Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IRA/UVF killings

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Dream on if you think there's going to be a united Ireland. Incidentally, the only time that the island of Ireland has ever been a united entity was under British rule. :D
    Incorrect: there were dozens of High Kings in historical times.

    Also there was a free state of 32 counties in 1921: before the Unionist politicians pulled out.


  • Options
    #63
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 902 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    "Also there was a free state of 32 counties in 1921: before the Unionist politicians pulled out."

    But no actual,existing united, centrally-administered state. Just a still-born notion.

    "Incorrect: there were dozens of High Kings in historical times."

    Whose writ did'nt run very far.Or for very long. The high kings were mainly rulers of one Ireland in their own minds. I recall the Emperors of China believed themselves to be rulers of all the world. Such self-delusion was common in royalty. People often indulged them as it made little difference,one way or another.


  • Options
    #64
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Two days as part of the Irish Free State in December 1922 - for legal/technical reasons - hardly counts as a United Ireland.

    Anyway it's history now and counts for nothing. It's a pity some of the posters here can't grow up and accept the reality of the present situation - do they really want to go back to pre Good Friday Agreement times? Sadly the answer is yes in some cases but they are deluding themselves if they think the lunatics are going to be allowed to take over the asylum.


  • Options
    #65
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Two days as part of the Irish Free State in December 1922 - for legal/technical reasons - hardly counts as a United Ireland.

    Anyway it's history now and counts for nothing. It's a pity some of the posters here can't grow up and accept the reality of the present situation - do they really want to go back to pre Good Friday Agreement times? Sadly the answer is yes in some cases but they are deluding themselves if they think the lunatics are going to be allowed to take over the asylum.


    From what I see lunatics are already running the asylum. The North will always be in a revolving case of turmoil until the national question is answered and I believe the only answer is a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #66
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    How do you propose forcing a unionist majority into a united Irish state? As long as the majority of that region wants to remain with the UK, the status quo will remain. It irritates me that Republicans ignore this fundamental block.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    How do you propose forcing a unionist majority into a united Irish state? As long as the majority of that region wants to remain with the UK, the status quo will remain. It irritates me that Republicans ignore this fundamental block.

    Well as a republican I obviously don't have a partionist mindset, I don't recognise a difference between north and south, just that 6 counties are occupied by the British government. The vast majority of people of Ireland want a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #68
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 902 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    "The North will always be in a revolving case of turmoil until the national question is answered and I believe the only answer is a United Ireland."

    Circular argument. "We want a United Ireland, therefore an United Ireland will bring peace".

    "The vast majority of people of Ireland want a United Ireland."

    Possibly a majority of the people of Ireland want an united Ireland in a vaguely aspirational way...by consent and without any extra taxes or trouble. What matters, however, is what the people in the disputed area want.


  • Options
    #69
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    "The North will always be in a revolving case of turmoil until the national question is answered and I believe the only answer is a United Ireland."

    Circular argument. "We want a United Ireland, therefore an United Ireland will bring peace".

    I understand what your saying, but I honestly can't see the republican community ever stopping political agitation or armed struggle until their goals are complete, if they did then they would no longer be republican.

    Look at the history of the Island it has be a reciprocating rebellion, an up rising in every generation, even take the last one for example, at the start of the century the war for independence, the border campaign in the 50's and the recent 30 years of war. And the most recent actions of republican militancy the 2 soldiers and the Cop.

    I can only speak from a republican perspective but I can't see anyway this cycle will be broken unless there is a United Ireland, and maybe a better way to put it is a United Ireland is the best chance this country has for peace.


  • Options
    #70
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    ilkhanid wrote: »

    "The vast majority of people of Ireland want a United Ireland."

    Possibly a majority of the people of Ireland want an united Ireland in a vaguely aspirational way...by consent and without any extra taxes or trouble. What matters, however, is what the people in the disputed area want.

    Will the 26 counties not be greatly affected by a United Ireland, I would say they would. I think they have every bit an equal right to a say as anyone from Tyrone, Antrim or Derry.


  • Options
    #71
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 902 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    "I can only speak from a republican perspective but I can't see anyway this cycle will be broken unless there is a United Ireland, and maybe a better way to put it is a United Ireland is the best chance this country has for peace."

    And if perchance this magical United Ireland should appear tomorrow, and not bring peace, because there are a million angry people that don't want to be part of it....what then? What next on the drawing board? Generations of Southern Irish young lads garrisoning and occupying (yes, if you are not wanted by the population you are an occupying force) a hostile Antrim and East belfast; spat on, shot, stoned? How exactly how will this be an improvement on the past we know?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Davey2 wrote: »
    Well as a republican I obviously don't have a partionist mindset, I don't recognise a difference between north and south, just that 6 counties are occupied by the British government. The vast majority of people of Ireland want a United Ireland.

    Thats such intellectual laziness. Remind me never to ask you a question again.

    And read a book sometime kid, learn something about this world.


  • Options
    #73
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    "I can only speak from a republican perspective but I can't see anyway this cycle will be broken unless there is a United Ireland, and maybe a better way to put it is a United Ireland is the best chance this country has for peace."

    And if perchance this magical United Ireland should appear tomorrow, and not bring peace, because there are a million angry people that don't want to be part of it....what then? What next on the drawing board? Generations of Southern Irish young lads garrisoning and occupying (yes, if you are not wanted by the population you are an occupying force) a hostile Antrim and East belfast; spat on, shot, stoned? How exactly how will this be an improvement on the past we know?

    Well as I said earlier in the thread Republicanism is a progressive thing, and the idea behind it is not merely nationalism, its a set-up shake up, that's why recently Sinn Fein have some under such criticism, people see them as not being what they claim, i.e. Socialists but yet implement Water charges.

    So I would hope (as I can't assume) some from the unionist communities would realise that a United Ireland genuinely is for the benefit of everyone from the Island of Ireland. Also not to mention unionists would have a far greater say in the running of the country than they are afforded by the British government.

    The definition of an occupying force is a force from a foreign country which it wouldn't be. Any police service of course would have to be stringently kept in check, also I wouldn't have the 50/50 recruitment bollax the best person for the job should be picked not the best person thats suits a quota.


  • Options
    #74
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    Thats such intellectual laziness. Remind me never to ask you a question again.

    And read a book sometime kid, learn something about this world.

    Tell me what's wrong with what I've said? I think I've been quite non-confrontational about putting my opinion forward with out having to resort to patronising people.


  • Options
    #75
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    You have clearly never thought out what you actually believe. 'I'm a Republican so I'm entitled to be anti rational'. No your not. Its mindless thinking like that which has killed so many people in this country.

    Whether we like it or not, there are unionists in the north who do not want to be part of a united Ireland. Compelling them is not an option because no-one wants to do that other than a handful of nutjobs in seedy Belfast pubs.

    And people like yourself of course, who most likely never lived through the troubles and haven't a clue what they're talking about.


  • Options
    #76
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    You have clearly never thought out what you actually believe. 'I'm a Republican so I'm entitled to be anti rational'. No your not. Its mindless thinking like that which has killed so many people in this country.

    Whether we like it or not, there are unionists in the north who do not want to be part of a united Ireland. Compelling them is not an option because no-one wants to do that other than a handful of nutjobs in seedy Belfast pubs.

    And people like yourself of course, who most likely never lived through the troubles and haven't a clue what they're talking about.

    I very much beg to differ Republican yes I think so, but anti-rational I don't think so, just because I clearly must not be in line with you does not mean I don't have a rationale as well.

    Also don't make hasty judgements about people you know nothing about.


  • Options
    #77
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Yes you are anti-rational: 'Well since I'm a Republican I don't have a partionist mindset'. That is defying reality when you genuinely believe nonsense like that. Whether you have a certain mindset or not there is a set of circumstances which are the reality. Ignoring them doesn't them make them go away - hence which is why it is profound intellectual laziness.


  • Options
    #78
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    Yes you are anti-rational: 'Well since I'm a Republican I don't have a partionist mindset'. That is defying reality when you genuinely believe nonsense like that. Whether you have a certain mindset or not there is a set of circumstances which are the reality. Ignoring them doesn't them make them go away - hence which is why it is profound intellectual laziness.

    Well if I was partitionist and I saw Ireland as two separate entities I would hardly be republican, I did also say that I recognise that 6 counties are occupied by the British government. Ignoring it definitely does not make the border go away, of that I'm 100% certain and agree with you on.


  • Options
    #79
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Yeah, good luck with that!

    Come back to us when you've thought about the likelihood of 600,000 Unionists simply being happy under a united Irish state. Just think about that for a while!


  • Options
    #80
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    Yeah, good luck with that!

    Come back to us when you've thought about the likelihood of 600,000 Unionists simply being happy under a united Irish state. Just think about that for a while!

    Cheers and while I'm thinking about it, you ponder the millions of Irish people that aren't happy with the Union.


  • Options
    #81
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Really its only people like yourself who care. The vast majority of people couldn't give a damn about lines on a map. Didn't you hear? Nationalism died in 1945.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    Really its only people like yourself who care. The vast majority of people couldn't give a damn about lines on a map. Didn't you hear? Nationalism died in 1945.

    If the vast majority of people couldn't give a damn about lines on a map, then what are you worried about the 600,000 unionists in the North for.

    Nationalism died in 1945? probably your right and modern day Republicanism came more to the front after that with the implementing of more socialist policies.


  • Options
    #83
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Well, the vast majority of people who consider themselves Irish don't care. Unionists do because they still subscribe to an ancient political ideal which they'll hopefully grow out of. Though this process isn't helped by backwards opinions like your own.

    I know, lets compell them with guns and bombs to join a United Ireland! I can think of no better means of persuasion!


  • Options
    #84
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    Well, the vast majority of people who consider themselves Irish don't care. Unionists do because they still subscribe to an ancient political ideal which they'll hopefully grow out of. Though this process isn't helped by backwards opinions like your own.

    I know, lets compell them with guns and bombs to join a United Ireland! I can think of no better means of persuasion!

    I would hardly say unionism is an ancient Political Ideal, I don't think I would describe Republicanism as either. Would you consider yourself to have a desire for a United Ireland? If so what strategy would you or do you employ?

    Also I never said I was in favour of Armed struggle your putting words into my mouth. However in the appropriate times I think that armed struggle can be used to great effect to force the British governments hand, I do concede I don't view it as a method of converting (for want of a better word) Unionist mindsets and yes it generally will entrench it.


  • Options
    #85
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I do want a United Ireland. I am irish. But on the scale of things I recognise its not that important. I'm from the north and I live in Dublin and having grown up with some of the most obnoxious people imaginable - people who glorify 'the struggle' and all the atrocities, anarchy and chaos it caused - I am firmly opposed to the armed struggle. Its pointless and it achieves nothing.

    The most annoying thing is when Republicans drag up history, generally without ever having read anything seriously scholarly.

    How do we achieve a United Ireland? I don't know, and I won't lose sleep over it. Its a line on the map, I'm much more concerned with how me, my family and my friends get on in this world. What does it matter if the Dáil gets more seats and Derrymen send TDs off to Dublin? What will actually change? its not important and very few people really care.


  • Options
    #86
    Davey2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭Davey2


    Denerick wrote: »
    I do want a United Ireland. I am irish. But on the scale of things I recognise its not that important. I'm from the north and I live in Dublin and having grown up with some of the most obnoxious people imaginable - people who glorify 'the struggle' and all the atrocities, anarchy and chaos it caused - I am firmly opposed to the armed struggle. Its pointless and it achieves nothing.

    The most annoying thing is when Republicans drag up history, generally without ever having read anything seriously scholarly.

    How do we achieve a United Ireland? I don't know, and I won't lose sleep over it. Its a line on the map, I'm much more concerned with how me, my family and my friends get on in this world. What does it matter if the Dáil gets more seats and Derrymen send TDs off to Dublin? What will actually change? its not important and very few people really care.

    I take your first point and agree there is absolutely nothing glorious about armed struggle, and the people that generally chant on about it didn't do anything anyway, from time to time you can see the sadness in someone that did take an active role.

    Your second comment I think is what the point of a United Ireland is to make everyone in Ireland's situation better, if the only change is that elected reps go to Dublin and implement the same thing as we currently have your right there is fúck all point in it.


  • Options
    #87
    cherrypicker555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭cherrypicker555


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    I may be wrong, but from what I can remember from reading Bandit Country years ago, the attack was carried out in retaliation for the killing of a number of innocent Catholics in the south Armagh area by Loyalists over a preceding number of months/years and the IRA's thinking behind the attack was also to warn Loyalists not to even think about targeting random Catholics (as summed up in Loyalists ATD graffitti).


    Republican propaganda check the stats for that year and you will see the PIRA murdered far more protestants in the previous yr in that area then the loyalists murdered catholics.


  • Options
    #88
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    Yes, and those changes were based on the end of a denial of democracy. We have plenty of democracy in Ireland and we know how people in NI vote and its not going to change in a decade or two.
    We do not have plenty of democracy in Ireland, the secterian gerrymander called Northern Ireland is the denial of democracy - as you very well know.
    ilkhanid wrote: »
    "Pity some people were not standing with Gordon and the rest of the cenotaph huggers in Enniskillen."
    Vile and disgraceful. Lets have a joke about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings..see you laughing then, shall we?
    " Vile and disgraceful. "And then this is the same fella who on his previous thread describes the centuries of misery and death inflicted on this country as " but no, they have to over-egg the pudding of misery. ". But that's unionism, nothing better could be expected.
    ilkhanid wrote: »
    And if perchance this magical United Ireland should appear tomorrow, and not bring peace, because there are a million angry people that don't want to be part of it....what then? What next on the drawing board? Generations of Southern Irish young lads garrisoning and occupying (yes, if you are not wanted by the population you are an occupying force) a hostile Antrim and East belfast; spat on, shot, stoned? How exactly how will this be an improvement on the past we know?

    Ah yes, the unionist cornered rat syndrome. Their all for 'democracy' when it's within the confines of the secterian gerrymander, but the prospect of a nationalist majority arises, it's the Ulster will fight, we'll inflict a blood bath etc. Lovely people.
    Firstly, their's never been a million of them, so drop the million unionists bit.

    But they were going to slaughter everyone if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the Anglo Irish agreement wasn't dropped, if the cap badge of the RUC was changed. When the Good Friday Agreement was made public, Paisley stormed out screaming " This means WAR " for the umptheenth time :rolleyes:, and ofcourse he later accepted it. They'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin ( Carson was from Dublin) etc when the brits pulled out - nothing, not a shot fired. Indeed it says it all about unionism that the unionists in the north and their ‘ loyalty ‘ abounded their brethren to the 26 counties with not so much as whimper.

    Anyway, it's only a matter of probably two or at the very most three decades before the nationalists are in the majority in the six counties. In a recent poll on school kids and religion, Catholics outnumber the Protestants by 163,950 to 123,142. See the third link down.

    http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/32-statisticsandresearch_pg/32-statistics_and_research_statistics_on_education_pg/32_statistics_and_research-numbersofschoolsandpupils_pg/32_statistics_and_research-northernirelandsummarydata_pg.htm


  • Options
    #89
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    "Also there was a free state of 32 counties in 1921: before the Unionist politicians pulled out."

    But no actual,existing united, centrally-administered state. Just a still-born notion.

    "Incorrect: there were dozens of High Kings in historical times."

    Whose writ did'nt run very far.Or for very long. The high kings were mainly rulers of one Ireland in their own minds. I recall the Emperors of China believed themselves to be rulers of all the world. Such self-delusion was common in royalty. People often indulged them as it made little difference,one way or another.
    " Whose writ did'nt run very far. " In ancient times you could say that about any ruler since they hadn't telephones, fax machines etc.

    In Ireland a very ancient code of law called Brehon Laws were in use throughout the country. This law was administered by professional judges who had to undergo a seven-year training. The development of rule in ancient Irish society parallels the development of national kingship elsewhere in Europe. Indeed in some ways they were very advanced for their time. For example, capital punishment was outlawed.

    But that would be just typical of our lovely unionist friends to portray Ireland as a lawless country which needed to be invaded by 'superiors' in order to put manners and civilise the natives. Which is just typical of the supremascist mindset that is at the heart of unionism. And this from a people who at one point some claimed that Ulster Protestants were descendants of the Lost tribe of Israel !!!!!! ( See Martin Dillon, God and the Gun, p. 235 )


  • Options
    #90
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 902 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    "They'd have put up as much fight as their brave comrades did in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Dublin ( Carson was from Dublin) etc when the brits pulled out - nothing, not a shot fired. Indeed it says it all about unionism that the unionists in the north and their ‘ loyalty ‘ abounded their brethren to the 26 counties with not so much as whimper."

    ..and as big a fight as the nationalists in the North put up. ...and just like the nationalists abandoned their brethern.

    " Whose writ did'nt run very far. " In ancient times you could say that about any ruler since they hadn't telephones, fax machines etc.

    I recall the Incas didn't have telephones, but they manged to administer an empire that ran from Chile to Ecuador. But..wait a minute, why should we tolerate the evil partition imposed on the people of the Empire by the evil Spanish (sorry,. McArmalite, not Brits).

    "The development of rule in ancient Irish society parallels the development of national kingship elsewhere in Europe."
    So.It was a common cultural area. So was Rome. So was the Iriquois Confederacy. So was Ummayad Iraq. That was then. This is now. The present is under no obligation to the past.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    cherrypicker555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭cherrypicker555


    McArmalite wrote: »
    " Whose writ did'nt run very far. " In ancient times you could say that about any ruler since they hadn't telephones, fax machines etc.

    In Ireland a very ancient code of law called Brehon Laws were in use throughout the country. This law was administered by professional judges who had to undergo a seven-year training. The development of rule in ancient Irish society parallels the development of national kingship elsewhere in Europe. Indeed in some ways they were very advanced for their time. For example, capital punishment was outlawed.

    But that would be just typical of our lovely unionist friends to portray Ireland as a lawless country which needed to be invaded by 'superiors' in order to put manners and civilise the natives. Which is just typical of the supremascist mindset that is at the heart of unionism. And this from a people who at one point some claimed that Ulster Protestants were descendants of the Lost tribe of Israel !!!!!! ( See Martin Dillon, God and the Gun, p. 235 )



    The Brehon laws were not used all over Ireland Limerick, Dublin and the SE were under Viking rule. But dont let the truth get in the way of nationalist properganda.


    Irish nationalist pixyland version of history
    The name Dublin is derived from the Irish name Dubh Linn (meaning black pool). Historically, in the traditional Gaelic script used for the Irish language, bh was written with a dot over the b, rendering 'Duḃ Linn' or 'Duḃlinn'. Those without a knowledge of Irish omitted the dot and spelled the name variously as Develyn or Dublin.


    Reality.


    The modern English name came from the Viking settlement of Dyflin,Viking names being Anglicised Many places in Ireland had been named by the Vikings, and these also evolved into English spellings. For example, Strangford [Strang Fjord] (county Down), Dublin [Dubh Linn] and Wexford [Weis Fjord].


    The Vikings, or Ostmen as they called themselves, ruled Dublin for almost three centuries, though they were expelled in 902 only to return in 917 and notwithstanding their defeat by the Irish High King Brian Boru at the battle of Clontarf in 1014. Viking rule of Dublin would end completely in 1171 when the city was captured by King Dermot MacMurrough of Leinster, with the aid of Anglo-Norman mercenaries. An attempt was made by the last Norse King of Dublin, Hasculf Thorgillsson, to recapture the city with an army he raised among his relations in the Scottish Highlands.




    Ireland

    The Norse are first recorded in Ireland in 795 when they sacked Lambay Island. Sporadic raids then continued until 832, after which they began to build fortified settlements throughout the country. Norse raids continued throughout the tenth century, but resistance to them increased. They suffered several defeats at the hands of Máel Sechnaill II, and in 1014 Brian Boru broke the power of the Norse permanently at Clontarf.[1]
    The Norse established independent kingdoms in Dublin, Waterford, Wexford, Cork and Limerick. These kingdoms did not survive the subsequent Norman invasions, but the towns continued to grow and prosper. The Norse became fully absorbed into the religious and political life of Ireland.


Advertisement