FrancieBrady wrote: » You speak as one who thinks there is a perfect conflict/war. Like Janfebmar who thinks that rules apply.
blanch152 wrote: » The children killed and injured by so many IRA bombs never got a trial. Neither did Lord Mountbatten, or the Tory party in Brighton. Those people kneecapped, the children sexually abused by IRA members in safe houses, one convicted only last week, where was their justice?
It is clear that the British government and its agents dropped their standards during the Troubles, it is also clear that SF/IRA had no standards during that time.
jm08 wrote: » As for Mountbatton - millions died in India under his watch. I'm not sure how well he would do if he had to face charges for his actions in India. Similarly for the Tory Party. Churchill of the Tory Party should have been court marshalled for war crimes.
jm08 wrote: » As for child abuse, bearing in mind the scale of the abuse in this part of the country, I don't think I'd be singling the Provos out for what happened in a place where the state had lost all moral authority and trust with half the community.
blanch152 wrote: » I am happy that someone is going on trial for Bloody Sunday. I just wish that no letters of comfort were ever issued and that an awful lot more people were going on trial. You can choose to glorify and romanticise what happened on this island, but to me none of the violence was ever justified. Ireland was never apartheid South Africa, never a place that deserved or required violence. Like many others, I am ashamed of what the IRA claimed to have done in my name.
blanch152 wrote: » Yep, no trial. Thanks for admitting that. Gibraltar three never got a trial, do you think their shooting was justified, given their previous history and their intentions that day?
Yeah, the old argument of we only abused a few children, while that lot abused more. Don't buy it, don't buy the cover-up, don't buy the Liam Adams getting a job working with kids in Louth, don't buy that the safe house abuse also happened in Louth as a complete coincidence etc.
blanch152 wrote: » You can choose to glorify and romanticise what happened on this island, but to me none of the violence was ever justified. Ireland was ... never a place that deserved or required violence.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Except the violence that kept it under British rule for centuries and kept the sectarian junta in power in the north, is it?
blanch152 wrote: » I am happy that someone is going on trial for Bloody Sunday. I just wish that no letters of comfort were ever issued and that an awful lot more people were going on trial.
You can choose to glorify and romanticise what happened on this island, but to me none of the violence was ever justified. Ireland was never apartheid South Africa, never a place that deserved or required violence. Like many others, I am ashamed of what the IRA claimed to have done in my name.
downcow wrote: » There are a few people in here seem to have lived on another planet for the last 50 years. Apart from all the stuff listed like raping young girls ets. The provos often took 3 days to kill young men. The committed the most horrendous torture prior to assassination. They cut of bits of people’s bodies and posted them to family. They controlled communities and murder their own for falling out with the big boys in pubs. They left no warning bombs that killed infants. They killed Protestants who were an only child living on a farm so as the farm would not pass down. The firebombed a hotel because it was used primarily by protestan burning many to death. I could go on for pages. They were/are evil sectarian cowardly killers. There nickname I Ran Away seems to fit will. Now I am wore down by the nonsense a couple of you believe, so i am also checking out of this area of discussion. .....and loyalist paramilitaries were no better at all in case your confused in what I am saying. The army and police were not perfect and made some ropey decisions under pressure. But thank god for them or we would have all been controlled by the above activities
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Took me a while to get around to it, but watched the Miami showband documentary on Netflix last night. Seems apt to be discussing it on a border poll thread, seeing as it happened relatively close to the border they were due to cross. For the history revisionists among us, the SAS with full permission (quite possibly under orders from) the top level of the British government, collaborated with loyalist terror groups (UVF) to murder a group of young men, who were of mixed religion, from north and south of the island, all apolitical, with no interest in politics at all. Also revealed on the documentary was a letter apparently penned on "UVF headed paper" which disclosed an admission that the British governments MI5 wanted to murder Charlie Haughey, and asked that the UVF obliged them with taking the blame. Worth taking into account when totting up points lads.
downcow wrote: » UVF headed paper! - that should make it easy to arrest them
RobMc59 wrote: » The way the two army intelligence officers who questioned the establishment were set up and discredited was shocking as well.
segarox wrote: » i hope some people from northern ireland are reading this because it concerns them. i've been watching a few videos on what might happen to the north following brexit and one of the options is to reunify with ireland, which i believe, is not everyone cup of tea. me personally as an irishman, i have no strong feelings about this but i think it'd be nice to see a complete ireland on a map. however, i think i may have seen an option that hasn't been considered. what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency. could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say.
downcow wrote: » Getting back the the thread. I feel this is the most positive way i have ever seen a UI propositioned. Seagarox sounds like someone unionists could seriously converse with
FrancieBrady wrote: » What would that proposal solve exactly? That Unionists wouldn't be offended or upset? It will solve nothing and just underscore and deepen division.
downcow wrote: » Well it has a staring point that recognised that the roi don’t have some Devine right to take over another country just because it’s on the same land mass. That’s helpful
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody is 'taking over' anything. This will happen when a majority decide it is the correct thing for the future.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » What if a united Ireland doesnt quite take the form that you imagine Francie? Compromises will need to be made, a united Ireland with a large unhappy minority could be as big a disaster as the north is with its unhappy minority.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who ever suggested a UI without compromises? That would be the very definition of a 'take over'. Of course there will be compromise, but compromise should not be mistaken for appeasement for the sake of it. Unionists will have to accommodate too if they wish to remain democrats.
Dytalus wrote: » Precisely. I don't think anyon in this thread has advocated a 'take over', because everyone with even a passing familiarity with Northern Ireland knows how much of a disaster forcing the issue would be. Reunification is always going to be a slow process once it gets started, but it's unfair to give unionists (or republicans, for that matter) a special right to 'protect their culture' without making accomodations for the other side.Unionist parades should be allowed go ahead (because why wouldn't they, so long as their peaceful). Republicans will have to deal with that. All citizens of a united ireland should be allowed hold parades, and that includes the unionists. But likewise unionists will have to deal with (probably a poor example, but it's off the top of my head) Irish classes in their schools. It's mandatory in all of ours, and we might be able to accomodate some kind of exemption for first generational citizens (ie, those who were NI citizens prior to and during unification). I got an exemption for being born outside the country and that could be applied to NI kids if born prior to reunification, but that exemption only meant I didn't need it to get into NUI colleges. I still had to sit the classes in school, and sit the leaving certificate (pointless, considering I had no need to pass it but anyway) and unionist kids will have to deal with that too. Neither side of the NI community should be allowed to dig in their heels and go all "Ulster says No" on anything they don't like. That's not how democracy works.
Dytalus wrote: » Fundamentally there's only 3 (or 3-and-a-half) solutions to the NI/ROI reunification:Stay as they are now, with NI in the UK and separate from RoI. Could cause border issues with Brexit, but we'll see in a few weeks I'd imagine. With changing demographics, unsure how long this might last even if the border stays as it is now post-Brexit. Independent NI. The least likely option, and imo I can't see it staying as a stable country for very long. Reunification. Solves the border problem, makes republicans happy. Pisses off the unionists. Host of problems, economic and social. I don't think it'll result in unionist culture (parades, British citizenship, etc) being wiped out or become second-class, but even if that is unlikely it's still a fear that needs to be addressed. Option 3.5. Reunficiation with a federal NI that is "in name only". Which isn't reunification except in the barest, least functional sense. You combine the problems of option 2 (unless NI follows pays Irish taxes and follows some Irish laws, in which case this isn't in-name-only as mentioned above), with the unionist fears of option 3 (however unfounded), and with the republican issues of option 1 (again, however unfounded).
downcow wrote: » I appreciate that response - interesting and challenging. Your parting phrase doesn't sit that well with me though "both sides are as bad as each other in the north". a little stereotypical, and i know the south has moved on, but a relative of mine had an experience recently in Cork that would suggest its not quite how you present it. As for a UI. I dont 'fear' it any more than a canadian would fear joining with USA as one country. I don't think there is much to fear and of course there would be benifits. It is just that the country i love and feel part of is Norther Ireland eg I can't imagine how i life would be better without my football team. So this is the bigger difficulty, NI is separated 100 years. we have our own identity, culture, experiences of life, history, etc. Thats what i don'r want to get rid off. But i liked the opening question as it is not couched as a threat oe 'we have a right to take over your country because of history'
FrancieBrady wrote: » Unionists should never be allowed to parade where they are not wanted and certainly not with bands or groups called 'Red Hand Defenders'. That is wrong in the current state and would be wrong in any new state. It is one of the compromises Unionism will have to make as they are being forced to make it now. The 'inalienable right to march where-ever they want' has been repudiated as the nonsense it always was by the Parades Commission and should stay that way. Republicans/nationalists will also have to accept that they cannot triumphalise/goad or intimidate either.
Dytalus wrote: » Oh goodness yes. I was using it as a quick example and didn't want to get into the nitty gritty of it. Part of my "so long as they're peaceful" summary included (in my head, at least) "not going anywhere that will infuriate the locals and cause potential aggression". If citizens of the town Middle in the county of Nowhere do not want a parade going down their main street, then they can object and have it called off. I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with how parades in the Republic are handled, but I'm sure there's a complaints procedure for them (whether their a celebration parade or protest march - I'm unaware of any that are similar in style to the Unionist parades up North). And yes, if you're an unsavoury group who have a history of unsavoury actions then sorry. You've used an abused your right to hosting such events, and proven incapable of doing so peacefully and respectfully. No parades for you. The Parade Commission does fine work in NI, my point was simply that we should keep it as it is in the event of a United Ireland and not bow to republicans going "no more Parades, we're not in the UK anymore. Tough."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)