RobMc59 wrote: Textbook 'look over there 'tactics from you francie-who mentioned brexit? I understand as a disgruntled republican supporter you will try to agitate interest in a UI but the fact is although there has been some speculation about the possibility of that it remains far in the distance.Do you think the EU will be willing to cough up in the near future?I certainly don't.
eagle eye wrote: Claiming that the prisoners did it for anything other than prison conditions.
eagle eye wrote: No, I don't want to partition anything. In order to be a partitionist there must be intent to partition something.
"Thatcher’s intransigence drove many young men into the waiting arms of the IRA. She was one of the IRA’s best recruiters. She pushed the end of the war back at least 10 years and consigned a generation to conflict." Thatcher's friend President Ronald Reagan ultimately convinced her she had to work with the Irish. The agreement she signed with Irish leaders in 1985 did lead to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, and a new era of Anglo-Irish relations.
jm08 wrote: » RobMc59 In response to two of your comments in the old thread about the hunger strikes and how Charlie Haughey was unreliable (or something like that). Garrett FitzGerald (Fine Gael) was Taoiseach at the time, not Haughey. Garrett wrote to Ronald Reagan at the time to talk Maggie down (which he did). Irish America were up in arms over the whole thing. Article from the Boston Globe:
RobMc59 wrote: » My comments about haughy referred to his duplicity,secret deals with terrorists etc.I realise he wasn't the Taoiseach at the time of the hunger strikes but British attempts of a treaty where hampered by him during that early 80s period.Its interesting to note that despite disgruntled republicans claims in regards to the effectiveness of the strikes it was years later an agreement was made but that's airbrushed out by many who would like to rewrite history.
tuesday 6th october.....James Prior, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, announced a number of changes in prison policy, one of which would allowed prisoners to wear their civilian clothes at all times. This was one of the five key demands that had been made at the start of the hunger strike. Prior also announced other changes: free association would be allowed in neighbouring wings of each H-Block, in the exercise areas and in recreation rooms; an increase in the number of visits each prisoner would be entitled to; and up to 50 per cent of lost remission would be restored. [The issue of prison work was not resolved at this stage but there were indications that this issue too would be addressed
Bew and Gillespie (1993) Northern Ireland A Chronology of the Troubles 1968-1993 wrote: The hunger strike of 1981 had very important and far-reaching consequences for Northern Ireland and proved to be one of the key turning points of 'the Troubles'. The Republican movement had achieved a huge propaganda victory over the British government and had obtained a lot of international sympathy. Active and tacit support for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) increased in Nationalist areas. Political support for Sinn Féin (SF) was demonstrated in two by-elections (and the general election in the Republic of Ireland) and eventually led to the emergence of SF as a significant political force in Northern Ireland. The British government's fear that SF would overtake the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) as the main representative of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland was a key reason for the government signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) on 15 November 1985.
Deleted User wrote: » Hunger strikes ended 3rd october
RobMc59 wrote: » So they get to wear their own clothes-how many died? There was no treaty for another four years.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Inform yourself Rob..events dear boy, events.
RobMc59 wrote: » [B] [/B] I`m surprised you`re quoting from a book which describes all this as `the troubles`:rolleyes:
Deleted User wrote: » Interesting,if somewhat poor way to move goalposts....doubt you'll get many takers to follow this rabbithole of dishonestyTbh id have to admire,your ability to keep plugging away,as 3 different posters have corrected,yous on basic facts and still you proclaim.and post as if yous an expert If i could attach a hat-tip gif i would :pac:
RobMc59 wrote: » It`s a difference of opinion that`s all,I checked my facts before posting.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Anyone diminishing the impact of the Hunger Strikes is an agenda driven delusionist or totally uneducated on a subject they claim to know about. You are entitled to an opinion on whether it was a good or a bad impact but that is it.
RobMc59 wrote: » Listen francie,I`ve still got my `H block heroes`mug I bought in Bundoran 20 years ago!
Deleted User wrote: » Its really not,claiming haughey was taoiseach at hunger strikes...claiming hunger strikes agreement was resolved years after it was over,when it was infact 3 days Like your posts are there for all to see?? But lookit,your free to claim what you want,and thats ok too
RobMc59 wrote: » I never claimed haughey was Taoiseach at that time,i said the British did`nt want to negotiate with him over the anglo-irish agreement in the early 80`s as he was untrustworthy and a known colluder with terrorists. Please keep up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sure Maggie was canoodling with 'terrorists' she told Unionists that she never would.
RobMc59 wrote: » Rather strange statement francie as the ira were against the treaty with gerry adams apparently incandescent with rage over it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody mentioned Hunger Strikes until it was mentioned either. 'Disgruntled' wouldn't be anywhere near my state of mind. Of course the EU will be behind a UI, it is now in all the EU's interests as the British state continues into chaos and the wider UK disintegrates.
Hamsterchops wrote: » I found Part One very depressing & demoralising, so let's hope there's a glimmer of light and positivity (from both Tribes) in Part Two Part one was obsessed with the past, The British Empire came up quite a lot, as did the Northern Ireland Troubles 1968-98. Oliver Cromwell (1643-51) made a few appearances, the Great Famine (1845-49), genocide got a mention as did the Nazis, and the "dirty protests" /Maze prison (1981), while the Provos were praised by some, and The Brits were despised by others. Brits out, up the RA. You are not British, Oh Yes We Are, oh no you're not, Oh Yes We Are! We hate you, we hate you too... Dear God it makes for grim reading, and yet, the title of the Thread was ... How long before Irish Unification? Let's hope Part Two is a more upbeat thread (that looks to the future) moreso than dwelling in the bleak and bloody past. Maybe there never will be a United Ireland as per the Republican dream, but maybe there will be something close to a Union between North & South, with GB pushed out of the picture, Who knows what a border poll will show?
BonnieSituation wrote: » You constantly come in here with a your happy clappy nonsense and endlessly defend beligerent Unionism. So disingenuous.
Randy Archer wrote: » He has a point though. It’s for the Shinners to explain how the status quo will realistically be broken and what kind of United Ireland they set to propose . Not one single statement has being made by them here to support their claims . All we get, as per usual, is whataboutry and even some degree of an attempt was made it only went as far as a bland but questionable claim that NI would be prosperous under a UI There comments also do absolutely nothing to entice moderate Unionists either ,who will be needed to push it over the line, in the North Reeks of the “breed the proddies out , up the ra” to anyone else
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ac05b08c48e41d3d9a650f1473ad3bb7.svg)
