Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Tribal bigotry is not a response to IRA violence -- it was there before

1234579

Comments

  • #182
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    No, he was only observing diplomatic protocol as a neutral country on the death of a head of sate ( admittingly he should have left it out but that was the Long Hoor for you !!! )
    Why observe any protocol? There was effectively little of the political German state remaining when DeValeras government offered it's condolences on the death of Adolf Hitler. With a Russian army in Berlin.
    This observance of protocol is only remembered for it's pointlessness.
    Surely the Free State must have had a clearer idea of the character of the Third Reich by 1945.


  • #183
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    philologos wrote: »
    Kosovo and Montenegro are great examples of this. A minority of the population of Serbia wanted to be separate. Therefore they split.

    Likewise Northern Ireland is a minority of the population of Ireland, but they wanted to remain separate. Therefore they were separated from the Republic in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920.

    Serbia was treated as a single entity. In fact Yugoslavia was a single entity and then it gradually split.

    East Timor became the first nation to seek its own independence from Indonesia in 2002. I suspect the Indonesian people weren't the most pleased at this development, but nonetheless the population of East Timor wanted to be independent therefore they were.

    More recently Southern Sudan voted to leave Sudan. They are a minority of the Sudanese population but yet they will split. Southern Sudan is expected to become an independent nation on the 9th of July.

    If I apply your logic to Ireland, the majority of the United Kingdom opposed Ireland parting from the Union. Therefore it shouldn't have been allowed right? :pac:

    You're clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. Objectively partitioning in this manner happens very frequently.

    You are very clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the facts. The point is that we all draw lines as to when it is acceptable for countries to split. You are drawing the line at the whole of Ireland. Others don't because they recognise that if there is a significant minority they shouldn't be coerced into being a part of a State they don't want to be a part of.

    Is this in relation to the recent loyalist bigotry or the politics of the north? Does a significant minority who want to remain in britian go hand in hand with bigotry?


  • #184
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Is this in relation to the recent loyalist bigotry or the politics of the north? Does a significant minority who want to remain in britian go hand in hand with bigotry?

    It might do you a service to read the thread from the start until this point so you understand what has happened in between.

    But no, it is no form of defence for loyalist riots which I condemned very clearly at the start of the thread. I was arguing with PatsytheNazi about the legitimacy of the 1920's Government of Ireland Act which partitioned the State. I believe the partition was reasonable, PatsytheNazi doesn't. I also think that the people of Northern Ireland don't want a United Ireland in 2011 so why can't we just accept that?


  • #185
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    Sanjuro wrote: »
    I thought KM was just a professional troll who will say anything to get any reaction, just so long as somebody is looking at him.

    Also, a twat.

    Spot on, the man's an uber-troll. I'm sure next week he'll recant this article and write one on why the Para's should kill every man, woman and child in the Republic, or somesuch pile of attention seeking bilge. :rolleyes:


  • #186
    bayern282
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭bayern282


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I wonder would there be the same dispute if it was some sporting superstar who had been raised as Irish in England with Irish parents, before moving back here to live and work? :rolleyes:

    Just on this topic, if someone's born in Spain or Sweden to Irish parents we'd consider them to be Irish nationals born abroad, there's a weird double standard that exists that an English Birthplace or Accent ( which they didn't choose like no-one does ) therefore strips them of any connection with or vestige of Irishness.

    There are UK born Irish people who are indifferent to their background but personally have no problems with the ones who consider themselves Irish, if both their parents are Irish and they have Irish passports then what else are they?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    philologos wrote: »
    It might do you a service to read the thread from the start until this point so you understand what has happened in between.

    But no, it is no form of defence for loyalist riots which I condemned very clearly at the start of the thread. I was arguing with PatsytheNazi about the legitimacy of the 1920's Government of Ireland Act which partitioned the State. I believe the partition was reasonable, PatsytheNazi doesn't. I also think that the people of Northern Ireland don't want a United Ireland in 2011 so why can't we just accept that?

    I did read the thread in the middle but didnt really comment because it was nothing to do with the title. There are people who think the north belongs to britian and there are those that dont. Thats all you can say about it. you have to also respect the people who do want a united ireland, Thats politics.

    I think we cann all agree and condemn tribal bigotry in any form it takes.


  • #188
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I did read the thread in the middle but didnt really comment because it was nothing to do with the title. There are people who think the north belongs to britian and there are those that dont. Thats all you can say about it. you have to also respect the people who do want a united ireland, Thats politics.

    I think we cann all agree and condemn tribal bigotry in any form it takes.

    I'm just saying that the post that you quoted has little to do with the OP due to PatsytheNazi trying to argue that Northern Ireland was illegitimate etc.


  • #189
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »

    If you want to look at East Timor, Montenegro and Southern Sudan they are very similar.

    ...............

    East Timor was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, and was a seperate entity previously. Montenegro had a long history seperate from the Serb and later Yugoslav state.

    The problem of NI was never so much its seperation as its treatment of its minority population.


  • #190
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    East Timor was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, and was a seperate entity previously. Montenegro had a long history seperate from the Serb and later Yugoslav state.

    The problem of NI was never so much its seperation as its treatment of its minority population.

    Kosovo? Southern Sudan? - As for the problem in Northern Ireland I agree, but I'm arguing against PatsytheNazi's nonsense argument that since Northern Ireland didn't constitute a majority of Ireland it had no right to remain with Britain.


  • #191
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm just saying that the post that you quoted has little to do with the OP due to PatsytheNazi trying to argue that Northern Ireland was illegitimate etc.

    Well my point was trying to address the op's point about tribal bigotry being around long before ira activities.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well my point was trying to address the op's point about tribal bigotry being around long before ira activities.

    What are you defining as tribal bigotry and when are you saying was "before IRA activities"?

    As far as I'm concerned one has been around pretty much as long as the other.


  • #193
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    philologos wrote: »
    What are you defining as tribal bigotry and when are you saying was "before IRA activities"?

    As far as I'm concerned one has been around pretty much as long as the other.

    Your telling me tribal bigotry has been around since the same time as the ira?


  • #194
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    What are you defining as tribal bigotry and when are you saying was "before IRA activities"?

    As far as I'm concerned one has been around pretty much as long as the other.

    Seeing as there was no IRA in the 1600's or indeed until the start of the 20th century, I'd say you were wrong there.


  • #195
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I think its safe to say whatever your views about kevin myers his arguement that this tribal bigotry against catholics has been there long before ira activity. Ira activity was just another effort to try and justify bigotry.


  • #196
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Nodin wrote: »
    Seeing as there was no IRA in the 1600's or indeed until the start of the 20th century, I'd say you were wrong there.
    "United Irishmen", IRA, PIRA. Same thing really.


  • #197
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Seeing as there was no IRA in the 1600's or indeed until the start of the 20th century, I'd say you were wrong there.

    There were other forms of militants though. I don't even see the value of even arguing that even if it were true. What point does it give us as to how to deal with the modern situation we find ourselves in. Both sides are about equally responsible.

    Loyalist yobs repulse me no less and no more than the CIRA, RIRA.


  • #198
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    "United Irishmen", IRA, PIRA. Same thing really.

    It's refreshing, just when you think you have already seen the most mind numbingly stupid thing you're likely ever to see on boards, Keith gets here and plumbs new depths.

    Thanks bud!


  • #199
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    karma_ wrote: »
    It's refreshing, just when you think you have already seen the most mind numbingly stupid thing you're likely ever to see on boards, Keith gets here and plumbs new depths.

    Thanks bud!
    philologos pretty much agrees. No difference at all.


  • #200
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    philologos pretty much agrees. No difference at all.

    KeithAFC, the poster who just keeps on giving and giving. Seriously, come the annual boards awards you're getting my 'poster of the year award' vote!


  • #201
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    There were other forms of militants though. I don't even see the value of even arguing that even if it were true. What point does it give us as to how to deal with the modern situation we find ourselves in. Both sides are about equally responsible.

    Loyalist yobs repulse me no less and no more than the CIRA, RIRA.

    ...the point being if you're going to argue with reference to real life events, organisations, and places you are supposed to be accurate in what you are referring to. This isn't theology we're discussing.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...the point being if you're going to argue with reference to real life events, organisations, and places you are supposed to be accurate in what you are referring to. This isn't theology we're discussing.

    I don't get the point of raising tribal bigotry other than to say that armed thuggery / rioting etc can often arise out of bigotry. Bigotry both on Loyalist and Republican sides.

    There is nothing spectacular or remarkable about that. It seems to be stating the obvious. Or do I have you wrong somewhere?

    I don't see the 1920's as the beginning of Republican violence, or of Loyalist violence in Ireland. So yeah while the IRA with that name may not have existed other groups with differing names existed prior to this.

    There are far too many sacred cows in this type of discussion that need to be re-examined.


  • #203
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    I............

    There are far too many sacred cows in this type of discussion that need to be re-examined.

    Well the next time we're discussing religion, you won't let the discussion get hung up on me saying that Jesus was a greek guy born in the 2nd Century then.

    Glad thats sorted.


  • #204
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Well the next time we're discussing religion, you won't let the discussion get hung up on me saying that Jesus was a greek guy born in the 2nd Century then.

    Glad thats sorted.

    I thought you were the one saying this wasn't a theological discussion :pac:

    I welcome investigation and criticism of my beliefs. I wonder if others would say that about their beliefs in respect to this debate?


  • #205
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm just saying that the post that you quoted has little to do with the OP due to PatsytheNazi trying to argue that Northern Ireland was illegitimate etc.
    It's a secterian gerrymander created by British threats, it has no legitmatacy - except to Paisleyites like yourself !!!!!!

    Your as much from Lucan as I am from the Shankill Road. Why don't you crowd just go back to the Outer Hebrides or whatever hole you came from :rolleyes:


  • #206
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't get the point of raising tribal bigotry other than to say that armed thuggery / rioting etc can often arise out of bigotry. Bigotry both on Loyalist and Republican sides.

    This is a thread about tribal bigotry
    There is nothing spectacular or remarkable about that. It seems to be stating the obvious. Or do I have you wrong somewhere?

    Then why comment on a thread about bigotry? Its simply rubbish to say that bigotry arises as a response to violence, that gives it some sort of justification. The point about bigotry is it often arsises from a perceived threat from another group. 90% of the uvfs victims were catholic civilians with no ira ties. They used the excuse or threat from republicans to carry out bigoted practices.
    I don't see the 1920's as the beginning of Republican violence, or of Loyalist violence in Ireland. So yeah while the IRA with that name may not have existed other groups with differing names existed prior to this.

    So to confirm your view is that you see bigotry in the north arising from the ira?
    There are far too many sacred cows in this type of discussion that need to be re-examined.

    I find it hard to do so when think it was the iras fault some people are bigots.


  • #207
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    philologos wrote: »
    Can you address my non-Irish examples please? Kosovo, Montenegro and Southern Sudan? All illegitimate states?
    What the f*** has Kosovo, Montenegro and Southern Sudan got to do with Ireland :rolleyes: Where they island nations partitioned against the will of the majority of people by the threats of an imperial criminal state ?

    And should you not be off getting flute band practise for the 'twalfth' with your Loyal Sons of King Billy Kick the Pope band up in some unionist kip like Portadown or wherever ?


  • #208
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    And should you not be off getting flute band practise for the 'twalfth' with your Loyal Sons of King Billy Kick the Pope band up in some unionist kip like Portadown or wherever ?
    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Your as much from Lucan as I am from the Shankill Road. Why don't you crowd just go back to the Outer Hebrides or whatever hole you came from :rolleyes:

    It's crap like this which ruins these threads.
    So...
    Banned.


  • #209
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    It's crap like this which ruins these threads.
    So...
    Banned.

    That's a shame. Although the suggestion that I am a Paisleyite and that I'm not really Irish etc for respecting the democratic will of the people is simply hilarious.

    steadyeddy: I agree it is about tribal bigotry. The OP who has since been banned was trying to argue that Loyalists are in some way more extreme than Republicans in NI. I don't see how this is true.

    The OP then went on to argue for a United Ireland and that the partition that occurred in 1920 was illegitimate. I argued against him using examples of how this has occurred in the 21st century.

    I think it is great that the 26 counties formed a Republic. I wouldn't have it any other way. The idea that we should force the other 6 to join us against their will and more than likely our will is absurd.

    You've misread my last post. I said violence arose out of bigotry not the other way around. Please read my posts before posting.
    So to confirm your view is that you see bigotry in the north arising from the ira?

    No please read my post again.
    I find it hard to do so when think it was the iras fault some people are bigots.

    The Provos existed, and CIRA / RIRA exist because of underlying bigotry that existed prior to their formation.

    The same for the UDA, UVF etc.

    Please make sure to read carefully what I'm saying.


  • #210
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    If you are referring to the recent troubles and claiming that violence arose out of bigotry, you are right in one sense in that republican violence arose out of unionist bigotry. As in arose in reposnse to it


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    If you are referring to the recent troubles and claiming that violence arose out of bigotry, you are right in one sense in that republican violence arose out of unionist bigotry.

    So you think the violence that the Provos perpetrated was justified? Or indeed the recent violence of the CIRA / RIRA blowing up policemen's cars? Really?


Advertisement