Manassas61 wrote: » No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.
tdv123 wrote: » But the majority of counties in Ulster don't want to be in the Union.
So you are for the Catholics who support the Union because they see more hope in the UK finally dealing with "Orange culture" than they do the Free State and indeed fear the Free State if unification comes allowing "Orange culture" to walk all over them? You are for those Catholics?
claypigeon777 wrote: » Truth be told the majority of the 26 counties do not want the six counties to be in the Republic. The only solution is an independent Northern Ireland.
Manassas61 wrote: » Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.
Manassas61 wrote: » Catholic Unionists couldn't care less about the Orange Order. There is many parts of a society than just one culture you know.
Manassas61 wrote: » I said majority of Ulster (ie counties) The Union has a majority support in Northern Ireland.
first doyle wrote: » Political mandates in Ireland pretty much went out the window once Britain gave the UVF terror group what they wanted against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people.
Godge wrote: » That is fantasy stuff. NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » . This sectarian undercurrent to republicanism was creeping, but definiate and is the reason why the Presbyterian people of the North eventually decided to side with the Unionist argument and jettison their republican ideals.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » Anyone who maintains the provisional campaign had no sectarianism is simply denying the obvious....Enniskillen 1987 ???
SoulandForm wrote: » I will say this for the Provisional movement and its supporters- at least they are ashamed of their sectarian undercurrent unlike some who will remain nameless.
jeffery lebowski wrote: » So here at least you admit the sectarianism of the republician movement. The whataboutery does not interest me. I know well that sectarianism exists on both sides - I was worried that some on this forum were not aware.
SoulandForm wrote: » So nothing to do with Presbyterians being effectively bought off by the Anglican ascendency and therefore seeking to politically protect their relative privilege? Nothing at all to do with that? Tone was on occasion pretty ruthless with his political enemies but I guess because he is a Protestant that was due to his idealism and if a Roman Catholic does is equally ruthless that has to be down to sordid sectarianism? The innocent Prods school of Irish history can really be as daft as it is shrill when viewed objectively- that is extremely so.
SoulandForm wrote: » Where did I deny that it did? However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism. Can you admit that the carry on of organized Unionism was the root cause of the Enniskillen bombing?
SoulandForm wrote: » However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism. So Republicanism's underhanded sectarianism is better than Unionisms open sectarianism!? Better to be shot from behind a ditch than face to face? Hobbes choice i'd say!
The who wrote: » The IRA are not sectarian, yes they may have some sectarian fellas in it that are not true republicans and who don't even know what the tricolour means.Also the army are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against terrorists.The only terrorists in Ireland are wearing British uniforms.
An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA. It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm
"There is a congenial, indeed government-backed myth, in both Scotland and in Ireland, that "one side is bad as another": that Sinn Fein-IRA are pretty much the same as the UDA/UVF. This is simply untrue. There is no republican equivalent to the Romper Rooms of the UDA, wherein men were routinely beaten to a pulp by loyalist thugs, and from which both the term and the practice became celebrated. And then there was Lenny Murphy and his merry gang, the Shankill Butchers, who for years in the mid-1970s abducted, tortured and murdered Catholics -- usually by cutting their victims' throats. This culture did not emerge simply as a response to IRA violence. It was there already. It was feckless, violent, drunken, lost, lumpen proletarians for whom a perverted tribal identity conjoined with a godlessly Calvinist sense of superiority, even as they stewed in their ghettoes of suffocating illiteracy and economic failure. Irish Independent, June 23, 2011
Charlie Rock wrote: » Loyalists killings were ~85% Civilians (primarily unarmed Catholic civilians) British Army killings ~51% Civilian PIRA killings ~35% Civilian ]
Fratton Fred wrote: » So in other words, the British army should not have taken prisoners, they should have shot all IRA members on site, to make their percentages look more acceptable.
Charlie Rock wrote: » The fallacious moral equivocation and desperate attempts to draw parallels between the PIRA and Loyalist death squads as regards capability, sectarianism and indiscriminate killing requires that facts be completely ignored. Loyalists killings were ~85% Civilians (primarily unarmed Catholic civilians) British Army killings ~51% Civilian PIRA killings ~35% Civilian You'll never guess what IRA loving journalist wrote the above?Kevin Myers
Fratton Fred wrote: » How would you describe an "army" that detonates a bomb outside a McDonald's in a busy high street on a Saturday lunch time?
jeffery lebowski wrote: » SoulandForm wrote: » However unlike Unionism and Loyalism it isnt defined (or defines itself by quite openly) sectarianism. So Republicanism's underhanded sectarianism is better than Unionisms open sectarianism!? Better to be shot from behind a ditch than face to face? Hobbes choice i'd say! People should be ashamed of the usually idiotic and often violent sectarianism that makes a mess of Northern Ireland- though sectarianism is far from the only problem in NI. If you are ashamed of something it means you realize that it is wrong and it means that you will attempt not to act on it or at least show it.
The who wrote: » All loyalist paramilitaries were driven by complete and utter sectarianism unlike the IRA. Yes the IRA was responsible for some sectarian killings such as the Kingsmills massacre but these were actually lads in the army who took matters into their own hands and the head leaders such as McGuinnes and Adams couldn't have known about all the killings that were about to take place because the IRA works in a cellular formation.
Banjo String wrote: » What about an army that open fires on a group of unarmed, peaceful, people protesting for their civil rights, on a Sunday afternoon? Some might even argue, was the beginning of the troubles in the north.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
