IRA/UVF killings

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

..and as big a fight as the nationalists in the North put up. ...and just like the nationalists abandoned their brethern.

I would have ethought it quite obvious that 1,000's of Irishmen from the south have been invovled in campigns since 1922 to remove the border, from IRA units from the border counties in the civil war to the S-Plan bombing campaign in England 1930'/early 40's, the Border campaign 50's / 60's, and ofcourse 1969 - 1994. Not to mention the thousands imprisioned and interned both sides of the border in between.

I recall the Incas didn't have telephones, but they manged to administer an empire that ran from Chile to Ecuador. But..wait a minute, why should we tolerate the evil partition imposed on the people of the Empire by the evil Spanish (sorry,. McArmalite, not Brits).

So in Ireland, a country much smaller, the writ of the High King of Tara didn't run far, but the Incas king did ?? And this when the quickest form of transport was horse back ?? But this has nothing to do with the writ of the High King, the Incas king or anyone else, but just the perversion of unionist views of history.

So.It was a common cultural area. So was Rome. So was the Iriquois Confederacy. So was Ummayad Iraq. That was then. This is now. The present is under no obligation to the past.

The island of Ireland is the national terrority of Ireland, forcefully partitioned to create a secterian gerrymander. Prior to 1922, Ireland was always treated as a single unit. Even the Act of Union refers to Great Britain and Ireland and not the Britain and southern Ireland and northern Ireland. Up to 1922 Ireland was treated as a single unit, for example the Royal Irish Constabulary etc

Don't start giving us bol!ox about Ireland not been a nation when wee 'Ulster' has only 2 to 3 decades left, drop the Paisleyite style NO, NO, NEVER, bullsh!t.

ilkhanid

"So in Ireland, a country much smaller, the writ of the High King of Tara didn't run far, but the Incas king did ?? And this when the quickest form of transport was horse back ??"

In fact the Incas didn't even have horses. Why that has anything to do with the perversion of the Unionist view of history is baffling to me.

"Prior to 1922, Ireland was always treated as a single unit."
So? The Spanish treated Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua as a single unit. Things change.

Paisleyite style? Ah, well....sure you might as well be raving here as in bed

McArmalite

ilkhanid wrote: »

"So in Ireland, a country much smaller, the writ of the High King of Tara didn't run far, but the Incas king did ?? And this when the quickest form of transport was horse back ??"

In fact the Incas didn't even have horses. Why that has anything to do with the perversion of the Unionist view of history is baffling to me.

"Prior to 1922, Ireland was always treated as a single unit."
So? The Spanish treated Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua as a single unit. Things change.

Paisleyite style? Ah, well....sure you might as well be raving here as in bed

Things indeed do change, and the partition of Ireland is undoubtably one that will . So now, go off and study your Ulster Scots ' language ' like all the other raving Paisleyites :rolleyes:

ilkhanid

McArmalite wrote: »

Things indeed do change, and the partition of Ireland is undoubtably one that will . So now, go off and study your Ulster Scots ' language ' like all the other raving Paisleyites :rolleyes:

maybe so, but not in the way that you think.

ilkhanid

Here's nice poem about the "Armed Struggle" for everybody

From the Irish

by James Simmons

"Most terrible was our hero in battle blows:
hands without fingers, shorn heads and toes
were scattered. That day there flew and fell
from astonished victims eyebrow, bone and entrail,
like stars in the sky, like snowflakes, like nuts in May,
like a meadow of daisies, like butts from an ashtray.

Familiar things, you might brush against or tread
upon in the daily round, were glistening red
with the slaughter the hero caused, though he had gone.
By proxy his bomb exploded, his valour shone."

DublinDes

Denerick wrote: »

Really its only people like yourself who care. The vast majority of people couldn't give a damn about lines on a map. Didn't you hear? Nationalism died in 1945.

"Nationalism died in 1945." Surely one of the most stupid statements I have ever seen on the forum. So I suppose the Vietnam War, Algerian War of Indepance and so on weren't about nationalism Look when communism fell, what was the almost immediate thing the eastern block countires did ? Declare national independence as soon as possible :rolleyes:

ilkhanid

I think he means just in Ireland.

Denerick

DublinDes wrote: »

"Nationalism died in 1945." Surely one of the most stupid statements I have ever seen on the forum. So I suppose the Vietnam War, Algerian War of Indepance and so on weren't about nationalism Look when communism fell, what was the almost immediate thing the eastern block countires did ? Declare national independence as soon as possible :rolleyes:

I take it as a compliment that you regard my comment as stupid.

walrusgumble

lets try and move this debate on a bit. lets see some constructive discussion for and against the following motions, if you like. because very few leaders and public representatives dare to convey their ideas to the public. the reality is, this thread, like all threads on this subject go round in circles, despite some very legitimate views from both sides of the argument.

motion 1:
How can we in the south, or nationalists & Republicans in the north, try and convince or pursuade (strictly by constitutional means) people of the unionist section, that in some time in the future an united ireland is preferable? How can this go about considering some unionist would never want to see a break in the union. continue, improve cross boarder relationships in trade, employment, legal co-operation, committees etc? make further admendments to bunreacht na heireann such as article 41, confirm in the constiution clearly equal right for all etc? change our attitudes such as renaming gaa clubs and grounds(a matter strictly for gaa clubs etc)

motion 2:
what happens, if, one assumes that tommorrow the majority in the north vote to join the rest of ireland? what would be best methods be for full representation? allocation of extra seats in the dail (or call it another name) base it six months in dublin and another 6 months in belfast? create a federation etc.

at times, with the exception of one or two parties, there is very little known about politicans actual intentions of creating an united ireland and how it would be managed. there just, at times it seems, although knowing that it will be a long road, that the parties think its inevitable, that the growing catholic population will win the day (who says that for reasons of eg economic opportunities etc, that the typical northern ireland catholic family of yesteryear will comprise of 3-6 children in the future)


in some ways, posts like this are pointless. strictly in the sense that the past is the past. i do not say that idly. militants on both sides came to prominence due to a lack of will or at times lack of commitment from certain sides of the constitutional division. politics failed the people in the north, through ignorance, alternative motive, fear, suspicion and times genuine concern. one side antagonised the other, the ruling class drove people into their respective armies. war was declared and horrible horrible things were done, even if certain targets were unintentional.

we are at a cross roads now, despite everything that as happened, both sides of the provinence are now on a level playing field, in that both denounce violence, both sides are now willing and eager to fight, but now in the committee rooms and chambers. now, the nationalist sides have the opportunity to take over business, councils etc.nationalist see the gfa as temporary, as a stepping stone for the future, unionist see gfa as clear statutory position that the north is to remain. its now time for nationalist and republican minded people to win the votes and trust of those who are indifferent, who are undecided, parties like the alliances, or labour movements.

maybe a trust and reconcillation committe akin to south africa is needed. after all people demand to be recongnised and seek justice.. maybe once and for all people will learn the truth,that all concerned failed the people in the past, and at times all, politicans and militants of each side are responsible directly or indirectly for the problems of the past.

it does not help when ill informed and bias nonsense, or informed facts twisted around for certain motives are used. its not helpful. it merely points fingers and throws blame on the other side. more questions are raised than answers and everyone goes back into their defensive shell. lets move on

Denerick

Very well said Walrus. I'm very much a dissafected 'ex' Republican, not in the sense that I've lost my dreams of a united Ireland but that I drifted away from the socialist basis of the movement and hence lost the sense of importance associated with a united island. Also, studying history in a more objective sense, reading the major historians and examing the big debates helped mould me away from the mythology associated with it. Your right, we need to move on, forget the past, the violence and the glorifications of it all. Whether we ever become a united island someday I hope it is in a manner in which we can hold our heads up high.

walrusgumble

Denerick wrote: »

Very well said Walrus. I'm very much a dissafected 'ex' Republican, not in the sense that I've lost my dreams of a united Ireland but that I drifted away from the socialist basis of the movement and hence lost the sense of importance associated with a united island. Also, studying history in a more objective sense, reading the major historians and examing the big debates helped mould me away from the mythology associated with it. Your right, we need to move on, forget the past, the violence and the glorifications of it all. Whether we ever become a united island someday I hope it is in a manner in which we can hold our heads up high.

i wish to make it clear on my views. i , like you do not believe in glorifying the past. i accept it. i would commerate and thank our forefathers and the ordinary people who contributed for the freedom that i enjoy as an irish man today.

Under no circumstances do i nor would i feel ashamed on how this country, or part of it (if one neglects to consider the reality of the demographics of the area i am referring to) which sought its independence from britain. i accept it for what it was and judge what occurred to the actual time the events happened and at least try and understand how and why things happened. if there is any sadness, i wish civil war did not happen, i wish that the reasons, and some being genuinely reasonable, that caused at least southern and nortern unionist to frighten away from the revolution occurred, i regret to see that even some of our best men and women of the 1916-1924 period failed to properly carried out the ideas of wolfe tone and take the literal meaning of the 1916 proclamation with regard to rights for all citizens. however, for the reasons that were (eg, amongst other things the overtly and sometimes negative catholic church influence) we as a nation still have more to do to realise the literal words of equal rights for all citizens, be it the way we treated the elderly, disadvantaged, travellers, new irish, people of differnent sexual orienation, gender etc.


we now, as a whole nation have time, freedom and support from the free world to learn from our mistakes, seek forgiveness where asked and build this island. we are an island of only approximately 5 million. we are an island where both traditions hold proud values. its time that the rest of the world loose their reasons/opportunities to validly (in their minds) think we are an island of mindless thugs, chancers, spoofers and animals (one step at a time lol).