Junkyard Tom wrote: » I doubt there was a single person in the RUC/UDR who was unaware of the collusion their colleagues were up to. MaryJane likes to bundle the likes of the UDR in with the regular British Army to 'dilute' the numbers involved in the mass-murder of innocent Catholics. The UDR was 'up to its knees in Fenian blood' as it were. One of the reasons Unionists and the British don't want a T&RC is because it would expose the depth of UDR/RUC collusion/participation in sectarian terrorism against innocent Catholics. Unionists fear that the idea that the security forces, particularly the locally recruited ones, were 'keeping the two sides apart' will be exposed for the utter bullshit it is.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » I doubt there was a single person in the RUC/UDR who was unaware of the collusion their colleagues were up to. MaryJane likes to bundle the likes of the UDR in with the regular British Army to 'dilute' ...
downcow wrote: » It is a ludicrous suggestion. I’ll give you a wee example. Rural community and my neighbours house was blown up in a no warning bomb that was meant to kill the family. My other neighbours drugged the guard dogs to let the ira in. These neighbours visit in each other’s houses and be just ordinary neighbours. Do you really think that the catholic neighbours are going to own up to assisting in the attempted murder of their ‘friends’ And situations like this are replicated hundreds of times across rural communities. It’s just not happening. It could potentially set off significant further conflict and settling of old scores that people are trying to forget about
FrancieBrady wrote: » You need to come out of the fantasyland where all the above went smoothly and legally.
janfebmar wrote: » At least unlike comrade Francie I knew it was part of the British army. No point reading the rest of your post. As regards a T&RC, I agree with downcow The pira will say they never kept any records and people who were it it often deny they were even in it, so no hope of getting any truth there.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Don't be silly, I think everyone is aware that the UDR was part of the British Army. The point was that it was not seen as being the same as other units due to its close likes to Unionism.
The UDR started with 4,000 soldiers but grew to 6,300, with half serving as part-time members. The regiment became a favoured target of the IRA, which helped to drive down Catholic numbers. Republicans killed 197 serving UDR members and 60 former members a death toll that Protestants viewed as a sectarian attack on their community. Unionists blamed UDR wrongdoing on a few “bad apples” but that argument withered in the face of a catalogue of sectarian incidents including murder. Complete figures for criminal activity by UDR members were never disclosed but by 1991 it was admitted that 17 were convicted for murder. Nationalists said it was the tip of an iceberg, claiming offenders simply left the regiment before appearing in court, while collusion with loyalists accounted for an unknown number of illegal acts. In 1990, after large amounts of security files were passed to loyalists, John Stevens, who later headed the Metropolitan Police, launched the first of three inquiries into security force collusion with loyalists. As with the Stalker/Sampson inquiries investigating the RUC in the 1980s, his findings were not made public. Ten members of the UDR were charged as a result of the probe, while the regiment is believed to have come in for serious criticism in his report. On July 1 1991 the Queen visited Northern Ireland after a 14-year absence, and performed the ceremonial ‘presenting of colours’ to the UDR. Later that month it was confirmed the UDR was to merge with the Royal Irish Rangers, a regiment with a 300-year-old Irish connection. The head of the British army in Northern Ireland conceded the UDR had a “perception problem”, and declared the new ‘Royal Irish Regiment’ a sea-change.
citytillidie wrote: » I think someone has to read something other than British history books to open their eyes to what the British government and army did around the world and not just in Ireland
RobMc59 wrote: » As a home nation Ireland participated in the building of the British Empire,a fact which has been conveniently buried-this letter in the Irish times is probably very close to the truth.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/ireland-s-role-in-british-empire-1.960949
Imreoir2 wrote: » Ireland, as an occupied territory of the British Empire had little choice in the matter. For the vast majority of our history the Irish people had no say in the policies adoped by the British government. Individual people were involved, often from planter families, but Ireland was never anything but an unwilling participant in Britains Empire.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The UDR-recruited exclusively from northern Ireland was no better.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Imreoir2 wrote: » Ireland, as an occupied territory of the British Empire had little choice in the matter. For the vast majority of our history the Irish people had no say in the policies adoped by the British government. Individual people were involved, often from planter families, but Ireland was never anything but an unwilling participant in Britains Empire. TBH, I am not sure if Rob fully understands what plantation and subjugation actually was.
janfebmar wrote: » Wrong again Francie. The UDR had people from elsewhere in it. For example, a sixties model from Susses in England called Nikki Sievwright ( new Ross) springs to mind. She went to N Ireland in the seventies and spent a few years in the UDR near the border. She passed away only recently. You really should try harder to get your facts right Francie, as your bigotry is built on false information, as always.
The UDR-recruited exclusively from northern Ireland
RobMc59 wrote: » As a product of plantation I have some idea of what it is. I also understand you and others would like to subjugate the Ulster Scots
FrancieBrady wrote: » RobMc59 wrote: » As a product of plantation I have some idea of what it is. I also understand you and others would like to subjugate the Ulster Scots How does someone who doesn't know that there would always have been willing recruits for Empire building among the planted class - 'understand'? I have no wish in the wide world to 'subjugate' anyone. But like the notion that 'plantation' and 'colonialism' were once okay, religious suprematism is an ideology of the past and has no place in a united Ireland. Therefore, since the OO is fundamentally about suprematicism and political action to ensure that supremacy it is archaic and redundant in the modern age. The fall in it's membership should tell you that moderate Unionists and decent protestants realise that. I think everyone but a last few stubborn belligerents recognise that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Therefore, since the OO is fundamentally about suprematicism and political action to ensure that supremacy it is archaic and redundant in the modern age.
RobMc59 wrote: » Its common knowledge that membership of religious organisations is falling. The dismissive,condescending tone of your posts when there is mention of Ulster Scots is shocking and your barely concealed dislike of them and the rest of Britain is actually legendary francie.:)
FrancieBrady wrote: » TBH, I am not sure if Rob fully understands what plantation and subjugation actually was.
FrancieBrady wrote: » My only stated problem with Britain is their toxic involvement on this island. Outside of that I have the same regard for them as I have any nation on earth, German, French, US, etc etc They do some wonderful things and some things I would be critical of. I don't have anything per se against the Ulster Scots tradition (my maternal Grandfather was a Glaswegian) But I would be deeply suspicious of how it is being used politically by those clinging to the idea that the Irish identity and cultural somehow diminishes them or dilutes their identity and that by suppressing it or discriminating against it, enhances them. I.E. The OO (see their recent resolution resisting ANY legislation for the Irish Language)
blanch152 wrote: » I am not sure why you are still talking about things that happened centuries ago in trying to build a modern Northern Ireland.
blanch152 wrote: » If both sides embrace the idea of nation not country, there is no issue. Nation does not need territory, country does.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The evident fear of what is coming among you is very encouraging.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is this not just a partitionist getting afraid of the inevitable here? The evident fear of what is coming among you is very encouraging.
janfebmar wrote: » ??? You expressing delight at any fear expressed by what would be the minority community I s u.I is not very helpful towards building a U.I. It's like when some Republicans expressed delight at another black prod killed during the troubles. Not helpful to anyone in the long run.
blanch152 wrote: » Is there a single Northern Irish thread on these boards where you have not been the single biggest contributor by a mile? 272 out of 1,612 on this thread 17% (downcow on 236 and then the next on 77), 315 out of 1,585 on the unification thread, nearly twice the next highest contributor, this pattern is repeated across the site. It is paranoia and fear that drive that level of contribution, in my opinion.
blanch152 wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Is this not just a partitionist getting afraid of the inevitable here? The evident fear of what is coming among you is very encouraging. I don't fear your fantasy, I fear that it traps people in old ways of thinking. A modern Northern Ireland is coming, with the young now identifying as Northern Irish, but not rejecting either their Irish or British heritage. The old ways of thinking, of nation being exclusive and meaning country rather than people, are the only thing preventing this. You fear this Francie. The panic in your posting, the almost feverish desire to keep up the partisan debate, to drag every red herring of division into discussion, to post 24/7/365 in defence of republicanism, the dismissal of other arguments through labelling of dissenters, as by naming them partitionists or unionists you can somehow diminish their arguments, it is all a clear sign of your fear. Is there a single Northern Irish thread on these boards where you have not been the single biggest contributor by a mile? 272 out of 1,612 on this thread 17% (downcow on 236 and then the next on 77), 315 out of 1,585 on the unification thread, nearly twice the next highest contributor, this pattern is repeated across the site. It is paranoia and fear that drive that level of contribution, in my opinion. The world is changing, Northern Ireland is changing, the old certainty of the demographic inevitability has been challenged by the election results. Even in the face of Brexit, the combined nationalist vote in the North dropped in the European elections as voters sought middle-ground opinion. If we somehow avoid a no-deal Brexit, the unification project is dead. If we do get a no-deal (not certain) and this results in severe economic hardship for everyone on this island (unlikely), there is a possibility that there will be increased short-term support, but at what price of economic hardship? No doubt you will be happy to see that economic hardship boost the prospects of a united Ireland, but republicans have always revelled in the misery of others.
RobMc59 wrote: » TBF francie does make discussions more interesting and has in the past put forward some compelling stuff-of late though he has come off second best,most notably in discussions with yourself and Jan,he is also increasingly tripping himself up
blanch152 wrote: » I don't fear your fantasy, I fear that it traps people in old ways of thinking. A modern Northern Ireland is coming, with the young now identifying as Northern Irish, but not rejecting either their Irish or British heritage. The old ways of thinking, of nation being exclusive and meaning country rather than people, are the only thing preventing this. You fear this Francie. The panic in your posting, the almost feverish desire to keep up the partisan debate, to drag every red herring of division into discussion, to post 24/7/365 in defence of republicanism, the dismissal of other arguments through labelling of dissenters, as by naming them partitionists or unionists you can somehow diminish their arguments, it is all a clear sign of your fear. Is there a single Northern Irish thread on these boards where you have not been the single biggest contributor by a mile? 272 out of 1,612 on this thread 17% (downcow on 236 and then the next on 77), 315 out of 1,585 on the unification thread, nearly twice the next highest contributor, this pattern is repeated across the site. It is paranoia and fear that drive that level of contribution, in my opinion. The world is changing, Northern Ireland is changing, the old certainty of the demographic inevitability has been challenged by the election results. Even in the face of Brexit, the combined nationalist vote in the North dropped in the European elections as voters sought middle-ground opinion. If we somehow avoid a no-deal Brexit, the unification project is dead. If we do get a no-deal (not certain) and this results in severe economic hardship for everyone on this island (unlikely), there is a possibility that there will be increased short-term support, but at what price of economic hardship? No doubt you will be happy to see that economic hardship boost the prospects of a united Ireland, but republicans have always revelled in the misery of others.
