Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

The Scientician · 04-12-2011 3:10am

criticalcritic wrote: »

100%

The most tragic aspect of the struggle was the deaths of innocent civilians

But in war especially Guerilla warfare it is inivatable civilians will perish

Its regretable but unfortunate reality

When you plant bombs in public places, where people are shopping, or eating, or sleeping, or kids are playing, then yeah deaths are inevitable. How many murdered kids or OAPs would it take to get us a United Ireland?
We haven't got it yet, so maybe enough people weren't blown to smithereens or maimed. What do ya think? The unfortunate reality is that murderers in the north hid behind their flags and their history and their pomposity to visit death and destruction upon their neighbours.

NICRA was of course justified, even the early actions of the PIRA and other groups around 1969/70/71 are probably justified, most later actions taken by them were just butchery with a nice political dressing up.

FeckinUsername · 04-12-2011 3:17am

The Scientician wrote: »

When you plant bombs in public places, where people are shopping, or eating, or sleeping, or kids are playing, then yeah deaths are inevitable. How many murdered kids or OAPs would it take to get us a United Ireland?
We haven't got it yet, so maybe enough people weren't blown to smithereens or maimed. What do ya think? The unfortunate reality is that murderers in the north hid behind their flags and their history and their pomposity to visit death and destruction upon their neighbours.

NICRA was of course justified, even the early actions of the PIRA and other groups around 1969/70/71 are probably justified, most later actions taken by them were just butchery with a nice political dressing up.

Would you describe British atrocities in the same fashion?

Chuck Stone · 04-12-2011 4:21am

dlofnep wrote: »

It was absolutely justified.

Some of what they done hurt civilians who never wanted a part in the conflict so I, personally, wouldn't subscribe to the 'absolutely' stance. I'm horrified by the death of people who didn't sign up to be on one side or the other.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some of it was justifiable and some of it wasn't.

This is where I stand. Some of what they did was brave. Some of what they did was just wrong by anyone's standards.

What I'm positive all of us, even the most die hard Republican supporters, will agree is that the particular aspect of it which involved bombing civilian centres in England,

Unfortunately for us all this isn't true. It was the Canary Wharf bomb and the Bombing of the Manchester CBD that ended the conflict in NI.

Right in the middle of the peace process the IRA hit the economic heart of the UK and threatened to hurt the economy.

Game over.

Zombrex · 04-12-2011 4:47am

hoorsmelt wrote: »

They were responsible for the deaths of about 1,800 people, mostly security service personnel

Out of the 2060 people Republican paramilitary groups (mostly the IRA) killed, 727 of them were civilians. That is just less than the number of civilians the Loyalist paramilitary groups murdered.

hoorsmelt wrote: »

, with smaller Republican groups like the INLA and the OIRA responsible for another 160-200 deaths on top of that. Could/should their actions be justified?

No.

Firstly they did not have any legitimate mandate to act as a military force for the people of Ireland or even the people of Northern Ireland.

Secondly they conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming a legitimate military force, resorting to terrorism and murder.

So no, they weren't justified.

Zombrex · 04-12-2011 4:53am

criticalcritic wrote: »

But in war especially Guerilla warfare it is inivatable civilians will perish

Its regretable but unfortunate reality

Pretty good reasons not to use guerilla warfare, don't you think?

I mean in war especially mass genocide/chemical warfare/atomic bombs/suicide bombers/human sheilds etc etc it is inevitable civilians will perish, its regrettable but unfortunate reality.

Oh no way, it is immoral and illegal.

Since when does "Oh it was war, its inevitable" get used as an excuse for any and every atrocity anyone wants to carry out?

hatrickpatrick · 04-12-2011 5:17am

criticalcritic wrote: »

100%

The most tragic aspect of the struggle was the deaths of innocent civilians

But in war especially Guerilla warfare it is inivatable civilians will perish

Its regretable but unfortunate reality

I have to take issue with this statement, and bear in mind I take issue when someone posts this with regard to ANY conflict:
"Collateral damage" is only ever even remotely valid when the civilian deaths are a "side effect" of whatever the attack was actually intended to do.

Attacks which bear the sole intended outcome of killing innocent people can never, ever be justified or excused.

The Scientician · 04-12-2011 5:48am

FeckinUsername wrote: »

Would you describe British atrocities in the same fashion?

Of course. Your point?

hoorsmelt · 04-12-2011 5:51am

Zombrex wrote: »

No.

Firstly they did not have any legitimate mandate to act as a military force for the people of Ireland or even the people of Northern Ireland.

Secondly they conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming a legitimate military force, resorting to terrorism and murder.

So no, they weren't justified.

The Irish Parliament which signed the Act of Union merging Ireland with Great Britain in the UK was elected elected by Anglican suffrage only, with the added caveat that electors be landowners and male. They had no mandate to sign over Ireland to the United Kingdom, yet it was done. An historic injustice was done to this country, so those who resorted to arms to correct that injustice had the moral right to do so, the same as Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian guerrillas do today in their struggles. Secondly, the laws of war are never applied fairly, mainly because the main powers exempt themselves from their responsibility, so as it stands there is no set manner for distinguishing between a legitimate and illegitimate military force- I would contend that the sole distinction is the cause that they are fighting for, there are plenty of worthwhile anti-imperialist forces like the Zapatistas, who are formally illegal, who have a solid claim to legitimacy as armies. The PIRA had a similar mandate.

LordSutch · 04-12-2011 9:54am

FeckinUsername wrote: »

It was a fight for Irish freedom,

That is such a crock of . . .

Think of the victims of the Troubles matey :mad:

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 10:24am

The war of Republican aggression on Ulster didn't start in 1969. "30" (more really) years of trying to force the PUL people into a United Ireland and they failed. They should have looked at our history and they would have known it would have failed.

oldyouth · 04-12-2011 10:24am

The Scientician wrote: »

When you plant bombs in public places, where people are shopping, or eating, or sleeping, or kids are playing, then yeah deaths are inevitable. How many murdered kids or OAPs would it take to get us a United Ireland?
We haven't got it yet, so maybe enough people weren't blown to smithereens or maimed. What do ya think? The unfortunate reality is that murderers in the north hid behind their flags and their history and their pomposity to visit death and destruction upon their neighbours.

NICRA was of course justified, even the early actions of the PIRA and other groups around 1969/70/71 are probably justified, most later actions taken by them were just butchery with a nice political dressing up.

Excellent post. Whatever merit the cause had was disgraced by the method & frequency innocent people were slaughtered under avoidable circumstances. It was plain & simple murder by cowards

And yes, every side involved in the conflict were just as bad.

blinding · 04-12-2011 11:13am

The Loyalists/Unionists/British were'nt as cuddly as they are painted by some revisionists before and during the troubles.

In my opinion the Republican campaign was justified but there should have been a settlement much earlier. Perhaps both sides were'nt ready and sadly had'nt endured enough to finally conclude that they had to live/deal together.

It was Unionist/Loyalists that brought down the Sunningdale agreement. (Why
?/)

I think that the length and ferocity of the campaign alienated many of the southern population from its republican/nationalist/all-Ireland leanings.

It is worth asking if the Unionist/Loyalist/British campaign was justifiable.

It does afterall take two(as a mimimum) sides to have a war.

FUNKY LOVER · 04-12-2011 11:39am

K-9 wrote: »

The IRPS will eventually cop on that that the armed struggle doesn't work in the long run, and some other group will come along to call them traitors.

History repeats itself, particularly Irish history and nobody learns anything!

So the war of independance which was a bloody violent one didn't achieve anything?

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 12:52pm

blinding wrote: »

The Loyalists/Unionists/British were'nt as cuddly as they are painted by some revisionists before and during the troubles.

In my opinion the Republican campaign was justified but there should have been a settlement much earlier. Perhaps both sides were'nt ready and sadly had'nt endured enough to finally conclude that they had to live/deal together.

It was Unionist/Loyalists that brought down the Sunningdale agreement. (Why
?/)

I think that the length and ferocity of the campaign alienated many of the southern population from its republican/nationalist/all-Ireland leanings.

It is worth asking if the Unionist/Loyalist/British campaign was justifiable.

It does afterall take two(as a mimimum) sides to have a war.

If you mean the fight back from Ulster patriots, then it was. The leadership of the PIRA knew it would never work and just carried on anyway.

lugha · 04-12-2011 1:02pm

hoorsmelt wrote: »

The PIRA's campaign began in 1969 and didn't end until 2005. They were responsible for the deaths of about 1,800 people, mostly security service personnel, with smaller Republican groups like the INLA and the OIRA responsible for another 160-200 deaths on top of that. Could/should their actions be justified? Ireland was colonised by force centuries ago, to argue that anyone who resorts to armed action to put an end to that rule does not have the right to respond to the original violence by armed struggle is hypocritical imo, and the deaths of civilians are an unfortunate side-effect of war- most of the organisations listed above tried to minimise civilian casualties with phone warnings, etc, and the majority of their casualties were security forces, who might be classed as valid targets. I reckon they were justified, and I think that groups who continue to take action today do have the right to resort to force, just that it is tactically unviable at present.

I'm a sympathiser with the IRSP fwiw.

If you subscribe to the concept of democracy then the answer plainly is no. The quest to end the British “occupation” of Northern Ireland was held by all nationalists but the vast, vast majority of them, through out the troubles as well as now, made is clear that they did not endorse the use of violence to bring such a change about.

Liam Byrne · 04-12-2011 1:21pm

FeckinUsername wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Was A campaign justified ? Yes

Was the bastardised one where they murdered civilians justified ? Absolutely not.

But that's the past - nothing will bring those they chose to murder back.

The biggest issue nowadays is the double-standards, whereby everything despicable that the British did is - rightly - highlighted and complained about, while the IRA atrocities are excused and dismissed as "casualties of war".

And, of course, the fact that anyone who points the above out is accused of being "less Irish" or "west Brit".

A true republic involves treating everyone equally, not leaving bombs around to blow some of them up.

Hold on now, I will have to take you up on one of your points. You mention double standards, you are dead right. There are major double standards in play. When we have the commander of the British army over here on a visit, coinciding with the anniversary of the Dublin - Monaghan bombings, all 'of that' should be in the past. In fact her visit is feted as a sign of great progress and 'maturity'. Yet when a one time member of the IRA runs for the Free State Presidency we are treated to daily updates on every 'atrocity' that the organisation carried out. We are told that such a person should not be anywhere near a high political office. And he is one of the ones that has embraced normal constitutional politics. You are damn right that there is a double standard in play.

So the Queen of England was running for election, then ?

Absolutely no credible correlation between those two events AT ALL!

The thing about treating like with like is that scenarios have to be alike to begin with.

irishh_bob · 04-12-2011 1:24pm

criticalcritic wrote: »

The nationalist people have been led up a hill but areant being led back down

While the Shinners may be getting their fifteen minutes down South

Their going down a lead balloon up North

sinn fein make substantial gains at every election in northern ireland , how many seats to the ( political wing ) of the real ira have ?

Border-Rat · 04-12-2011 1:45pm

Yes it was. Most free-staters dislike this fact because it implicates their own 'army' in negligence of duty. Thats part of the reason they can't (And won't) admit it, part of a larger psyche of deep-rooted guilt and fear of responsibility.

As a person of the 06, to be honest, most of us didn't give a damn about outside pontificating in the 70's, we needed protection - the IRA gave it. You really think people living in fear of the next bullet coming through the living room window give a damn about people lecturing from the safety of the 26? GTFO!!

lugha · 04-12-2011 2:12pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Yes it was. Most free-staters dislike this fact because it implicates their own 'army' in negligence of duty. Thats part of the reason they can't (And won't) admit it, part of a larger psyche of deep-rooted guilt and fear of responsibility.

It is difficult to tell if those that propagate the nonsense that Irish troops crossing the border in ’69 as an option, do in fact believe this (I actually think some really do) or are the just milking the propaganda value. Well, here’s a question. If you really do think that the BA could be so easily repelled, why didn’t PIRA succeed? After all they had resources and support and would have had the considerable advantage of being able to use guerrilla tactics rather than conventional military engagements.
Simply answer, they did not have the capacity to do so. And neither would the Irish army have.

Border-Rat wrote: »

we needed protection - the IRA gave it.

The criticism of the IRA is rarely directed at their role in seeking to defend the Northern Catholics. It was for their pursuit of a united Ireland using violent means, against the clear wishes of the Irish people. that they stand indicted.

blahfckingblah · 04-12-2011 2:52pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

If you mean the fight back from Ulster patriots, then it was. The leadership of the PIRA knew it would never work and just carried on anyway.

so just what were "ulster patriots" like Lenny murphy and the shankill butchers trying to achieve? Thankfully not every side stooped to the lows that these twisted individuals did.

irishh_bob · 04-12-2011 4:39pm

blahfckingblah wrote: »

so just what were "ulster patriots" like Lenny murphy and the shankill butchers trying to achieve? Thankfully not every side stooped to the lows that these twisted individuals did.

kieths idea of an ulster patriot is the same as jim allisters , a unionist who subjigates thier catholic neighbour and who proudly admits the same neighbour should be gratefull

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 4:47pm

blahfckingblah wrote: »

so just what were "ulster patriots" like Lenny murphy and the shankill butchers trying to achieve? Thankfully not every side stooped to the lows that these twisted individuals did.

The South Armagh death squads proved otherwise. No Protestant was safe in South Armagh.

trendyvicar · 04-12-2011 4:48pm

blahfckingblah wrote: »

so just what were "ulster patriots" like Lenny murphy and the shankill butchers trying to achieve? Thankfully not every side stooped to the lows that these twisted individuals did.

I have no insight into Lenny's mind, but Loyalist paramilitaries taken as a whole were attempting to influence three groups:

(i) The UK State - Loyalists attempted to influence The UK State away from making compromises to Irish Nationalism in response to Republican violence by demonstrating that appeasement would not buy peace in Northern Ireland.

(ii) The Irish people and especially The Irish State - Loyalists attempted to persuade The Irish people and especially Irish politicians, civil servants, police and army personnel that a United Ireland would bring very real problems for Ireland in terms of both blood and treasure.

(iii) The Nationalist population of Northern Ireland - Loyalists carried out a ruthless campaign of attrition against Northern Ireland's Nationalist population in the hope that their morale would be broken and that they would pressure militant Republicans into calling off their campaign.

There was nothing mindless about Loyalist paramilitary strategy however certain individuals might have conducted or presented themselves.

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 4:48pm

lugha wrote: »

It was for their pursuit of a united Ireland using violent means

Britain partitioned the state through violence, and through the threat of violence. Britain did not afford the nationalist population a political voice in the north for decades - and to state otherwise, is being odiously disingenuous. Hume and his colleagues begged for scraps to try and bring Sunningdale to the table - and for what? For the Unionists to topple it at the first opportunity?

The reality was - the north was an orange state, where loyalists wanted to maintain control at the expense of the indigenous population. The state was gerrymandered, and all of the weight of the establishment was heavily in favour of loyalists.

They had every right to take up arms against a state that treated them with contempt.

later12 · 04-12-2011 4:57pm

criticalcritic wrote: »

Pure sh*te

James Connolly, Seamus Costelloe, Frank Ryan were militant nationalists?

The principles of Irish republicanism has been guided by revolutionary socialist principles, the opposite militant nationalism

Read the proclamation which is basis for all republican groups exist,
Nothing nationalist about it

At best, all you're attempting to argue is that these men were socialists above being militant nationalists. That in itself is irrelevant, and clearly (and for sure, paradoxically) some men would have claimed to be both.

The point, however, is that none were truly republican.

There is a strange understanding of the word 'republican' in an Irish political and historical context. People seem to refer to 'Irish republicanism' as pertaining to the aspiration that 'The Irish Republic' be extended across the entire island of Ireland. It seems to have nothing whatever to do with actual republicanism as is usually understood in wider political science outside of Ireland.

In general, the vast majority of these so-called republicans are indeed merely militant nationalists (a movement so intellectually impotent that I struggle to think of any modern individual of academic repute who endorses it). Some were firstly socialists of various shades as well as apparently nationalist, but it would be absurd to suggest there were serious republicans amongst this group.

Liam Byrne · 04-12-2011 5:05pm

dlofnep wrote: »

They had every right to take up arms against a state that treated them with contempt.

No-one has said otherwise.

So why didn't they do that ? Why did they choose to target and murder innocents ?

lugha · 04-12-2011 5:20pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Britain partitioned the state through violence, and through the threat of violence. Britain did not afford the nationalist population a political voice in the north for decades - and to state otherwise, is being odiously disingenuous. Hume and his colleagues begged for scraps to try and bring Sunningdale to the table - and for what? For the Unionists to topple it at the first opportunity?

The reality was - the north was an orange state, where loyalists wanted to maintain control at the expense of the indigenous population. The state was gerrymandered, and all of the weight of the establishment was heavily in favour of loyalists.

They had every right to take up arms against a state that treated them with contempt.

All of this is an argument for Northern nationalists resorting to violence to try to win basic rights. It is not an argument for using violence to pursue a united Ireland when most Irish people did endorse the use of force for just an end.

And I am slightly amused at your suggestion that the nationalist are the indigenous population.

What became of all this insistence that unionists are Irish men and women too?

K-9 · 04-12-2011 6:07pm

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

So the war of independance which was a bloody violent one didn't achieve anything?

Yes it did. The IRA campaign also achieved something, a limited something, until people realised that war was never going to win and started to have meaningful talks. The IRA had talks with the British in 1973/74 but they weren't realistic.

Sunnyisland · 04-12-2011 6:10pm

Was the Republican campaign justifiable

The P.IRA deployed terror for the political purpose of destroying an obscene system that would not have been defeated otherwise, I believe that the Irish Republican conflict/war was justified in a response to the murder and oppression of the mainly catholic/nationalist community by the Unionists/UK governments, The truth is (imo) that although non-violent protest may be effective and more favorable way in to change a Government, it often in practice needs a focusing act of violence or the threat of violence to bring those with power to a decision to change their policy or behaviour. And in that the Republican movements campaign was justified against the ever no moving no surrender unionist/loyalist mindset.

Fromthetrees · 04-12-2011 6:48pm

four counties in Northern Ireland which presently has a majority of the population from a Catholic community background, according to the 2001 census.

Slightly off topic but can we not get back the four counties in northern Ireland with a catholic majority (provided they want to join with us). How could a two county statelet exist? At least Derry, I really like Derry.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 6:56pm

Fromthetrees wrote: »

four counties in Northern Ireland which presently has a majority of the population from a Catholic community background, according to the 2001 census.

Slightly off topic but can we not get back the four counties in northern Ireland with a catholic majority (provided they want to join with us). How could a two county statelet exist? At least Derry, I really like Derry.

They aren't all Republicans/Nationalists.

Fromthetrees · 04-12-2011 7:03pm

Well when we get our sh1t together down south (lets say 10/15 years) and Engerland get sick of funding a statelet, I think each county should be given a vote to succeed from the UK. I want Derry anyway, they're a great bunch of lads.

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:03pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one has said otherwise.

So why didn't they do that ? Why did they choose to target and murder innocents ?

Who said that the murder of innocents was justified? I believe the topic is discussing the campaign against the British forces/RUC/Loyalists.

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:11pm

lugha wrote: »

All of this is an argument for Northern nationalists resorting to violence to try to win basic rights. It is not an argument for using violence to pursue a united Ireland when most Irish people did endorse the use of force for just an end.

Nonsense. It's as much a reason as many to liberate one's people from an oppressive regime (The British state).

lugha wrote: »

And I am slightly amused at your suggestion that the nationalist are the indigenous population. What became of all this insistence that unionists are Irish men and women too?

Complete strawman. I never stated that they were not Irish. In the same way that Australians of European descent, are of course still Australian and have been there for quite some time. But they are not indigenous Australian, in the same respect that those descended from Scottish & English planters were not indigenous to Ireland.

It's hardly pertinent at this point in time. It was just an observation, and under no means does it assert that Irish Unionists are not Irish.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 7:18pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Nonsense. It's as much a reason as many to liberate one's people from an oppressive regime (The British state).

Complete strawman. I never stated that they were not Irish. In the same way that Australians of European descent, are of course still Australian and have been there for quite some time. But they are not indigenous Australian, in the same respect that those descended from Scottish & English planters were not indigenous to Ireland.

It's hardly pertinent at this point in time. It was just an observation, and under no means does it assert that Irish Unionists are not Irish.

Probably the worst argument ever.

There is no indigenous people on the island. The people with a Republican ideology have as much Gael in them as English people.

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:18pm

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Well when we get our sh1t together down south (lets say 10/15 years) and Engerland get sick of funding a statelet, I think each county should be given a vote to succeed from the UK. I want Derry anyway, they're a great bunch of lads.

Agreed on Derry. It would look something like this I'd imagine.

The far north-east would remain in the UK, and the rest would leave the UK.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 7:19pm

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Well when we get our sh1t together down south (lets say 10/15 years) and Engerland get sick of funding a statelet, I think each county should be given a vote to succeed from the UK. I want Derry anyway, they're a great bunch of lads.

10 or 15 years? More like 100 years with the way the Republic is at the moment. The Republic is in decline and will be for many years to come. A lot of people don't even want to live in the country any more and are so desperate to get out of the country.

trendyvicar · 04-12-2011 7:22pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Nonsense. It's as much a reason as many to liberate one's people from an oppressive regime (The British state).

Complete strawman. I never stated that they were not Irish. In the same way that Australians of European descent, are of course still Australian and have been there for quite some time. But they are not indigenous Australian, in the same respect that those descended from Scottish & English planters were not indigenous to Ireland.

It's hardly pertinent at this point in time. It was just an observation, and under no means does it assert that Irish Unionists are not Irish.

Don't scientists claim we all come from Africa?

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:23pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Probably the worst argument ever.

It wasn't an argument. It was an observation, and not even an important one. Perhaps you'd care to actually address the number of relevant issues I highly with regards to the treatment of the nationalist population by the British state?

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is no indigenous people on the island. The people with a Republican ideology have as much Gael in them as English people.

Sure there is - It just doesn't suit you to accept that there was a population native to this Island here before planters came, and drove the indigenous population unjustly off their land. It's not really relevant at the moment - but to ignore this historical fact, only demonstrates ignorance on your behalf.

R P McMurphy · 04-12-2011 7:24pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Well when we get our sh1t together down south (lets say 10/15 years) and Engerland get sick of funding a statelet, I think each county should be given a vote to succeed from the UK. I want Derry anyway, they're a great bunch of lads.

10 or 15 years? More like 100 years with the way the Republic is at the moment. The Republic is in decline and will be for many years to come. A lot of people don't even want to live in the country any more and are so desperate to get out of the country.

What happens if the irish economy collapses and there is a flood across the border Keith?

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:26pm

trendyvicar wrote: »

Don't scientists claim we all come from Africa?

Go back far enough, and we all come from the sea. But yes - Homo Sapiens originated in Africa. At least, that is the leading theory.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 7:29pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It wasn't an argument. It was an observation, and not even an important one. Perhaps you'd care to actually address the number of relevant issues I highly with regards to the treatment of the nationalist population by the British state?

Sure there is - It just doesn't suit you to accept that there was a population native to this Island here before planters came, and drove the indigenous population unjustly off their land. It's not really relevant at the moment - but to ignore this historical fact, only demonstrates ignorance on your behalf.

You talk as if those people had been the original people on the island which they weren't. They weren't the indigenous people.

Republicans going on about oppression from the British state is rather rich when the state they wanted to join was doing the same thing to their own people for decades with Rome rule well under way.

trendyvicar · 04-12-2011 7:30pm

Fromthetrees wrote: »

four counties in Northern Ireland which presently has a majority of the population from a Catholic community background, according to the 2001 census.

Slightly off topic but can we not get back the four counties in northern Ireland with a catholic majority (provided they want to join with us). How could a two county statelet exist? At least Derry, I really like Derry.

I think you'd be better counting Nationalists than Catholics my man before you implement your ethnic partition plan.

What about just transferring the west side of The Foyle, Strabane and Newry/South Armagh (if they agreed) - I'd say most of them would be positive.

dlofnep · 04-12-2011 7:39pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

You talk as if those people had been the original people on the island which they weren't. They weren't the indigenous people.

Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Republicans going on about oppression from the British state is rather rich when the state they wanted to join was doing the same thing to their own people for decades with Rome rule well under way.

There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.

Fromthetrees · 04-12-2011 7:45pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

10 or 15 years? More like 100 years with the way the Republic is at the moment. The Republic is in decline and will be for many years to come. A lot of people don't even want to live in the country any more and are so desperate to get out of the country.

Sure, 100 years to balance our budget. :rolleyes: It'd probably take that long to decline to the levels in the north. I think you'll find a lot of people are leaving the country with a view of coming back, granted, some will, some won't, but so what.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 7:49pm

Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.

They weren't natives on the land though. That would be applying that they were an indigenous people which they weren't.

There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.

The treatment of Atheists in the Irish Republic was dreadful and the religious laws like contraception was cowardly and oppressive to non religious people. Non religious people had to not only put up with awful laws but also had to watch the Pope visit their country and watch the leader of the biggest corrupt organisation in the world be greeted by a million people.

Fromthetrees · 04-12-2011 7:50pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Agreed on Derry. It would look something like this I'd imagine.

The far north-east would remain in the UK, and the rest would leave the UK.

I like the look of that. We can then take east Belfast and work on from there. Happy days, we'll have our teddies head back in no time.

KeithAFC · 04-12-2011 7:53pm

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Sure, 100 years to balance our budget. :rolleyes: It'd probably take that long to decline to the levels in the north. I think you'll find a lot of people are leaving the country with a view of coming back, granted, some will, some won't, but so what.

You don't look like recovering. I see it all the time on here about the politicians you have and how rubbish they are. Saying you will take all of Ulster in 10-15 years time is beyond daft.

FUNKY LOVER · 04-12-2011 7:54pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Since you keep side-stepping the issue. The native population was removed from their land by planters. That is a documented historical fact, and your pedantry won't change it.

They weren't natives on the land though. That would be applying that they were an indigenous people which they weren't.

There is absolutely no comparison to how we were treated post-partition by the Irish state and by the British state. While the Irish Government wasn't perfect, and implemented some asinine laws - they certainly didn't treat the population with the contempt that the British state treated us with.

All you do is deflect, and interject with red herring after red herring. You're incapable of accepting the reality of the role that Britain played in the north, and the impact it had on the nationalist population. Your efforts to try and pass it off as being equal to the treatment of us in the south is odious - and is devoid of any intellectual rigour.

The treatment of Atheists in the Irish Republic was dreadful and the religious laws like contraception was cowardly and oppressive to non religious people. Non religious people had to not only put up with awful laws but also had to watch the Pope visit their country and watch the leader of the biggest corrupt organisation in the world be greeted by a million people.

I have never ever in my life come across someone like you Keith,unbelievable.

EDIT-no worst than what your lot were doing the people who were catholic during the troubles.

irishh_bob · 04-12-2011 7:57pm

realies wrote: »

Was the Republican campaign justifiable

The P.IRA deployed terror for the political purpose of destroying an obscene system that would not have been defeated otherwise, I believe that the Irish Republican conflict/war was justified in a response to the murder and oppression of the mainly catholic/nationalist community by the Unionists/UK governments, The truth is (imo) that although non-violent protest may be effective and more favorable way in to change a Government, it often in practice needs a focusing act of violence or the threat of violence to bring those with power to a decision to change their policy or behaviour. And in that the Republican movements campaign was justified against the ever no moving no surrender unionist/loyalist mindset.

absolutley , anyone who thinks the mind of a bully can be persuaded , shamed , urged to act differently by a well articulated opposition voice has either spent thier entire lives living in an ivory tower or they are willfully ignorant of how the real world works

the world over , power , order , control is administrated and enforced with the threat of violence lurking not far underneath , its merley a case of the likes of the IRA not having the same degree of PR and sophisticated dressing to cover it up , i.e , political establishments

Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

Comments