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

burgermasters

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.

It is going to happen very soon, and if the people of NI knew what the english government thought and im sure most do but they see NI as a financial burden they will vote to support it. england pulled out of a lot of other countries but i think they are holding on to the north to save face??? thats just what i think tbh???

dulpit

burgermasters wrote: »

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:

I'd imagine the Unionists would disagree strongly with you on this point...

Iwasfrozen

burgermasters wrote: »

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:

Ireland united as the dream of ever irish man and woman is simply wrong no explanation needed. As for putting down any rising. Well that just shows what a dangerous ideology nationalism really is.

junder

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

Thing is, he is not talking about the solicitor Finucane but his brother who is a member of the pira, I believe this information was released last week by the courts, he was one of 4 pira members names released

whitelines

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

In this case, I'm tempted to believe Sean - after all he was a senior IRA member. I don't see how either The RUC or any UK State representative could possibly rule Finucane out as a Provisional IRA member - their intelligence was substantial, but I doubt it covered every single member of a clandestine murder gang. Regarding Stevens, at that time in the troubles (and since), The UK State was beginning to roll out rhetorical concessions to SF/IRA as part of the Provo surrender process - so no, I wouldn't take anything said by The RUC or The UK State regarding this type of issue at face value.

Nodin

whitelines wrote: »

In this case, I'm tempted to believe Sean - after all he was a senior IRA member. I don't see how either The RUC or any UK State representative could possibly rule Finucane out as a Provisional IRA member - their intelligence was substantial, but I doubt it covered every single member of a clandestine murder gang. Regarding Stevens, at that time in the troubles (and since), The UK State was beginning to roll out rhetorical concessions to SF/IRA as part of the Provo surrender process - so no, I wouldn't take anything said by The RUC or The UK State regarding this type of issue at face value.

I'd imagine that your temptation to believe Mr Garland is more to do with the fact it suits your narrative rather than anything else. Likewise your refusal to see the UDR as the loyalist militia and supply train it was.

whitelines

Nodin wrote: »

I'd imagine that your temptation to believe Mr Garland is more to do with the fact it suits your narrative rather than anything else. Likewise your refusal to see the UDR as the loyalist militia and supply train it was.

I'd say we're all guilty of that to one degree or another - including you.

bilston

burgermasters wrote: »

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:

Speaking as a Unionist I can tell you that you're not doing a great job in selling it to me!...

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

How, republican terrorists killed over twice as many people as loyalists did. They are both equally guilty of being low life scum.

Approx 35% of IRA killings were civilians. 85% of loyalist paramilitaries victims were civilians - only 4% were Republican paramilitaries.

4%. Brave men indeed. Again, loyalist murder gangs were little more than a bunch of serial killers who did nothing but energize Republican para-militarism.

whitelines wrote: »

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

Going by your numbers approximately 1 in 5 Loyalist victims were other loyalists and approximately 1 in 10 IRA victims were other Republicans (or claimed to be).

So, you see, when it comes to being murdering thugs the IRA were positively choosy when it came to killing compared to loyalists.

As for concessions, the strategic goals of Loyalist paramilitaries were to preserve The Union and force PIRA to call off their murder campaign.

Failed spectacularly. The IRA weren't particularly concerned with loyalist death gangs - indeed all they did was help make the case that British were the root of the problem.

Sound of Silence

whitelines wrote: »

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.

It's ironic that you question Pat Finucane's integrity, whilst in the same breath dismiss the allegation that collusion was common practice among British State forces in Northern Ireland. It seems common knowledge that Pat Finucane's death was the product of "collusion with rogue elements of the state", as noted by Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner who had investigated the murder between 1999 and 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/oct/13/pat-finucane-scary-admission-state

Regardless, Pat Finucane was long dead before this report was published. The research itself was conducted by the Center for Civil and Human Rights in Notre Dame Law School, which is recognized as one of America's most prestigious Law schools.

Your first paragraph is simply conjecture, as far as I can gather. It seems like you're confusing collusion with State infiltration. The IRA in Belfast had a significant number informers within it's ranks, and the British often acted on the information whenever it happened to be of some substance, but it would be unwise to assume that the IRA were unaware of this fact. British officials may have known individual members of the IRA, but they would ultimately still have to actually locate them, which wasn't always easy.

An example of your second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

whitelines

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Approx 35% of IRA killings were civilians. 85% of loyalist paramilitaries victims were civilians - only 4% were Republican paramilitaries.

4%. Brave men indeed. Again, loyalist murder gangs were little more than a bunch of serial killers who did nothing but energize Republican para-militarism.



Going by your numbers approximately 1 in 5 Loyalist victims were other loyalists and approximately 1 in 10 IRA victims were other Republicans (or claimed to be).

So, you see, when it comes to being murdering thugs the IRA were positively choosy when it came to killing compared to loyalists.



Failed spectacularly. The IRA weren't particularly concerned with loyalist death gangs - indeed all they did was help make the case that British were the root of the problem.

Sorry Chuck, but I'm a little bit confused by most of your analysis.

As previously:

Republican trrorists murdered 187 of their fellow Republican terrorists
Loyalist terrorists murdered 93 of their fellow Loyalist terrorists

This shows clearly that Republicans murdered TWICE as many of their terrorist comrades as Loyalists did.

Now we know that Republicans slaughtered 2061 human beings and that Loyalists slaughtered 1016. This shows that Republicans were TWICE as proficient at murdering other human beings as Loyalists. So as a proportion, it would appear that both Republican and Loyalist gangs killed the same percentage of their partners in crime - namely 9%

Now coming onto your next point about Loyalists killing Republican gang members and vice versa, the figures were as follows:

Loyalists killed 41 Republican gang members
Republicans killed 56 Loyalist gang members

As a percentage of the total murders committed by both gangs:

Loyalists killed 4.0%
Republicans killed 2.7%

It would appear that Loyalists murdered a greater proportion of Republican gang members than Republicans did Loyalist gang members. Amazing figures given that Republicans claimed to be defending Roman Catholics against Loyalist murder gangs! Perhaps they had an arrangement worked out in Long Kesh?

Now concerning what you refer to as civilian casualties, the figures are as follows:

Loyalists murdered 868
Republicans murdered 728

It would appear that both gangs slaughtered similar numbers of civilian men, women and children.

But now we have a few other problems don't we Chuck? Let's look at the following Republican murders:

Ex-RUC 18
Ex-UDR 40
Ex-British Army 5
Ex Prison Officer 2

Yes Chuck, it would appear that these 65 people were civilians at the point Republicans slaughtered them - so you can add them to the total of civilians murdered by Republican gangs if you like.

Then we have the following victims:

RUC 288
Prison Officers 22
Mainland Police 6

Under international law police officers are civilians (whether armed or not), so we can add those 316 victims to the list of civilians muredered by Republican gangs if you like.

That just leaves regular army and UDR. Now these soldiers were acting in support of the civil law - de facto police officers - so Republicans shouldn't have murdered them either. But putting that to one side, we have to consider the fact that only soldiers are entitled to kill soldiers, else it's murder. So how do we define a soldier? Well, he usually wears a uniform and openly displays his weapons to insure that his opposition doesn't mistake him for a civilian. Republican gang members didn't generally follow this rule (or any other rule of war for that matter). This meant they were actually committing murder when they killed any soldier, under international law.

Finally, Republican gangs also managed to murder 9 members of The Irish police some how.

Not looking good is it?

Your final comment made me smile:

Failed spectacularly. The IRA weren't particularly concerned with loyalist death gangs - indeed all they did was help make the case that British were the root of the problem

Which is why so many ex-IRA are now working for The British and being paid by them.

What were all those Republican murders for?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This thread has gone way OT and settled into the usual trench warfare. If folks can't pull this thread out of the ditch and back on track, it won't be open much longer.

guinnessdrinker

To me I think it is quite obvious that the reason Kenny made those comments about a United Ireland was because he felt that this is what Americans wanted to hear, i.e. simply playing to the audience.

Would he have made those comments if he was speaking at a similar engagement in Britian though? Unlikely I'd say.

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

Sorry Chuck, but I'm a little bit confused by most of your analysis.

Not surprising as we've been here before under two of your other guises and you couldn't accept the truth. Indeed, rather than accept the truth you resorted to victim-blaming, sectarianism and outright denial of collusion. I see the boards moderators have civilised you somewhat.

Republican trrorists murdered 187 of their fellow Republican terrorists
Loyalist terrorists murdered 93 of their fellow Loyalist terrorists

We're talking about proportion here. It's all about proportion.

Loyalists killed 41 Republican gang members
Republicans killed 56 Loyalist gang members

The IRA had bigger fish to fry than Loyalist serial killers. Your numbers are reductive nonsense.

Under international law police officers are civilians (whether armed or not), so we can add those 316 victims to the list of civilians muredered by Republican gangs if you like.

If they had been civilian police forces that might have been true but the dogs in the street know that their principle concern was maintaining the Unionist Junta. Civilian police and prison service? Don't make me laugh.

That just leaves regular army and UDR. Now these soldiers were acting in support of the civil law - de facto police officers - so Republicans shouldn't have murdered them either.

Again we've been here before. Your fantasies may comfort you but they are not representative of reality.

The UDR and B-Special needs were nothing other than Unionist/loyalist militias and there is reams of evidence to back this up which was presented to you already:

here

here

and here

Nodin

whitelines wrote: »

That just leaves regular army and UDR. Now these soldiers were acting in support of the civil law - de facto police officers - so Republicans shouldn't have murdered them either. But putting that to one side, we have to consider the fact that only soldiers are entitled to kill soldiers, else it's murder. So how do we define a soldier? Well, he usually wears a uniform and openly displays his weapons to insure that his opposition doesn't mistake him for a civilian. Republican gang members didn't generally follow this rule (or any other rule of war for that matter). This meant they were actually committing murder when they killed any soldier, under international law.

..........

The army would be an entirely legitamate target in an armed conflict, as would an armed auxillary like the UDR. When we factor in the fact that the UDR was little more than loyalists in government uniforms........

Crooked Jack

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

To me I think it is quite obvious that the reason Kenny made those comments about a United Ireland was because he felt that this is what Americans wanted to hear, i.e. simply playing to the audience.

Would he have made those comments if he was speaking at a similar engagement in Britian though? Unlikely I'd say.

It was actually a pretty lazy comment by kenny. Showing some sort of vague support for unity but declaring that its way off in the future ensuring he doesnt have to do anything to help bring it about. i suppose its somewhat comforting that at the very least hes aware its an issue and not just the accepted norm

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

This thread has gone way OT and settled into the usual trench warfare. If folks can't pull this thread out of the ditch and back on track, it won't be open much longer.

Also, whitelines permabanned on the basis of either being trendyvicar, or being indistinguishable enough to warrant a ban on the same lines as trendyvicar.

moderately,
Scofflaw

burgermasters

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ireland united as the dream of ever irish man and woman is simply wrong no explanation needed. As for putting down any rising. Well that just shows what a dangerous ideology nationalism really is.

ok 1st it is not wrong as if you stop and think that the year is 2012 and yet we still live with forcible occupation this very day, argue with me all you want but it is fact, 2nd tbh i would be shocked if anybody called themselves irish and didn't want a united ireland well there not irish? maggie thatcher wanted to give the north back but was over ruled in private talks with west minster simply because they did trust charlie haughy??? churchhill himself offered it back if dev openly sided with the british in ww2 but again trust was an issue as dev didn't trust him sadly,, my point is and maybe i didn't put out right is that it will happen but we need have a trust between our two nations, i myself am a strong true irish man but i dont think war or any kind of fighting will do it but if push comes to it we as a small nation are unstoppable when our hearts are fighting,, no country should be occupied by another in this day and age! these countries cry and moan about freedom when they don't know the meaning of the word? when we stand united side by side and not in the land of others that is when we are (ALL) really and truly free.:cool:

burgermasters

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It was actually a pretty lazy comment by kenny. Showing some sort of vague support for unity but declaring that its way off in the future ensuring he doesnt have to do anything to help bring it about. i suppose its somewhat comforting that at the very least hes aware its an issue and not just the accepted norm

Kenny is a coward to say the least, yes he was playing to the crowed and has been since day 1 in office when he took down the portrait of dev down in the dail and put up the one of mick collins, simply giving the nation the impression that it was on his sights to act on unity but it was infact an act, we need to act now on the geeod friday agreement with the scots getting there shot at it, it is fresh in the minds of people around the world so now it is time to act and secure a united ireland.

dulpit

burgermasters wrote: »

ok 1st it is not wrong as if you stop and think that the year is 2012 and yet we still live with forcible occupation this very day, argue with me all you want but it is fact, 2nd tbh i would be shocked if anybody called themselves irish and didn't want a united ireland well there not irish? maggie thatcher wanted to give the north back but was over ruled in private talks with west minster simply because they did trust charlie haughy??? churchhill himself offered it back if dev openly sided with the british in ww2 but again trust was an issue as dev didn't trust him sadly,, my point is and maybe i didn't put out right is that it will happen but we need have a trust between our two nations, i myself am a strong true irish man but i dont think war or any kind of fighting will do it but if push comes to it we as a small nation are unstoppable when our hearts are fighting,, no country should be occupied by another in this day and age! these countries cry and moan about freedom when they don't know the meaning of the word? when we stand united side by side and not in the land of others that is when we are (ALL) really and truly free.:cool:

Oh dear. I think you would find that the Unionists in Northern Ireland (who are Irish by virtue of being from the island of Ireland) would state that they are not being occupied. The Nationalists (obviously) would disagree.

Your point that a "true Irish person" wants a United Ireland is codswallop if you ask me... The definition of a true Irishman/woman for me is someone from Ireland (country or island, take your pick)

Iwasfrozen

burgermasters wrote: »

ok 1st it is not wrong as if you stop and think that the year is 2012 and yet we still live with forcible occupation this very day, argue with me all you want but it is fact, 2nd tbh i would be shocked if anybody called themselves irish and didn't want a united ireland well there not irish? maggie thatcher wanted to give the north back but was over ruled in private talks with west minster simply because they did trust charlie haughy??? churchhill himself offered it back if dev openly sided with the british in ww2 but again trust was an issue as dev didn't trust him sadly,, my point is and maybe i didn't put out right is that it will happen but we need have a trust between our two nations, i myself am a strong true irish man but i dont think war or any kind of fighting will do it but if push comes to it we as a small nation are unstoppable when our hearts are fighting,, no country should be occupied by another in this day and age! these countries cry and moan about freedom when they don't know the meaning of the word? when we stand united side by side and not in the land of others that is when we are (ALL) really and truly free.:cool:

To be Irish is an identity. It is not dependent on any one ideology. Nationalism included. It's possible to be Irish and not desire a united Ireland. Whether for economic reasons or national security there are many arguments that can be put forth against unification. Now we've gotten over that point Northern Ireland is not occupied. It is a part of the British state and will remain so until the majority of people on both sides of the border vote otherwise as per the terms of the good Friday agreement.

You talk a lot about forceful occupation but in your last post you talked about putting down unionist resistance to Dublin rule. Bit contradictory do you think.

gallag

How did Scotland get the vote without one Bullitt fired, perhaps the republican terrorists set the UI movement back? Anyway, all I want is peace, I am happy to respect democracy. I don't want my children to live in a war zone, can't say I would be overjoyed to be ran by a corrupt inept Irish government aether, hell even you guys hate them. So I say put it to a vote, along with Scotland would be good and put it to bed.

dulpit

gallag wrote: »

How did Scotland get the vote without one Bullitt fired, perhaps the republican terrorists set the UI movement back? Anyway, all I want is peace, I am happy to respect democracy. I don't want my children to live in a war zone, can't say I would be overjoyed to be ran by a corrupt inept Irish government aether, hell even you guys hate them. So I say put it to a vote, along with Scotland would be good and put it to bed.

Can't imagine there'd be a vote until (like in Scotland) a nationalist party had a decent majority.

Hannibal

gallag wrote: »

How did Scotland get the vote without one Bullitt fired, perhaps the republican terrorists set the UI movement back? Anyway, all I want is peace, I am happy to respect democracy. I don't want my children to live in a war zone, can't say I would be overjoyed to be ran by a corrupt inept Irish government aether, hell even you guys hate them. So I say put it to a vote, along with Scotland would be good and put it to bed.

Scotland was and is entirely different to the situation in Ireland.

You can see how the conflict evolved over centuries with countless rebellions and the situation under an apartheid unionist government perhaps brought everything to a boil and split the communities into two tribes that are a million miles apart and we're just at the start of a path now the are slowly bringing the communities back to the table.

By the way everyone hates their government, I do be in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester a lot and 95% of people I meet hate the British government and establishment so Ireland is no different. Ten years ago this was the place to so as they say the grass is always greener

burgermasters

dulpit wrote: »

Oh dear. I think you would find that the Unionists in Northern Ireland (who are Irish by virtue of being from the island of Ireland) would state that they are not being occupied. The Nationalists (obviously) would disagree.

Your point that a "true Irish person" wants a United Ireland is codswallop if you ask me... The definition of a true Irishman/woman for me is someone from Ireland (country or island, take your pick)

Ok ill except your point they will class themselves as irish, but fact is fact how can the say they don't live in occupation if there Island is ruled and occupied ruled by another country (island)? that makes no sense whatsoever?? but on the note that they may not want to be run by an irish government well then they CAN'T claim to be irish as far as i am concerned because that is what some people would call more than 1 face to the clock if you know what i mean,, at the end of the day regardless of what they may think northern ireland IS and has been for hundreds of years been in a forcible occupation fact is fact.. any one who does not want unity then let them go give in her majesties land if that's the way they want to live?? there is no painting it up in any way shape or form, it is our country england should not be here its as simple as that, the unionists hypocrites calling themselves irish? they dont know the meaning of the word? without all the fight and i really hope i have not or do not offend you i believe in love for the country and our fellow irish men and women, there has been enough irish blood spilt over the years the brits have a lot to answer for and yet they demand that we say that we are sorry for the troubles in the 60's and 70's im sorry but again they are hypocrites it is our land they need to pull out NOW or the troubles WILL start again and there will be more blood spilt than ever before that is not a threat it is what i see on a daily basis.:mad:

burgermasters

Dotsey wrote: »

Scotland was and is entirely different to the situation in Ireland.

You can see how th1922e conflict evolved over centuries with countless rebellions and the situation under an apartheid unionist government perhaps brought everything to a boil and split the communities into two tribes that are a million miles apart and we're just at the start of a path now the are slowly bringing the communities back to the table.

By the way everyone hates their government, I do be in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester a lot and 95% of people I meet hate the British government and establishment so Ireland is no different. Ten years ago this was the place to so as they say the grass is always greener

I Agree everybody hates there government it is the people that love there country NOT there government, at the end of the day ireland is more different that scotland because in 1922 when the split happened while there was civil war in the south catholic's were treated as 3rd class in the north they were denied work half decent medical treatment and so much more being a catholic in the north was like being jewish in world war two that is were alot of the trouble stemed from tbh, again i state the english have alot to answer for over the lats 100 years never mind the 700 before that.

dulpit

burgermasters wrote: »

Ok ill except your point they will class themselves as irish, but fact is fact how can the say they don't live in occupation if there Island is ruled and occupied ruled by another country (island)? that makes no sense whatsoever?? but on the note that they may not want to be run by an irish government well then they CAN'T claim to be irish as far as i am concerned because that is what some people would call more than 1 face to the clock if you know what i mean,, at the end of the day regardless of what they may think northern ireland IS and has been for hundreds of years been in a forcible occupation fact is fact.. any one who does not want unity then let them go give in her majesties land if that's the way they want to live?? there is no painting it up in any way shape or form, it is our country england should not be here its as simple as that, the unionists hypocrites calling themselves irish? they dont know the meaning of the word? without all the fight and i really hope i have not or do not offend you i believe in love for the country and our fellow irish men and women, there has been enough irish blood spilt over the years the brits have a lot to answer for and yet they demand that we say that we are sorry for the troubles in the 60's and 70's im sorry but again they are hypocrites it is our land they need to pull out NOW or the troubles WILL start again and there will be more blood spilt than ever before that is not a threat it is what i see on a daily basis.:mad:

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the UK, it's not a forcible occupation. Most in this country and in the UK believe in self-determination, when the people of the North decide they want to be part of Ireland or for that matter independent, then that should happen. Until then, leave well enough alone.

ardmacha

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the UK, it's not a forcible occupation.

No, it is a majority created by a set of people put there by those who forcibly occupied. If some people break into my house and then have a vote among the people then in my house as to what should be done, the voting aspect doesn't really change the morality of things.

You can advocate various ways forward, but denying the starting position is not helpful.

junder

ardmacha wrote: »

No, it is a majority created by a set of people put there by those who forcibly occupied. If some people break into my house and then have a vote among the people then in my house as to what should be done, the voting aspect doesn't really change the morality of things.

You can advocate various ways forward, but denying the starting position is not helpful.

Moaning about something that happened several hundred years ago is not going to be helpful either, fact is I am as much of this island as you are.

woodoo

junder wrote: »

Moaning about something that happened several hundred years ago is not going to be helpful either, fact is I am as much of this island as you are.

Marching up and down the street celebrating something that happened several hundred years ago is pretty silly too.