downcow wrote: » I have just fecking told you several times. What is it you want me to say that will help you get a nice nights sleep?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So the Shinners got the British and Irish governments to sign an agreement the Unionist leader described the process of, 'as the worst thing that has ever happened us' and which another Unionist leader mobilised thousands to protest and whose party has never officially accepted? Interesting theory. :D:D:D
BonnieSituation wrote: » Surely you have an opinion on it. Shouldn't be hard to answer even for you.
downcow wrote: » It wasn’t unionists wanted it. It was the shinners needed it. So why don’t you tell us.
downcow wrote: » Bonnie what are you on tonight. This is a rediculous line of questioning even for you
BonnieSituation wrote: » Oh right. I thought it was projection again. Right, so let's take that a step back, why do you think the Troubles themselves occurred?
downcow wrote: » I have just explained in a big long post. In short, a fig leaf for the shinners to move away from violence and murder
BonnieSituation wrote: » I don't know why you're dancing around it. I want YOUR take on it. I don't know why you're getting shirty. Just tell me why you think we had the GFA and the resulting institutions, from your point of you?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You say 'secured', how come Unionism hasn't behaved like it was secure? It has made political mistake after political mistake since the GFA because of it's Never Never siege mentality.
downcow wrote: » Catch yourself on bonnie. It’s history. It depends where you are looking from and who’s writing it. It wasn’t a big deal to me. Of course it was very difficult for victims to see mass murderers released, but it secured the union for as long as we want it and no one outside ni can force us out. That was transformational and excellent news. I honestly don’t know how the ira sold it to their people. I can’t think of a single thing in it for them. But they needed a fig leaf. Their community had had enough. Loyalists were slaughtering innocent Catholics in bars etc and the ira were in a corner. The ira were inherently sectarian and they had carried out a vicious sectarian murder and intimidation campaign. So had the loyalists. The IRAs dilemma was when they tried to ride two horses. They were trying successfully to build their political support on the back of the hunger strikes. They were now in the conundrum that some of the ordinary voters on the street did not want them burning Protestants alive in la mon etc. They needed votes so they needed to back of the obvious sectarian murders and direct their campaign at the military This was a much more challenging target. Meanwhile the loyalist paramilitaries continued sectarian murder unabated. Protestants, unlike their catholic neighbours, never voted for the murder gangs, so they had nothing to lose. The ira had nowhere to turn. The community was afraid to go to the pub because of retaliatory actions by loyalists. Everyone knew that if the IRA stopped killing then the killing would stop. Gfa was the fig lead designed to enable this
Granadino wrote: » Unionist politicians aren’t politically correct. Sammy and Flegory for example... Who from overseas will be officially invited to the celebrations? I wonder will any politicians from the south be invited...
downcow wrote: » Catch yourself on bonnie. It’s history. It depends where you are looking from and who’s writing it. It wasn’t a big deal to me. Of course it was very difficult for victims to see mass murderers released, but it secured the union for as long as we want it and no one outside ni can force us out. That was transformational and excellent news.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Do you know WHY the GFA and by extension devolution and the Stormont (Joint) Executive came into being? This is a genuine question that I hope you can answer for me. --- Give me all the reasons so.
maccored wrote: » the good friday agreement comes from discussions between sf and the sdlp on how to make peace - its called history. try reading it sometime
FrancieBrady wrote: » I think this part of downcow's comment illuninates another thing Unionism got wrong politically. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask of any society, and I think Unionism thought that in the age of political correctness, nobody would tell them honestly what they thought of the 'success' of partition and plans to 'celebrate' it. How wrong were they.
downcow wrote: » I agree it is generating debate. The title of the thread though is disgusting. Can you imagine if there was a UK forum that had a thread entitled “republic of Ireland, a failure 99 years on” and then british people spent page after page discussing
downcow wrote: » The difference bonnie that my world is not black and white like yours. Where do you want to start. The foundations of the reasons for the gfa began over 100 years ago You cannot condense it into 1 action. One big reason was though that the ira had to find a way to end their 30 years of violence. They couldn’t hold up a white flag so a fudge was found to help them save face while ensuring it was in reality a surrender
maccored wrote: » i remember the newspaper articles when the news broke - Hume was vilified completely. Im sure the usual gang on here who support hume would have had the pitchforks out then too (if they had any idea at the time - which I doubt)
downcow wrote: » I agree it is generating debate. The title of the thread though is disgusting. Can you imagine if there was a UK forum that had a thread entitled “republic of Ireland, a failure 99 years on” and then british people spent page after page discussing the child abuse, the link with church and state, the country’s debt, the lack of diversity, the sectarianism and the aspiration of many of roi people to take over part of the UK. I would find that pretty disgusting and don’t think I would participate, but Irish people seem to think it’s fine
FrancieBrady wrote: » Point of info: The SDLP initially forced Hume on a solo run on the talks.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Elements of Unionism still trying as recently as Brexit. Having a massive mare trying though and only managing to underline to the Unionist family that their 'motherland' has no regard or care for them ultimately.
January 1988 to August 1988 A series of talks were held between John Hume, then leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), and Gerry Adams, then President of Sinn Féin (SF).
downcow wrote: » So just expand on that nonsense for me. You are saying the gfa was a result of the ira wanting peace????
maccored wrote: » ah will you cop on. SF were talking to Hume in the late 80s/early 90s and Hume was vilified for it. It came from wanting peace - not childish **** like who won and who 'surrendered'. Funnily enough the UDA etc werent involved in trying to stop what was happening - unionism wasnt involved in trying to make it work with the likes of the DUP doing their best to put a spanner in the works right the way through Theres no need to make up bull**** - the truth itself is good enough
6541 wrote: » This thread is inciting a great debate and fair play to everyone involved. My 2 cent for what it is worth is that history has already judged that the British and the RA had to compromise. What is left is stalemate. So it's up to both sides how they want to go forward from this point.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Sure don't know it. Our resident Unionist sure was able to tell me there were 50 different viewpoints as to why the gfa came I to being, yet couldn't tell me his own.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
