a sh1t load of problems to sort out (- when your 'culture celebration' consists of celebrating a beating of your neighbour by marching by his house every year things are never going to be great) but so do the rest of us
You would be entirely wrong to think Orangism represents unionism. It is only a part of the unionist communityand a diminishing part at that (certainly not something I or many other unionists are part of). Many Nationalists do love to attack the OO though as it is unionist and Protestant and they do so with ignorance about it. That says more about them.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:14:44 AM
Quote from: magickingdom on July 15, 2009, 08:53:41 PM
i think the unionist posters make some very valid points on here so its good they post. why do they post? same reason everyone else posts to get their view across, its an discussion board after all. from my replys i obviously disagree with them but then i come from a completely different background. unionism has a sh1t load of problems to sort out (- when your 'culture celebration' consists of celebrating a beating of your neighbour by marching by his house every year things are never going to be great) but so do the rest of us
You would be entirely wrong to think Orangism represents unionism. It is only a part of the unionist communityand a diminishing part at that (certainly not something I or many other unionists are part of). Many Nationalists do love to attack the OO though as it is unionist and Protestant and they do so with ignorance about it. That says more about them.
Give me a reason not to be ignorant of the OO? It has nothing to do with religion on my part, as I said before we dont get a choice and I dont exactly see myself 100% RC so I would never hold religion against anyone. Why if your a unionist are you not part of the OO? Just curious, maybe its the same reason im ignorant of them.
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 12:30:43 AM
I was watching that film about Steve Biko the other night "Cry Freedom" and it struck me that (Justice Minister) Kruger's script could have been copied verbatim from various oft repeated lines trotted out on GAABoard by the owc equalising brigade.
Is this a splinter group of the cavalry?
'Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.'
Also, that themmuns have no culture, themmuns don't know what they are, themmuns are loyal to the half-crown not the crown, themmuns are all fenian-haters, etc, etc.
Anyone who thinks that nationalists / republicans are, as a group, more tolerant, liberal and diverse than unionists / loyalists is deluded. One only has to look at the GAA and the Catholic Church to get some idea of the conservatism and insularity that forms the bedrock of Irish society. One only has to look at the sectarian savagery of the IRA and other republican armed groups to see that loyalists don't have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred.
(apologies for the fact that I have to keep copying and bolding posts - some glitch on my computer means that I can't see what I'm typing when I try and reply normally)
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 10:00:34 PM
I think you're right about that. Attitudes on Protestant/unionist side that perpetuate would include things like that - it's somewhat ironic that on the "other side" one of the main sectarian sibboleths is that 'themmuns', unlike 'ussuns', are supremacist bigots who are in-bred with sectarian shibboleths and attitudes, whereas ussuns are generally superior when it comes to all that.
I don't see that written anywhere, but how do you explain the intolerance and sectarianism within unionism i.e., why are the sectarian murders not repeated within nationalism/republicanism?, the racist attacks?, where is the equivalent of the orange and black men?, where are the politicians in the same intolerant model as Wilson?, Paisley, McCausland etc?, why are racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 09:55:48 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on July 15, 2009, 07:16:54 PM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Where did you get this idea from?
Various things including (to pick one relveant example) comments on message boards such as these. For example, the posts single transferable posts of lynchbhoy ("oo/dup/loyalist bigotted mentality you've been brainwashed into", blah, blah), or for example when pintsofguinness throws out the "bigot" word (="Protestant I disagree with" - c.f. Tony Fearon) (one classic example, when I said the PIRA had take some of the responsibility for sustaining the Troubles, and I was accused of being a bigot whot thought "it was all the Taigs' fault". To read these, or the various outpourings of bile on for example, Slugger (sort of sub-Brian Feeney style demonisation) does put that though in my head - and I've been called a "bigot" or similar too many times for daring to have a contrary opinion to dismiss this thought as groundless.
good man
that made me laugh !
well on this forum you can take the threads started by evil gulpin for a start - unless he/she is a complete WUM like tony F then you can see the vitrol and hatred from simply looking at the thread titles
then in society you can take a step back and see which 'side' is guilty of the aggressiveness in public terminology at least (mcallister on the last election toname just one) then there are the demands/parades/non agreement of power sharing etc etc
while the nationalist and republicna sides are not whiter than white, the anger and aggressiveness usually eminates from one side.
I'd like some neutrals to this country (north and south) to adjudicate on this (andfrom recollection this has been said before but I have no 'link' to this and I dont expect you to take what I say as 100% correct.
Even if folk just read posts on here, the 'equalising' thats done as a instantaneous reaction by all of the unionist-esque posters on here speaks volumes.If thats not how yez are brought up then ...
I like to ensure that these mistruths as painted by the title threads of evil myles (as there is virtualy never any decent content in the body of the posts despite the flowery language and links to inconsequential web pages) - as southern posters wont know that the propaganda and rubbish he spouts is in fact kack - people like to take others at their word , but this is dangerous on here due to the likes of eg etc
have a nice day old chum !
I find it a laugh that theres a theory that the "unionists" on here "equalise", and the nationalists dont.
When someone attacks the gaa, republicanism, nationalism, the catholic church etc etc there is an equalisation.
This thread is a case in point, but so are many others. Its human nature to defend your opinions, and the attempt to illicit empathy by trying to put your position into something the other person can relate to is fairly common, and hardly unique.
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 10:12:10 AM
I find it a laugh that theres a theory that the "unionists" on here "equalise", and the nationalists dont.
When someone attacks the gaa, republicanism, nationalism, the catholic church etc etc there is an equalisation.
This thread is a case in point, but so are many others. Its human nature to defend your opinions, and the attempt to illicit empathy by trying to put your position into something the other person can relate to is fairly common, and hardly unique.
Yes defend your opinions but sometimes the indefensible can't be defended. There simply isn't any equivalent of the Orange Order in the nationalist community, there hasn't been the same sectarian murders or racist attacks and we don't have nationalist politicians and leaders using any excuse to express intolerant views in the media. Not saying it doesn't happen, but not even close to the same extent.
Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 10:12:10 AM
I find it a laugh that theres a theory that the "unionists" on here "equalise", and the nationalists dont.
When someone attacks the gaa, republicanism, nationalism, the catholic church etc etc there is an equalisation.
This thread is a case in point, but so are many others. Its human nature to defend your opinions, and the attempt to illicit empathy by trying to put your position into something the other person can relate to is fairly common, and hardly unique.
Yes defend your opinions but sometimes the indefensible can't be defended. There simply isn't any equivalent of the Orange Order in the nationalist community, there hasn't been the same sectarian murders or racist attacks and we don't have nationalist politicians and leaders using any excuse to express intolerant views in the media. Not saying it doesn't happen, but not even close to the same extent.
I dont think that can really be disputed Donagh
Definitely all sides will do it to a certain extent but take a look at who in general is always on the offensive and who seems to in general always be 'equalising' - for the small number of non GAA/non republican/non nationalist posters among the membership on here, theres an heck of a lot of disproportionate equalising and indeed offensives against GAA/nationalists/nationalism/republicanism etc that goes on
usually its actual 'events' that oo/unionists/loyalists perportrate that are commented on here not just inconsequential rhetoric and unrelated events as we have seen yet again recently!
I can't join the Orange Order and even if I did kick with my left foot, have crossed-eyes and a penchant for [removed on legal advice] I cant marry a fenian...
It's in the rulebook and it's not fair.
Similarly if Prince William (jug-ears young lad) took a shine to me (and I was a lady) he couldnt go near me since I'm a papist.
Double-standards eh?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 16, 2009, 05:35:59 AM
Give me a reason not to be ignorant of the OO? It has nothing to do with religion on my part, as I said before we dont get a choice and I dont exactly see myself 100% RC so I would never hold religion against anyone.
There are plenty of ways to find out about the OO and not be ignorant of it. 'Why should you' though would be a better question? The answer is it's up to you. However, why would anyone attack something that they are ignorant about? It says more about them.
QuoteWhy if your a unionist are you not part of the OO? Just curious, maybe its the same reason im ignorant of them.
There are far more unionists who are not members of the OO than unionists who are. Just because someone votes a certain way doesn't mean that they should join a religious / cultural organisation. I am not from a family with any Orange connections and have no reason to join it. More importantly I am not a member of a Protestant church so I think that probably excludes me as it is a Protestant organisation.
Shouldn't you be out burning stuff or hijacking cars if you are excluded from the OO Roger?
Quote from: Chrisowc on July 16, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Shouldn't you be out burning stuff or hijacking cars if you are excluded from the OO Roger?
I know what the OO represent and I don't have a rabid hatred for them, I am law abiding and I haven't got a gripe about the world that makes me resort to wrecking the place and trying to murder people. That pretty much excludes me from nationalist riot gangs before it is even considered who I vote for.
Quote from: carribbear on July 16, 2009, 12:47:49 PM
Similarly if Prince William (jug-ears young lad) took a shine to me (and I was a lady) he couldnt go near me since I'm a papist.
Is his da not married to a catholic?
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:14:44 AMMany Nationalists do love to attack the OO though as it is unionist and Protestant and they do so with ignorance about it. That says more about them.
When celebtrating their culture the OO/RBP/bands etc infringe significantly on the rest of us. Do you think Nationalist criticisms of the OO are unwarrented and unprovoked? In what way are they ignorant? Do you not feel the OO has a primary duty to be more considerate of its neighbours instead of the focus on so-called "tourism"? Do you not accept that the triumphalist nature of loyalist marches can actually be offensive to Nationalists? How do you think a Nationalist such as myself feels when he or she goes into their own town centre to see it plastered in red white and blue, the Ulster Banner and Union Jacks? [Bear in mind the town is 50/50]. Can you tell me whether I am welcome or not as I am not too sure.
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 01:24:53 PM
Quote from: carribbear on July 16, 2009, 12:47:49 PM
Similarly if Prince William (jug-ears young lad) took a shine to me (and I was a lady) he couldnt go near me since I'm a papist.
Is his da not married to a catholic?
Camilla horsey chops isn't a Catholic?
Really, she looks like one:)
Only messing, I thought she was though i see from a search that her ex husband and kids are, though she is not. Must have been what confused me.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on July 16, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
"tourism"?
Where will I go on my holidays this year?
1 week in Las Vegas? Havana? Cancun? Thailand? Maritius?
No, Let's spend it in Banbridge watching a few lunatics celebrate the 12th July on the 13th July due to the crazy sabbath day rule by marching around in Monty Python-esque bowler hats and python-esque silly walks while basking in the moderate temperatures of County Antrim eating chips from a dodgy take-out van.
A sensible choice.
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
Really, she looks like one:)
Only messing, I thought she was though i see from a search that her ex husband and kids are, though she is not. Must have been what confused me.
Who'd you marry again? ;)
Quote from: fitzroyalty on July 16, 2009, 01:47:51 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:14:44 AMMany Nationalists do love to attack the OO though as it is unionist and Protestant and they do so with ignorance about it. That says more about them.
When celebtrating their culture the OO/RBP/bands etc infringe significantly on the rest of us. Do you think Nationalist criticisms of the OO are unwarrented and unprovoked? In what way are they ignorant? Do you not feel the OO has a primary duty to be more considerate of its neighbours instead of the focus on so-called "tourism"? Do you not accept that the triumphalist nature of loyalist marches can actually be offensive to Nationalists? How do you think a Nationalist such as myself feels when he or she goes into their own town centre to see it plastered in red white and blue, the Ulster Banner and Union Jacks? [Bear in mind the town is 50/50]. Can you tell me whether I am welcome or not as I am not too sure.
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it. From what I can see they aren't doing anything illegal and if people don't like what they do they aren't really affected by it. I live in East Belfast and haven't been put out by, let alone even seen, a OO or even a band parade in a number of years now. I don't go looking for them and although there are a number of parades in the area annually I manage to not be hassled by them.
The decorations of towns and roads etc needs to be better managed imho as the flags etc are put up for too long. I don't find them welcoming or offensive and don't think others should either. Living beside Strandtown there are loads of flags and bunting at the moment. Previously around Easter there were streamers from the lamp posts for a number of months (they were also in Belfast centre too) and whilst I have no idea what they were about they really didn't offend me or welcome me or even impact remotely on my life or personal views either. I think a lot of people, mainly nationalists but also unionists too, criticise and attack the OO unjustly based on personal prejudice when really the whole parading thing is actually irrelevant to them.
Roger they would be irrevelent to most people if they chose not to walk in areas they are not wanted, if the police kept the roads open as much as possible - how many f**king times a year do they feel the need to walk around Carlisle circus!!
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:30:51 PM
Roger they would be irrevelent to most people if they chose not to walk in areas they are not wanted, if the police kept the roads open as much as possible - how many f**king times a year do they feel the need to walk around Carlisle circus!!
Not too sure. I suppose because their main lodge is at Clifton Street then there are bound to be parades. I imagine they tend to parade at weekends and on holidays so it shouldn't upset the traffic too badly and surely there are other routes people can take to avoid that area. Personally speaking they and anyone else can parade every night of the week for all I care. It doesn't affect me and I don't think it affects those who don't agree with the OO or the bands that much either.
Take the case of the trouble at Ardoyne. The parade goes past a nationalist area but from what I can make of the geography of the area people have to come out of their area to be offended by it and the OO doesn't go into the Ardoyne and simply stays on the main Crumlin Road back to it's starting point further up the road. I don't see anything controversial about it except that nationalists in Ardoyne seem to hate the OO as it is a Protestant and Loyal organisation and want to wreck the area and try to murder people.
Mr McDaid,a Catholic, is beaten to death in Coleraine by a Loyalist(Protestant?) mob.
What do the local Unionist politicians say? Condemn ?,express sympathy ?
No it's .........
" Ahh but there were tricolours flying on the lamp posts in that Estate"
Talk about the need to get real . :-\
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 02:38:09 PM
Mr McDaid,a Catholic, is beaten to death in Coleraine by a Loyalist(Protestant?) mob.
What do the local Unionist politicians say? Condemn ?,express sympathy ?
No it's .........
" Ahh but there were tricolours flying on the lamp posts in that Estate"
Talk about the need to get real . :-\
That's inaccurate and a misrepresentation. Every unionist party and all Politicians who were asked clearly condemned the violence and tragic death of Kevin McDaid. What some Politicians said was that there was ongoing sectarian tensions and trouble in the area for some weeks and that this wasn't just a squad of people going on the attack because of a football result.
Not in my backyard eh Roger.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 02:38:09 PM
Mr McDaid,a Catholic, is beaten to death in Coleraine by a Loyalist(Protestant?) mob.
What do the local Unionist politicians say? Condemn ?,express sympathy ?
No it's .........
" Ahh but there were tricolours flying on the lamp posts in that Estate"
Talk about the need to get real . :-\
That's inaccurate and a misrepresentation. Every unionist party and all Politicians who were asked clearly condemned the violence and tragic death of Kevin McDaid. What some Politicians said was that there was ongoing sectarian tensions and trouble in the area for some weeks and that this wasn't just a squad of people going on the attack because of a football result.
The Unionists were incapable of simply condemning the savage sectarian murder without implying it was the Nationalists fault for daring to display their National Flag.
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
It is their culture. It isn't my culture and I don't have any association with it. Nor does that vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is a culture which is prominent in Northern Ireland and it's parades are actually pretty big and draw big crowds. If it is being promoted using public funds then it should compete for those funds on an even basis with other cultural events. I don't really care about it and unless someone says they are getting disproportional funding for whatever reason I think people should just let them get on with it. All the feigned offense and complaints by people about being excluded from the OO because they are RCs is laughable. Do they want to join or do they just want to be offended? Do they want to wear collarettes and bowler hats even though they ridicule them? FFS, the protesters are a lot sadder than the paraders by a long way.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 02:38:09 PM
Mr McDaid,a Catholic, is beaten to death in Coleraine by a Loyalist(Protestant?) mob.
What do the local Unionist politicians say? Condemn ?,express sympathy ?
No it's .........
" Ahh but there were tricolours flying on the lamp posts in that Estate"
Talk about the need to get real . :-\
That's inaccurate and a misrepresentation. Every unionist party and all Politicians who were asked clearly condemned the violence and tragic death of Kevin McDaid. What some Politicians said was that there was ongoing sectarian tensions and trouble in the area for some weeks and that this wasn't just a squad of people going on the attack because of a football result.
The Unionists were incapable of simply condemning the savage sectarian murder without implying it was the Nationalists fault for daring to display their National Flag.
That is untrue.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
Really, she looks like one:)
Only messing, I thought she was though i see from a search that her ex husband and kids are, though she is not. Must have been what confused me.
Who'd you marry again? ;)
maybe Ive got low standards....
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
Really, she looks like one:)
Only messing, I thought she was though i see from a search that her ex husband and kids are, though she is not. Must have been what confused me.
Who'd you marry again? ;)
maybe Ive got low standards....
Why not go for Rhonda Paisley, Arlene Foster, Iris Robinson, Dianne Dodds etc...
hubba hubba
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:52:54 PM
Not in my backyard eh Roger.
I'm not sure what you mean. As I said before, there are plenty of parades in my area. I just don't look for them and avoid them if I know they are on. They can parade all they like. They aren't doing anything illegal and they aren't really affecting me. Maybe if I lived in a cul-de-sac and the parade went along the main road meaning access was denied I would be annoyed but I rarely see anyone complaining who lives in such circumstances. From what I can make out access is allowed for people to and from houses in such circumstances eg on the east side of Malone Road and west side of Lisburn Road on the 12th parade. People in the area are used to this and whilst they may not be enthusiastic about the parade they don't seem too fussed by it either. All of them will have known about the annual parade routes when they bought their houses. The parades aren't new. The idea of rioting and trying to kill people because a parade walks past by is totally bonkers.
Quote from: carribbear on July 16, 2009, 03:06:29 PM
Why not go for Rhonda Paisley, Arlene Foster, Iris Robinson, Dianne Dodds etc...
hubba hubba
Ive often asked myself why i didnt marry any of these women.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:55:58 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
It is their culture. It isn't my culture and I don't have any association with it. Nor does that vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is a culture which is prominent in Northern Ireland and it's parades are actually pretty big and draw big crowds. If it is being promoted using public funds then it should compete for those funds on an even basis with other cultural events. I don't really care about it and unless someone says they are getting disproportional funding for whatever reason I think people should just let them get on with it. All the feigned offense and complaints by people about being excluded from the OO because they are RCs is laughable. Do they want to join or do they just want to be offended? Do they want to wear collarettes and bowler hats even though they ridicule them? FFS, the protesters are a lot sadder than the paraders by a long way.
It is being marketed and promoted as Ulster culture. Whether you identify with that or not, is irrelevant.
Whether you regard it as "their culture" or not, is also irrelevant.
The OO parades are being promoted as so called Ulster culture or so called Northern Ireland culture.
When it is clear that the OO also use the parades as a front for active representation of right wing reactionary politics belonging to specifically one religion.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:55:58 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
It is their culture. It isn't my culture and I don't have any association with it. Nor does that vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is a culture which is prominent in Northern Ireland and it's parades are actually pretty big and draw big crowds. If it is being promoted using public funds then it should compete for those funds on an even basis with other cultural events. I don't really care about it and unless someone says they are getting disproportional funding for whatever reason I think people should just let them get on with it. All the feigned offense and complaints by people about being excluded from the OO because they are RCs is laughable. Do they want to join or do they just want to be offended? Do they want to wear collarettes and bowler hats even though they ridicule them? FFS, the protesters are a lot sadder than the paraders by a long way.
Fair enough. Then I'd assume following that logic you would also agree that those complaining about the GAA not being inclusive are worse that the GAA?
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:55:58 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
It is their culture. It isn't my culture and I don't have any association with it. Nor does that vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is a culture which is prominent in Northern Ireland and it's parades are actually pretty big and draw big crowds. If it is being promoted using public funds then it should compete for those funds on an even basis with other cultural events. I don't really care about it and unless someone says they are getting disproportional funding for whatever reason I think people should just let them get on with it. All the feigned offense and complaints by people about being excluded from the OO because they are RCs is laughable. Do they want to join or do they just want to be offended? Do they want to wear collarettes and bowler hats even though they ridicule them? FFS, the protesters are a lot sadder than the paraders by a long way.
It is being marketed and promoted as Ulster culture. Whether you identify with that or not, is irrelevant.
Whether you regard it as "their culture" or not, is also irrelevant.
The OO parades are being promoted as so called Ulster culture or so called Northern Ireland culture.
When it is clear that the OO also use the parades as a front for active representation of right wing reactionary politics belonging to specifically one religion.
It is Ulster or Northern Irish culture but it is not a mono-cultural society and is only part of the culture. If the marketing is saying that it is the only culture here then it is wrong. The size and importance of the OO in NI is distinctive compared to other countries where it exists though. The OO is a religious organisation for Protestants only and I don't see how it can be criticised for that. It doesn't hide the fact that it is a religious and cultural organisation and in order to defend and advance their position it has taken a Political stance. Whilst they can be disagreed with, I'm not sure why they can be criticised for that.
Quote from: supersarsfields on July 16, 2009, 03:47:04 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:55:58 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
I personally don't care much for the OO and they don't affect me for the positive or negative. It's their culture and who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't be entitled to it.
Not exactly just "their culture", the OO is being marketed ;D , propagated and regarded as Ulster culture, not just a culture from a modern day version of a Klan chapter, which also seeks to represent on these parades, from a traditional fear based perspective, political issues directed only at Protestants
It is their culture. It isn't my culture and I don't have any association with it. Nor does that vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is a culture which is prominent in Northern Ireland and it's parades are actually pretty big and draw big crowds. If it is being promoted using public funds then it should compete for those funds on an even basis with other cultural events. I don't really care about it and unless someone says they are getting disproportional funding for whatever reason I think people should just let them get on with it. All the feigned offense and complaints by people about being excluded from the OO because they are RCs is laughable. Do they want to join or do they just want to be offended? Do they want to wear collarettes and bowler hats even though they ridicule them? FFS, the protesters are a lot sadder than the paraders by a long way.
Fair enough. Then I'd assume following that logic you would also agree that those complaining about the GAA not being inclusive are worse that the GAA?
Careful now, people on here don't like the GAA and OO comparisons.
Btw, I don't think people complain about the GAA not being inclusive, they just correct others for inaccurately claiming that it is inclusive.
I wasn't comparing the OO and the GAA. I was comparing your views on people who complained about either.
And there are indeed many unionists who complain about the GAA not being inclusive. So I just want to know how you'd view them with reference to your belief that the complainers are sadder than the organisation.
Quote from: supersarsfields on July 16, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
I wasn't comparing the OO and the GAA. I was comparing your views on people who complained about either.
And there are indeed many unionists who complain about the GAA not being inclusive. So I just want to know how you'd view them with reference to your belief that the complainers are sadder than the organisation.
If the OO supported terrorism then unionists would complain about it too. If the GAA didn't so much sports funding for its Political activities it wouldn't be complained about either. It is irrelevant to unionists as it is a nationalist organisation.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 04:07:01 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on July 16, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
I wasn't comparing the OO and the GAA. I was comparing your views on people who complained about either.
And there are indeed many unionists who complain about the GAA not being inclusive. So I just want to know how you'd view them with reference to your belief that the complainers are sadder than the organisation.
If the OO supported terrorism then unionists would complain about it too. If the GAA didn't so much sports funding for its Political activities it wouldn't be complained about either. It is irrelevant to unionists as it is a nationalist organisation.
Gaa and OO
One of them allows anyone to join, the other doesn't.
See if you can guess which is which.
Id be carefull there roger - while the OO may not support terrorism, there is a tacit acceptance of it amongst a section of its members - the likes of the monkstown ycv band being one example that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 03:51:28 PM
It is Ulster or Northern Irish culture but it is not a mono-cultural society and is only part of the culture. If the marketing is saying that it is the only culture here then it is wrong. The size and importance of the OO in NI is distinctive compared to other countries where it exists though. The OO is a religious organisation for Protestants only and I don't see how it can be criticised for that. It doesn't hide the fact that it is a religious and cultural organisation and in order to defend and advance their position it has taken a Political stance. Whilst they can be disagreed with, I'm not sure why they can be criticised for that.
By the dictionary (even wikipedia) definition of the Orange Order, all the above maybe true. Although not being from Northern Ireland, I suspect in many rural areas the Orange Order lives up to that ideal to a large extent. However in the broader Northern Ireland context, the Orange Order has proven itself to be a malign influence from it's outset. I don't think you need to be a Catholic or nationalist to see that.
I believe the criticism of their political stance is that they masquerade as something else. Let us not pretend that protestantism is the sole criteria of entry. Even the parades in the republic carry all kinds of British symbols etc.. I watched an RTE documentary on the Orange Order in the Republic and all interviewees emphasised that they were British people "trapped" in the Republic.
/Jim.
Quote from: nifan on July 16, 2009, 04:12:13 PM
Id be carefull there roger - while the OO may not support terrorism, there is a tacit acceptance of it amongst a section of its members - the likes of the monkstown ycv band being one example that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
The OO doesn't support terrorists. I'm on record on this board (some other thread on here) where I stated plainly my condemnation of the OO for allowing bands who are terrorist cheer leaders take part in their parades, even though these bands follow a code of conduct laid down by the OO during OO parades.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 16, 2009, 04:16:23 PM
By the dictionary (even wikipedia) definition of the Orange Order, all the above maybe true. Although not being from Northern Ireland, I suspect in many rural areas the Orange Order lives up to that ideal to a large extent. However in the broader Northern Ireland context, the Orange Order has proven itself to be a malign influence from it's outset. I don't think you need to be a Catholic or nationalist to see that.
I don't see it as a malign influence. I'm not a member of a Prod church so I probably can't join even if I wanted to. As a unionist I don't feel the need to join. Having no Orange cultural attachment I don't have any compunction to join at all. I imagine there are many groups and organisations that have viewpoints I agree with bits and disagree with others but I don't unjustly criticise or attack them or feel the need to join them even if I was eligible.
QuoteI believe the criticism of their political stance is that they masquerade as something else. Let us not pretend that protestantism is the sole criteria of entry. Even the parades in the republic carry all kinds of British symbols etc.. I watched an RTE documentary on the Orange Order in the Republic and all interviewees emphasised that they were British people "trapped" in the Republic.
Is that a criticism or an observation?
Quote/Jim.
Btw, is it traditional or cultural to always sign your name at the end of each post even though your name is given beside each post?
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The OO doesn't support terrorists.
*snigger*
Did you win the perrier award for comedy? You should have.
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The OO doesn't support terrorists. I'm on record on this board (some other thread on here) where I stated plainly my condemnation of the OO for allowing bands who are terrorist cheer leaders take part in their parades, even though these bands follow a code of conduct laid down by the OO during OO parades.
Seeing as you responded about terrorist support in the context of a OO comparison to the GAA that you see the GAA as "supporting terrorists"?
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 16, 2009, 04:44:29 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The OO doesn't support terrorists. I'm on record on this board (some other thread on here) where I stated plainly my condemnation of the OO for allowing bands who are terrorist cheer leaders take part in their parades, even though these bands follow a code of conduct laid down by the OO during OO parades.
Seeing as you responded about terrorist support in the context of a OO comparison to the GAA that you see the GAA as "supporting terrorists"?
/Jim.
I responded to supersarsfield as that is a common complaint by those who criticise the GAA and not some sort of a similar complaint about joining eligibility criteria based on inclusivity that the OO is criticised for having.
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 09:55:48 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on July 15, 2009, 07:16:54 PM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Actually it's occurred to me that the main sectarian shibboleth that gets handed down to some on the nationalist side of the fence could be that themmuns are shower of evil supremacist bigots who are bred to be such.
Where did you get this idea from?
Various things including (to pick one relveant example) comments on message boards such as these. For example, the posts single transferable posts of lynchbhoy ("oo/dup/loyalist bigotted mentality you've been brainwashed into", blah, blah), or for example when pintsofguinness throws out the "bigot" word (="Protestant I disagree with" - c.f. Tony Fearon) (one classic example, when I said the PIRA had take some of the responsibility for sustaining the Troubles, and I was accused of being a bigot whot thought "it was all the Taigs' fault". To read these, or the various outpourings of bile on for example, Slugger (sort of sub-Brian Feeney style demonisation) does put that though in my head - and I've been called a "bigot" or similar too many times for daring to have a contrary opinion to dismiss this thought as groundless.
So you base your
opinion on what a few people say on the internerd without knowing how they were raised? Good for you. :)
Quote from: Roger on July 16, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The OO doesn't support terrorists.
No it gets the terrorists to support them.
Remeber one of the first Drumcree stand offs ....Orange Order leaders taking Billy Wright on a tour of the "field" .
Then lo and behold the cowardly sectarian murder of Ml McGoldrick.
And of course there was the 3 Quinn children.
Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 08:59:08 AM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 10:00:34 PM
I think you're right about that. Attitudes on Protestant/unionist side that perpetuate would include things like that - it's somewhat ironic that on the "other side" one of the main sectarian sibboleths is that 'themmuns', unlike 'ussuns', are supremacist bigots who are in-bred with sectarian shibboleths and attitudes, whereas ussuns are generally superior when it comes to all that.
I don't see that written anywhere, but how do you explain the intolerance and sectarianism within unionism i.e., why are the sectarian murders not repeated within nationalism/republicanism?, the racist attacks?, where is the equivalent of the orange and black men?, where are the politicians in the same intolerant model as Wilson?, Paisley, McCausland etc?, why are racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
You're being tongue in cheek here, right? Darkley...Kingsmill...Enniskillen...etc, etc, ad nauseam. Not sectarian and / or racist? Dead on.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 05:45:34 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 08:59:08 AM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 10:00:34 PM
I think you're right about that. Attitudes on Protestant/unionist side that perpetuate would include things like that - it's somewhat ironic that on the "other side" one of the main sectarian sibboleths is that 'themmuns', unlike 'ussuns', are supremacist bigots who are in-bred with sectarian shibboleths and attitudes, whereas ussuns are generally superior when it comes to all that.
I don't see that written anywhere, but how do you explain the intolerance and sectarianism within unionism i.e., why are the sectarian murders not repeated within nationalism/republicanism?, the racist attacks?, where is the equivalent of the orange and black men?, where are the politicians in the same intolerant model as Wilson?, Paisley, McCausland etc?, why are racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
You're being tongue in cheek here, right? Darkley...Kingsmill...Enniskillen...etc, etc, ad nauseam. Not sectarian and / or racist? Dead on.
As regards to the murders and racist attacks, it should be fairly obvious to even you that Donagh is talking about post-ceasefire, so throwing in Darkley, Kingsmill and Enniskillen - as disgraceful as they were - is just another example of your pathetic grasping at straws default mode ... where is the equivalent post-ceasefire?
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.
Er, you've answered* your own question! :D
* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it... ::)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 14, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
You clearly have... ... [an] agenda against Republicans.
Must be something to do with being a Unionist. ;)
Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?
You had to be. The most bitter and evil races of people on the planet.
Dear oh Dear. You asked me what my problem is with Irish Republicans, when it should be entirely evident i.e. they want a United Ireland, when I do not. Plus you seem surprised that a Unionsit should have an anti-Republican "agenda".
What next, Republicans pursuing an anti-Unionist agenda?
Perish the thought... :D
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AMYou know i class myself Irish Republican but I dont class my RC. I believe more in Buddhaism than RC beliefs. Some people take Religion too seriously, ffs has anyone in there life experience come across any proof to back up anythng we were told from birth. i guess what im saying I dont give a feck that yer protestants.
Next you start banging on about Religion, completely out of context... ???
(Btw, I'm not actually a Protestant)
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AMIf Unionists are so loyal to the UK why dont ye f**k off back where ye came from across the water if ye dont like it herer? The invisible border 30 miles North of me i do not recognise or ackonowledge it. Ye were never wanted here and im sick of us having to facilitate ye. We'd have way more peace if ye werent here. All ye do is cause trouble and heartache.
Shouldn't you be up in Belfast shouting that at Romanians etc? :o
Btw, as someone born and brought up in Ireland, who now lives in GB, does that mean I've already ""f**ked off back where I came from", or have still to do so? :D
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on July 15, 2009, 05:21:29 AMThe last thing I would do is go on a OO discussion forum btw, what the point you being on here EG? You a GAA fan or just a bitter evil trouble maker ;) like most of your kind?
Thank you for that kind welcome. I think I'm getting the hang of this "GAA For All" mullarkey... ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 16, 2009, 06:07:09 PM
What next, Republicans pursuing an anti-Unionist agenda?
Perish the thought... :D
LOL
thats just it - they dont !
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 07:12:45 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
Some things never change no matter how many holidays I take - death, taxes and Eg spinning lies on GaaBoard. There are no million unionists in Ireland or anywhere else, never have been and never will - a point you conceded to me some time ago.
OK, how about you tell me how many Unionists you think there are in Ireland?
I'm saying there are "around a million"; if you think that is incorrect, then you presumably have some idea what the correct figure is.
(And btw, do you care to quote exactly where/when I "conceded" the point earlier? For if I did do so, I'm sure it was only in order to draw from you your estimate of the true figure)
I'd go for the amount that vote for unionist parties but as it's you that are putting the claim forward the onus in on you to produce the supporting evidence.
Ah, so the only way one can be a "Unionist" is if one votes for a Unionist party in an election?
Does that mean if eg Ian Paisley were suddenly taken sick on the morning of the next election and physically could not get to the Polling Station, he would no longer count as a "Unionist"? And are we to assume that any 16 or 17 year old we saw out marching on the Twelfth etc is not a Unionist either?
Fair enough, for the sake of argument, I'll accept that (or "concede", in your lexicon ;)).
In which case, can you tell me how many Nationalists there are in the Six Counties?
For I'm very curious to know, seeing as how there were only 6,463 of them in NI in 1971:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm
I'm sure there are many, many more now, so perhaps they really have all been breeding like the proverbial in the meantime... ;)
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 07:12:45 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 14, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
And what's all this "get plenty used to us then" - sure you don't even have a vote here never mind live in Ireland. Whatever future has in store for Ireland, north or south, will have absolutely nothing to do with you have you'll have absolutely no say in it. Ireland's future will be decided by those that live here, not interfering Brits from outside.
In referring to "us", I meant Irish Unionists. Where I presently live or vote* etc does not alter my status.
As for "whatever future has in store for Ireland", how do you know where I'll be living next?
Mind you, when it comes to "interfering Brits from outside" not determining Ireland's future, I'll certainly give you that - it'll be around a million Brits, "interfering" or otherwise, from inside Ireland who will decide! ;)
P.S. When other posters who live outside Ireland, such as (Aussie) Aerlik or (Yankee) Stew etc comment on matters Irish in personal terms, do you ever take them up on it? No?
* - As a British citizen, I am happy to have exercised my vote in elections to the British Parliament ever since I turned 18. Assuming you are an Irish citizen, may I ask how many elections to the Irish Parliament you have voted in? ;)
You can comment all you like, I'm just saying neither you or they will have any say in the future of this country (Ireland). That privilege is left to those of us who choose to stay when the going was tough.
Wow - "when the going was tough" - your medal's in the post! :D
Still, I'd like to know how you are so certain that I will "never" have any say in the future of Ireland - or the 6 northern counties of it, at any rate.
And quite honestly, I don't even have to move to an NI constituency to be able to vote for a Party which forms the next British Government. You know, the one which exercises ultimate jurisdiction over NI.
Frankly, I'm more than satisfied with that, for I would hate to be/want to be a citizen of a country which doesn't even give me a right to vote for that country's Government.
Speaking of which, do you care to remind me of how many times you've exercised your vote to the Irish Parliament... :D
Quote from: Donagh on July 14, 2009, 07:12:45 PM
* - reread the first part of my original reply again maybe a litter slower and you might find the answer - you know the bit that actually addresses and completely refutes your point for starting this thread in the first place and the bit you conveniently choose to ignore.
I did read it, but it does not "completely refute" my point for Irish Republicans generally, only for those sad, die-hards like you, who still cannot bring themselves to face reality and recognise the Irish Republic, never mind Northern Ireland.
P.S. The above was an example of addressing a challenge directly. Any chance you might respond in kind? You know, how many Nationalists there are in NI? How many times you've voted in an Irish General Election? Whether Aerlik and Stew etc are entitled to comment personally on matters Irish etc? ;)
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:30:51 PM
Roger they [the OO] would be irrevelent to most people if they chose not to walk in areas they are not wanted,
No doubt that would help. And in Ardoyne, at any rate, there seems little doubt that the trouble was caused by people coming in from outside, whom the local people didn't want there.
However.
Not all of these "trouble-making outsiders" may be exactly the people you are thinking of...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8149203.stm
Father Gerry Donegan, Ardoyne Priest:
"Myself and many people were looking at people last night that we'd never seen in the area before in our lives.
"It was as if people had been bussed into the area for this very purpose and that this was being very much orchestrated.
"What do they bring to the area? Nothing, because when they're all gone those residents who live there, day in day out, still are there to pick up the pieces." Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein:
"The Real IRA, or whatever they may call themselves and some other splinter organisations, sent people over here with the sole aim to cause riots, to bring this further down into sectarianism.
"They had no concern for the people of this area or their safety.
"A lot of these people, the vast majority of these people, they've not come from this area, have nothing here to offer except grief to the people of this area." Themmuns, eh? ::)
Good man Sligonian ;D, I've disagreed with ya on many GAA matters, but on this one, you've got it spot on. Why don't the hoors all go back across the water where they came from??
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 16, 2009, 07:46:05 PM
Good man Sligonian ;D, I've disagreed with ya on many GAA matters, but on this one, you've got it spot on. Why don't the hoors all go back across the water where they came from??
Seeing as Sligonian has so far failed to answer the question I put to him earlier on this very issue, maybe you can solve my conundrum.
You see, I was born and brought up in Ireland, but now live in Great Britain. Does that mean I have already done so or that I have still to do so? ::)
P.S. Should it be the latter, perhaps I could arrange to swap with one of those Romanians in Belfast we were hearing about a wee while back. You know, those "foreigners" in Ireland who were told by the "locals" to go back where they came from... :o
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 16, 2009, 07:46:05 PM
Good man Sligonian ;D, I've disagreed with ya on many GAA matters, but on this one, you've got it spot on. Why don't the hoors all go back across the water where they came from??
Sorry lads but that is not the type of talk a real republican comes out with.
'As regards to the murders and racist attacks, it should be fairly obvious to even you that Donagh is talking about post-ceasefire, so throwing in Darkley, Kingsmill and Enniskillen - as disgraceful as they were - is just another example of your pathetic grasping at straws default mode ... where is the equivalent post-ceasefire?'
So what Donagh meant to say was that prior to the ceasefires, republicans were every bit as sectarian and racist as the loyalists, but that since the ceasefires republicans have cleaned up their act, whereas loyalists haven't?
He'll be so pleased you've cleared that up for him.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 08:24:06 PM
'As regards to the murders and racist attacks, it should be fairly obvious to even you that Donagh is talking about post-ceasefire, so throwing in Darkley, Kingsmill and Enniskillen - as disgraceful as they were - is just another example of your pathetic grasping at straws default mode ... where is the equivalent post-ceasefire?'
So what Donagh meant to say was that prior to the ceasefires, republicans were every bit as sectarian and racist as the loyalists, but that since the ceasefires republicans have cleaned up their act, whereas loyalists haven't?
He'll be so pleased you've cleared that up for him.
There you go again, patronisingly misrepresenting what posters say and twisting it to suit your own blue shirt anti-republican agenda ... answer the question for a change (also give us examples of republican racism pre-ceasefire ... Was Gerry the bass player in a neo-Nazi thrash metal band, perhaps? Maybe Bobby Storey was grand wizard of the KKK in Turf Lodge? Or Marty McGuinness moonlighted as a gunner in a Liebstandarte Tiger tank?)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 08:24:06 PM
Loyalists are sectarian.
He'll be so pleased you've cleared that up for him.
aw miles, still trying to put forward the nationalist agenda. Good lad.
Hows the GAA season going with you? Bet you're excited about the Ulster final.
Wouldnt it be great if the Antrim OO went (or marched) to Clones on Sunday to give the lads some support, just to show they're not a sectarian organisation.
'There you go again, patronisingly misrepresenting what posters say...
I think if you check - big ask for you, I know - you'll find it was your man who sought to qualify and launder what another poster had written. ;)
Are any of EG,Tonto,Roger,Myles etc going to see their County in the ulster Final.?
As the game is in Co Monaghan they should have no issues re anthems. :D
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 09:34:47 PM
'There you go again, patronisingly misrepresenting what posters say...
I think if you check - big ask for you, I know - you'll find it was your man who sought to qualify and launder what another poster had written. ;)
An "I'm unable to answer the question" would have sufficed
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 16, 2009, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 16, 2009, 07:46:05 PM
Good man Sligonian ;D, I've disagreed with ya on many GAA matters, but on this one, you've got it spot on. Why don't the hoors all go back across the water where they came from??
Sorry lads but that is not the type of talk a real republican comes out with.
This back where you come from thing. Not every one can trace roots back irish/other. Whats every ones surname? Is it an irish one? If its english/ scottish, as many RC nationist peoples names are, then do they have to go back where they came from as well? eg, GB :-\
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 09:51:52 PM
Are any of EG,Tonto,Roger,Myles etc going to see their County in the ulster Final.?
As the game is in Co Monaghan they should have no issues re anthems. :D
I'd go if it was at Casement and presuming I could get a ticket.
Quote from: red hander on July 16, 2009, 08:56:22 PM
There you go again, patronisingly misrepresenting what posters say and twisting it to suit your own blue shirt anti-republican agenda ... answer the question for a change
Don't you know Myles of the Pony doesn't answer questions. he just slithers on ad infinitum asking more questions.
You would have to get a nail gun to pin him down.
Is there an answer to this Q, I know there were more questions, but 2 questions appear to overload the shift on duty
Why is it that racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
Quote from: hardstation on July 16, 2009, 10:55:37 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 10:48:59 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 16, 2009, 09:51:52 PM
Are any of EG,Tonto,Roger,Myles etc going to see their County in the ulster Final.?
As the game is in Co Monaghan they should have no issues re anthems. :D
I'd go if it was at Casement and presuming I could get a ticket.
You could have easily got a ticket. They have been on sale to the public from Casement. I think that tonight was the last night though and Antrim's quota of 10,000 tickets were all taken, or certainly close to it.
I meant if the match was at Casement - I've only a passing interest in gaelic football, so I wouldn't be travelling to Monaghan for a game. If it was on my doorstep I'd go along.
'I was merely commenting on the ticket issue, which I admit could be different if the match was in Casement'
What's the capacity at Casement these days?
Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 08:59:08 AM
Quote from: MW on July 15, 2009, 10:00:34 PM
I think you're right about that. Attitudes on Protestant/unionist side that perpetuate would include things like that - it's somewhat ironic that on the "other side" one of the main sectarian sibboleths is that 'themmuns', unlike 'ussuns', are supremacist bigots who are in-bred with sectarian shibboleths and attitudes, whereas ussuns are generally superior when it comes to all that.
I don't see that written anywhere, but how do you explain the intolerance and sectarianism within unionism i.e., why are the sectarian murders not repeated within nationalism/republicanism?, the racist attacks?, where is the equivalent of the orange and black men?, where are the politicians in the same intolerant model as Wilson?, Paisley, McCausland etc?, why are racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
There are plenty of sectarian attacks that have emanated from the nationalist side, such as the family burned out of their home in Dunclug only this week.
To say that C18, BNP and NF are "accepted within unionist areas" is rubbish also. And wouldn't it be a bit odd if far right
British nationalists were found in
Irish nationalist areas? Certainly there are violent ultra-nationalist groups, capable and willing to murder, no less, out there in Irish-nationalist areas (I wouldn't say "accepted", however). By the way, on the BNP, this may have escaped your attention but DUP MEP Diane Dodds actually gave a lead in the European Parliament this week by refusing to take her allocated seat beside Nick Griffin.
As for "intolerant" politicans - oh dear. You've completey forgotten Sinn Féin - politicans from a movement that murdered people because of their religion, their nationality, and their political opinion. 'Bik' McFarlane, a sectarian mass murderer who massacred five Protestants by bombing a bar and machine-gunning a bus stop, seemed to be a respected figure and commentator in many nationalist/republican circles today. The Balcombe Street gang, who threw bombs loaded with ball-bearings into restaurants and bars to maim and murder people simply because they were British, were cheered at the SF ard fheis and literally embraced by the SF leader and lavishly praised by him.
The largest nationalist party proclaims that these violent acts, or for example the murder of Edgar Graham simply for being an elected representative of the unionist community, were not murder or even crimes. (A view I do not actually think is shared by most nationalists, I should add).
Quote from: Main Street on July 16, 2009, 12:30:43 AM
I was watching that film about Steve Biko the other night "Cry Freedom" and it struck me that (Justice Minister) Kruger's script could have been copied verbatim from various oft repeated lines trotted out on GAABoard by the owc equalising brigade.
Thank you. This is
precisely what I was talking about - right down to the hoary old shibboleth that themmuns = Boers/Afrikaners.
Of course, you don't even give a single example.
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
a - yes I would say the Army acted irresponsibly on occassions. The troubles were a murky business and I would say collusion was not exclusively with Loyalists.
b - yes
c- no
d - i'm not a Christian
e - i'm not sure I would vote for the GFA again. Seeing those who maimed and murdered walking free after a couple of months/years is hard to take.
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
a) yes - certainly they acted irresponsibly on occassion, certainly some of them where scumbags, collusion surely happened across the range of paramilitary groups.
b) certainly as bad - the actions of these groups where not something I would have any time for at all. On top of their sectarian murders etc their intimidation tactics in their own areas showed them for what they are.
c) which actions in particular? Certainly I dont believe the murders, the indiscriminate bombings, the removal of peoples livelihoods by the destruction of commercial properties etc could be justified.
d) I am not christian, but I do believe people can change. I dont particularly like seeing people with the backgrounds they have in positions of power (this includes ira men, uvf men or those who incited hatred like paisley) but if they can continue to work in improving the place ill accept it, and hope that we can move towards politicians we can dislike for the right reasons - because politicians are all slimy feckers.
e) Yes, and i would vote for it again as the difference between what we have now and what we had before is massive. Certainly there is unpalatable bits for all of us im sure - terrorists freed, said politicians in power, SF support for police - but it is simply not conceivable to go back.
They used to say the Catholics could live beside Protestants but Protestants wouldn't live beside Catholics. Unfortunately there's a young generation of taig that is just mimicking the other. I'm moving to Kerry.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 16, 2009, 11:12:49 PM]
I meant if the match was at Casement - I've only a passing interest in gaelic football, so I wouldn't be travelling to Monaghan for a game. If it was on my doorstep I'd go along.
Of course you would. Bring evil dunce with you ;)
Quote from: MW on July 16, 2009, 11:46:40 PM
There are plenty of sectarian attacks that have emanated from the nationalist side, such as the family burned out of their home in Dunclug only this week.
To say that C18, BNP and NF are "accepted within unionist areas" is rubbish also. And wouldn't it be a bit odd if far right British nationalists were found in Irish nationalist areas? Certainly there are violent ultra-nationalist groups, capable and willing to murder, no less, out there in Irish-nationalist areas (I wouldn't say "accepted", however). By the way, on the BNP, this may have escaped your attention but DUP MEP Diane Dodds actually gave a lead in the European Parliament this week by refusing to take her allocated seat beside Nick Griffin.
As for "intolerant" politicans - oh dear. You've completey forgotten Sinn Féin - politicans from a movement that murdered people because of their religion, their nationality, and their political opinion. 'Bik' McFarlane, a sectarian mass murderer who massacred five Protestants by bombing a bar and machine-gunning a bus stop, seemed to be a respected figure and commentator in many nationalist/republican circles today. The Balcombe Street gang, who threw bombs loaded with ball-bearings into restaurants and bars to maim and murder people simply because they were British, were cheered at the SF ard fheis and literally embraced by the SF leader and lavishly praised by him.
The largest nationalist party proclaims that these violent acts, or for example the murder of Edgar Graham simply for being an elected representative of the unionist community, were not murder or even crimes. (A view I do not actually think is shared by most nationalists, I should add).
So how about actually addressing the points my post next time instead of the history lecture.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 16, 2009, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:30:51 PM
Roger they [the OO] would be irrevelent to most people if they chose not to walk in areas they are not wanted,
No doubt that would help. And in Ardoyne, at any rate, there seems little doubt that the trouble was caused by people coming in from outside, whom the local people didn't want there.
And would there have been any trouble if the parade wasn't "forced" back past the shops?
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
I'd take that as the starting point to be honest.
As you well know the problems started long before this:
recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?I'd be asking if they recognised that the unionist/loyalist administration were guilty/culpable etc
I dont ever expect that people from a unionist/loyalist side of the population will want to admit to this as I am sure the feeling of guilt must be ovewhelming, but apart from pointing it out on here to demonstrate that it WASNT like for like - Iwould prefer to while acknowledging that this was the root cause of trouble, we just get on with life and try to forge an equal society in the north of Ireland while waitng for the inevitable reunification.
also its a bit rich for mw to be commenting on the usual trotted out lines on what the ira did etc etc - when there was a whole raft of persecution/apartheid performed by the colluding forces/loyalist/unionists BEFORE (50 years and more) and AFTER ceasefire.
Now that there is no longer life threatening issues to nationalist/republican/catholic/Irish people - the problem of ira etc and defence/retaliation has gone away. Not so on the unionist/loyalist side however in terms of 'ceasefire' until recently thats if they have 'ceased fire' yet. Even apart from those goons, the unionist/loyalist politicians still come out with anti Irish/anti everything non british etc dispora.
They have still yet to fully move on.
While the police are not as bad as before, they still have as yet to be overhauled and a proper hierarchy put in to rid the force of the old bitter guard (that allows and indeed enforces the likes of the mcdaid affair and the continuing 'taunting' around the provocative flags and banners in nationalist areas rubbish).
All little points regarding the deaths and terrible actions of the 35 years war are superseeded by the actions as I mentioned above of the administration (local gov and b specials etc etc) which caused all of that.
But once that is understood, we all want to move society onwards.
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
On some occasions they did yes. They colluded with both sides in a strategic dirty game which on occasions broke the law. They should be held accountable under the law. But largely they did a good and successful job when deployed in Northern Ireland.
Quoteb) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
Yes. No difference between them.
Quotec) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
Mass murder, maiming, intimidation, destruction of property, drug dealing, racketeering etc etc. Nothing justifies that.
Quoted) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
Yes. My understanding of Christian forgiveness is that repentance is required.
Quotee) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
I voted no then and would vote no now. I would never vote for letting the terrorists out of jail given the horrendous crimes that they committed. The Belfast Agreement was flawed but devolved government is a good outcome of it.
its almost funny that the ira are supposed to have been a drug dealing organisation and that there was (equal) collusion going on with british army/gov/establishment and ira as much as with the loyalist/unionst groups !
this is the new method of 'equalising' and lessening guilt it seems !
also that the only terrorists and wrong doers seemed to be the nationalist/republicans or loyalist/unionsts wheras the local gov/british army/ruc/b specials/politicians who were equally culpable of causing death, destruction, terror, persecution and problems
were all stand-up guys and were not in any way 'jailable'.
Some blinkered thinking or more so regurgitated propaganda seen about the place isnt there !
We all know about the collusion that went on with the Loyalist side-UDA,UDR etc but Im wondering about Collusion with republicans? Are you talking about infiltration and spies or was there more to it than that?
Lynchboy you talk about the Local Govt,British Army,politicians etc being equally to blame.While I would agree with you and make the point that the British Govt in London were most to blame IMO, it is also worth noting that the Irish Govt in Dublin and also the Catholic Church had a part to play in some bad times in the Troubles.
At a time when innocent Irish and Catholic men,women and children were being killed and persecuted during the Troubles the lack of action(bar the odd exception) from both these establishments was sickening.
Quote from: boojangles on July 17, 2009, 02:17:16 PM
We all know about the collusion that went on with the Loyalist side-UDA,UDR etc but Im wondering about Collusion with republicans? Are you talking about infiltration and spies or was there more to it than that?
Lynchboy you talk about the Local Govt,British Army,politicians etc being equally to blame.While I would agree with you and make the point that the British Govt in London were most to blame IMO, it is also worth noting that the Irish Govt in Dublin and also the Catholic Church had a part to play in some bad times in the Troubles.
At a time when innocent Irish and Catholic men,women and children were being killed and persecuted during the Troubles the lack of action(bar the odd exception) from both these establishments was sickening.
I'd agree with you on the Irish Gov to a far lesser degree alright
the Catholic church one though is a conundrum, we measure their lack of action based on modern day demands but back in the day while they had power of a sort, they were kept quiet by the establishment and in a way they were expected to keep quiet because to react and effectively oppose what was going on even vocally was at that stage tantamout to violence. From recollection they tried to avoid this.
Looking back on it now as older people with more experience we canot believe how such 'quasi-powerful' people could remain so fecking mute when all this was going on is hard to fathom. Different times imo.But the whole fecking country was backwards , from the persecution activities in the north of the country to the lack of understanding and ability to get to grips with it by the gov in the south (and indeed catholic church etc).
we all now shake our heads when we see this kind of stuff happening in the third world war torn countries yet we were the same in the late 60's / early 70's !
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
a) No doubt elements within the Army behaved v.irresponsibly (criminally, in fact) during the Troubles. That said, I firmly believe that had they not been there to "hold the ring", the all-out war which would have followed would have been immeasurably worse, i.e. closely akin to the Irish Civil War, or the Balkans or Lebanon etc;
b) Absolutely;
c) No;
d) I'm not a Christian, so can't really comment. I was always hugely impressed eg by Gordon Wilson or Noreen Hill's response to the Enniskillen Massacre, but also feel that the response of another Christian such as Jim Dixon to be no less valid:
http://www.cist.org.uk/pv/em/er2521.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/dec/30/northernireland.rosiecowan
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980621/ai_n14475280/pg_2/?tag=content;col1 (see esp pg.2);
e) Compromise was certainly necessary, I supported the GFA then and I'd do so again. That said, the eventual Compromise was not one I'd have chosen if it were down to me; in the end I feel we Unionists who accepted the GFA felt compelled to do so by the powers that be (esp Tony B Liar).
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
I assume your motives in asking your list of questions are genuine enough, but can you not see that this last comment betrays a (no doubt subconscious) notion that "themmuns is all the same", when in fact Unionists/Loyalists are no more of a monolithic bloc than Nationalists/Republicans?
Or did you not notice eg that at the last European Election, the Unionist vote was pretty evenly split between 3 parties who largely hate each other?
Quote from: Roger on July 17, 2009, 11:57:34 AM
Quoted) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
Yes. My understanding of Christian forgiveness is that repentance is required.
Not necessary if the forgiveness is coming from an individual Christian. The repentance bit is Catholic Theology/Confession and all that.
Sad to see the Unionists (even the relatively moderate ones on here) can still not open their eyes and admit that the political slum they ran in the SiX Counties from 1922 caused the problem.
Until they confront and deal with that there will never be real progress.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 17, 2009, 03:29:22 PM
Sad to see the Unionists (even the relatively moderate ones on here) can still not open their eyes and admit that the political slum they ran in the SiX Counties from 1922 caused the problem.
Until they confront and deal with that there will never be real progress.
Notwithstanding that "Who caused the problem" was not actually one of Stibhan's original questions :o, can we take it that you don't accept that there has been any "progress" in recent years? Or that any such progress achieved is solely down to non-Unionists?
In my experience, these things are never "black and white", but whilst Unionists must not avoid taking responsibility for their part in events, there have nonetheless been several major (and mostly welcome) changes within NI in the last decade, during which time the overall political and constitutional settlement has not basically changed since 1922.
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
This being so, Unionists have now responded by agreeing to Republicans being granted power-sharing as-of-right, even though such an arrangement does not really exist in other Western democracies.
Of course, that still leaves the question of how much "credit" you give Republicans* for putting down the bomb and the gun. Clearly, they feel this gave them "bargaining rights" in the subsequent political process, whereas I consider it was only the very least they could do (and their "Loyalist" [
sic] counterparts, too, btw), i.e. as a necessary pre-requisite for involvement.
Oh well.
* - When I listen eg to Gerry Adams talking about what a "contribution" to Peace the IRA made (i.e. by stopping the "War"), I am reminded of that comedian (name escapes me) who used to make a living in Las Vegas by taking the p1ss out of Frank Sinatra in his routines. Until one night he came out on stage and started his act as follows:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you all know, I have in the past I have been very critical of Frank Sinatra for his association with the Mob etc. But tonight I would like to put on public record my sincere thanks to Mr. Sinatra for saving me life. You see, I was walking to the theatre this afternoon to get ready for my show, when a gang of hoods dragged me into an alley and started beating the sh1t out of me. I thought I was going to die, until Mr. Sinatra appeared and said: 'That's all right guys, he's had enough...'"
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
Notwithstanding that "Who caused the problem" was not actually one of Stibhan's original questions :o, can we take it that you don't accept that there has been any "progress" in recent years? Or that any such progress achieved is solely down to non-Unionists? *
In my experience, these things are never "black and white", but whilst Unionists must not avoid taking responsibility for their part in events, there have nonetheless been several major (and mostly welcome) changes within NI in the last decade,
Agree with that
* I'd actually put that down as 'mostly ' rather than solely !
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
It is not I who is telling himself that.
Rather, it is almost all of those who would formerly have seen NI subsumed into a UI now publicly having changed their stance, by signing up to the GFA. Most crucial amongst these is the Irish Government, when it deleted Articles 2 and 3. Or the British Government, when it signed the GFA. Or United States, when it assisted in negotiating that agreement. Or the UN, when it accepted the GFA for ratification. Or the IRA, when they agreed to stop trying to bomb and shoot us into a UI. Or most of all, the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, North and South, when they voted for an agreement the cornerstone of which is/was that
the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees.Quite frankly, that is good enough for me, without the added "bonus" of seeing NI's former sworn enemies* taking their seats in the very Stormont they had previously pledged to smash, in the course of helping administer British rule in Ireland.
Your "Day Has Come", all right. Unfortunately for you, you also appear to have blinked at the wrong moment and so never noticed that it has also "Gone"! :D
* - That's the IRA, in case it hasn't clicked. You know, people like Gerry Kelly, most recently observed condemning Nationalist rioters in Ardoyne for lobbing petrol bombs at Peelers etc, as they (PSNI) maintain the right of the Orange Order to parade along the, ahem, Queen's Highway... ;)
Quote from: ONeill on July 17, 2009, 09:07:00 AM
They used to say the Catholics could live beside Protestants but Protestants wouldn't live beside Catholics. Unfortunately there's a young generation of taig that is just mimicking the other. I'm moving to Kerry.
I
I live beside a Protestant family in a small town in Munster for a few years... I was there at least a year before I realised their religion... is how it should be. John Lennon had the right idea...
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:50:37 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
It is not I who is telling himself that.
Rather, it is almost all of those who would formerly have seen NI subsumed into a UI now publicly having changed their stance, by signing up to the GFA. Most crucial amongst these is the Irish Government, when it deleted Articles 2 and 3. Or the British Government, when it signed the GFA. Or United States, when it assisted in negotiating that agreement. Or the UN, when it accepted the GFA for ratification. Or the IRA, when they agreed to stop trying to bomb and shoot us into a UI. Or most of all, the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, North and South, when they voted for an agreement the cornerstone of which is/was that the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees.
Quite frankly, that is good enough for me, without the added "bonus" of seeing NI's former sworn enemies* taking their seats in the very Stormont they had previously pledged to smash, in the course of helping administer British rule in Ireland.
Your "Day Has Come", all right. Unfortunately for you, you also appear to have blinked at the wrong moment and so never noticed that it has also "Gone"! :D
* - That's the IRA, in case it hasn't clicked. You know, people like Gerry Kelly, most recently observed condemning Nationalist rioters in Ardoyne for lobbing petrol bombs at Peelers etc, as they (PSNI) maintain the right of the Orange Order to parade along the, ahem, Queen's Highway... ;)
thats no problem to me in the slightest, pity youhave to console yourself with all that !
As long as our day doesnt come too soon and that we can economically afford to take back on the six counites, withthe money from british gov for a few years to help ease this reunification back in, then we shoul dbe ok.
Until then, I think most are happy that we no longer have the previous apartheid system and persecution of nationalists/catholics/republicans etc
and that this plateau is fine until the next step is ready to be embarked upon.
its moving in the right diretion and still moving that way .Most definitely a long way from never never never ! !
:D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
Well it works both ways.Because as a resident of a border County in the Republic,I can also state that the North has never been more part of Ireland,from what I remember.No more stopping at Check points,no more fear of having a White Car reg being spotted,etc. Southerners don't think twice about going up the North anymore.Enniskillen is far more accessible than Navan or wherever these days.The days of the British forces blowing up bridges to stop the Free Staters getting in are long gone.And in reality, it is only going to get better,or worse which ever way you see it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:50:37 PM
It is not I who is telling himself that.
Rather, it is almost all of those who would formerly have seen NI subsumed into a UI now publicly having changed their stance, by signing up to the GFA. Most crucial amongst these is the Irish Government, when it deleted Articles 2 and 3. Or the British Government, when it signed the GFA. Or United States, when it assisted in negotiating that agreement. Or the UN, when it accepted the GFA for ratification. Or the IRA, when they agreed to stop trying to bomb and shoot us into a UI. Or most of all, the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, North and South, when they voted for an agreement the cornerstone of which is/was that the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees.
Quite frankly, that is good enough for me, without the added "bonus" of seeing NI's former sworn enemies* taking their seats in the very Stormont they had previously pledged to smash, in the course of helping administer British rule in Ireland.
Your "Day Has Come", all right. Unfortunately for you, you also appear to have blinked at the wrong moment and so never noticed that it has also "Gone"! :D
* - That's the IRA, in case it hasn't clicked. You know, people like Gerry Kelly, most recently observed condemning Nationalist rioters in Ardoyne for lobbing petrol bombs at Peelers etc, as they (PSNI) maintain the right of the Orange Order to parade along the, ahem, Queen's Highway... ;)
You said "
NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK" by virtue of the statement "
the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees".
Now considering that pre-GFA we had the Government of Ireland Act which asserted 'Royal' authority over the six counties with no suggestion that it could ever be released from the 'UK' to a position were you say the constitutional position can change, then the point you make from your own logic is totally nonsensical.
For some reason you lump in the meaningless Articles 2 & 3 as if there was a prospect if the Irish Army invading while at the same time omitting to mention the demographical changes which will make your statement on the majority of people voting for it a distinct possibility in the very near future. I'm afraid the childish taunting doesn't actually carry any weight in the real world, though it doesn't surprise me that you feel the six counties are more secure in the UK - reading the news reports from home every day still is no substitute for the real thing.
Quote from: boojangles on July 17, 2009, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
Well it works both ways.Because as a resident of a border County in the Republic,I can also state that the North has never been more part of Ireland,from what I remember.No more stopping at Check points,no more fear of having a White Car reg being spotted,etc. Southerners don't think twice about going up the North anymore.Enniskillen is far more accessible than Navan or wherever these days.The days of the British forces blowing up bridges to stop the Free Staters getting in are long gone.And in reality, it is only going to get better,or worse which ever way you see it.
While I agree that the day to day integration has started,and as southern folk are now going up (mostly to shop) in the northern six counties, we know that the previously entrenched northern 6 county unionist/loyalists are no longer staying inside 'the border' and afraid of Dublin, they are living nd working down here now - a phenomenon we (and cerainly they) couldnt contemplate 20 years ago.
The Celtic tiger and money has a lot of credit for that.
In terms of peace and integration its only ever going to get better.
The problem is with our rubbish gov policies and structures. We couldnt possibly take on anything until there is a restructure and the dross/deadwood/waste is taken out of gov/policy/legislation/procedrures/civil service etc.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: boojangles on July 17, 2009, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 17, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
That is, NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK, which status will not change until a majority of its people so agree. And if we have seen progress and improvement in NI during the last decade, the primary reason for that is that those Republicans who were opposed to NI's position within the Union have now stopped trying to change that by violent means. Moreover, they are now tacitly accepting NI's constitutional status (even if you couldn't get them to admit it openly with electrodes applied to their testicles).
LOL
you keep telliing yourself that , you may convince yourself but in reality I think yer the only one
great amusement for the rest of us though !
Well it works both ways.Because as a resident of a border County in the Republic,I can also state that the North has never been more part of Ireland,from what I remember.No more stopping at Check points,no more fear of having a White Car reg being spotted,etc. Southerners don't think twice about going up the North anymore.Enniskillen is far more accessible than Navan or wherever these days.The days of the British forces blowing up bridges to stop the Free Staters getting in are long gone.And in reality, it is only going to get better,or worse which ever way you see it.
While I agree that the day to day integration has started,and as southern folk are now going up (mostly to shop) in the northern six counties, we know that the previously entrenched northern 6 county unionist/loyalists are no longer staying inside 'the border' and afraid of Dublin, they are living nd working down here now - a phenomenon we (and cerainly they) couldnt contemplate 20 years ago.
The Celtic tiger and money has a lot of credit for that.
In terms of peace and integration its only ever going to get better.
The problem is with our rubbish gov policies and structures. We couldnt possibly take on anything until there is a restructure and the dross/deadwood/waste is taken out of gov/policy/legislation/procedrures/civil service etc.
I don't get ya here?
Quote from: boojangles on July 17, 2009, 05:14:01 PM
While I agree that the day to day integration has started,and as southern folk are now going up (mostly to shop) in the northern six counties, we know that the previously entrenched northern 6 county unionist/loyalists are no longer staying inside 'the border' and afraid of Dublin, they are living nd working down here now - a phenomenon we (and cerainly they) couldnt contemplate 20 years ago.
The Celtic tiger and money has a lot of credit for that.
In terms of peace and integration its only ever going to get better.
The problem is with our rubbish gov policies and structures. We couldnt possibly take on anything until there is a restructure and the dross/deadwood/waste is taken out of gov/policy/legislation/procedrures/civil service etc.
I don't get ya here?
[/quote]
I think our governance systems are a mess eg the financial regulator that doesnt have actual policies or legislation beneath the headings of the areas that this section presides over.
we need to get our 'house in order' before we take on the northern six counties,the local gov and peoples that will come along with this new territory.
We cant integrate their systems into ours as ours is a mess, theres no point in trying to make theirs/them adhere to our structures because our structures are a mess
you see what I mean - yes I know this is getting down to the nitty gritty and v low level, but this is the stage we are at with this integration effictively imminent !
Not once, even through all the worst of times, did I ever doubt that there was a sound moral rational basis to militant opposition to active British occupation.
Overall, imo, I have absolutely no doubt that we would be a much worse place without the IRA, the 30 years of armed opposition and the powerful impact of protests such as those in the hunger strike era.
I accept that others may sincerely believe there was a sound moral base to armed suppression of the nationalist militancy but I wont hold that against them in times more peaceful. It's way past the time to move on.
Unstoppably, eventually, to a united Ireland, of course.
Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: MW on July 16, 2009, 11:46:40 PM
There are plenty of sectarian attacks that have emanated from the nationalist side, such as the family burned out of their home in Dunclug only this week.
To say that C18, BNP and NF are "accepted within unionist areas" is rubbish also. And wouldn't it be a bit odd if far right British nationalists were found in Irish nationalist areas? Certainly there are violent ultra-nationalist groups, capable and willing to murder, no less, out there in Irish-nationalist areas (I wouldn't say "accepted", however). By the way, on the BNP, this may have escaped your attention but DUP MEP Diane Dodds actually gave a lead in the European Parliament this week by refusing to take her allocated seat beside Nick Griffin.
As for "intolerant" politicans - oh dear. You've completey forgotten Sinn Féin - politicans from a movement that murdered people because of their religion, their nationality, and their political opinion. 'Bik' McFarlane, a sectarian mass murderer who massacred five Protestants by bombing a bar and machine-gunning a bus stop, seemed to be a respected figure and commentator in many nationalist/republican circles today. The Balcombe Street gang, who threw bombs loaded with ball-bearings into restaurants and bars to maim and murder people simply because they were British, were cheered at the SF ard fheis and literally embraced by the SF leader and lavishly praised by him.
The largest nationalist party proclaims that these violent acts, or for example the murder of Edgar Graham simply for being an elected representative of the unionist community, were not murder or even crimes. (A view I do not actually think is shared by most nationalists, I should add).
So how about actually addressing the points my post next time instead of the history lecture.
I addressed your points in my post above. Quite clearly so that you couldn't miss them.
But given that this was a successful refuation of what you said, you've decided to avoid what I've said, and try to ignore it rather than addressing what I've said.
Shoot and scoot, eh, Donagh? Quelle surprise ::)
Quote from: Donagh on July 16, 2009, 08:59:08 AM
I don't see that written anywhere, but how do you explain the intolerance and sectarianism within unionism i.e.,A why are the sectarian murders not repeated within nationalism/republicanism?, the racist attacks?, where is the equivalent of the orange and black men?, Bwhere are the politicians in the same intolerant model as Wilson?, Paisley, McCausland etc?, Cwhy are racist groups such as C18, BNP and NF only accepted within unionist areas?
Quote from: MW on July 16, 2009, 11:46:40 PM
AThere are plenty of sectarian attacks that have emanated from the nationalist side, such as the family burned out of their home in Dunclug only this week.
CTo say that C18, BNP and NF are "accepted within unionist areas" is rubbish also. And wouldn't it be a bit odd if far right British nationalists were found in Irish nationalist areas? Certainly there are violent ultra-nationalist groups, capable and willing to murder, no less, out there in Irish-nationalist areas (I wouldn't say "accepted", however). By the way, on the BNP, this may have escaped your attention but DUP MEP Diane Dodds actually gave a lead in the European Parliament this week by refusing to take her allocated seat beside Nick Griffin.
BAs for "intolerant" politicans - oh dear. You've completey forgotten Sinn Féin - politicans from a movement that murdered people because of their religion, their nationality, and their political opinion. 'Bik' McFarlane, a sectarian mass murderer who massacred five Protestants by bombing a bar and machine-gunning a bus stop, seemed to be a respected figure and commentator in many nationalist/republican circles today. The Balcombe Street gang, who threw bombs loaded with ball-bearings into restaurants and bars to maim and murder people simply because they were British, were cheered at the SF ard fheis and literally embraced by the SF leader and lavishly praised by him.
The largest nationalist party proclaims that these violent acts, or for example the murder of Edgar Graham simply for being an elected representative of the unionist community, were not murder or even crimes. (A view I do not actually think is shared by most nationalists, I should add).
Little idiot's guide for you there, Donagh.
Not that you're an idiot, just nigh on incapable of proper debate it see,s
Quote from: stibhan on July 17, 2009, 01:08:52 AM
Do the unionists who continually complain about the troubles and the IRA's involvement in them on this board...
a) recognise that the British Army acted irresponsibly during the troubles, possibly meaning collusion, possibly meaning a type of osmosis with the UVF?
b) believe that the Loyalist paramilitaries were as bad as the IRA?
c) believe that some of the IRA's actions were justified?
d) believe that the concept of Christian forgiveness can extend to those who maimed and murdered innocents in the troubles?
e) feel that the GFA was the best compromise available?
Only curious, really. I'm just not overly sure if you're all coming from the same spot.
a - yes and yes - though 'collusion' also worked in terms of republican organisations. And yes there were some 'dual members' of the security forces and UVF.
b - yes
c - no
d - I would say it would but I'm not a Christian
e - yes
Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:44:30 PM
I addressed your points in my post above. Quite clearly so that you couldn't miss them.
But given that this was a successful refuation of what you said, you've decided to avoid what I've said, and try to ignore it rather than addressing what I've said.
Shoot and scoot, eh, Donagh? Quelle surprise ::)
No you didn't, you went of on some irrelevant rant about something that happened 40 years ago. In case you missed it, we're discussing the present, but sure I wouldn't expect you to deal with the real world.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 17, 2009, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 16, 2009, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 16, 2009, 02:30:51 PM
Roger they [the OO] would be irrevelent to most people if they chose not to walk in areas they are not wanted,
No doubt that would help. And in Ardoyne, at any rate, there seems little doubt that the trouble was caused by people coming in from outside, whom the local people didn't want there.
And would there have been any trouble if the parade wasn't "forced" back past the shops?
EG question still stands.
Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:57:47 PM
Little idiot's guide for you there, Donagh.
Not that you're an idiot, just nigh on incapable of proper debate it see,s
Maybe you should go back and address the original points before trying to bullshit your way out.
Quote from: hardstation on July 18, 2009, 12:35:26 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 16, 2009, 07:43:50 PM
And in Ardoyne, at any rate, there seems little doubt that the trouble was caused by people coming in from outside, whom the local people didn't want there.
There is irony in there somewhere but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Sums the whole bleeding mess up really doesnt it!
Il ask the Question again,A few people (MW,Roger) hav mentioned about collusion with Republicans.Im not denying it didnt happen,but I would like to hear to what extent,because its something I never really heard off,bar spies and the like.
I think the little slogan under boojangles avatar says it all about this thread & those who started it :'(
Quote from: Donagh on July 18, 2009, 12:08:49 AM
Quote from: MW on July 17, 2009, 09:44:30 PM
I addressed your points in my post above. Quite clearly so that you couldn't miss them.
But given that this was a successful refuation of what you said, you've decided to avoid what I've said, and try to ignore it rather than addressing what I've said.
Shoot and scoot, eh, Donagh? Quelle surprise ::)
No you didn't, you went of on some irrelevant rant about something that happened 40 years ago. In case you missed it, we're discussing the present, but sure I wouldn't expect you to deal with the real world.
I didn't mention
anything that happened 40 years ago. Perhaps I was wrong about your lack of idiocy?
The burning out of a Protestant family in Dunclug this week seems pretty present to me.
As indeed does the presence of violent ultra-nationalists such as the RIRA, CIRA and ONH.
And I'm pretty sure 'Bik' McFarlane exists in the present day and that his position as a 'respected' republican figure and commentator is also in the present.
Do you have a time machine or something?
Quote from: Donagh on July 17, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 17, 2009, 04:50:37 PM
It is not I who is telling himself that.
Rather, it is almost all of those who would formerly have seen NI subsumed into a UI now publicly having changed their stance, by signing up to the GFA. Most crucial amongst these is the Irish Government, when it deleted Articles 2 and 3. Or the British Government, when it signed the GFA. Or United States, when it assisted in negotiating that agreement. Or the UN, when it accepted the GFA for ratification. Or the IRA, when they agreed to stop trying to bomb and shoot us into a UI. Or most of all, the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, North and South, when they voted for an agreement the cornerstone of which is/was that the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees.
Quite frankly, that is good enough for me, without the added "bonus" of seeing NI's former sworn enemies* taking their seats in the very Stormont they had previously pledged to smash, in the course of helping administer British rule in Ireland.
Your "Day Has Come", all right. Unfortunately for you, you also appear to have blinked at the wrong moment and so never noticed that it has also "Gone"! :D
* - That's the IRA, in case it hasn't clicked. You know, people like Gerry Kelly, most recently observed condemning Nationalist rioters in Ardoyne for lobbing petrol bombs at Peelers etc, as they (PSNI) maintain the right of the Orange Order to parade along the, ahem, Queen's Highway... ;)
You said "NI is (more than ever) firmly a part of the UK" by virtue of the statement "the constitutional position of NI shall not change unless or until a majority of the people of NI (only) so agrees".
Now considering that pre-GFA we had the Government of Ireland Act which asserted 'Royal' authority over the six counties with no suggestion that it could ever be released from the 'UK' to a position were you say the constitutional position can change, then the point you make from your own logic is totally nonsensical.
Have you actually never heard of the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973?
Or for that matter, the Ireland Act 1949?
If not, I'd suggest you look them up. (While you're at it, give the Anglo-Irish Agreement a wee read too)
Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 12:54:58 PM
Il ask the Question again,A few people (MW,Roger) hav mentioned about collusion with Republicans.Im not denying it didnt happen,but I would like to hear to what extent,because its something I never really heard off,bar spies and the like.
The security forces protection of spies amounted to collusion on both sides. However republicans tend to prefer to denounce their own people as touts rather than talk about collusion. For example, Brian Nelson is big evidence for collusion but Denis Donaldson was simply a tout.
Quote from: Roger on July 19, 2009, 02:11:11 AM
Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 12:54:58 PM
Il ask the Question again,A few people (MW,Roger) hav mentioned about collusion with Republicans.Im not denying it didnt happen,but I would like to hear to what extent,because its something I never really heard off,bar spies and the like.
The security forces protection of spies amounted to collusion on both sides. However republicans tend to prefer to denounce their own people as touts rather than talk about collusion. For example, Brian Nelson is big evidence for collusion but Denis Donaldson was simply a tout.
Think you'll find that the majority of the senior loyalists were "in bed" with the crown forces, the few Republicans that were passing information were touts as their section of society would have been naturally anti "crown forces" so to collude would have taken a strong reason - normally blackmail.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 19, 2009, 02:22:06 AM
Quote from: Roger on July 19, 2009, 02:11:11 AM
Quote from: boojangles on July 18, 2009, 12:54:58 PM
Il ask the Question again,A few people (MW,Roger) hav mentioned about collusion with Republicans.Im not denying it didnt happen,but I would like to hear to what extent,because its something I never really heard off,bar spies and the like.
The security forces protection of spies amounted to collusion on both sides. However republicans tend to prefer to denounce their own people as touts rather than talk about collusion. For example, Brian Nelson is big evidence for collusion but Denis Donaldson was simply a tout.
Think you'll find that the majority of the senior loyalists were "in bed" with the crown forces, the few Republicans that were passing information were touts as their section of society would have been naturally anti "crown forces" so to collude would have taken a strong reason - normally blackmail.
See, by using the word collusion, it's implied, like in the Nelson case, that the person(s) colluding was/were planning murders etc with the full knowledge of the security services and operating under their direction - like doing what he was told by orchestrating Finucane's murder
Whereas, Donaldson wasn't in a position to influence Republican strategies as he wasn't in their 'trusted circle' - he was informing on various Republican activities.
'See, by using the word collusion, it's implied, like in the Nelson case, that the person(s) colluding was/were planning murders etc with the full knowledge of the security services and operating under their direction - like doing what he was told by orchestrating Finucane's murder
Whereas, Donaldson wasn't in a position to influence Republican strategies as he wasn't in their 'trusted circle' - he was informing on various Republican activities.'
And Scappaticci? Was he not interrogating and killing off 'informers' at the request of the British security services in order to take the heat off more highly placed agents like himself and Donaldson? Does that not fit your definition of collusion?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 19, 2009, 04:31:50 PM
'See, by using the word collusion, it's implied, like in the Nelson case, that the person(s) colluding was/were planning murders etc with the full knowledge of the security services and operating under their direction - like doing what he was told by orchestrating Finucane's murder
Whereas, Donaldson wasn't in a position to influence Republican strategies as he wasn't in their 'trusted circle' - he was informing on various Republican activities.'
And Scappaticci? Was he not interrogating and killing off 'informers' at the request of the British security services in order to take the heat off more highly placed agents like himself and Donaldson? Does that not fit your definition of collusion?
Myles you ask that as a Question,but is it true? Who are these informers that were killed off? If that is true it is still a far distance from the collusion that resulted in hundreds of Catholics/Irish people being murdered simply for their creed or nationality.
There is hard evidence in cases that involved Collusion between Loyalists and Crown forces-Dublin-Monaghan bombings spring to mind.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 19, 2009, 04:31:50 PM
'See, by using the word collusion, it's implied, like in the Nelson case, that the person(s) colluding was/were planning murders etc with the full knowledge of the security services and operating under their direction - like doing what he was told by orchestrating Finucane's murder
Whereas, Donaldson wasn't in a position to influence Republican strategies as he wasn't in their 'trusted circle' - he was informing on various Republican activities.'
And Scappaticci? Was he not interrogating and killing off 'informers' at the request of the British security services in order to take the heat off more highly placed agents like himself and Donaldson? Does that not fit your definition of collusion?
I know the point you are trying to make but I don't agree with where you are going. A republican is someone who wants a united Ireland. Scappaticci was aiding the British in their efforts to try and prevent the physical force side of republicanism. That makes Scappaticci a tout and not a republican. If he is not republican then I don't see how republicans and security forces were in collusion. The well documented occurances of Loyalism & security force collusion was a different beast. Loyalists were given details on republicans, a shared enemy. The security forces could allow loyalists to do the dirty work that they couldn't always get away with due to annoying thing called the law. Pat Finucane & Rosmary Nelson were disposed with as they were a thorn in the side of ssecurity forces. These acts cannot be compared to the placing of spys and touts in republican circles.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 19, 2009, 09:45:55 PM
The well documented occurances of Loyalism & security force collusion was a different beast. Loyalists were given details on republicans, a shared enemy. The security forces could allow loyalists to do the dirty work that they couldn't always get away with due to annoying thing called the law.
Did republicans working within the security forces never give similar details to republicans terror groups?
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 19, 2009, 09:45:55 PM
The well documented occurances of Loyalism & security force collusion was a different beast. Loyalists were given details on republicans, a shared enemy. The security forces could allow loyalists to do the dirty work that they couldn't always get away with due to annoying thing called the law.
Did republicans working within the security forces never give similar details to republicans terror groups?
Im not being smart but its like pulling teeth here. What evidence is there that republicans working within the security forces gave details to republican terror groups? Again Im not saying it didnt happen,but please back it up if you know something.
Quote from: boojangles on July 20, 2009, 01:31:14 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 12:11:28 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 19, 2009, 09:45:55 PM
The well documented occurances of Loyalism & security force collusion was a different beast. Loyalists were given details on republicans, a shared enemy. The security forces could allow loyalists to do the dirty work that they couldn't always get away with due to annoying thing called the law.
Did republicans working within the security forces never give similar details to republicans terror groups?
Im not being smart but its like pulling teeth here. What evidence is there that republicans working within the security forces gave details to republican terror groups? Again Im not saying it didnt happen,but please back it up if you know something.
Roger is trying to imply that there were a few bad apples in the RUC that gave info to both sides. He is trying to suggest that both are the same while ignoring the fact that most likely collusion was a
policy within agencies of the RUC and not limited to a few bad apples. Roger may convince himself of the truth of this but not me. Some of the stuff found in loyalist hands came from senior sources in the RUC.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Roger is trying to imply that there were a few bad apples in the RUC that gave info to both sides. He is trying to suggest that both are the same while ignoring the fact that most likely collusion was a policy within agencies of the RUC and not limited to a few bad apples. Roger may convince himself of the truth of this but not me. Some of the stuff found in loyalist hands came from senior sources in the RUC.
I have no doubt that bad apples were more likely to be closer in viewpoint to loyalists. It was however not policy to collude for the advantage of any paramilitary organisation whether republican or loyalist. Your post even states "the fact that most probably" which shows the comical accusation has no evidence of this and that the only evidence is that bad apples from within worked for both sides of the paramilitary divide but the propaganda from republicans states clearly that there factually was probably collusion as it suits their agenda. The policy of the security forces was to defeat paramilitaries of all shades. The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Probably to do with Unionist paramilitaries being less well-organised and easier to penetrate.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on July 20, 2009, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Probably to do with Unionist paramilitaries being less well-organised and easier to penetrate.
but that glosses over that the unionists/loyalist groups were actually 'LEAD' by british army and special branch operatives
as Bojangles and myles say there was a bit of collusion from within republican side, loads of it from within unionist/loyalist sides - which extended to what I said ended up as being security forces going on 'missions' with the unionist/loyalist groups !
thats way above and beyond any bit of 'collusion' that was effected on republican side !
Quote from: fitzroyalty on July 20, 2009, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Probably to do with Unionist paramilitaries being less well-organised and easier to penetrate.
Easier to penetrate and easier to be penetrated by as they largely lived in the same community. Doesn't make it policy for security forces to assist loyalist paramilitaries and shows they impartially convicted far more per crime committed than republicans.
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:37:30 PM
Easier to penetrate and easier to be penetrated by as they largely lived in the same community. Doesn't make it policy for security forces to assist loyalist paramilitaries and shows they impartially convicted far more per crime committed than republicans.
I don't know about the broader security forces any widespread policy of collusion. I somehow doubt anyone round these e-parts does either (or ever will). There was a lot of murky stuff and certainly a lot of circumstancial evidence of collusion.
However, one pertinent point that can be made is that the British policy of using locally recruited military groups was a poor choice and was always likely to create issues. Haven seen the results of the "B-specials" it was a ridiculous decision to create the UDR. Any observer could see the dangers of creating a force that one side would see "theirs" and was tantamount to creating a protestant militia. It was bound to attract loyalist paramilitaries and also "borderlines" who wouldn't join an illegal organisation but were happy to get an outlet for revenge/anger/resentment/hatred. The subsequent convictions (almost 300) of UDR members for terrorist related crimes bore the truth of this out.
/Jim.
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
It was however not policy to collude for the advantage of any paramilitary organisation whether republican or loyalist.
What are you looking for? A piece of paper signed by Jack Herman saying "make sure you give all your info on Provos to the Loyalists"? The prima facie evidence of widepsread collusion is overwhelming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6286695.stm).
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 02:48:27 PM
However, one pertinent point that can be made is that the British policy of using locally recruited military groups was a poor choice and was always likely to create issues. Haven seen the results of the "B-specials" it was a ridiculous decision to create the UDR. Any observer could see the dangers of creating a force that one side would see "theirs" and was tantamount to creating a protestant militia. It was bound to attract loyalist paramilitaries and also "borderlines" who wouldn't join an illegal organisation but were happy to get an outlet for revenge/anger/resentment/hatred. The subsequent convictions (almost 300) of UDR members for terrorist related crimes bore the truth of this out.
/Jim.
Not only that, it was quite wrong to talk about the Provos as if they were one step below (or in EG's mind, exactly the same as) the Nazis, yet having dealt with the Nazis by raining fire down on their heads from 35,000 feet, the RUC were also expected to make sure Mrs Murphy's cat came down out of that tree.
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Roger is trying to imply that there were a few bad apples in the RUC that gave info to both sides. He is trying to suggest that both are the same while ignoring the fact that most likely collusion was a policy within agencies of the RUC and not limited to a few bad apples. Roger may convince himself of the truth of this but not me. Some of the stuff found in loyalist hands came from senior sources in the RUC.
I have no doubt that bad apples were more likely to be closer in viewpoint to loyalists. It was however not policy to collude for the advantage of any paramilitary organisation whether republican or loyalist. Your post even states "the fact that most probably" which shows the comical accusation has no evidence of this and that the only evidence is that bad apples from within worked for both sides of the paramilitary divide but the propaganda from republicans states clearly that there factually was probably collusion as it suits their agenda. The policy of the security forces was to defeat paramilitaries of all shades. The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Tell me Roger, who could have investigated this in order to come up with the hard evidence? The RUC? The same boys that dissappear files could be trusted to investigate themselves? The army perhaps? The same army that claimed Aidan McAnespie was shot in the back by a soldier whos gun went off by accident? The evidence is there but unfortunately the will or decency within the RUC or army was never there to act on it.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:37:30 PM
Easier to penetrate and easier to be penetrated by as they largely lived in the same community. Doesn't make it policy for security forces to assist loyalist paramilitaries and shows they impartially convicted far more per crime committed than republicans.
I don't know about the broader security forces any widespread policy of collusion. I somehow doubt anyone round these e-parts does either (or ever will). There was a lot of murky stuff and certainly a lot of circumstancial evidence of collusion.
However, one pertinent point that can be made is that the British policy of using locally recruited military groups was a poor choice and was always likely to create issues. Haven seen the results of the "B-specials" it was a ridiculous decision to create the UDR. Any observer could see the dangers of creating a force that one side would see "theirs" and was tantamount to creating a protestant militia. It was bound to attract loyalist paramilitaries and also "borderlines" who wouldn't join an illegal organisation but were happy to get an outlet for revenge/anger/resentment/hatred. The subsequent convictions (almost 300) of UDR members for terrorist related crimes bore the truth of this out.
/Jim.
The UDR had a similar set-up as the PSNI except the PSNI got discrimination in recruitment practice to ensure minority inclusion. At the time republican terrorists targeted the minority community members of the UDR and greatly assisted the polarised nature of its make-up. The alternative to localised recruitment was to have other army regiments from outside this region providing security here and thus fueling the hatred towards the Brits. As it was, the republicans were killing Irishmen and not English. Was this good or bad? Hard to know if any of us would have done differently at the time with the same info at the time. It's pretty difficult to live your life never mind operate the security of your family, friends and fellow countrymen when a bunch of lunatics are terrorising the place in the manner that was being done.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 03:41:36 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Roger is trying to imply that there were a few bad apples in the RUC that gave info to both sides. He is trying to suggest that both are the same while ignoring the fact that most likely collusion was a policy within agencies of the RUC and not limited to a few bad apples. Roger may convince himself of the truth of this but not me. Some of the stuff found in loyalist hands came from senior sources in the RUC.
I have no doubt that bad apples were more likely to be closer in viewpoint to loyalists. It was however not policy to collude for the advantage of any paramilitary organisation whether republican or loyalist. Your post even states "the fact that most probably" which shows the comical accusation has no evidence of this and that the only evidence is that bad apples from within worked for both sides of the paramilitary divide but the propaganda from republicans states clearly that there factually was probably collusion as it suits their agenda. The policy of the security forces was to defeat paramilitaries of all shades. The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Tell me Roger, who could have investigated this in order to come up with the hard evidence? The RUC? The same boys that dissappear files could be trusted to investigate themselves? The army perhaps? The same army that claimed Aidan McAnespie was shot in the back by a soldier whos gun went off by accident? The evidence is there but unfortunately the will or decency within the RUC or army was never there to act on it.
You don't need an investigation, you and other republicans have already decided.
And apparently so, amongst the decided, is the Police Ombudsman.
Roger it mite not interest you but if you are looking for an in-depth analysis of the Collusion that went on in the 70's between Loyalist terror gangs and the Crowns forces I would recommend you read Joe Tiernans book 'The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings and the Murder Triangle'. The man spent 2 full years researching for the book and it makes shocking reading.It goes into minute detail of the Planning,Organisation and Execution that went on that led to the 2 bombings and also countless other murders carried out in the Down,Armagh and Tyrone area. There are interviews with people whom he heavily implicated in the book.
You can say that there were a few bad apples working for both sides and that the policy of the security forces was to defeat terrorism but TBH this book makes a mockery of both them statements.
The point of the matter is that Hundreds more Republicans/Nationalists died due to Collusion with crown forces in comparison to Loyalists/Unionists during the Troubles.I believe that to be Fact.If you believe otherwise you are codding yourself.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 02:48:27 PM
However, one pertinent point that can be made is that the British policy of using locally recruited military groups was a poor choice and was always likely to create issues. Haven seen the results of the "B-specials" it was a ridiculous decision to create the UDR. Any observer could see the dangers of creating a force that one side would see "theirs" and was tantamount to creating a protestant militia. It was bound to attract loyalist paramilitaries and also "borderlines" who wouldn't join an illegal organisation but were happy to get an outlet for revenge/anger/resentment/hatred. The subsequent convictions (almost 300) of UDR members for terrorist related crimes bore the truth of this out.
/Jim.
Re. the "results of the B-specials", whilst I agree they were not suited to or trained for crowd control in urban areas etc, nonetheless, they were highly effective as an anti-guerilla force in rural areas and along the Border etc. Indeed, Tim Pat Coogan has stated:
"The B Specials were the rock on which any mass movement by the IRA in the North has inevitably floundered." ('The I.R.A.', HarperCollins, p. 37)
As for the practical results of their deployment, they simply cannot have been the unruly band of mass-murderers as typically described in Republican mythology, since during the entire IRA Border Campaign of 1956-62, the total numbers of fatalities on all sides were (I think) 8 IRA dead, 6 RUC and four civilians. (At least two of those IRA deaths were self-inflicted btw)
Quite simply, a combination of effective security measures and Internment (on
both sides of the Border) meant that the IRA campaign was an abysmal failure, with the the B-Specials' contribution to those security measures being a significant factor.
Of course, by the time of the next IRA campaign (from around 1970 onwards), the excesses of certain B-Special Units at early Civil Rights demonstrations etc had made them very controversial, and even more distrusted and feared by Catholics etc. Nonetheless, it was their undoubted effectiveness as an anti-Guerilla force which was key to the IRA's determination to see the B-Specials replaced at this period.
As for the force which eventually replaced them (UDR) your comments indicate you have very little knowledge or memory of the circumstances of their formation. Part of the problem which the RUC had faced was the need not just to be a police force, but also to have a certain military (i.e. anti-terrorist) capacity. This latter was partly supplied, albeit uneasily at times, by the B-Specials.
Consequently, the Hunt Report made two major recommendations in the wake of disbanding the Specials, namely that the RUC Reserve be created/expanded to provide policing back-up, and the UDR also be created i.e. to relieve the RUC of its former military function. And as regards the UDR, an essential element was that it be seen as a unit of the British Army, entirely differently recruited, trained and deployed from its (nominal) predecessor, the B-specials.
In particular, it was hoped to appeal to Catholics as well as Protestants. Moreover, it was also to be commanded at the highest level by regular military officers, often with an Irish background. Remember that this was less than two years after the Army had been welcomed to the streets of NI by Catholics offering cups of tea, in gratitude for the protection they were offering to Catholic communities from Protestant attack etc. Consequently, the first OC of the UDR was an Englishman, whose regular army service went back to WWII. His successor was another Englishman, Brigadier Ormerod, who was also a Catholic, whose family background was from the Irish Republic. Ormerod's Deputy was also Catholic, as was his successor as CO, Col. Paddy Ryan, whose father was actually from NI.
Consequently, from the first batch of applicants to join, almost 20% were Catholic (946 out of 4,791), a ratio which was reflected in the number eventually accepted. ( http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665 ).
Of course, subsequent events were to affect drastically the numbers of Catholics who remained in the UDR, most notably political developments such as Internment and Bloody Sunday etc, but also the fact that Catholics in the UDR were acutely vulnerable to attack by the IRA, who targeted them as their highest priority eg the third UDR man to be murdered was Catholic Sean Russell (30), shot in December 1971, whilst off-duty at his home in Ballymurphy and in front of his wife and family ( http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch71.htm )
Of course, as events subsequently unfolded during the Troubles, much about the UDR was to change in response, including its infiltration of certain units by Loyalist [
sic] paramilitaries etc. However, as Roger points out, the fact that 300 were to be convicted of serious crimes also proves that such infiltration and subsequent collusion cannot have been officially sanctioned by either the Security Forces or the Government, otherwise what would have been the point?
And in any case, the record clearly shows that your attempt to characterise the founding of the UDR as "the creation of a Protestant militia" is so far off the mark as to be utter nonsense.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
And in any case, the record clearly shows that your attempt to characterise the founding of the UDR as "the creation of a Protestant militia" is so far off the mark as to be utter nonsense.
That's not what I was saying. My point was that it would end up as such, as it did. You and Roger can argue that was the IRA's fault but that doesn't change the result. That's what I said it was a poor policy choice, rather than saying it was a deliberate choice.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
However, as Roger points out, the fact that 300 were to be convicted of serious crimes also proves that such infiltration and subsequent collusion cannot have been officially sanctioned by either the Security Forces or the Government, otherwise what would have been the point?
Not sure where he did point that out. However, I did preface my short observation with a statement that I didn't know whether collusion as a policy existed, so giving me a rebuttal on that one is a bit pointless.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
the excesses of certain B-Special Units at early Civil Rights demonstrations etc had made them very controversial
Indeed. However I don't agree with the analyis (yours or Hunts) that it was because they were a police, rather than military force was the issue.
/Jim.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
Re. the "results of the B-specials", whilst I agree they were not suited to or trained for crowd control in urban areas etc, nonetheless, they were highly effective as an anti-guerilla force in rural areas and along the Border etc.
and
the excesses of certain B-Special Units at early Civil Rights demonstrations etc had made them very controversial,
whats the explanation then of their 'terrorisation' of local communities and individuals - houses/identified nationalist leaders/GAA club captains/GAA chairmen etc etc - theres more to the problems of the b specials than t few bad episodes at civil rights marches ! !!
In particular, it was hoped to appeal to Catholics
didnt really work did it !
Remember that this was less than two years after the Army had been welcomed to the streets of NI by Catholics offering cups of tea, in gratitude for the protection they were offering to Catholic communities from Protestant attack etc.
that they HOPED they would get protection, shows you how bad it was doesnt it !
Consequently, the first OC of the UDR was an Englishman, whose regular army service went back to WWII. His successor was another Englishman, Brigadier Ormerod, who was also a Catholic, whose family background was from the Irish Republic. Ormerod's Deputy was also Catholic, as was his successor as CO, Col. Paddy Ryan, whose father was actually from NI.
that makes everything alright then ! ::)
Consequently, from the first batch of applicants to join, almost 20% were Catholic (946 out of 4,791), a ratio which was reflected in the number eventually accepted. ( http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665 ).
initially hopeful, how many applied after that ! I'd reckon not 20% , prob not even 2% !
Of course, subsequent events were to affect drastically the numbers of Catholics who remained in the UDR, most notably political developments such as Internment and Bloody Sunday etc, but also the fact that Catholics in the UDR were acutely vulnerable to attack by the IRA,
shouldnt have been killed, but I'd expect in response for the udr's record of violent abusiveness
Of course, as events subsequently unfolded during the Troubles, much about the UDR was to change in response, including its infiltration of certain units by Loyalist [sic] paramilitaries etc. However, as Roger points out, the fact that 300 were to be convicted of serious crimes also proves that such infiltration and subsequent collusion cannot have been officially sanctioned by either the Security Forces or the Government, otherwise what would have been the point?
ONLY 300 were convicted being the point !
And in any case, the record clearly shows that your attempt to characterise the founding of the UDR as "the creation of a Protestant militia" is so far off the mark as to be utter nonsense.
a protestant militia is what they ended up being....
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 04:50:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
And in any case, the record clearly shows that your attempt to characterise the founding of the UDR as "the creation of a Protestant militia" is so far off the mark as to be utter nonsense.
That's not what I was saying. My point was that it would end up as such, as it did. You and Roger can argue that was the IRA's fault but that doesn't change the result. That's what I said it was a poor policy choice, rather than saying it was a deliberate choice.
Fair enough, although you are so seemingly convinced of the inevitability of the UDR becoming "a protestant miliitia" etc, that the implication must either be that the Government/Army were neglectfully less perceptive than you, and/or were indifferent, even reckless, as to such a possibility.
In which case, I would be interested to know how you rate the chances of the PSNI in becoming a genuinely integrated force, drawing support and membership from both communities in NI, seeing as it has been created with the same good intentions as the UDR were originally...
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 04:50:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 04:37:28 PM
the excesses of certain B-Special Units at early Civil Rights demonstrations etc had made them very controversial
Indeed. However I don't agree with the analyis (yours or Hunts) that it was because they were a police, rather than military force was the issue.
I don't understand your point. By 1970, the USC was being required to carry out both a policing role (eg crowd control in urban areas) for which they were largely unsuited, as well as the quasi-military role (i.e. border patrolling and security) in which, as Tim Pat Coogan avers, they had formerly been extremely effective.
Therefore, the Hunt recommendations seem entirely logical to me i.e. replace the USC's policing function by the creation of the RUC Reserve, and replace their military function by a purely military unit (UDR), with the intention that both should henceforth be acceptable to both communities in NI.
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
'I know the point you are trying to make but I don't agree with where you are going. A republican is someone who wants a united Ireland. Scappaticci was aiding the British in their efforts to try and prevent the physical force side of republicanism. That makes Scappaticci a tout and not a republican. If he is not republican then I don't see how republicans and security forces were in collusion. The well documented occurances of Loyalism & security force collusion was a different beast. Loyalists were given details on republicans, a shared enemy. The security forces could allow loyalists to do the dirty work that they couldn't always get away with due to annoying thing called the law. Pat Finucane & Rosmary Nelson were disposed with as they were a thorn in the side of ssecurity forces. These acts cannot be compared to the placing of spys and touts in republican circles.'
While not all nationalists are republicans, all republicans are nationalists by definition. Therefore, you cannot deny that many nationalists (Scap, Donaldson, Gartland, Sean O'Callaghan, etc) worked with the security forces. You think that this can't be termed collusion simply because British forces were seeking to defend the union, while it would be impossible for any nationalist to hold this objective and still be termed a nationalist. Fair point. But it is possible to 'collude' on the basis of more than one objective. Many nationalists, while holding the aspiration for a reunified Ireland, were against the sectarian murder campaign launched by the IRA. They were therefore prepared to collude or collaborate with British forces in their shared objective of defeating the provos. That doesn't make them any kind of 'tout' or 'informer', just nationalists with the vision to see that the so called armed struggle was just pushing back the day when reunification could eventually be achieved.
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Roger is trying to imply that there were a few bad apples in the RUC that gave info to both sides. He is trying to suggest that both are the same while ignoring the fact that most likely collusion was a policy within agencies of the RUC and not limited to a few bad apples. Roger may convince himself of the truth of this but not me. Some of the stuff found in loyalist hands came from senior sources in the RUC.
I have no doubt that bad apples were more likely to be closer in viewpoint to loyalists. It was however not policy to collude for the advantage of any paramilitary organisation whether republican or loyalist. Your post even states "the fact that most probably" which shows the comical accusation has no evidence of this and that the only evidence is that bad apples from within worked for both sides of the paramilitary divide but the propaganda from republicans states clearly that there factually was probably collusion as it suits their agenda. The policy of the security forces was to defeat paramilitaries of all shades. The better stats by the security forces for arrest and conviction of loyalist paramilitaries is shows that impartiality to the defeat of terrorism.
Dunmurry RUC Station.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on July 20, 2009, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 20, 2009, 02:37:30 PM
Easier to penetrate and easier to be penetrated by as they largely lived in the same community. Doesn't make it policy for security forces to assist loyalist paramilitaries and shows they impartially convicted far more per crime committed than republicans.
I don't know about the broader security forces any widespread policy of collusion. I somehow doubt anyone round these e-parts does either (or ever will). There was a lot of murky stuff and certainly a lot of circumstancial evidence of collusion.
However, one pertinent point that can be made is that the British policy of using locally recruited military groups was a poor choice and was always likely to create issues. Haven seen the results of the "B-specials" it was a ridiculous decision to create the UDR. Any observer could see the dangers of creating a force that one side would see "theirs" and was tantamount to creating a protestant militia. It was bound to attract loyalist paramilitaries and also "borderlines" who wouldn't join an illegal organisation but were happy to get an outlet for revenge/anger/resentment/hatred. The subsequent convictions (almost 300) of UDR members for terrorist related crimes bore the truth of this out.
/Jim.
Isn't that a figure for all criminal offences?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
It's a while since I read TPC's book and it is now in storage elsewhere. However, his comment about the B Specials always stuck with me, so it was easy enough to Google. Speaking of which, whilst I naturally disagree with most (all?) of his analysis and opinion, nonetheless, if he asserts that the B-Men were the biggest obstacle to the IRA in NI, then I think we may both take his word on that!
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
It's a while since I read TPC's book and it is now in storage elsewhere. However, his comment about the B Specials always stuck with me, so it was easy enough to Google. Speaking of which, whilst I naturally disagree with most (all?) of his analysis and opinion, nonetheless, if he asserts that the B-Men were the biggest obstacle to the IRA in NI, then I think we may both take his word on that!
the b specials were one of the massive causes for the rise of the IRA in the north of Ireland !
they were not much use when disbanded just as the ira were starting to get going, so I dont know what the obstacle really was - uless we are talking about that approx window of a year or so !
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 20, 2009, 06:24:49 PM
While not all nationalists are republicans, all republicans are nationalists by definition. Therefore, you cannot deny that many nationalists (Scap, Donaldson, Gartland, Sean O'Callaghan, etc) worked with the security forces. You think that this can't be termed collusion simply because British forces were seeking to defend the union, while it would be impossible for any nationalist to hold this objective and still be termed a nationalist. Fair point. But it is possible to 'collude' on the basis of more than one objective. Many nationalists, while holding the aspiration for a reunified Ireland, were against the sectarian murder campaign launched by the IRA. They were therefore prepared to collude or collaborate with British forces in their shared objective of defeating the provos. That doesn't make them any kind of 'tout' or 'informer', just nationalists with the vision to see that the so called armed struggle was just pushing back the day when reunification could eventually be achieved.
You don't have the first clue, do you?
Donaldson et al were caught in compromising positions by British security services,
blackmailed into becoming informers and paid handsomely for their activities
Quote from: MW on July 20, 2009, 11:31:26 PM
Isn't that a figure for all criminal offences?
The source that I read it from was the Dáil debate record and I'm fairly sure it said "terrorism related". I can't find it online at the moment but I must admit that I read on OWC one time that the figure
probably included minor convictions.
If you want to argue that it wasn't that bad belt away but I think you'd be naive. I certainly believe you won't find another regiment in the British army with as a high a proportion of convicted murders/terrorists.
/Jim.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
???
Counting the catholics?, even the few who did make significant progress through the ranks, obviously had little or no influence on the effects of British/Unionist security policy, as experienced by Nationalists.
Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
???
Counting the catholics?, even the few who did make significant progress through the ranks, obviously had little or no influence on the effects of British/Unionist security policy, as experienced by Nationalists.
You made the trite comparison between NI and SA, namely that the Police and Security Forces of both each had Catholics/Blacks in their ranks at junior levels only.
I quoted a number of examples of Catholics in NI rising to the very top of both the Army and the Police.
Now you are implying that even getting to the top somehow isn't good enough.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
???
Counting the catholics?, even the few who did make significant progress through the ranks, obviously had little or no influence on the effects of British/Unionist security policy, as experienced by Nationalists.
You made the trite comparison between NI and SA, namely that the Police and Security Forces of both each had Catholics/Blacks in their ranks at junior levels only.
I quoted a number of examples of Catholics in NI rising to the very top of both the Army and the Police.
Now you are implying that even getting to the top somehow isn't good enough.
[/b]
of course it wasnt good enough, they were ineffectual and were worse than useless, and enforced the status quo rather than defusing the problems of persecution and violence against innocents etc
that the ruc had to be changed/rebranded to 'cover up' and imply a sense oc change shows us this.
It still need further change and we all realise this too !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
???
Counting the catholics?, even the few who did make significant progress through the ranks, obviously had little or no influence on the effects of British/Unionist security policy, as experienced by Nationalists.
You made the trite comparison between NI and SA, namely that the Police and Security Forces of both each had Catholics/Blacks in their ranks at junior levels only.
I quoted a number of examples of Catholics in NI rising to the very top of both the Army and the Police.
Now you are implying that even getting to the top somehow isn't good enough.
[/b]
of course it wasnt good enough, they were ineffectual and were worse than useless, and enforced the status quo rather than defusing the problems of persecution and violence against innocents etc
that the ruc had to be changed/rebranded to 'cover up' and imply a sense oc change shows us this.
It still need further change and we all realise this too !
And should, for instance, SF emerge as the largest NI party following the next Stormont election, so that Wee Marty becomes First Minister, by which time full policing and justice powers etc will likely have been devolved, will that be enough "change"?
Or, when the realisation sinks in that such moves serve only to "enforce the status quo" further, will you then move to take up the Dissident view by adding Gerry and Marty to the long list of traitors who have betrayed Dear Mother Oireland by selling out to Da Brits? ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:43:58 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 21, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 20, 2009, 05:18:47 PM
Whats all this about counting the catholics?
As if catholics would have some sanctifying effect on policy.
Blacks aplenty were a in apartheid South Africa security forces, didn't makes the SA state any less apartheid or brutal.
Er, I don't recall too many black South Africans being appointed to be head of the SA Military or Police during the Apartheid era, in the same way as Catholics were appointed Army OC (Brig.Ormerod, Col.Ryan) or RUC Chief Constable (Jamie Flanagan*) or Deputy Chief Constable (Michael McAtamney), during the period in question in NI. ::)
* - Interesting Obituary for Flanagan from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituarysir-jamie-flanagan-1088419.html
???
Counting the catholics?, even the few who did make significant progress through the ranks, obviously had little or no influence on the effects of British/Unionist security policy, as experienced by Nationalists.
You made the trite comparison between NI and SA, namely that the Police and Security Forces of both each had Catholics/Blacks in their ranks at junior levels only.
I quoted a number of examples of Catholics in NI rising to the very top of both the Army and the Police.
Now you are implying that even getting to the top somehow isn't good enough.
[/b]
of course it wasnt good enough, they were ineffectual and were worse than useless, and enforced the status quo rather than defusing the problems of persecution and violence against innocents etc
that the ruc had to be changed/rebranded to 'cover up' and imply a sense oc change shows us this.
It still need further change and we all realise this too !
And should, for instance, SF emerge as the largest NI party following the next Stormont election, so that Wee Marty becomes First Minister, by which time full policing and justice powers etc will likely have been devolved, will that be enough "change"?
Or, when the realisation sinks in that such moves serve only to "enforce the status quo" further, will you then move to take up the Dissident view by adding Gerry and Marty to the long list of traitors who have betrayed Dear Mother Oireland by selling out to Da Brits? ::)
you just dont get it do you !
yet another idiotic child like offering from you !
no one apart from a few die hards are into that craic these days.
Now that the persecution and oppression are no longer and the apartheid gov were kicked to touch.
I wouldnt go as far as calling people traitors , but if they dont effect change, then they are ineffectual and as bad as their colleagues in the assembly.
the longer people like you refuse to 'play ball' the more 'power' nationalists will have fall into their lap when the change comes !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:46:55 PM
you just dont get it do you !
yet another idiotic child like offering from you !
no one apart from a few die hards are into that craic these days.
Now that the persecution and oppression are no longer and the apartheid gov were kicked to touch.
I wouldnt go as far as calling people traitors , but if they dont effect change, then they are ineffectual and as bad as their colleagues in the assembly.
the longer people like you refuse to 'play ball' the more 'power' nationalists will have fall into their lap when the change comes !
Well there's one thing I still "don't get", and that's an answer to the basic question from my last post. Which, in case you've forgotten, was this: Would the installation of Marty McG as 1st Minister in an Assembley with fully devolved Police and Justice powers be sufficient for you, or would you still demand that he and Gerry "effect" the removal of NI from the UK as well?
Simple question, really.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:46:55 PM
you just dont get it do you !
yet another idiotic child like offering from you !
no one apart from a few die hards are into that craic these days.
Now that the persecution and oppression are no longer and the apartheid gov were kicked to touch.
I wouldnt go as far as calling people traitors , but if they dont effect change, then they are ineffectual and as bad as their colleagues in the assembly.
the longer people like you refuse to 'play ball' the more 'power' nationalists will have fall into their lap when the change comes !
Well there's one thing I still "don't get", and that's an answer to the basic question from my last post. Which, in case you've forgotten, was this: Would the installation of Marty McG as 1st Minister in an Assembley with fully devolved Police and Justice powers be sufficient for you, or would you still demand that he and Gerry "effect" the removal of NI from the UK as well?
Simple question, really.
thought this would have given you the answer
"but if they dont effect change, then they are ineffectual and as bad as their colleagues in the assembly."
but obv not !
No , I dont care whether mcguinness gets first, second or third minister - even grand lodge master disc spinner or whatever the kkk oo top man is.
Not just devolved policing, but revamped senior level officers need to be changed and if necessary a transferral with maybe english/Irish/Scots/welsh alternatives to guarantee an impartial policing force.
The devolved bit actually doesnt bother me.
thats the first step to rectify a big current problem.
the rest of it is for later on.
Bit by bit !
EG it would be a great progress towards the inevitable reunification of the island as a single political and economic unit.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
EG it would be a great progress towards the inevitable reunification of the island as a single political and economic unit.
Which is where you and I must profoundly disagree!
For looking at the situation from my perspective, before the GFA etc, there were a number of "forces" which were campaigning to detach NI from the UK.
In no particular order, these were the Government (and people) of the Republic; the British Establishment in GB; Irish America and sympathisers elsewhere; the Nationalist population within NI and, of course, the IRA.
And although those groups' respective motives varied in intensity or priority etc, nonetheless central amongst them were a feeling that Nationalists would always be hard-done by in any NI state; and/or that a UI was "inevitable"; and/or that there would never be real peace without a UI; and/or a general weariness, even despair, at the never-ending nature of the conflict; and/or the cost of maintaining the link etc.
Fair enough, I never agreed with too much of that, but accept that that was what many people were thinking.
Now, 10 or 15 years later, when i view the picture, I see that a huge deal has changed. The Irish Government and people no longer seem to me to be too bothered about Northern Nationalists, now that they see that they (NI Nats) are now getting a fair crack of the whip. Moreover, the present economic crisis dictates that even if NI were offered to them on a plate, unity is just about the LAST thing they would want/afford! Instead, they have altered their Constitution to reflect their disinterest over unity.
And as regards the GB establishment, this, too has seen a radical change of tack. For whilst there is no doubt that a very powerful and numerous lobby formerly wanted shot of NI, almost at any price, now that the Troubles are over and squaddies are getting killed in Hlemand rather than South Armagh etc, and the material cost of NI has reduced significantly, NI is now much less of a problem. Indeed, with Labour completely dependant on Scottish votes if they are ever to hope to form a Government, and the Tories making great play of their concern for the Union, iboth major parties are, if anything, playing up their "Unionist" credentials. And the ordinary people of GB no longer even think of NI.
As for Irish America, the truly pathetic turnout at SF's recent Unity Roadshows clearly demonstrate that with a Black Man in the White House and the UK being America's strongest ally in the 'War on Terror' etc, no-one only a few ageing and embittered diehards in the USA gives a fcuk about our petty little squabble.
Regarding the Nationalist population of NI, there is clear evidence that they are no longer nearly so alienated as they were, indeed recent elections indicate that SF may now have reached its "high water mark", turnout in Nationalist areas is falling back, and the birth-rate etc is equalising. Certainly, Prof.Brendan O'Leary (no friend of Unionism he!) was candid enough to admit that he could discern no hope of a Nationalist majority in NI before 30 years (minimum)
Finally, the most determined and dangerous of the unifiers, the IRA, have finally accepted that "armed struggle" was proving not only unwinnable, but was actually counter-productive, and handed over the baton to SF (or at least transferred it from right hand to left). And SF are now sitting in the very Stormont they pledged previously to smash and taking the Queen's Shilling, whilst they help administer British Rule in Ireland.
Of course, they will point to various all-Ireland bodies etc as proof of progress towards a UI. But does anyone really believe that e.g the existence of the Irish Waterways Board in Enniskillen is doing anything more tangible to create a UI than eg. Barry McElduff's laughable efforts to paint all our Post Boxes green? ::)
In fact, when Police and Justice etc is finally devolved to NI, I truly believe that this will constitute the last major step towards normalising the existence, status and governance of NI as a fully-functioning region of the UK, albeit one which differs in a number of respects from those in GB. In which case, it will fall even further from the thoughts of those outside NI, whilst those people within NI will revert to worrying about the normal day-to-day issues which concern people in comparable societies elsewhere - health, jobs, education etc.
And where will that leave SF? No doubt they'll still be beating the same old drum for Unity etc, whilst fewer and fewer listen. And even if they could attract our attention, who do they think is actually going to pay the bill for this Unity which they've ordered on all our behalf? There is no way the GB Treasury is going to provide a "dowry" - they'll be looking to cut costs in NI, not increase them. And the Republic certainly isn't willing/able to pick up the tab, not won't be for years, even decades. As for the EU, why would/should they contribute to the cost of two of their wealthiest members deciding to shuffle their cards, when there are significantly poorer members who are having to incur swingeing cuts in EU assistance? And President O'Bama? That man is far too smart to re-open this particular can of worms, considering how much trouble it was for his predecessors to jam a lid on, last time around.
Face it, Irish "Unity" is further away than ever - the only problem is that Republicans lack the honesty to admit it and Unionists the intelligence to recognise it.
Oh well.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 06:22:33 PM
- the only problem is that Republicans lack the honesty to admit it and Unionists the intelligence to recognise it.
Oh well.
It must be very frustrating for you that the rest of the world hasnt got your great talents ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2009, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 06:22:33 PM
- the only problem is that Republicans lack the honesty to admit it and Unionists the intelligence to recognise it.
Oh well.
It must be very frustrating for you that the rest of the world hasnt got your great talents ::)
So no attempt to "play the ball" this time, either, Rossfan?
P.S. Just in case you somehow hadn't noticed, I'm not terribly bothered what people think about me, more interested in what they think of my case. You may consider that arrogant; indeed you may even be correct. Such is life.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
It's a while since I read TPC's book and it is now in storage elsewhere. However, his comment about the B Specials always stuck with me, so it was easy enough to Google. Speaking of which, whilst I naturally disagree with most (all?) of his analysis and opinion, nonetheless, if he asserts that the B-Men were the biggest obstacle to the IRA in NI, then I think we may both take his word on that!
the b specials were one of the massive causes for the rise of the IRA in the north of Ireland !
they were not much use when disbanded just as the ira were starting to get going, so I dont know what the obstacle really was - uless we are talking about that approx window of a year or so !
I believe Tim Pat was referring to the 50's IRA campaign and the small movement, mostly from south of the border, that existed there after until the start of the modern struggle.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 21, 2009, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
It's a while since I read TPC's book and it is now in storage elsewhere. However, his comment about the B Specials always stuck with me, so it was easy enough to Google. Speaking of which, whilst I naturally disagree with most (all?) of his analysis and opinion, nonetheless, if he asserts that the B-Men were the biggest obstacle to the IRA in NI, then I think we may both take his word on that!
the b specials were one of the massive causes for the rise of the IRA in the north of Ireland !
they were not much use when disbanded just as the ira were starting to get going, so I dont know what the obstacle really was - uless we are talking about that approx window of a year or so !
I believe Tim Pat was referring to the 50's IRA campaign and the small movement, mostly from south of the border, that existed there after until the start of the modern struggle.
absolutely
but our story twisting 'friend' would like folk to believe that the ira TPC was talking about was the same crew that rose up becuase of the likes of and actions of the b specials and their unionist/loyalist estabishment taskmasters !
as for Irish unity, things def have quietened down ever since the eveil forces of apartheid (north of Ireland branch) were routed and nationalists no longer suffered the same persecution, oppression or lack of rights as before.
The birth rate most likely has dropped down.
But what isnt mentioned is that the protestant/unionist/loyalist population are or have a very large oap population and a lot of these will die off en masse leaving a sudden swing in majority in favour of nationalists.
As I have said here before, while when in power the nationalist side will not indulge in the same kind of triumphalism or sadistic control as demonstrated in years gone by (and would still be in place if many could effect it !)
but th eloyalist/unionist intransigence towards full power sharing will ultimately be their biggest mistake as eventually without any agreement or the longer it goes on with nothing agreed, then the less bargaining power they will have in the re-united Ireland.
We all know that britain want to get rid of the northern counties back to Ireland and will pay a premium to give them back - this will still be cheaper than their combined bill consisting of military costs/welfare/civil service etc etc
further away ! ! :D
couldnt be closer !
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 21, 2009, 08:32:29 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 20, 2009, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 20, 2009, 08:21:56 PM
EG - Quite amusing you quote Tim Pat Coogan saying something "positive" about the B Specials. I suspect you did a google search and that came out at the top :D. If you read Coogans book you have quoted from, he gives plenty of evidence of B Specials shooting, looting burning and being an absolute protestant mob, all be it with legal status. Likewise the UDR whos members include a shankill butcher.
It's a while since I read TPC's book and it is now in storage elsewhere. However, his comment about the B Specials always stuck with me, so it was easy enough to Google. Speaking of which, whilst I naturally disagree with most (all?) of his analysis and opinion, nonetheless, if he asserts that the B-Men were the biggest obstacle to the IRA in NI, then I think we may both take his word on that!
the b specials were one of the massive causes for the rise of the IRA in the north of Ireland !
they were not much use when disbanded just as the ira were starting to get going, so I dont know what the obstacle really was - uless we are talking about that approx window of a year or so !
I believe Tim Pat was referring to the 50's IRA campaign and the small movement, mostly from south of the border, that existed there after until the start of the modern struggle.
absolutely
but our story twisting 'friend' would like folk to believe that the ira TPC was talking about was the same crew that rose up becuase of the likes of and actions of the b specials and their unionist/loyalist estabishment taskmasters !
as for Irish unity, things def have quietened down ever since the eveil forces of apartheid (north of Ireland branch) were routed and nationalists no longer suffered the same persecution, oppression or lack of rights as before.
The birth rate most likely has dropped down.
But what isnt mentioned is that the protestant/unionist/loyalist population are or have a very large oap population and a lot of these will die off en masse leaving a sudden swing in majority in favour of nationalists.
As I have said here before, while when in power the nationalist side will not indulge in the same kind of triumphalism or sadistic control as demonstrated in years gone by (and would still be in place if many could effect it !)
but th eloyalist/unionist intransigence towards full power sharing will ultimately be their biggest mistake as eventually without any agreement or the longer it goes on with nothing agreed, then the less bargaining power they will have in the re-united Ireland.
We all know that britain want to get rid of the northern counties back to Ireland and will pay a premium to give them back - this will still be cheaper than their combined bill consisting of military costs/welfare/civil service etc etc
further away ! ! :D
couldnt be closer !
I agree that nationalists in power would not treat their minority brothers & sisters in the unionist community as they were treated. It didn't happen in the south after the war of independance, contrary to what the fear mongers in unionist political circles would have us believe. Bigotry & prejudice goes against the principles of republicanism. If that did happen I personally would want no part in it or of a united Ireland consisting of bigotry.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 21, 2009, 01:19:51 PM
EG it would be a great progress towards the inevitable reunification of the island as a single political and economic unit.
Which is where you and I must profoundly disagree!
For looking at the situation from my perspective, before the GFA etc, there were a number of "forces" which were campaigning to detach NI from the UK.
In no particular order, these were the Government (and people) of the Republic; the British Establishment in GB; Irish America and sympathisers elsewhere; the Nationalist population within NI and, of course, the IRA.
And although those groups' respective motives varied in intensity or priority etc, nonetheless central amongst them were a feeling that Nationalists would always be hard-done by in any NI state; and/or that a UI was "inevitable"; and/or that there would never be real peace without a UI; and/or a general weariness, even despair, at the never-ending nature of the conflict; and/or the cost of maintaining the link etc.
Fair enough, I never agreed with too much of that, but accept that that was what many people were thinking.
Now, 10 or 15 years later, when i view the picture, I see that a huge deal has changed. The Irish Government and people no longer seem to me to be too bothered about Northern Nationalists, now that they see that they (NI Nats) are now getting a fair crack of the whip. Moreover, the present economic crisis dictates that even if NI were offered to them on a plate, unity is just about the LAST thing they would want/afford! Instead, they have altered their Constitution to reflect their disinterest over unity.
And as regards the GB establishment, this, too has seen a radical change of tack. For whilst there is no doubt that a very powerful and numerous lobby formerly wanted shot of NI, almost at any price, now that the Troubles are over and squaddies are getting killed in Hlemand rather than South Armagh etc, and the material cost of NI has reduced significantly, NI is now much less of a problem. Indeed, with Labour completely dependant on Scottish votes if they are ever to hope to form a Government, and the Tories making great play of their concern for the Union, iboth major parties are, if anything, playing up their "Unionist" credentials. And the ordinary people of GB no longer even think of NI.
As for Irish America, the truly pathetic turnout at SF's recent Unity Roadshows clearly demonstrate that with a Black Man in the White House and the UK being America's strongest ally in the 'War on Terror' etc, no-one only a few ageing and embittered diehards in the USA gives a fcuk about our petty little squabble.
Regarding the Nationalist population of NI, there is clear evidence that they are no longer nearly so alienated as they were, indeed recent elections indicate that SF may now have reached its "high water mark", turnout in Nationalist areas is falling back, and the birth-rate etc is equalising. Certainly, Prof.Brendan O'Leary (no friend of Unionism he!) was candid enough to admit that he could discern no hope of a Nationalist majority in NI before 30 years (minimum)
Finally, the most determined and dangerous of the unifiers, the IRA, have finally accepted that "armed struggle" was proving not only unwinnable, but was actually counter-productive, and handed over the baton to SF (or at least transferred it from right hand to left). And SF are now sitting in the very Stormont they pledged previously to smash and taking the Queen's Shilling, whilst they help administer British Rule in Ireland.
Of course, they will point to various all-Ireland bodies etc as proof of progress towards a UI. But does anyone really believe that e.g the existence of the Irish Waterways Board in Enniskillen is doing anything more tangible to create a UI than eg. Barry McElduff's laughable efforts to paint all our Post Boxes green? ::)
In fact, when Police and Justice etc is finally devolved to NI, I truly believe that this will constitute the last major step towards normalising the existence, status and governance of NI as a fully-functioning region of the UK, albeit one which differs in a number of respects from those in GB. In which case, it will fall even further from the thoughts of those outside NI, whilst those people within NI will revert to worrying about the normal day-to-day issues which concern people in comparable societies elsewhere - health, jobs, education etc.
And where will that leave SF? No doubt they'll still be beating the same old drum for Unity etc, whilst fewer and fewer listen. And even if they could attract our attention, who do they think is actually going to pay the bill for this Unity which they've ordered on all our behalf? There is no way the GB Treasury is going to provide a "dowry" - they'll be looking to cut costs in NI, not increase them. And the Republic certainly isn't willing/able to pick up the tab, not won't be for years, even decades. As for the EU, why would/should they contribute to the cost of two of their wealthiest members deciding to shuffle their cards, when there are significantly poorer members who are having to incur swingeing cuts in EU assistance? And President O'Bama? That man is far too smart to re-open this particular can of worms, considering how much trouble it was for his predecessors to jam a lid on, last time around.
Face it, Irish "Unity" is further away than ever - the only problem is that Republicans lack the honesty to admit it and Unionists the intelligence to recognise it.
Oh well.
So again we are presented with yet more beautifully constructed but factually inadequate diatribe from EG. He even supposes to know the mind of Barack Obama.
.
[/quote]
The birth rate most likely has dropped down.
I agree that nationalists in power would not treat their minority brothers & sisters in the unionist community as they were treated. It didn't happen in the south after the war of independance, contrary to what the fear mongers in unionist political circles would have us believe. Bigotry & prejudice goes against the principles of republicanism. If that did happen I personally would want no part in it or of a united Ireland consisting of bigotry
Two points to say, about the birth rate or more to the fact school figures. 65% RC, 37% PR and the rest, other are the reglion of schoolchildren at present. This comes from the dept of edcution. Second point, again about the civil service. At the time of partion, nearly all if not all protestants were forced out the the Free State civil service.
[/quote]
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 09:43:15 PM
.
Bullshit - Show me some evidence of the
forcing of protestants out of the civil service.
The birth rate most likely has dropped down.
I agree that nationalists in power would not treat their minority brothers & sisters in the unionist community as they were treated. It didn't happen in the south after the war of independance, contrary to what the fear mongers in unionist political circles would have us believe. Bigotry & prejudice goes against the principles of republicanism. If that did happen I personally would want no part in it or of a united Ireland consisting of bigotry
Two points to say, about the birth rate or more to the fact school figures. 65% RC, 37% PR and the rest, other are the reglion of schoolchildren at present. This comes from the dept of edcution. Second point, again about the civil service. At the time of partion, nearly all if not all protestants were forced out the the Free State civil service.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 21, 2009, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 09:43:15 PM
.
Bullshit - Show me some evidence of the forcing of protestants out of the civil service.
I listened to an interviev on rte from a historian, sadly i cant rem his name. I have no axe to grind, but i have did a bit of resouse from my civel service friends in the south, some who are mini historians , they confirm what i have said.
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 10:08:48 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 21, 2009, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 09:43:15 PM
.
Bullshit - Show me some evidence of the forcing of protestants out of the civil service.
I listened to an interviev on rte from a historian, sadly i cant rem his name. I have no axe to grind, but i have did a bit of resouse from my civel service friends in the south, some who are mini historians , they confirm what i have said.
so you have no evidence,Its mere heresay on your part.
i can make things up too,you know.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 06:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on July 21, 2009, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 21, 2009, 06:22:33 PM
- the only problem is that Republicans lack the honesty to admit it and Unionists the intelligence to recognise it.
Oh well.
It must be very frustrating for you that the rest of the world hasnt got your great talents ::)
So no attempt to "play the ball" this time, either, Rossfan?
E G your balls are far too long and tedious for me in my limited time to play them.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 10:08:48 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 21, 2009, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: dillinger on July 21, 2009, 09:43:15 PM
.
Bullshit - Show me some evidence of the forcing of protestants out of the civil service.
I listened to an interviev on rte from a historian, sadly i cant rem his name. I have no axe to grind, but i have did a bit of resouse from my civel service friends in the south, some who are mini historians , they confirm what i have said.
so you have no evidence,Its mere heresay on your part.
i can make things up too,you know.
[/quote
yes and now i suppose about hearsy. cant imagine the historian made it up, and neither am i. dont think there would be any job biasis in all ire. what do protestants think?
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
[/quote Get me a job there then ;D. will give up my pension
So do unionists / loyalists / nationalists / republicans have to vote for a united Ireland by way of a referendum and a simple majority of the electorate wins the day ?
Here's the question :
Is it reasonable to assume that ALL nationalists and all republicans would ALL vote for a united Ireland ??
we have enough problems with jobs up here as it is without more Northies coming down dillinger :P :D
i dont have statistics to back this up,but wouldnt it be a widely held view that Protestants are employed in greater numbers percentage wise in the Legal System,
Health system( i know a few prospective doctors/surgeons at the Royal School of Surgeons myself) and hold a far higher percentage of the Larger size farms in the 26 Counties than the percentage of which they comprise in the overall population.
Protestants didnt do badly at all in the Republic sespite its reputation as a Narrow-minded Roman Catholic dominated country from the 1920's up to the 90's.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 21, 2009, 12:46:55 PM
the longer people like you refuse to 'play ball' the more 'power' nationalists will have fall into their lap when the change comes !
Can you explain that please? Who are people like EG? What does 'play ball' mean?
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Indeed, the Farnham area has a very large protestant population from what ive heard.
I think some unionists make the mistake of thinking,Protestants down here are automatically unionists and are unhappy living outside the UK.
The Fact is Protestants have assimilated completely into our society and are not alienated from the state.
Couple of protestant lads i work with follow the Republic Soccer team everywhere and are the biggest patriots i know.
I will say one thing,
While there are various protestant playing members of the GAA in the Republic,i dont think GAA is a particular sport of choice in places like the Royal School Cavan etc,Unless you know different Boojangles?
GAA should be looking into putting coaches into all Protestant primary and secondary schools.
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 22, 2009, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Indeed, the Farnham area has a very large protestant population from what ive heard.
I think some unionists make the mistake of thinking,Protestants down here are automatically unionists and are unhappy living outside the UK.
The Fact is Protestants have assimilated completely into our society and are not alienated from the state.
Couple of protestant lads i work with follow the Republic Soccer team everywhere and are the biggest patriots i know.
I will say one thing,
While there are various protestant playing members of the GAA in the Republic,i dont think GAA is a particular sport of choice in places like the Royal School Cavan etc,Unless you know different Boojangles?
GAA should be looking into putting coaches into all Protestant primary and secondary schools.
Protestants have integrated into society and in most cases religion or politics are just not an issue anymore,especially for the Younger generations like mine and BH Mans.
I dont think the Royal has a Gaelic football team,.We played them in soccer a few times when I was in St Pats. I actually think, if my memory serves me right that the 1st soccer game St.Pats ever played in was against the Royal. I would hav been playing,but just cant be sure.The memory isnt what it used to b.
I suppose its like anything,if the demand is in a school like the Royal for GAA then they should b accomodated.Its definitely something I would love to see.It just mite take another few years.I know the Protestant national school in Cavan town would have very little facilities for any type of Sport let alone Gaelic football or hurling.
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 05:07:09 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 22, 2009, 04:20:15 PM
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Indeed, the Farnham area has a very large protestant population from what ive heard.
I think some unionists make the mistake of thinking,Protestants down here are automatically unionists and are unhappy living outside the UK.
The Fact is Protestants have assimilated completely into our society and are not alienated from the state.
Couple of protestant lads i work with follow the Republic Soccer team everywhere and are the biggest patriots i know.
I will say one thing,
While there are various protestant playing members of the GAA in the Republic,i dont think GAA is a particular sport of choice in places like the Royal School Cavan etc,Unless you know different Boojangles?
GAA should be looking into putting coaches into all Protestant primary and secondary schools.
Protestants have integrated into society and in most cases religion or politics are just not an issue anymore,especially for the Younger generations like mine and BH Mans.
I dont think the Royal has a Gaelic football team,.We played them in soccer a few times when I was in St Pats. I actually think, if my memory serves me right that the 1st soccer game St.Pats ever played in was against the Royal. I would hav been playing,but just cant be sure.The memory isnt what it used to b.
I suppose its like anything,if the demand is in a school like the Royal for GAA then they should b accomodated.Its definitely something I would love to see.It just mite take another few years.I know the Protestant national school in Cavan town would have very little facilities for any type of Sport let alone Gaelic football or hurling.
There are large sections in Cavan that have a huge protestant population. In my parish alone there is about 4 miles between killeshandra and Arva that there is not one catholic house. There are areas between Killeshandra and Ballyconnel the same. I would disagree with BHM in that I don't think they are any wealthier or poorer than the catholic population. Most are just honest hard working folk trying to get on. Cross marrying is quite frequent these days although you still hear of the odd bigoted family on both sides kicking up about it.
The fact that many protestants left the civil service after independence was most likely to take up positions in the north as most would have been strong unionists. I don't doubt that many left but I do absolutely say that they were not forced out in large numbers because of their religion. Sure men like Arthur Griffith were protestants in Sinn Fein of the time and were totally anti Catholic Clergy, if you read some of the statements attributed to griffith out of context you might think he was a unionist. He said he'd rather stay under british rule than go under roman rule. Hardly the type that would run protestants out of the country. These stories are just unionist stories to scare their children of the bogey man in the south.
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Ah, so you like to have a go at the Northern Irish Prods too...
Was it this thread that someone queried why I thought there was ignorance on this board about the OO? The unchallenged bigotry, even to fellow board members, here is staggering.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 22, 2009, 10:25:01 PM
Do the KKK and their cousins the Orange Order ever look at themselves in the mirror cos they look awful bloody stupid. Have they got radioactive badges on their sheets there too.
(http://www.stormfront.org/images/header_p1-uc.jpg)
For ideologues like Hearno Evil Seeno Evil that would read
British Pride
Ulster Wide.
Quote from: Roger on July 22, 2009, 11:26:34 PM
Was it this thread that someone queried why I thought there was ignorance on this board about the OO? The unchallenged bigotry, even to fellow board members, here is staggering.
KKK wouldn't let a black join, Orange order wouldn't allow a catholic to join
KKK wouldn't let a man who married a black join, OO wouldn't allow a man who married a catholic join
KKK had a nasty element that murdered blacks and civil rights demonstrators, OO had mass murderers like Billy Wright parading and going on stage with them.
I think the similarities are quite string. Maybe the OO could wear orange sheets and red white and blue pointy hats! If I get time on photoshop later I might post an image unless someone beats me too it.
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
You have a point. Comparing Evil Genius to the KKK is not on. Main Street?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 22, 2009, 06:49:58 PM
There are large sections in Cavan that have a huge protestant population. In my parish alone there is about 4 miles between killeshandra and Arva that there is not one catholic house.
There were a couple from that exact who were at my wedding (mass and all) and nice folks they are too.
Its a bit of a mad generalisation to say that all the prods are wealthy, ok a number of them inherited large farms etc but society is quite equal in the south (and north west!) of Ireland over the past few decades - in terms of welath amongst folk of various religious persuasions!
who insulted roger ? Did someone call him a billix or something ?
I would see an awful lot of similarity between the OO and the KKK.
Both organisations run on hatred of what they see as inferior beings and see themselves as the elite guardians of a master race of superior beings.
When an Orange Order leader says that he and his organisation view Catholics/Nationalists(Gaels even) as being equal in all respects and therefore due respect from all OO members then I will change my view as expressed in the first sentence above.
I suspect I won't live to hear it. ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2009, 04:41:58 PM
I would see an awful lot of similarity between the OO and the KKK.
Both organisations run on hatred of what they see as inferior beings and see themselves as the elite guardians of a master race of superior beings.
When an Orange Order leader says that he and his organisation view Catholics/Nationalists(Gaels even) as being equal in all respects and therefore due respect from all OO members then I will change my view as expressed in the first sentence above.
I suspect I won't live to hear it. ::)
I'd say you will 'hear' it as the oo documentation has significantly changed in thepast year or so to not mention / hide the previous anti-Catholic and anti-Pope statements for example.
Its when you SEE them allowing Catholics etc into the oo and stopping their sectarian marches from going through or near nationalist areas,
THEN you can safely say they have made huge strides in 'decommissioning' their sectarian nature.
As a professed "Protestant religious organisation" how can they allow Catholics join it?
After all Jews/Prods etc can hardly join the Legion of Mary?
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
Let me clarify - I compared the OO to the KKK. I personally did not compare EG to them. I doubt someone of EG obvious intelligence,a would join such an idiotic group.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 23, 2009, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
Let me clarify - I compared the OO to the KKK. I personally did not compare EG to them. I doubt someone of EG obvious intelligence,a would join such an idiotic group.
In post #230, in response to Roger's question "Who are 'people like EG'?", Main Street replied with a highly offensive and insulting photo of the KKK. He followed it up in post #240 with an attempt to link me directly with some sort of White Power supremacist group.
Personally, i can take that sort of abuse, since i really don't expect any better from him. However, I am disappointed that others did not take issue with his slur (Deiseach honourably excepted), when if I ever posted anything remotely similar about another Member of this Board, i have no doubt whatever that it would be reported and myself banned.
And when I see the way you, for instance, blithely continue Main Street's OO = KKK theme, without spotting anything exceptional, it only reinforces the clear trend that anyone or anything even remotely connect to Unionism/Protestantism/Orangeism etc is "fair game" for demonisation and abuse on this Board from certain quarters.
Of course, when you consider that by "certain quarters" I actually mean Irish Republicans, who, in a different context will invariably bleat about wanting to create "An Ireland of Equals", it only serves to reinforce the message I was trying to put across in the very title to this thread.
"By their Deeds shall ye Know them" ::)
P.S. Anyone who has ever read and given serious attention to any of my posts on this Board would never be able to state that he "doubts" whether I would join such a thoroughly nasty and obnoxious group as the KKK. It is patently clear that there can be no room for "doubt" whatever. >:(
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
You have a point. Comparing Evil Genius to the KKK is not on. Main Street?
That he is too smart to be on that level?
He is an ideologue on a similar level as a segregationist who does not want to engage in real dialogue with the other side.
His intelligence is applied to arguing full and complicit support for the general good of the apartheid like statelet.
Constant efforts to equalise that nationalist are also to blame for any shortcomings within that apartheid like statelet
Constant efforts to argue the righteousness of security policy and actions of security forces for the general good in that apartheid statelet.
All under the pseudo umbrella of "One Step Forward", or as I call it 100 reasons why not to take a step forward.
I do not respect dishonest debaters.
As the Orangeman said when asked why are they not burning a tricolour at his 12th bonfire, he replied that 'I do not have to denigrate another culture in order to celebrate mine'.
Evil Genius has not even reached the awareness of the sentiments that the Orangeman expressed,
with his persistant efforts to argue the high ground over Britishness and constant sneering at Irish culture, Irish history and Irish sports.
'KKK wouldn't let a black join, Orange order wouldn't allow a catholic to join
KKK wouldn't let a man who married a black join, OO wouldn't allow a man who married a catholic join
KKK had a nasty element that murdered blacks and civil rights demonstrators, OO had mass murderers like Billy Wright parading and going on stage with them.
I think the similarities are quite string. Maybe the OO could wear orange sheets and red white and blue pointy hats! If I get time on photoshop later I might post an image unless someone beats me too it. '
Opus Dei won't let you join unless you're a Catholic.
The Catholic Church, until a few years ago, wouldn't let a Catholic marry a Protestant, unless they first signed a document promising to bring up any children of the marraiage as Catholics. Non Catholics are still barred from receiving communion at mass.
Many of those convicted of sectarian murders, or of plotting mass murder, in the past 25 or 30 years have been devout Catholics.
Would you put the Catholic church up there with the KKK and the Orange Order? If not, why not?
'There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.'
I've said it before - the bigotry displayed by some of the posters on this board far outstrips anything I've ever come across on any other forum. The sad thing is, these bigots genuinely believe that only orangies / prods / Brits can be bigots. So much for republican ideals.
Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2009, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
You have a point. Comparing Evil Genius to the KKK is not on. Main Street?
That he is too smart to be on that level?
He is an ideologue on a similar level as a segregationist who does not want to engage in real dialogue with the other side.
His intelligence is applied to arguing full and complicit support for the general good of the apartheid like statelet.
Constant efforts to equalise that nationalist are also to blame for any shortcomings within that apartheid like statelet
Constant efforts to argue the righteousness of security policy and actions of security forces for the general good in that apartheid statelet.
All under the pseudo umbrella of "One Step Forward", or as I call it 100 reasons why not to take a step forward.
I do not respect dishonest debaters.
As the Orangeman said when asked why are they not burning a tricolour at his 12th bonfire, he replied that 'I do not have to denigrate another culture in order to celebrate mine'.
Evil Genius has not even reached the awareness of the sentiments that the Orangeman expressed,
with his persistant efforts to argue the high ground over Britishness and constant sneering at Irish culture, Irish history and Irish sports.
You don't like that I express a contrary political view to yours, so you attempt to smear me by directly comparing me with members of an organisation which is accepted by all right-thinking people to be totally abhorrent. Nowhere have I ever expressed any sympathy with the KKK or indeed any comparable organisation in any other country. On the contrary, I have unequivocably expressed my antipathy eg to Nazi Germany on other threads.
For you then to try and justify your smear with garbage such as the above only confirms further what an intolerant, nasty and bitter individual you really are.
Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2009, 05:46:51 PM
I do not respect dishonest debaters.
Then don't debate with him. Check out Rule No 1 in the Rules and Regulations (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=6566.0) for the board:
Quote1. Personal abuse.
Personal abuse is one of the most common problems on internet boards. Known sometimes as 'playing the man', whether foul language is used or not, this behaviour is
not allowed.
e.g. Calling someone a fat fool is the same as calling someone something more vulgar. This rule applies even in situations where another user has breached this, or
another rule. Retaliation is still a breach of the rule.
I think comparing someone to the Klan breaches that rule.
Incidentally, Roger, I would say that this board is very lightly policed. Where did you get the idea that it "has a reputation of being strict"? From Gnevin?
Quote from: MW on July 22, 2009, 09:44:32 PM
Quote from: boojangles on July 22, 2009, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on July 21, 2009, 10:36:55 PM
All Protestants i know are in better paid jobs than the Civil Service.
Most Protestants I know around Cavan have loads of land.The Farnham area outside of Cavan town would have a very large Protestant population.They would all be decent,hard-working,unassuming people who get on with their lives. They don't go around with a chip on their shoulder looking to b offended like some of their Northern brethern.
Ah, so you like to have a go at the Northern Irish Prods too...
Just explain that comment there MW???
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 23, 2009, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
Let me clarify - I compared the OO to the KKK. I personally did not compare EG to them. I doubt someone of EG obvious intelligence,a would join such an idiotic group.
In post #230, in response to Roger's question "Who are 'people like EG'?", Main Street replied with a highly offensive and insulting photo of the KKK. He followed it up in post #240 with an attempt to link me directly with some sort of White Power supremacist group.
Personally, i can take that sort of abuse, since i really don't expect any better from him. However, I am disappointed that others did not take issue with his slur (Deiseach honourably excepted), when if I ever posted anything remotely similar about another Member of this Board, i have no doubt whatever that it would be reported and myself banned.
And when I see the way you, for instance, blithely continue Main Street's OO = KKK theme, without spotting anything exceptional, it only reinforces the clear trend that anyone or anything even remotely connect to Unionism/Protestantism/Orangeism etc is "fair game" for demonisation and abuse on this Board from certain quarters.
Of course, when you consider that by "certain quarters" I actually mean Irish Republicans, who, in a different context will invariably bleat about wanting to create "An Ireland of Equals", it only serves to reinforce the message I was trying to put across in the very title to this thread.
"By their Deeds shall ye Know them" ::)
P.S. Anyone who has ever read and given serious attention to any of my posts on this Board would never be able to state that he "doubts" whether I would join such a thoroughly nasty and obnoxious group as the KKK. It is patently clear that there can be no room for "doubt" whatever. >:(
I have only just read this thread and...
Have to agree with you here EG..I know that you may go on sometimes with ridiculously long posts and could probably argue your point for Ulster but reading most of your posts I have no doubt you wouldn't join such a group and to infer that you would was clearly wrong and should be retracted.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 23, 2009, 06:08:29 PM
'KKK wouldn't let a black join, Orange order wouldn't allow a catholic to join
KKK wouldn't let a man who married a black join, OO wouldn't allow a man who married a catholic join
KKK had a nasty element that murdered blacks and civil rights demonstrators, OO had mass murderers like Billy Wright parading and going on stage with them.
I think the similarities are quite string. Maybe the OO could wear orange sheets and red white and blue pointy hats! If I get time on photoshop later I might post an image unless someone beats me too it. '
Opus Dei won't let you join unless you're a Catholic.
The Catholic Church, until a few years ago, wouldn't let a Catholic marry a Protestant, unless they first signed a document promising to bring up any children of the marraiage as Catholics. Non Catholics are still barred from receiving communion at mass.
Many of those convicted of sectarian murders, or of plotting mass murder, in the past 25 or 30 years have been devout Catholics.
Would you put the Catholic church up there with the KKK and the Orange Order? If not, why not?
You must not be following my posts on the board to closely or you would realise I reserve my most scathing criticism for the catholic church. Child abuse and the cover up of child abuse is a henous crime as bad as any other. I have no interest in any church. Are they on the same level as the OO/KKK. The answer is no. If the catholic church were aware a person was a murderer they would most likely not allow that person in (i'm sure some of the practicing catholics on the board could clarify on that). Receiving communion is fundamental to that religion, why would any non believer in catholic doctrine want to take communion? I'm sure if you really wanted to they'd give you some communion. As for signing this and that, most catholics totally ignore these rules. In fact most catholics ignore 50% of the rules of their own church.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 05:45:47 PM
Personally, i can take that sort of abuse, since i really don't expect any better from him. However, I am disappointed that others did not take issue with his slur (Deiseach honourably excepted), when if I ever posted anything remotely similar about another Member of this Board, i have no doubt whatever that it would be reported and myself banned.
In fairness, I was reacting to Roger's post on the matter :-[ Let's not get all Pastor Niemoller on this ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 23, 2009, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 23, 2009, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
Let me clarify - I compared the OO to the KKK. I personally did not compare EG to them. I doubt someone of EG obvious intelligence,a would join such an idiotic group.
In post #230, in response to Roger's question "Who are 'people like EG'?", Main Street replied with a highly offensive and insulting photo of the KKK. He followed it up in post #240 with an attempt to link me directly with some sort of White Power supremacist group.
Personally, i can take that sort of abuse, since i really don't expect any better from him. However, I am disappointed that others did not take issue with his slur (Deiseach honourably excepted), when if I ever posted anything remotely similar about another Member of this Board, i have no doubt whatever that it would be reported and myself banned.
And when I see the way you, for instance, blithely continue Main Street's OO = KKK theme, without spotting anything exceptional, it only reinforces the clear trend that anyone or anything even remotely connect to Unionism/Protestantism/Orangeism etc is "fair game" for demonisation and abuse on this Board from certain quarters.
Of course, when you consider that by "certain quarters" I actually mean Irish Republicans, who, in a different context will invariably bleat about wanting to create "An Ireland of Equals", it only serves to reinforce the message I was trying to put across in the very title to this thread.
"By their Deeds shall ye Know them" ::)
P.S. Anyone who has ever read and given serious attention to any of my posts on this Board would never be able to state that he "doubts" whether I would join such a thoroughly nasty and obnoxious group as the KKK. It is patently clear that there can be no room for "doubt" whatever. >:(
OK EG. I take your point. To be honest I did not notice or absorb Main Streets comparison with the KKK directly to you and I should have pulled him up on it. I would not make that comparison myself and I think Main Street was wrong to do it. I would consider myself one of the more liberal republicans on this board and I most certainly am not against anything "remotely connect to Unionism/Protestantism/Orangeism" per say, although I might have serious differences of opinion against it.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on July 23, 2009, 08:53:10 PM
OK EG. I take your point. To be honest I did not notice or absorb Main Streets comparison with the KKK directly to you and I should have pulled him up on it. I would not make that comparison myself and I think Main Street was wrong to do it. I would consider myself one of the more liberal republicans on this board and I most certainly am not against anything "remotely connect to Unionism/Protestantism/Orangeism" per say, although I might have serious differences of opinion against it.
Fair do's
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 06:23:06 PMIncidentally, Roger, I would say that this board is very lightly policed. Where did you get the idea that it "has a reputation of being strict"? From Gnevin?
Just a flick round the other parts of the site would suggest that the site is fairly strict on its rules. Is it not? Gnevin is not someone I've read too much about tbh, but I've been aware of bans for lesser offences imho although I usually avoid the 'he's posting under this username, and she's not from such-n-such county at all' stuff. However, I have read some horendously sectarian and bigotted stuff on here. These appalling instances are not viewpoints and opinions which anyone can debate rationallly and which generally is not done on here. But I feel the bigotted abuse is sometimes disgraceful (as it is now) and totally in opposition to that which a lot of people try to position themselves to be in. I'm not fussed what the admin people say but one poster even has asked what I'm on about. FFS, it's blatant sectarian hatred and personal abuse right here. It is being ignored by the board and those that consider themselves reasonable (and by-and-large I would too but from a different perspective) and no one is prepared to mutter a peep. Fair play to you deiseach but maybe this sort of thing is normal to the rest of you all? Shame on you if it is.
Quote from: Roger on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 06:23:06 PMIncidentally, Roger, I would say that this board is very lightly policed. Where did you get the idea that it "has a reputation of being strict"? From Gnevin?
Just a flick round the other parts of the site would suggest that the site is fairly strict on its rules. Is it not? Gnevin is not someone I've read too much about tbh, but I've been aware of bans for lesser offences imho although I usually avoid the 'he's posting under this username, and she's not from such-n-such county at all' stuff. However, I have read some horendously sectarian and bigotted stuff on here. These appalling instances are not viewpoints and opinions which anyone can debate rationallly and which generally is not done on here. But I feel the bigotted abuse is sometimes disgraceful (as it is now) and totally in opposition to that which a lot of people try to position themselves to be in. I'm not fussed what the admin people say but one poster even has asked what I'm on about. FFS, it's blatant sectarian hatred and personal abuse right here. It is being ignored by the board and those that consider themselves reasonable (and by-and-large I would too but from a different perspective) and no one is prepared to mutter a peep. Fair play to you deiseach but maybe this sort of thing is normal to the rest of you all? Shame on you if it is.
Roger, some people on these boards are subject to the rules, others are untouchable.
Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:35:07 AM
Quote from: Roger on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 06:23:06 PMIncidentally, Roger, I would say that this board is very lightly policed. Where did you get the idea that it "has a reputation of being strict"? From Gnevin?
Just a flick round the other parts of the site would suggest that the site is fairly strict on its rules. Is it not? Gnevin is not someone I've read too much about tbh, but I've been aware of bans for lesser offences imho although I usually avoid the 'he's posting under this username, and she's not from such-n-such county at all' stuff. However, I have read some horendously sectarian and bigotted stuff on here. These appalling instances are not viewpoints and opinions which anyone can debate rationallly and which generally is not done on here. But I feel the bigotted abuse is sometimes disgraceful (as it is now) and totally in opposition to that which a lot of people try to position themselves to be in. I'm not fussed what the admin people say but one poster even has asked what I'm on about. FFS, it's blatant sectarian hatred and personal abuse right here. It is being ignored by the board and those that consider themselves reasonable (and by-and-large I would too but from a different perspective) and no one is prepared to mutter a peep. Fair play to you deiseach but maybe this sort of thing is normal to the rest of you all? Shame on you if it is.
Roger, some people on these boards are subject to the rules, others are untouchable.
Not like owc ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2009, 04:41:58 PM
I would see an awful lot of similarity between the OO and the KKK.
Both organisations run on hatred of what they see as inferior beings and see themselves as the elite guardians of a master race of superior beings.
I'm no blanket defender of the Orange Order, but that is just wrong.
The KKK do indeed see black people as superior and whites as a master race. That is their raison d'etre.
The Orange Order's beliefs make no mention of race, or of anyone being an inferior or superior beings. Their beliefs are based on religious ideology - what branches of Christianity are "true" Christianity and which are "false".
Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2009, 12:36:42 AM
Quote from: MW on July 24, 2009, 12:35:07 AM
Quote from: Roger on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 06:23:06 PMIncidentally, Roger, I would say that this board is very lightly policed. Where did you get the idea that it "has a reputation of being strict"? From Gnevin?
Just a flick round the other parts of the site would suggest that the site is fairly strict on its rules. Is it not? Gnevin is not someone I've read too much about tbh, but I've been aware of bans for lesser offences imho although I usually avoid the 'he's posting under this username, and she's not from such-n-such county at all' stuff. However, I have read some horendously sectarian and bigotted stuff on here. These appalling instances are not viewpoints and opinions which anyone can debate rationallly and which generally is not done on here. But I feel the bigotted abuse is sometimes disgraceful (as it is now) and totally in opposition to that which a lot of people try to position themselves to be in. I'm not fussed what the admin people say but one poster even has asked what I'm on about. FFS, it's blatant sectarian hatred and personal abuse right here. It is being ignored by the board and those that consider themselves reasonable (and by-and-large I would too but from a different perspective) and no one is prepared to mutter a peep. Fair play to you deiseach but maybe this sort of thing is normal to the rest of you all? Shame on you if it is.
Roger, some people on these boards are subject to the rules, others are untouchable.
Not like owc ::)
I really wouldn't know, since I can't even view OWC.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on July 23, 2009, 06:08:29 PM
'KKK wouldn't let a black join, Orange order wouldn't allow a catholic to join
KKK wouldn't let a man who married a black join, OO wouldn't allow a man who married a catholic join
KKK had a nasty element that murdered blacks and civil rights demonstrators, OO had mass murderers like Billy Wright parading and going on stage with them.
I think the similarities are quite string. Maybe the OO could wear orange sheets and red white and blue pointy hats! If I get time on photoshop later I might post an image unless someone beats me too it. '
Opus Dei won't let you join unless you're a Catholic.
The Catholic Church, until a few years ago, wouldn't let a Catholic marry a Protestant, unless they first signed a document promising to bring up any children of the marraiage as Catholics. Non Catholics are still barred from receiving communion at mass.
Many of those convicted of sectarian murders, or of plotting mass murder, in the past 25 or 30 years have been devout Catholics.
Would you put the Catholic church up there with the KKK and the Orange Order? If not, why not?
at least you are consistently clueless every time !
Opus Dei won't let you join unless you're a Catholic. -
prob the only thing you got right. Pointless howeverThe Catholic Church, until a few years ago, wouldn't let a Catholic marry a Protestant, unless they first signed a document promising to bring up any children of the marraiage as Catholics.
- a 'few' years ago ... no longer applies - for quite some time too - zero points! ! ! Non Catholics are still barred from receiving communion at mass. -
hardly bouncers up at the alter now ! I know of many incidents , occurring around magherafelt where protestants have gone up and received holy communion in a Catholic church. Obv you have never set foot in one or you'd know yer talking carp again.minus 10 pointsMany of those convicted of sectarian murders, or of plotting mass murder, in the past 25 or 30 years have been devout Catholics. -
your proof of this?Would you put the Catholic church up there with the KKK and the Orange Order? If not, why not? -
anyone can join the Catholic church irrespective of your previous religion for a start...when do the school holidays end ! !
Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2009, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on July 23, 2009, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: Roger on July 23, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
There are some reasonable people on this board who are unlikely to ever agree with me on much, but I am surprised that the level of sectarian bigotry and personal insult on this thread is simply ignored. I've heard about moderators banning on this board and it has a reputation of being strict. It appears that this might be true but not when the personal insult and sectarian bigotry is aimed at a non-Gael. The silent majority (who must have been reading this thread since the view figures have been increasing) whom are usually vocal about such matters are simply complicit here.
You have a point. Comparing Evil Genius to the KKK is not on. Main Street?
That he is too smart to be on that level?
He is an ideologue on a similar level as a segregationist who does not want to engage in real dialogue with the other side.
His intelligence is applied to arguing full and complicit support for the general good of the apartheid like statelet.
Constant efforts to equalise that nationalist are also to blame for any shortcomings within that apartheid like statelet
Constant efforts to argue the righteousness of security policy and actions of security forces for the general good in that apartheid statelet.
All under the pseudo umbrella of "One Step Forward", or as I call it 100 reasons why not to take a step forward.
I do not respect dishonest debaters.
As the Orangeman said when asked why are they not burning a tricolour at his 12th bonfire, he replied that 'I do not have to denigrate another culture in order to celebrate mine'.
Evil Genius has not even reached the awareness of the sentiments that the Orangeman expressed,
with his persistant efforts to argue the high ground over Britishness and constant sneering at Irish culture, Irish history and Irish sports.
I find it amusing that some are calling out in 'mock horror' at the 'slur' on the oo - yet the same people lambast the GAA as a 'bigoted/sectarian' organisation that is a vehicle for the ira and republicanism and is hell bent on driving out protestants from Ireland !
Also amusing that it has been intentionally taken that Main Street has 'said' evil myles is a member of the kkk.
I dont see that.
I see a comparison when MS posted the pic as an answer to 'who are people like eg'
and to be honest, I cant see fault with what MS has posted above.
we have the continual chipping at GAA/nationalist stuff/Irish culture by a guy who obv dreads the reunified Ireland.
Look at the two threads he has started - comparing sf to nazis and another pop at republicans with unfounded wrong allegations of 'double standards' by.
As per usual though its all thread title and long posts with no content or proper debate to back this up.Only tangents and moving of goalposts when eventually beaten again.
The intent and bitterness is there, I dont see anyone else starting those kinds of idiotic threads. Thats the nub of a bitter individual.
Where else would you find such mindsets....well maybe in places
like alabama.
:D
I thought the photo was very good, especially the sinister character on the left, he was the one I had in mind for EG.
Obviously the photo was timely tongue in cheek but with more than a little sting.
Deisach
After reading the posts from him on topics like B Specials,
Evil Genius has proved himself to be a staunch defender of the Orange Unionist statelet.
From its cradle to its (inevitable) grave.
The Orange Unionist Statelet was led by figures who have proved themselves no different than the Klan idelogues or those in Apartheid SA.
Hugely influential people like Paisley and his supporters left their fundamentalist mark on Unionist ideology in the latter half of the last century.
Difference is, the croppies fought back.
Anyone who comes on here and trumps the B Specials, dumps poison on the GAA and persists with a self righteous agenda against nationalists,
can expect that I and others have a distinct antipathy to it.
If he expresses mock horror at this antipathy then he can feck off to where his views are well received.
Evil would not be the type to wear the sash of an Orangeman, nor the robes of a Klansman, he is content to be an fanatic dogmatic ideologue with no general perspective and little respect for the expressed culture his fellow Irish nationals.
As I wrote previous, I can have respect for people who sincerely believed that actions of the Orange security forces were for the general good and now its time to move on with respect.
I should add, I have no respect for the self righteous who are not only obsessed about the "righteousness" of their blinkered beliefs but also the perceived "wrongness" of others.
Quote from: Roger on July 24, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
Just a flick round the other parts of the site would suggest that the site is fairly strict on its rules. Is it not? Gnevin is not someone I've read too much about tbh, but I've been aware of bans for lesser offences imho although I usually avoid the 'he's posting under this username, and she's not from such-n-such county at all' stuff. However, I have read some horendously sectarian and bigotted stuff on here. These appalling instances are not viewpoints and opinions which anyone can debate rationallly and which generally is not done on here. But I feel the bigotted abuse is sometimes disgraceful (as it is now) and totally in opposition to that which a lot of people try to position themselves to be in. I'm not fussed what the admin people say but one poster even has asked what I'm on about. FFS, it's blatant sectarian hatred and personal abuse right here. It is being ignored by the board and those that consider themselves reasonable (and by-and-large I would too but from a different perspective) and no one is prepared to mutter a peep. Fair play to you deiseach but maybe this sort of thing is normal to the rest of you all? Shame on you if it is.
Roger, in my opinion the site is lightly policed. People cribbing about mods ruling with an iron fist (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=13113.0) don't indicate that the mods rule with an iron fist, they tell us about people who think that free speech entitles them to yell 'FIRE!' in a packed stand.
Quote from: Main Street on July 24, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I thought the photo was very good, especially the sinister character on the left, he was the one I had in mind for EG.
Obviously the photo was timely tongue in cheek but with more than a little sting.
Deisach
After reading the posts from him on topics like B Specials,
Evil Genius has proved himself to be a staunch defender of the Orange Unionist statelet.
From its cradle to its (inevitable) grave.
The Orange Unionist Statelet was led by figures who have proved themselves no different than the Klan idelogues or those in Apartheid SA.
Hugely influential people like Paisley and his supporters left their fundamentalist mark on Unionist ideology in the latter half of the last century.
Difference is, the croppies fought back.
Anyone who comes on here and trumps the B Specials, dumps poison on the GAA and persists with a self righteous agenda against nationalists,
can expect that I and others have a distinct antipathy to it.
If he expresses mock horror at this antipathy then he can feck off to where his views are well received.
Evil would not be the type to wear the sash of an Orangeman, nor the robes of a Klansman, he is content to be an fanatic dogmatic ideologue with no general perspective and little respect for the expressed culture his fellow Irish nationals.
As I wrote previous, I can have respect for people who sincerely believed that actions of the Orange security forces were for the general good and now its time to move on with respect.
I should add, I have no respect for the self righteous who are not only obsessed about the "righteousness" of their blinkered beliefs but also the perceived "wrongness" of others.
Have you any idea how much like an EG post that looks? :D None of it changes the fact that you played the man, not the ball.
Quote from: deiseach on July 24, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
Have you any idea how much like an EG post that looks? :D None of it changes the fact that you played the man, not the ball.
Well deserved it was too.
'at least you are consistently clueless every time !
Opus Dei won't let you join unless you're a Catholic. - prob the only thing you got right. Pointless however
The Catholic Church, until a few years ago, wouldn't let a Catholic marry a Protestant, unless they first signed a document promising to bring up any children of the marraiage as Catholics. - a 'few' years ago ... no longer applies - for quite some time too - zero points! ! !
Non Catholics are still barred from receiving communion at mass. - hardly bouncers up at the alter now ! I know of many incidents , occurring around magherafelt where protestants have gone up and received holy communion in a Catholic church. Obv you have never set foot in one or you'd know yer talking carp again.minus 10 points
Many of those convicted of sectarian murders, or of plotting mass murder, in the past 25 or 30 years have been devout Catholics. - your proof of this?
Would you put the Catholic church up there with the KKK and the Orange Order? If not, why not? - anyone can join the Catholic church irrespective of your previous religion for a start...
when do the school holidays end ! !
Why is my comment about Opus Dei pointless? Oh right. Because you say so. Silly me. :D
So against the stated policy of the Catholic Church, you're setting your anecdotal evidence of a few confused souls up the country somewhere. Strange I haven't heard of this before. :D
I'd go easy on that exclamation mark if I were you - you're going to break it.
Why not open a prod opus dei? That would solve it.
I can however see the merit of baptising kids in the catholic church. you don't want them to pass on without first giving them god's blessing.
you might as well be doing a morris dance and throwing fanta on the children for the good a protestant blessing gets you. its a made up religion ffs.
Quote from: carribbear on July 24, 2009, 09:04:15 PM
Why not open a prod opus dei? That would solve it.
I can however see the merit of baptising kids in the catholic church. you don't want them to pass on without first giving them god's blessing.
you might as well be doing a morris dance and throwing fanta on the children for the good a protestant blessing gets you. its a made up religion ffs.
All religion is made up. Why pick on the prods?