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

Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

1…1112131416

Comments

  • #452
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    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.
    How could a movement founded on the ideals of republicanism not be up to it's neck in republicanism? And note in this context I don't mean the Balaclava brigade I mean actual republicanism, as in the ideology created during the European enlightenment and expanded on during the American and French revolutions.


  • #453
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.
    It's not.


  • #454
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

    That's not why.


  • #455
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Innocent children grow up to be murderers and their sympathisers.

    Innocent children often grow up to become murderers who wear uniforms with emblazoned epaulettes, collect state pensions, and get shiny badges from a Queen too; only we should expect more from them shouldn't we?
    Despite politics maybe bringing them back to their childhood lessons will show them the error of their ways. Then again I guess not. :/

    It really isn't clear what you're trying to say here.
    Loyalist fears. I've told you this one.

    Do you think Loyalist paranoia justified the brutal suppression of the NICRA?
    Because they had links to a not so peaceful terrorist organisation.

    Source? I'm not sure Ivan Cooper would agree with you.
    No need to dig,

    We're going to need a ladder to get you out soon.
    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.

    Such delightful naivety.
    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.

    Peaceful means were attempted and brutally suppressed. You know this though. I'm simply exposing the absurdity of your 'ifs and buts - could've and should've' statements. We work with the reality we have not the one you conjure to prop up your dogma on its shaky foundations.
    Violence would have broken out over the national issue anyway. Everything isn't the fault of Johnny foreigner you know.

    There you go again with your alternate realities. If you want to be taken seriously you should drop the children's proverbs and alternate realities. We're discussing this in the politics forum FFS.


  • #456
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    How could a movement founded on the ideals of republicanism not be up to it's neck in republicanism? And note in this context I don't mean the Balaclava brigade I mean actual republicanism, as in the ideology created during the European enlightenment and expanded on during the American and French revolutions.

    NICRA was founded on the ideals of Republicanism?

    I'll be honest with you, this is a first. I've had many a conversation about the Civil Rights Movement but I've never actually had this chucked at me. I've never heard of this before at all so I'm going to assume it wasn't steeped in Republicanism, of the non-balaclava wearing variety of course. Even if it were that's a pretty big shift of the goal posts on your part.

    It was a Civil Rights movement, it really cannot be any more succinctly described.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Innocent children often grow up to become murderers who wear uniforms with emblazoned epaulettes, collect state pensions, and get shiny badges from a Queen too; only we should expect more from them shouldn't we?
    I see whataboutery is alive and well in Northern Ireland. But yes, that too is a shame.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Do you think Loyalist paranoia justified the brutal suppression of the NICRA?
    No but it helps us understand it. Instead of painting a black and white picture where the big bad protestants beat up the poor innocent catholics. Life is more complicated then that. There are many shades of grey.

    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Source? I'm not sure Ivan Cooper would agree with you.
    Two seconds on wikipedia brought this up, a quote from Lord Cameron.

    "The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted by a commission of inquiry set up by the British Government following the spread of civil unrest in 1969. The report by a Scottish judge, Lord Cameron stated, "certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic.""

    Now I know I know I can hear you protesting already. Yes it is wikipedia but here is the source.

    "Lord Cameron, 'Disturbances in Northern Ireland: Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland' (Belfast, 1969)"
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Such delightful naivety.
    Please explain.

    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Peaceful means were attempted and brutally suppressed. You know this though. I'm simply exposing the absurdity of your 'ifs and buts - could've and should've' statements. We work with the reality we have not the one you conjure to prop up your dogma on its shaky foundations.
    My Dogma?

    My Dogma that the goals of the civil rights movement could have been achieved through useful means? A position that you dispute? Ivan Cooper would agree more with my position then yours.


  • #458
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    NICRA was founded on the ideals of Republicanism?

    I'll be honest with you, this is a first. I've had many a conversation about the Civil Rights Movement but I've never actually had this chucked at me. I've never heard of this before at all so I'm going to assume it wasn't steeped in Republicanism, of the non-balaclava wearing variety of course. Even if it were that's a pretty big shift of the goal posts on your part.

    It was a Civil Rights movement, it really cannot be any more succinctly described.
    Oh yes because the NICRA were well known Monarchists. Honestly this debate is getting tedious. I'm starting to think some of you in this thread don't want to understand the other persons position.


  • #459
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh yes because the NICRA were well known Monarchists. Honestly this debate is getting tedious. I'm starting to think some of you in this thread don't want to understand the other persons position.

    O I think we understand your position well enough at this stage.


  • #460
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Two seconds on wikipedia brought this up, a quote from Lord Cameron.

    "The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted by a commission of inquiry set up by the British Government following the spread of civil unrest in 1969. The report by a Scottish judge, Lord Cameron stated, "certain at least of those who were prominent in the Association had objects far beyond the 'reformist' character of the majority of Civil Rights Association demands, and undoubtedly regarded the Association as a stalking-horse for achievement of other and more radical and in some cases revolutionary objects, in particular abolition of the border, unification of Ireland outside the United Kingdom and the setting up of an all-Ireland Workers' Socialist Republic.""

    Now I know I know I can hear you protesting already. Yes it is wikipedia but here is the source.

    "Lord Cameron, 'Disturbances in Northern Ireland: Report of the Commission appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland' (Belfast, 1969)"

    Of all the information about NICRA online, you go to that report first?

    That's akin to getting your information about Bloody Sunday from Widgery.


  • #461
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    O I think we understand your position well enough at this stage.
    Well don't leave me in the dark, what is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Of all the information about NICRA online, you go to that report first?

    That's akin to getting your information about Bloody Sunday from Widgery.
    The guy was a Judge and apparently a Senator of the College of Justice. If you suspect he was biased well I'm not qualified to question him I don't know about you. Here's the link to the report any way.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/cameron.htm


  • #463
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The guy was a Judge and apparently a Senator of the College of Justice. If you suspect he was biased well I'm not qualified to question him I don't know about you. Here's the link to the report any way.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/cameron.htm

    Widgery was a Judge and Lord Chief Justice of England. That did not stop him from flat-out lying.


  • #464
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Widgery was a Judge and Lord Chief Justice of England. That did not stop him from flat-out lying.
    That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.


  • #465
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well don't leave me in the dark, what is it?


    It's on based on hostility to Irish nationalists generally and republicans specifically. For instance the efforts to denigrate the NICRA eg dragging out this

    "The radical views of individuals within NICRA were highlighted...... " I'm sure if the sum total of the views of every member of macra na feirme were taken as indicative of the views of the actual organisation, it could find itself held in rather different regard than it is. However, as with all organisations, its a vehicle for people to advance an agreed set of joint interests.


  • #466
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.

    Yet the views of some individuals in the NICRA justify unionist reactions...


  • #467
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's on based on hostility to Irish nationalists generally and republicans specifically. For instance the efforts to denigrate the NICRA eg dragging out this
    I never tried to discredit anyone. My original, and current, position is that violence was not needed to achieve peace in Northern Ireland. Ir was chuck who hit back with "yeah well tell it to the RUC who beat up NICRA marchers." (paraphrasing)


  • #468
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet the views of some individuals in the NICRA justify unionist reactions...
    Never said that.


  • #469
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That doesn't mean every British judge is a liar.

    No, but it provides context into the British establishment of the time, and it raises certainly, serious questions about impartiality of the Cameron report. After all it was the Northern Ireland Government of the time who made the accusation that NICRA was a front for Republicans and Communists. It was the NI equivalent of McCarthyism and it's no shocker at all that a report by a British Judge would subsequently concur.

    Think of the American Civil rights and look at how J Edgar Hoover labelled them as "Communist" and "subversive." This is exactly the same, it was an attempt to undermine and defame.

    Like I said, NICRA and it's membership is today well documented, and no one gives that report much credence.


  • #470
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I never tried to discredit anyone..

    In addition to dragging in that report, see below....
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Never said that.
    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.


  • #471
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    In addition to dragging in that report, see below....
    Yes, I stand by that statement. The publication of that report proves their fears were justified.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    No, but it provides context into the British establishment of the time, and it raises certainly, serious questions about impartiality of the Cameron report. After all it was the Northern Ireland Government of the time who made the accusation that NICRA was a front for Republicans and Communists. It was the NI equivalent of McCarthyism and it's no shocker at all that a report by a British Judge would subsequently concur.

    Think of the American Civil rights and look at how J Edgar Hoover labelled them as "Communist" and "subversive." This is exactly the same, it was an attempt to undermine and defame.

    Like I said, NICRA and it's membership is today well documented, and no one gives that report much credence.
    Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.


  • #473
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes, I stand by that statement. The publication of that report proves their fears were justified.

    And, as I pointed out....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84085275&postcount=465


  • #474
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Also, just before I neglect to mention it, no matter what this report said, the British knew full well that the NI Government was completely out of control. For a long time the British essentially completely forgot about the place, but by the late 60's they had to do something. That's why direct rule had to be reimposed and the NI Parliment abolished, it had morphed into a corrupt statelet and had to be brought into check.


  • #475
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Raises questions sure but the best you can say is it might be wrong. You can't dismiss it.

    I was being polite when I said 'raises questions.' The report was obviously a whitewash.


  • #476
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nodin wrote: »
    And, as I pointed out....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84085275&postcount=465
    Why post a statement I've responded to, that's the definition of a circular argument.


  • #477
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    I was being polite when I said 'raises questions.' The report was obviously a whitewash.
    Why obviously? Where is the proof.


  • #478
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    karma_ wrote: »
    Also, just before I neglect to mention it, no matter what this report said, the British knew full well that the NI Government was completely out of control. For a long time the British essentially completely forgot about the place, but by the late 60's they had to do something. That's why direct rule had to be reimposed and the NI Parliment abolished, it had morphed into a corrupt statelet and had to be brought into check.
    Agreed


  • #479
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Why post a statement I've responded to, that's the definition of a circular argument.

    You responded to the first point therein, but didn't address the difference I highlighted between the goals of individuals and that of organisations.


  • #480
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    When someone refuses point blank to see that they are (obviously) wrong there is not much point continuing to engage with that ignorance.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Why obviously? Where is the proof.

    Because today we know, with absolute certainty who the membership was, we know who was on the executive committee, and we know what the goals were. We also can point to that time in history and know with absolute certainty why the Movement existed.

    I've said earlier that yes, the movement was definitely left leaning, but to accuse it of being a hotbed of Republicanism is farcical.


Advertisement