Republic and Northern Ireland will eventually be reunited, predicts Enda Kenny

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

So lets get this straight, the loyalists paramiltarys had the full force of the British state behind it, a state that at one time had the largest empire ever to exist, fought in two world wars sailed half way round the world to reclaim a set of islands claimed by Argentina and is the second biggest arms manufacture in the world and yet they where only able to help loyslists kill random Catholics and build rubbish bombs, if collusion was bad was as wide spread as is alleged then you would expect better results

Well, 90 per cent of your post is pointless rubbish, I don't know why you're bringing up Britain's colonial past (past being the operative word, even in 1970 the "empire" was little more than an abstract idea that did nothing except make English toffs feel all warm and fuzzy.)
Nor do I know what you mean by "better results" although I can hazard a guess.
The fact remains Britain did bring the full weight of its imperial forces down here, or as much as it could get away with without risking international intervention.
When it wanted to do more but didn't want to be seen doing it it worked through its proxies in the various loyalist murder gangs.
The UDR was riddled with loyalist paramilitaries and openly so. Countless guns went missing and wound up being used in murders. British agents brought guns into the country for loyalists. British informers murdered with impunity and kept themselves out of jail and british agents were at the heart of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
More and more evidence is surfacing proving that at best the British government knew about this and happily ignored it, at worst actively encouraged it and it was all but government policy (a bit like the policy of reprisals in the 20s that was a policy but wasn't a policy but really was but not when the yanks asked)
So yes, I'd say it's fair say that the loyalist campaign was backed by the state.

gallag

So can we put it to the vote then and put this to bed? If it's the only way then let's do it. Or do we have to wait in limbo until the nationalists have a majority? Do we then give it a faw years until the unionists have control again. Or is it just a case of everyone waiting until there is a majority for UI then go for it and that's that.

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, 90 per cent of your post is pointless rubbish, I don't know why you're bringing up Britain's colonial past (past being the operative word, even in 1970 the "empire" was little more than an abstract idea that did nothing except make English toffs feel all warm and fuzzy.)
Nor do I know what you mean by "better results" although I can hazard a guess.
The fact remains Britain did bring the full weight of its imperial forces down here, or as much as it could get away with without risking international intervention.
When it wanted to do more but didn't want to be seen doing it it worked through its proxies in the various loyalist murder gangs.
The UDR was riddled with loyalist paramilitaries and openly so. Countless guns went missing and wound up being used in murders. British agents brought guns into the country for loyalists. British informers murdered with impunity and kept themselves out of jail and british agents were at the heart of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
More and more evidence is surfacing proving that at best the British government knew about this and happily ignored it, at worst actively encouraged it and it was all but government policy (a bit like the policy of reprisals in the 20s that was a policy but wasn't a policy but really was but not when the yanks asked)
So yes, I'd say it's fair say that the loyalist campaign was backed by the state.

It's called context, the UK is still a. Major international player, obviously in not the same way as when it had an empire and yes very much in the shadow of the USA but non the less a world power. You would think with the experince of running an empire, the ability to sail half way around the globe to conduct a war, all it's countless experince training mujahideen etc, it would have done a better job organising loyalists. In fact speaking as a loyalist it seems what the government did was dis-orginize loyalist paramiltarys by allowing any loyalist with any sence to be removed and criminal elements to be promoted, after all one thing the British government did get right was the infiltration at top level of all paramiltarys groups on both sides of the conflict

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Justify the state backed loyalist murder campaign to yourself however you like. the facts show your words up for what they are, an attempt to bestow some form of honour or legitimacy on a nakedly sectarian killing spree.
Id also point out that a "balanced" view of the conflict, where people say stupid things like "one side was as bad as the other" in an effort to avoid offending anyone, is not the same as an accurate view.

I'm not trying to bestow any form of honour or legitimacy on any Republican/Loyalist murder for the simple reason I'm not a child. In ethno/religious conflicts people get killed for simply being from a particular tribe and for no other reason. It happens all round the world, always has and always will.

I have no interest in avoiding offence.

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

It's called context, the UK is still a. Major international player, obviously in not the same way as when it had an empire and yes very much in the shadow of the USA but non the less a world power. You would think with the experince of running an empire, the ability to sail half way around the globe to conduct a war, all it's countless experince training mujahideen etc, it would have done a better job organising loyalists. In fact speaking as a loyalist it seems what the government did was dis-orginize loyalist paramiltarys by allowing any loyalist with any sence to be removed and criminal elements to be promoted, after all one thing the British government did get right was the infiltration at top level of all paramiltarys groups on both sides of the conflict

Its called grasping at straws. this entire post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. divert all you want but the fact remains that the evidence overwhelmingly points to british collusion with loyalists from the top to the bottom

dulpit

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I assume it would be the north and south but separately, much like the GFA referendum.

Interesting... Just wondering, if there was a proposed move to have some part of Ireland leave and join a different jurisdiction, I'd like to think I'd be able to vote on that as someone from the same country, which is why I was wondering if the rest of UK could vote.

Does self-determination refer to only the people within the area in question, or the country as a whole, or the country as a whole plus the country being moved into?

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

I'm not trying to bestow any form of honour or legitimacy on any Republican/Loyalist murder for the simple reason I'm not a child. In ethno/religious conflicts people get killed for simply being from a particular tribe and for no other reason. It happens all round the world, always has and always will.

I have no interest in avoiding offence.

Oh please, your admiration for these murderers is practically jumping off the screen. your ridiculous "ethno-religious" spiel is just as telling. this was a war between the british state and the IRA, invader and defender. stop trying to justify a sectarian killing spree

An Coilean

gallag wrote: »

So can we put it to the vote then and put this to bed? If it's the only way then let's do it. Or do we have to wait in limbo until the nationalists have a majority? Do we then give it a faw years until the unionists have control again. Or is it just a case of everyone waiting until there is a majority for UI then go for it and that's that.

Thats an interesting question, one that there is not yet an answer to, should a UI come about, what validity has the Northern state afterwards, if there be a movement for reseperation by unionists after a UI comes about, why should it be a question of the Old NI either staying in a UI or leaving?
Why not just counties that have a majority in favour of reseperation, why should people in Antrim be allowed to drag an unwilling Tyrone population out of a UI.

And once Antrim is out of the UK, who says they will be allowed back in, they may have a choice to leave a UI, but leave to what?

Crooked Jack

dulpit wrote: »

Interesting... Just wondering, if there was a proposed move to have some part of Ireland leave and join a different jurisdiction, I'd like to think I'd be able to vote on that as someone from the same country, which is why I was wondering if the rest of UK could vote.

Does self-determination refer to only the people within the area in question, or the country as a whole, or the country as a whole plus the country being moved into?

To be honest im not really sure what youre asking but i do know that the north leaving the "uk" is nothing like the north reunifying with the rest of the country.
In truth it should really be decided by one all ireland referendum but i suppose these are the sacrifices you make for peace

An Coilean

dulpit wrote: »

Interesting... Just wondering, if there was a proposed move to have some part of Ireland leave and join a different jurisdiction, I'd like to think I'd be able to vote on that as someone from the same country, which is why I was wondering if the rest of UK could vote.

Does self-determination refer to only the people within the area in question, or the country as a whole, or the country as a whole plus the country being moved into?

I think it can only mean the area in question. If it is the whole country the area is currently in, then it defeats the purpose, the area that wants to leave, or in which a lot of people that may or may not be a majority, want to leave, then they want to seperate themselves from interference from the rest of that country. Saying to an area, that you can escape the interference of the rest of the country only if the rest of the country agrees is kind of missing the point.

Take Scotland as a case in point, they will have a referendum in 2014 on membership of the UK.
If the whole of the UK was to vote in this referendum, and the Majority in Scotland voted for independance, but the UK overall voted for Scotland to remain in the UK, it would destroy the legitimacy of Scotlands membership of the UK, it would be imposed membership.

dulpit

An Coilean wrote: »

I think it can only mean the area in question. If it is the whole country the area is currently in, then it defeats the purpose, the area that wants to leave, or in which a lot of people that may or may not be a majority, want to leave, then they want to seperate themselves from interference from the rest of that country. Saying to an area, that you can escape the interference of the rest of the country only if the rest of the country agrees is kind of missing the point.

Take Scotland as a case in point, they will have a referendum in 2014 on membership of the UK.
If the whole of the UK was to vote in this referendum, and the Majority in Scotland voted for independance, but the UK overall voted for Scotland to remain in the UK, it would destroy the legitimacy of Scotlands membership of the UK, it would be imposed membership.

Suppose that makes sense... So NI votes to leave UK and Ireland votes to accept it into country would be what would have to happen here? Unless NI decide they want independence (unlikely)

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oh please, your admiration for these murderers is practically jumping off the screen. your ridiculous "ethno-religious" spiel is just as telling. this was a war between the british state and the IRA, invader and defender. stop trying to justify a sectarian killing spree

You're blinded by your partisan convictions. That's why you will never influence anyone's thinking beyond your own narrow cabal.

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

You're blinded by your partisan convictions. That's why you will never influence anyone's thinking beyond your own narrow cabal.

That's hilarious coming from you

An Coilean

dulpit wrote: »

Suppose that makes sense... So NI votes to leave UK and Ireland votes to accept it into country would be what would have to happen here? Unless NI decide they want independence (unlikely)

There would not necessarily need to be a vote here, but I thibk it is generally accepted that there will be a Vote both sides of the border. I would imagine that there will be a vote in NI first, and if it passes, that would trigger one down here. Hard to see that vote not passing here in the case that a majority in NI want a UI.

NIMAN

I think that so many Nationalists from NI would vote to stay in the UK that we won't have to worry about it for a very long time.

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Its called grasping at straws. this entire post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. divert all you want but the fact remains that the evidence overwhelmingly points to british collusion with loyalists from the top to the bottom

Then why wasn't the pira destroyed, British intelligence knew who they where, but intelligence is not evidence, so why not send their so called puppets to do the job that the courts couldn't

Sound of Silence

junder wrote: »

Then why wasn't the pira destroyed, British intelligence knew who they where, but intelligence is not evidence, so why not send their so called puppets to do the job that the courts couldn't

You can have a quick look at the Cassel Report (2006). It goes into some detail about Loyalist collusion.

http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/collusion.pdf

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

What makes you say that? From what I've read their strategic thinking was quite clear - namely to use violence against the broader Nationalist community in NI to influence the thinking of three distinct audiences:

(i) NI Nationalists: to pressure said Nationalists into pressurising their neighbours, friends and family members in The Republican movement to call off, or reign in, their own violent campaign.

Result: Failed. All they achieved was swelling the ranks of the IRA by murdering innocent Catholics when they were done murdering each other over territory.

(ii) UK State: to show The UK State and it's politicos that making concessions to Nationalists in NI would not buy peace.

Failed: Their 'enemies' were given 'concessions' continuously and are now administrating the north.

(iii) People of The ROI: to demonstrate to the people of The Republic and especially key decision makers that coercing Unionists into an independent, united Ireland would be costly in blood and treasure.

The north may as well have been in Indochina for the majority of people living south of the border/counties experienced of loyalist murder gangs.

gallag wrote: »

Let me make this clear, the loyalists were as bad as the IRA

When it came to murdering innocent people? No you're wrong. They were far far worse - more akin to a gang of serial killers than anything approaching a tactically capable paramilitary unit.

gallag wrote: »

I was making this argument to point out that if there role became attack then they could be as effective as the ira attacking economic and civilian targets.

Very badly indeed.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

whitelines and Crooked Jack, that's enough sniping.

dulpit

NIMAN wrote: »

I think that so many Nationalists from NI would vote to stay in the UK that we won't have to worry about it for a very long time.

Why would a nationalist vote to stay in UK? Would that not make them the opposite of a nationalist?

dizzywizlw

Confederation could be attainable in decades IMO.

NI- Keeps Policing and Some General Government Functions, Certain Laws
Confederate Council- Taxes, Foreign Relations, Certain Laws, Defence Forces (RIR and FDF Merger)

Reductionist but the only thing that could be remotely peaceful.

PSNI > AGS in my opinion, policing is a definite redline.

Eggy Baby!

gallag wrote: »

Let me make this clear, the loyalists were as bad as the IRA, what I ment was they played a more defensive role overall I.e Ulster defence association. I was making this argument to point out that if there role became attack then they could be as effective as the ira attacking economic and civilian targets.

Yes, and the Israeli Defence Force plays a defensive role too?

Just because defence is in the name doesn't mean defence is in the game.

i.e Ministry of Defence. Orwell taught us this.

bilston

The most interesting development in the short term may be the future of Scotland. If Scotland votes for independence then it's quite possible that nationalism will rise in Wales as they see Scotland go there own way. If say in 10 years Wales then voted for independence then perhaps Unionists in NI might start to consider things in a different light. Will they then be part of a United Kingdom or just an extension of England who don't even want them?

In saying all that opinion polls show that Scotland is likely to vote to remain in the UK (albeit Scottish nationalism will be on a high in 2014 for a number of reasons such the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games) and Wales is even less likely to vote for independence than Scotland.

As for NI, any opinion poll I've seen in the last two or three years show a surprisingly low amount of support for a United Ireland amongst Catholics (below 50% I think in at least one of the polls). I think the economic situation has to be taken into consideration though, but even still for the Catholic Middle Class in Northern Ireland I don't believe a United Ireland is a priority and speaking as a 32 year old, barring a general break up of the UK as explained above, I don't think I'll see a United Ireland in my lifetime.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When it came to murdering innocent people? No you're wrong.

How, republican terrorists killed over twice as many people as loyalists did. They are both equally guilty of being low life scum. I can move on thinkin like that, not trying to justify one murderous group over another just to suit my political agenda.

And I ask again, what is the final solution here? Do we have a vote? Do we put democracy on hold until a certain group believe they have a majority? It makes me sick that people who have fought and watched people die to get the vote now don't want it because it would hurt their pocket slightly because Ireland has financial troubles, makes a mockery of it.

whitelines

Sound of Silence wrote: »

You can have a quick look at the Cassel Report (2006). It goes into some detail about Loyalist collusion.

http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/collusion.pdf

The point Junder is making is that the security forces had substantial details on most Republican militants including where they lived and had they wanted them dead they could have killed them any time they liked. Failing this they could have trained small groups of Loyalists to do the job for them with weapons, transport, and other logistics supplied. The fact that this didn't happen would suggest that collusion was neither widespread nor organised.

I'm afraid that anything presented by The Pat Finucane centre is pretty dubious in my mind given that a senior IRA member named Mr Finucane himself as a senior Provisional IRA member.

K-9

whitelines wrote: »

I'm afraid that anything presented by The Pat Finucane centre is pretty dubious in my mind given that a senior IRA member named Mr Finucane himself as a senior Provisional IRA member.

Who was this and when did it happen?

whitelines

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Result: Failed. All they achieved was swelling the ranks of the IRA by murdering innocent Catholics when they were done murdering each other over territory.



Failed: Their 'enemies' were given 'concessions' continuously and are now administrating the north.



The north may as well have been in Indochina for the majority of people living south of the border/counties experienced of loyalist murder gangs.



When it came to murdering innocent people? No you're wrong. They were far far worse - more akin to a gang of serial killers than anything approaching a tactically capable paramilitary unit.



Very badly indeed.

By your assessment PIRA must have also swelled the ranks of The UVF by killing Protestants - including those in The UDR and RUC.

As for Loyalists murdering each other, it would appear Republicans were far MORE guilty of these types of crimes:

Republican murders of Republicans: 187
Loyalist murders of Loyalists: 93

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

In fact TWICE as guilty.

As for concessions, the strategic goals of Loyalist paramilitaries were to preserve The Union and force PIRA to call off their murder campaign. Both these goals were achieved. Other concessions were made, although Loyalist paramilitaries had accepted the need for power sharing from the mid seventies.

I agree with you that NI might as well have been in Indochina as far as most people living in The ROI were concerned, but I suspect that Irish politicians, civil servants, army commanders and senior police were far more aware of the threat that Loyalists might have posed - especially following Dublin/Monaghan in '74.

Surely all terrorist gangs are effectively serial killers? After all, they all murder a series of human beings in the hope of shifting opinion. If this is the case then Republicans appear to have been far worse serial killers than Loyalists, given that they serially murdered twice as many people.

whitelines

K-9 wrote: »

Who was this and when did it happen?

Sean O'Callaghan.

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

Sean O'Callaghan.

Is this informer and overstater-of-his-own-importance Sean O'Callaghan?
Yup, reliable.
I would have thought you would have been more trusting of the RUC and British government, who both clearly stated Finucane was not a member.
But don't take my word for it, look up the Stevens Report.

burgermasters

gallag wrote: »

So you believe the loyalist paramilitary forces could not mirror the role the Ira played. What if loyalists started a boming campaign of civilian and economic targets like the ira did, could the Irish economy support a new "troubles"

We ALL seem to be forgetting that a united ireland is the ream of every irish man and woman for the last what 800 years? so as far as the trouble that may come with it i think as a full nation we will stand (united) and fight whatever they throw at us because that is who we are we have passion pride and heart we will be untied we will be FREE and we will put down any rising that may or may not come up against us! were is the heart today, for the love of the country people we need to unite! support a united ireland finish what our brave have started.:cool: