nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

[Deleted User]

Is there another way of looking at it?
It’s still very, very divided, and actually seems to be getting more polarized over the last five years. It’s economy is woeful, very heavily dependent on the public sector.
Unionists are making plans to celebrate its centenary, but there seems to be very little to be happy with, certainly far less than the Republic or the rest of the UK.
No point in arguing about a border poll on this thread, but is there any possible way of looking at NI as a social, political and economic failure?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pixelburp

declanflynn wrote: »

Dup is more ... socially conservative, a very generous description of a party full of racists and bigots

Hence when I said "politely". So we can quibble on wording if you like *shrug* But the reality is Maginnis is ultimately representative of a generation who one would hope will not pass on their own prejudices once they ... well, pass on. So that if and when Unification becomes a realistic possibility, the DUP will have gone through some kind of ideological softening. It's full of racists and bigots, but ones we may yet have to deal with as collaborators in an all-island project. They're a stagnant party who looked adrift when they bolstered a Tory government intent on sabotaging NI - whose standing look increasingly archaic and out of touch. And it's possibly only the FPTP system and engrained tribalism that's keeping them relevant. Maybe they have some younger members waiting in the wings for their chance, but if there are they're certainly kept out of the limelight by Foster & co.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd argue that a lot of his opinions and behaviours highlighted by this would predate any potential mental degradation caused by Alzheimers, Downcow. As he is a former MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, I'm very familiar with the man and entirely unsurprised by this.

A worrying side effect of the lifelong peerage system, having the potential for someone with Alzheimers responsible for one of the fundamental pillars of running your country.

We’ll not disagree about that. I’m not a fan of lifelong peerages. They are like mini popes

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had dealings with the man over several decades and while you could speak honestly with him, this story doesn't surprise me tbh.

The truth is that I don’t know him and have never encountered him so can’t challenge that.

[Deleted User]

downcow wrote: »

We’ll not disagree about that. I’m not a fan of lifelong peerages. They are like mini popes

How can you be a fan of monarchies then? I'm not that familiar with either system but superficially at least they seem similar.

downcow

LuasSimon wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/shane-macgowan-says-he-felt-guilty-for-not-having-the-guts-to-join-the-ira-39825816.html

Shane Mcgowan embarrassed at not having the courage to join PIRA.

Hes not the only person who ive heard say this, if we were any good down south we'd have fought for a United Ireland and sorted it out once and for all as opposed to looking on as nationalists in Northern Ireland were treated like dirt, murdered and jailed by the British and loyalists.

Interesting aspiration. To be part of a sectarian killing machine that ran out of petrol but the drivers got holiday homes and jobs in Stormont

downcow

declanflynn wrote: »

O yeah, the dup wouldn't have any bigots in its party, it was a slip of the tongue by an old man with alzheimer's, get a grip lads

I find this thinking really interesting.
I completely condemn Maginnis comments. But compared to Gerry, matina, etc it is mild as it doesn’t support wiping out a people.

downcow

pixelburp wrote: »

Think you're spinning what I'm saying: it's well understood the DUP is more ... socially conservative, to put it politely; but Maginnis' bigotry isn't that surprising to me as a baseline either, being as he is from a generation that was already more conservative by default. Manifest as either Trump voters, Brexit voters, or voting against same-sex or 8th amendment referenda here. And no, not a slip of the tongue, just someone no longer able to keep his bigotry to himself. I think I'm just numbed to sectors of unionism being as they are.

I take that on board. I was probably wrong to quote his apparent Alzheimer’s as an excuse of sorts

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Interesting aspiration. To be part of a sectarian killing machine that ran out of petrol but the drivers got holiday homes and jobs in Stormont

Do you really believe that? For someone who claims to want Northern Ireland to work by remaining part of the UK, how do you think this can be achieved by insulting a large portion of the people you need to achieve this who vote for this 'sectarian killing people'?

[Deleted User]

jm08 wrote: »

Do you really believe that? For someone who claims to want Northern Ireland to work by remaining part of the UK, how do you think this can be achieved by insulting a large portion of the people you need to achieve this who vote for this 'sectarian killing people'?

Which part is insulting? Think it was Francie who said facts shouldn't upset people. The IRA were no different to any of the other terrorist groups.

Take it you won't be insulting their equivalents from now on?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Which part is insulting? Think it was Francie who said facts shouldn't upset people. The IRA were no different to any of the other terrorist groups.

Take it you won't be insulting their equivalents from now on?

What?

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Maybe it wasn't you.

But calling the IRA or UVF sectarian killing machines (whatever the term the poster used) is factual.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

Which part is insulting? Think it was Francie who said facts shouldn't upset people. The IRA were no different to any of the other terrorist groups.

Take it you won't be insulting their equivalents from now on?

The insulting part is the lack of respect for the people who vote for Sinn Fein and who were never associated with any of the paramilitary groups.

Can you not see that demonising those former paramilitaries who have now chosen a peaceful path are different to the dissident republicans of today.

Can you not see that demonising and excluding them now from the political process is a recruiting tool for the dissident republican groups. FFG should really be careful that they don't push that button too far.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe it wasn't you.

But calling the IRA or UVF sectarian killing machines (whatever the term the poster used) is factual.

Calling all the players, Loyalist, British, Republican 'terrorists' 'sectarian' etc etc is 'factual' as long as you accept those terms can be applied to all.

If you are singling out one side, then that claim has to be examined.

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

Interesting aspiration. To be part of a sectarian killing machine that ran out of petrol but the drivers got holiday homes and jobs in Stormont

Typical dup viewpoint, shocking really, perhaps you are an old man with alzheimer's, then it's ok...

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Calling all the players, Loyalist, British, Republican 'terrorists' 'sectarian' etc etc is 'factual' as long as you accept those terms can be applied to all.

If you are singling out one side, then that claim has to be examined.

Exactly but I don't see that consistency on here.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Exactly but I don't see that consistency on here.

Who are you telling?

I can speak for the republican side and say that while sectarian acts certainly did happen it wasn't the primary focus of what the IRA did.

Can Loyalists say the same? Who did they primarily target?

What are the numbers in relation to the British re: sectarianism...how many of their victims were catholic and innocent?

They all terrorised their opponent communities so they were all 'terrorists' by definition. A long redundant term IMO.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who are you telling?

I can speak for the republican side and say that while sectarian acts certainly did happen it wasn't the primary focus of what the IRA did.

Can Loyalists say the same? Who did they primarily target?

What are the numbers in relation to the British re: sectarianism...how many of their victims were catholic and innocent?

They all terrorised their opponent communities so they were all 'terrorists' by definition. A long redundant term IMO.

Often see UVF or whatever described as"Loyalist murder gangs" or similar never see the same posters refer to the IRA as"Republican murder gangs"

They are 2 sides of the same coin.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Often see UVF or whatever described as"Loyalist murder gangs" or similar never see the same posters refer to the IRA as"Republican murder gangs"

They are 2 sides of the same coin.

I'm not going to get into a numbers debate. The evidence is all there if you want to review who targeted who primarily.

I doubt even if the facts are put in front of you that you'd change your mind. A waste of my time and yours.

timthumbni

jh79 wrote: »

Often see UVF or whatever described as"Loyalist murder gangs" or similar never see the same posters refer to the IRA as"Republican murder gangs"

They are 2 sides of the same coin.

Good post. Whenever the Irish republicans murder children outside a McDonald’s sure it was just a mistake. Oops sorry. Absolute bellends just like their loyalist counterparts.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who are you telling?

I can speak for the republican side and say that while sectarian acts certainly did happen it wasn't the primary focus of what the IRA did.

Can Loyalists say the same? Who did they primarily target?

What are the numbers in relation to the British re: sectarianism...how many of their victims were catholic and innocent?

They all terrorised their opponent communities so they were all 'terrorists' by definition. A long redundant term IMO.

Francie. Let’s take this in little steps.
I don’t have this data so don’t panic. Just answer me honestly.
If there was a analysis done of all the business premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Seems like a simple question so I’d love a simple answer

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

Francie. Let’s take this in little steps.
I don’t have this data so don’t panic. Just answer me honestly.
If there was a analysis done of all the business premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Seems like a simple question so I’d love a simple answer

Their campaign was directed at the enemy, that's what happens in a war, it was never meant to be pretty

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

Often see UVF or whatever described as"Loyalist murder gangs" or similar never see the same posters refer to the IRA as"Republican murder gangs"

Because it wouldn't be factual. The majority of the PIRA's killings were security forces. The vast majority of unionist paramilitary killings were Catholic civilians.

You'd think people would have learned those simple facts at this stage.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Francie. Let’s take this in little steps.
I don’t have this data so don’t panic. Just answer me honestly.
If there was a analysis done of all the business premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?

Seems like a simple question so I’d love a simple answer

Attacking a 'business' is not a sectarian attack downcow. It is an attack on the economy. Like the intention behind bombing Canary Wharf.

timthumbni

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because it wouldn't be factual. The majority of the PIRA's killings were security forces. The vast majority of unionist paramilitary killings were Catholic civilians.

You'd think people would have learned those simple facts at this stage.

The IRA targeted people who even done a days work close to an army base. If you use those rules then a lot of the loyalist murdering dicks could claim the same.

STILL haven’t heard how the IRA blowing 2 wee weans in Warrington was going to unite Ireland btw. The silence is deafening....

[Deleted User]

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because it wouldn't be factual. The majority of the PIRA's killings were security forces. The vast majority of unionist paramilitary killings were Catholic civilians.

You'd think people would have learned those simple facts at this stage.

Just because the other side did it more doesn't make the IRA any less guilty of it.

timthumbni

declanflynn wrote: »

Their campaign was directed at the enemy, that's what happens in a war, it was never meant to be pretty

The IRA,s enemy were Protestants then. No big surprise there.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

Just because the other side did it more doesn't make the IRA any less guilty of it.

The fact remains that the PIRA's principle target was the security forces while unionist paramilitaries targeted innocent Catholics. This is common knowledge and the numbers speak for themselves.

Take the Glennane Gang made up of unionist paramilitaries, including members of the security forces, they're implicated in 120 murders of which only one yes one was a Republican.

That is the essence of a murder gang.

declanflynn

timthumbni wrote: »

The IRA targeted people who even done a days work close to an army base. If you use those rules then a lot of the loyalist murdering dicks could claim the same.

STILL haven’t heard how the IRA blowing 2 wee weans in Warrington was going to unite Ireland btw. The silence is deafening....

There has never been a war where innocent people didn't get killed, do you think British forces never killed an innocent person

declanflynn

timthumbni wrote: »

j

The IRA,s enemy were Protestants then. No big surprise there.

yeah there are protestants in the British security forces

downcow

The question was very simple and our three resident republicans completely ducked it.
The question is specific. And may even be hypothetical in your mind but Try again.

If an analysis was done on premises the ira bombed. And if say 80% were Protestant. Would you then accept that their bombing campaign was directed primarily at the Protestant community and therefore sectarian?