Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

EvanCornwallis · 08-04-2013 04:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't really think you're English. If you are then you are seriously ignorant of your own history. More likely though you're a Republican in disguise. Which is frankly bizarre.

You seem to be the ignorant one. Sorry, but I don't just go along with the spoon fed facts like a sheep.

Yes, I made this account as a republican just to discuss this issue with clever chaos like yourself. My life is pretty dull you see.

Don't know why I waited so long to post in politics.

Like I said , fact is people in the uk don't care about northern Ireland .

Iwasfrozen · 08-04-2013 04:38PM

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

You seem to be the ignorant one. Sorry, but I don't just go along with the spoon fed facts like a sheep.

Yes, I made this account as a republican just to discuss this issue with clever chaos like yourself. My life is pretty dull you see.

Don't know why I waited so long to post in politics.

It seems like it, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd actually believe it. All I can say is try reading up a bit more on history. It's not as black and white as you think.

.jacksparrow. · 08-04-2013 04:42PM

gallag wrote: »

Dont worry, the uk buys more irish goods than visa versa, and why do you feel you deserve my land?

Finally the mask comes off.

EvanCornwallis · 08-04-2013 04:47PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems like it, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd actually believe it. All I can say is try reading up a bit more on history. It's not as black and white as you think.

I have done more reading on history than you have reading. Sadly, there's a lot more interesting events than northern ireland to read up on. Your problem (one of them) is you arelearning from books, I was around at the time. Although not living in Ireland .

Just because all our leaders whilst in fancy suits told you our actions throughout history were acceptable doesn't make it so. You should try thinking for yourself, most people do not so you aren't alone.

If you went to England you should find we are like most other places, in a lot of disagreement with our governments.

Iwasfrozen · 08-04-2013 04:52PM

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

I have done more reading on history than you have reading. Sadly, there's a lot more interesting events than northern ireland to read up on. Your problem (one of them) is you arelearning from books, I was around at the time. Although not living in Ireland .

Just because all our leaders whilst in fancy suits told you our actions throughout history were acceptable doesn't make it so. You should try thinking for yourself, most people do not so you aren't alone.

If you went to England you should find we are like most other places, in a lot of disagreement with our governments.

You've done more reading then me but my problem is I've learned too much from reading? What?

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong. Seemingly you have done the same but come to a different conclusion. Actually no I take it back, it's not funny because you can vote too.

I've been to England. Identical to Dublin actually save for Irish on the signs.

EvanCornwallis · 08-04-2013 04:59PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You've done more reading from me but my problem is I've learned too much from reading? What?

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong. Seemingly you have done the same but come to a different conclusion. Actually no I take it back, it's not funny because you can vote too.

I've been to England. Identical to Dublin actually save for Irish on the signs.

I have done reading from you ? Any decent person deplores terrorism in all forms. I don't mean in just political terms.

All of england is identical to Dublin ?

Ok. Anyway, I hope you had a nice time and caught all the sites.

Iwasfrozen · 08-04-2013 05:03PM

EvanCornwallis wrote: »

I have done reading from you ? Any decent person deplores terrorism in all forms. I don't mean in just political terms.

All of england is identical to Dublin ?

Ok. Anyway, I hope you had a nice time and caught all the sites.

*Then,

It didn't seem like you disagreed with terrorism on your first post. You actually seem to be lauding them highly instead of putting scorn on them for not seeking a peaceful solution. Remember two wrongs don't make a right and who invaded who first means little to those who were killed by the IRA.

"Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist."

And yeah sure it's a nice country. The reason I compared it to Dublin was the general greater population density in Britain is more like Dublin here.

Chuck Stone · 08-04-2013 05:05PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Funnily enough I've thought for myself and came to the conclusion that terrorism is wrong.

But not state terrorism and not the threat of terrorism to create and maintain an anti-democratic sectarian statelet.

You need to think harder.

Iwasfrozen · 08-04-2013 05:08PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But not state terrorism and not the threat of terrorism to create and maintain an anti-democratic sectarian statelet.

You need to think harder.

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means. The reunification of Ireland is not worth one life. Never mind 3000.

Chuck Stone · 08-04-2013 05:19PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means.

Peaceful means were attempted and met with lethal force. Of course you're aware of all this but are so wedded to your dogma that you'd rather not develop headaches from the cognitive dissonance it engenders in you.

EvanCornwallis · 08-04-2013 05:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

*Then,

It didn't seem like you disagreed with terrorism on your first post. You actually seem to be lauding them highly instead of putting scorn on them for not seeking a peaceful solution. Remember two wrongs don't make a right and who invaded who first means little to those who were killed by the IRA.

"Firstly , the fact that the people who stood up against our rule in your country are roundly ridiculed by the majority as terrorists. Despite the fact we invaded you (and half the world) and ruled your country with an iron fist."

And yeah sure it's a nice country. The reason I compared it to Dublin was the general greater population density in Britain is more like Dublin here.

Of course I don't , but I certainly understood it. We have been in enough squabbles through out the years and going the talking route isn't going to get an awful lot done. If you knew anything about us , you would know how bad things were and why arms had to be taken up.

Just because I'm English , it doesn't mean I support everything we do, or support everybody that's English. I like to see both points of view and in this case I seen at a glimpse both sides. If I put myself in a northern catholic point of view, that's really not a great place. We have done a lot of bad things around the world , and Ireland is one of them. It's an attitude and time I want to get away from.

Obviously the middle east situation is the most recent and on going. You mat think i'm a middle east terror supporter , pretending to be an Englishman if I say, I don't think all our actions and troops are correct over there. The way we have gone on in a lot of situations threw history , I can't act like I don't understand a lot of the negativity England gets.

Dublin was once far different from London, but you're right they are getting very similar. In regards to attitude , culture, pace of life. I find some subtle differences to each though. Which is nice , because I'd hate to be traveling back and forth to the same place.

Iwasfrozen · 08-04-2013 05:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Peaceful means were attempted and met with lethal force. Of course you're aware of all this but are so wedded to your dogma that you'd rather not develop headaches from the cognitive dissonance it engenders in you.

The phrase two wrongs don't make a right seems to be wasted on you. There was never any need for the use of physical force. Anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully. Again I repeat my proposition that the unification of Ireland was not worth 1 soul. Never mind 3,000.

Chuck Stone · 08-04-2013 05:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The phrase two wrongs don't make a right seems to be wasted on you.

You make your bed you sleep in it. See that? I can vomit up a useless idiom too only I've no need to.

There was never any need for the use of physical force.

Pity you don't have a time machine so that you could go back and tell the sectarian RUC and British Army that 'it's okay lads - there's no need for violence here - these people just want equality' when they deliberately frustrated peaceful protests.

Anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully.

Amazing that you have the ability to see alternate realities. Truly amazing. While you've that ability could you tell me how things would have worked out if the British had brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel and nurtured the civil rights movement? Thanks.

Again I repeat my proposition that the unification of Ireland was not worth 1 soul. Never mind 3,000.

The maintenance of a sectarian anti-democratic statelet was not worth one drop of blood yet I don't see you condemn brutality against those seeking equality by democratic means.

ONeill2013 · 10-04-2013 12:21AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right and there was not one problem in Northern Ireland that could not have been sorted out by peaceful means. The reunification of Ireland is not worth one life. Never mind 3000.

three wrongs don't make a right either, if most unionists thought that then loyalist paramilitaries would never have existed

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 05:34PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You make your bed you sleep in it. See that? I can vomit up a useless idiom too only I've no need to.

Unfortunately the subtly in children's proverbs are often lost on adults. This is one such case. If both sides make their shared bed and they both have to lie in it then does one side gain the victory? No they both suffer because they both badly made their shared bed. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right." Now be off with you ya little scamp.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pity you don't have a time machine so that you could go back and tell the sectarian RUC and British Army that 'it's okay lads - there's no need for violence here - these people just want equality' when they deliberately frustrated peaceful protests.

These peaceful protests didn't happen in a vacuum you know. The big bad protestants weren't stopping the sweet innocent Catholics for the fun of it. They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. That's not to say they are without fault, again "two wrongs don't make a right."

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Amazing that you have the ability to see alternate realities. Truly amazing. While you've that ability could you tell me how things would have worked out if the British had brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel and nurtured the civil rights movement? Thanks.

That was beyond the British power. But you digress. Do you agree with my statement that anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The maintenance of a sectarian anti-democratic statelet was not worth one drop of blood yet I don't see you condemn brutality against those seeking equality by democratic means.

Oh I do, democratic reforms rightfully came in. Unfortunately it was in spite of those tragically killed. Not because of them.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 05:35PM

ONeill2013 wrote: »

three wrongs don't make a right either, if most unionists thought that then loyalist paramilitaries would never have existed

Neither Chuck Stone or violent loyalists see the value of my little proverb. That's one thing at least they have in common.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 06:11PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

These peaceful protests didn't happen in a vacuum you know. The big bad protestants weren't stopping the sweet innocent Catholics for the fun of it. They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. That's not to say they are without fault, again "two wrongs don't make a right."

If anyone made the same argument about the Black population of South Africa during Apartheid they would be mocked out of the room. And no, I'm not directly comparing the two, just making a valid observation.

Your mask hasn't slipped mate, it hit the bloody floor.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 06:16PM

karma_ wrote: »

If anyone made the same argument about the Black population of South Africa during Apartheid they would be mocked out of the room. And no, I'm not directly comparing the two, just making a valid observation.

Your mask hasn't slipped mate, it hit the bloody floor.

I don't wear a mask.

And if you're not making a comparison then why make a comparison? Make a statement and stand by it.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 06:27PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't wear a mask.

And if you're not making a comparison then why make a comparison? Make a statement and stand by it.

Let me put it in a way you might understand.

It's like me saying -

I personally don't blame the White population of South Africa for keeping the Black population as second class citizens, they really do have legitimate reasons.

And this after all your impassioned appeals about 'two wrongs not making a right.' Yes you tacked it on again at the end of your silly little paragraph, did you not realise it was in direct contradiction to what preceded it?

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 06:42PM

karma_ wrote: »

Let me put it in a way you might understand.

It's like me saying -

I personally don't blame the White population of South Africa for keeping the Black population as second class citizens, they really do have legitimate reasons.

And this after all your impassioned appeals about 'two wrongs not making a right.' Yes you tacked it on again at the end of your silly little paragraph, did you not realise it was in direct contradiction to what preceded it?

Let me put this in a way you may understand.
1. I do not support loyalist violence.
2. I do not support white violence.

There's no contradiction there and no violation of "two wrongs don't make a right"

Yes I did say I understood loyalist fears, but I also understood nationalist grievances. I just don't allow those grievances or fears to excuse violence. Because they don't. Simple as.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 06:51PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let me put this in a way you may understand.
1. I do not support loyalist violence.
2. I do not support white violence.

There's no contradiction there and no violation of "two wrongs don't make a right"

Yes I did say I understood loyalist fears, but I also understood nationalist grievances. I just don't allow those grievances or fears to excuse violence. Because they don't. Simple as.

There certainly is a contradiction.

You say that two wrongs do not make a right yet you don't blame one for doing a wrong. Let us be clear, you did not say you understood loyalist fears, you said -

I don't blame them

As for 1 & 2, those are not accusations I made against you.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 07:00PM

karma_ wrote: »

There certainly is a contradiction.

You say that two wrongs do not make a right yet you don't blame one for doing a wrong. Let us be clear, you did not say you understood loyalist fears, you said -

As for 1 & 2, those are not accusations I made against you.

lol is that the issue? We got our wires crossed my friend I said I don't blame loyalists for holding their fears, not for beating up catholics I do blame them for that. Here's the full sentence.

" They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. "

karma_ · 10-04-2013 07:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol is that the issue? We got our wires crossed my friend I said I don't blame loyalists for holding their fears, not for beating up catholics I do blame them for that. Here's the full sentence.

" They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement. Personally I don't blame them. "

I'll tell you what, I have my doubts but I'll take your explanation at face value.

Just off topic for a second, that portion of NI's history is the greatest irony of the unionist movement, I often wonder that had they not created a 'cold house' for the Catholic population in the North back then, that today the reunification question would have been firmly buried at the back of everyone's mind and could have spared us a lot of agony.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 07:19PM

karma_ wrote: »

I'll tell you what, I have my doubts but I'll take your explanation at face value.

Just off topic for a second, that portion of NI's history is the greatest irony of the unionist movement, I often wonder that had they not created a 'cold house' for the Catholic population in the North back then, that today the reunification question would have been firmly buried at the back of everyone's mind and could have spared us a lot of agony.

I doubt it, let's be honest unification was as much a goal of the civil rights movement as anything else. Had they achieved their aims quickly it would have created a "golden period" for nationalist thought up North. The movement would have been much more optimistic and without strong loyalist opposition I feel we'd be much closer to a peaceful, less costly reunification. That's my view of it.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 07:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I doubt it, let's be honest unification was as much a goal of the civil rights movement as anything else. Had they achieved their aims quickly it would have created a "golden period" for nationalist thought up North. The movement would have been much more optimistic and without strong loyalist opposition I feel we'd be much closer to a peaceful, less costly reunification. That's my view of it.

Without that environment there would have been no call for a Civil Rights Movement, there would have been no Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the height of the troubles in the 70's. You are also not correct about unification being one of the goals of the movement, it certainly was not. There were even unionists involved with the movement from it's inception including at least one on the executive committee. The movement was for social justice.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 07:29PM

karma_ wrote: »

Without that environment there would have been no call for a Civil Rights Movement, there would have been no Bloody Sunday which was the catalyst for the height of the troubles in the 70's. You are also not correct about unification being one of the goals of the movement, it certainly was not. There were even unionists involved with the movement from it's inception including at least one on the executive committee. The movement was for social justice.

I was basing my hypothetical scenario on bloody Sunday not happening. And come on are you serious, unification not being a goal? Maybe not officially but the movement was up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism and cultural expression.

Chuck Stone · 10-04-2013 07:36PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Unfortunately the subtly in children's proverbs are often lost on adults.

Stop bringing children's proverbs to and adult debate. Despite your attempts, complex situations can not be summed up by continuously citing one children's proverb. Really, it's embarrassing.

These peaceful protests didn't happen in a vacuum you know. The big bad protestants weren't stopping the sweet innocent Catholics for the fun of it.

Why was the NICRA being frustrated then? What is the justification? Keep digging.

They had legitimate concerns about nationalist ideology and doubted the supposed peacefulness of the movement.

Doubted the peacefulness of of the non-sectarian NICRA? Why? Keep digging.

Personally I don't blame them.

That's quite plain to see.

That was beyond the British power.

Absolute rubbish. The British fought in WWI and WWII but they couldn't put down Unionist aggression against the civil rights movement? Keep digging.

Do you agree with my statement that anything that was achieved in Northern Ireland up this day could have been achieved peacefully?

It's a stupid statement and only underscores that you do not understand the nature of the statement. I don't claim to have access to an alternative reality where the civil rights movement was not brutally suppressed. Or in the event of brutal suppression there was no backlash.

Oh I do, democratic reforms rightfully came in.

After 30 years of conflict and that could have been prevented from happening by those in power in the late 60's and early 70's i.e. Unionists and the British.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 07:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was basing my hypothetical scenario on bloody Sunday not happening. And come on are you serious, unification not being a goal? Maybe not officially but the movement was up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism and cultural expression.

I am serious. Unification was not a goal of NICRA. Was there nationalists involved? yes of course and the movement was not 'up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism.' In fact the movement was purposefully made up mostly of those who were not involved in the Republican movement, they were not entirely excluded of course but a clear arms length approach was certainly made. The goals of NICRA will be easily found online and you should read up about the movement. It was certainly a left leaning movement but it was firmly for the cause of social justice.

Chuck Stone · 10-04-2013 08:00PM

karma_ wrote: »

I am serious. Unification was not a goal of NICRA. Was there nationalists involved? yes of course and the movement was not 'up to it's neck in Irish Republicanism.' In fact the movement was purposefully made up mostly of those who were not involved in the Republican movement, they were not entirely excluded of course but a clear arms length approach was certainly made. The goals of NICRA will be easily found online and you should read up about the movement. It was certainly a left leaning movement but it was firmly for the cause of social justice.

Even if there had been an widescale and organised seeking of unification it still wouldn't justify the treatment the NICRA got so I don't know why that's used as a bogeyman for Unionist/British brutality.

Iwasfrozen · 10-04-2013 08:34PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Stop bringing children's proverbs to and adult debate. Despite your attempts, complex situations can not be summed up by continuously citing one children's proverb. Really, it's embarrassing.

Innocent children grow up to be murderers and their sympathisers. Despite politics maybe bringing them back to their childhood lessons will show them the error of their ways. Then again I guess not.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why was the NICRA being frustrated then? What is the justification? Keep digging.

Loyalist fears. I've told you this one.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Doubted the peacefulness of of the non-sectarian NICRA? Why? Keep digging.

Because they had links to a not so peaceful terrorist organisation.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. The British fought in WWI and WWII but they couldn't put down Unionist aggression against the civil rights movement? Keep digging.

No need to dig, they couldn't put down the IRA or the Taliban either. If the IRA fought like a real army like the Germans in WWI or II the IRA would have been beaten in a day, hell hours if they were on the one field.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a stupid statement and only underscores that you do not understand the nature of the statement. I don't claim to have access to an alternative reality where the civil rights movement was not brutally suppressed. Or in the event of brutal suppression there was no backlash.

A sad position. It speaks more about you that you can't even imagine a peaceful solution to the troubles. It seems to me that a peaceful solution is so against your innate characteristics you can't even comprehend it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

After 30 years of conflict and that could have been prevented from happening by those in power in the late 60's and early 70's i.e. Unionists and the British.

Violence would have broken out over the national issue anyway. Everything isn't the fault of Johnny foreigner you know.

Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

Comments