Northern Ireland 2125?

Why would you have to address IRA failures? Because I'll tell you why. You have tens of thousands of posts addressing what you perceive to be British / loyalist failures. Time you stepped up and addressed some IRA failures. You came close to it yesterday by finally admitting the IRA surrendered, but then after a few hours and more posts you changed you mind and edited it.

If it rocks your boat, you are free to think of the IRA what you want.

I will continue to look at the whole picture, not compartmentalised aspects of it as you folk do in order to get your kicks and because you cannot deal with the outcomes of the GFA and after.

I abhor the violence - all of it and did not support one act of it, but I can see that some of it achieved things (I'd have preferred another way) It is immoral and wrong but is what happens when a society is allowed to fail in the way NI was allowed to do. How much proof is required in this world for that?

I have never said it was ALL anybodies fault. That is for the ‘but the ‘RA/Shinners’ folk to address.

I have said that there is a hierarchy of blame starting with those who created and allowed the conditions to exist.

The unionists have been here longer than white man has been in America. Red Indians were treated very badly by white man in America. If the descendants of Red Indians had the where-with-all to detonate bombs in a shopping center in Maine ( instead of Manchester ), or bomb some office block in L.A. instead of London, or a Birmingham Alabama instead of Birmingham England, would you support that? Your SF slogan for years was Brits Out, it was painted in graffiti on many a place (inc a protestant farmers wall I knew of here south of the border in the 1970s, saw it with my own eyes). Would you ever have supported a " Whites Out" slogan in the States? If not, why not?

If there was / is such unequality in America, not to mention artificial borders, surely according to your logic there is a hierarchy of blame starting with those who created and allowed the conditions to exist? If think Downing St being bombed was "inevitable", why not the white house?

But it isn't discrimination on the grounds of religion. Can you can quote where church of Ireland says learning irish is against its rules?

Ah, but as I pointed out, thats the beauty of it. It is not discrimination on the grounds of religion. As you say, the Protestant churches do not have anything in their rules, if they do have "rules", about learning Irish. As I said, iIn a U.I. nobody can say having to have fluency in Irish, for a government job or place in Queens, will be discrimination on the grounds of religion. Sure as Gerry said, everyone should have the cupla focail in a u.i. ;)

Brilliant. Once a U.I comes, the strategy should work a treat in getting rid of many loyalists / prods, same as last time in the 26. That, and a dozen other ways, you'll get the Brits out in a U.I.

I think the new honest Francie is back. First last night he admitted the IRA surrendered. His exact words. Now he is agreeing with his boss that in a U.I. fluency in Irish will be a requirement for govt jobs in N.I., as well as for admission to third level courses (even technical ones like engineering) in universities etc. Same as happened down here after independence.

Now Francie, as you may be in the humour to answer questions, could you answer the following please. I asked you already but you ignored it.

The unionists have been here longer than white man has been in America. Red Indians / Native Americans / call them what you like, were treated very badly by white man in America. If the descendants of these Native Americans had the where-with-all to detonate bombs in a shopping center in Maine ( instead of Manchester ), or bomb some office block in L.A. instead of London, or a Birmingham Alabama instead of Birmingham England, would you support that? Your SF slogan for years was Brits Out, it was painted in graffiti on many a place (inc a protestant farmers wall I knew of here south of the border in the 1970s, saw it with my own eyes). Would you ever have supported a " Whites Out" slogan in the States? If not, why not?

If there was / is such unequality in America, not to mention artificial borders, surely according to your logic, and to borrow your phrase you ised many times, "there is a hierarchy of blame starting with those who created and allowed the conditions to exist?"

If you think Downing St being bombed was "inevitable", why not the white house?

Come on now FrancieBrady, if you think there was "no alternative" to violence one place, then why not in some other place? Or what about the aboriginies in Australia - what have you to say about their plight for freedom / self determination: they were consigned to reservations with "artificial borders" were they not? Be consistent now.

Brilliant. Once a U.I comes, the strategy should work a treat in getting rid of many loyalists / prods, same as last time in the 26. That, and a dozen other ways, you'll get the Brits out in a U.I.

I would guarantee that in a UI nobody will be forced to take oaths, learn languages or have advatages/concessions for the sake of it.

A society of equals determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Simple as this, you were quite happy to be ‘Irish’ when you were setting up the IFA and ‘your’ wee football team. Doesn’t matter if it was pre or post partition.

Looking to be British now is just hilarious. Nobody cares all that much.

Go to the ‘motherland’ and they’ll tell you who you are and they will give great succour to your British identity until you get in the way of what they want.

Read the room.

What ‘version’ is that?

I respect the British identity, I don’t respect hypocrites who change identity to suit a political goal.

I also think appeasing that hypocrisy is just as dangerous as the appeasement that led to partition.
Prepared to discuss that or are you just gonna vent?