Jump to content

Goonerman

Members
  • Content Count

    406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Goonerman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. It really irks me re the selfishness and frankly bigotry of the different peoples of the UK. It really angers me. You in GB are just the same as the cretins over here; you're just more passive-aggressive about it. The UK still hasn't grown up yet. 401 years since the Union of the crowns and still no proper sense of partnership. It's time for the first ever UK constitutional and economic convention. Ed Miliband may not be suitable as a future Prime Minister, but he is darn right in what he says.
  2. Also three other issues. One, Atheists killed more people in the 20th century than religious bigots in the past 19 centuries put together. Two, tell me what the Iraqi Christians did to deserve to be beheaded and crucified by IS? Three, Jesus' instructions to the Church were crystal clear. No campaigning for the restoration of Israel but to go and be witnesses to His life and work and make disciples and let the Father deal with the politics. I sternly disagree with the Church getting seduced by political power (thank you Constantine and the Erastians) instead of being a moral influence on the side. I believe very much in secular consensus politics which at worst should engage in civil disobedience a la Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That means talking. Obviously people like Hitler and IS need to be forced down. And had it not been for the Irish Americans the IRA and the Loyalists too, though I am more willing to give Sinn Fein a chance. Work it out guys. I am not a violent person. When I was assaulted by burglars in July and threatened with beheading and was slandered and punched and whacked in the eye with a screwdriver repeatedly, I knew playing the hero was pointless though they did get my sarcasm. Do me a favour and write complaints to those involved in the troublemaking and leave me and those like me who are apolitical out of it.
  3. None of us literally can afford to be indifferent to this issue as it centres on economics. That affects the whole of the UK. If Salmond and Sturgeon, those two fishy SNP politicians seriously think giving Scotland max dev and special treatment cannot affect England and the other two nations then they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The fact is, since 1603 the peoples of these islands have been avoiding a holistic approach to governing what we now call the UK both collectively and in terms of its individual parts and now is the time to finally sit down and work the UK out properly. Miliband is right- a constitutional and economic UK convention is needed. The Irish Republic also needs to be involved as the UK/Ireland land border has implications for corporation tax issues especially for all Ireland companies and the Republic finally tightening up on corporation tax which had been lax. I find the SNP incredibly arrogant and dogmatic in their attitude. 'Independence' would have been funded by rUK. Had I been a Scottish Nationalist I would have still voted no. If Scotland were to leave it should do it ALONE. But, I am glad Scotland is still with us. No, everyone in all regions must sit together and collectively work out packages for the whole of the UK. None can isolate one region from the other. For the first time since the crazy billiard ball effect on these islands of ours hit our ancestors in the Civil Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the bad old days of Charles I, maybe people can wake up to the symbiotic links between all the regions and stop indifferently and selfishly think we have nothing to do with each other. Tough. It's time to face up to reality.
  4. While various idiots have been causing bother, I have been quietly and busy doing lots of historical study and research. I'm not involved in politics yet I get the feeling that lots of people in GB are cowardly trying to scapegoat the law abiding citizens here. While there are many Warringtonians I respect for their work for peace, there are other Warringtonians who just get in the way and are just a passive-aggressive version of the numpties over here and are part of the problem not the solution.
  5. Almost a year on and after a very busy time when coming back to here was kept at the bottom of the list, I am disappointed but not surprised at the feeble, emotive and bigoted non-answers. Still no engagement with my 16 points, still peddling a false model of the NI situation, making excuses for the IRA and blaming a God you don't even believe exists anyway. As for Ian Paisley, his view was an idiosyncratic mix of fierce anti- Catholic religious rhetoric and paranoid political conspiracy theories about Unionists being kicked out of the UK, betrayed and ethnically cleansed and the latter is what influenced the Loyalist extremists, not the former. But the bottom line is- were the terrorists killing people over God or over whether NI should be in the UK or the Irish Republic? The answer is the latter. So had you shut down the churches and jailed the church goers, you would have found the violence still continuing. May I point out that God doesn't condone violence done in His name and certainly doesn't find it funny. Where Ian Paisley failed is not grasping Jesus' rejection of being a political Messiah. He rejected Jewish nationalism and was a pacifist. Ever heard of these words? "He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword." And: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." And the disciples offered Jesus two swords, and Jesus shouted at them yelling, "ENOUGH OF THIS!" The Canaanite situation also was a case of most of the Canaanites being exiled in Egypt too and they assisted in Israel attacking the quisling city states of the Egyptian Empire. Completely different situation. Let me place my cards on the table. I vote for the Alliance Party. You might have heard of them or is your memory so selective that you forgot about that in 2010 when I celebrated Naomi Long's election to Parliament? I voted for the Good Friday Agreement. You may have heard of that also. I have the Orange Order on permanent boycott. I and Paisleyites are opponents of each other on so many issues and the same goes with Loyalists. I used to have blazing rows with them in school. I and my family always considered Paisley a rabble rouser and a troublemaker who never took responsibility for his actions who would stop at nothing to become Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. That prediction came true. I never said Paisley was an Atheist. I didn't say all the Loyalist terrorists were atheists. I certainly don't think all who disagree with me on issues are all Atheists. Most of my opponents on issues are Christians. This smacks of exceptionally poor comprehension skills and an obstinacy and one-dimensional view worthy of the NI bigots themselves. From what I can see, I am an an opponent of the Unionists as a whole, the Nationalists both moderate and extreme, the terrorist organisations AND of perhaps most people on GB too. But I do know one thing that is on my side- academic scholarship. PS It is people who wreck the world. Whatever one believes, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. As for the UK's future, that will be centred on economics. As for a potential Third World War, that WILL be religious. But secular humanism, nor secular tyranny nor religious tyranny will provide the answer, that's for sure. Oh and if you think secular tyranny is the key to NI, to The Hague you shall go.
  6. Finally, as I have said before, Loyalists are mostly Atheists and regard Christmas as a time to get drunk and give presents, and so on, and not giving a toss about Jesus. Obbs, stop trying to lump me in with people who think far more the way you do. And don't even try to claim I am in favour of terrorist violence. That won't stick. You know fine well I don't.
  7. One, Mandela had talks with Northern Irish politicians. Two, Mandela's life raises wider issues, not least over terrorists becoming politicians. Three, comparisons were made between Mandela and Adams and McGuinness. Four, religion was claimed to be the cause of all conflicts or some conflicts. Obs, the bigots on both sides have no interest in Jesus. I know- I had arguments with kids in school over this. Please pay attention. The Loyalists are mostly Atheists. What they mean by 'Protestantism' isn't anything to do with religious beliefs. I would have thought Joshua's taking of the Promised Land would have been fiction in your eyes, but then the one thing I notice is that the story of Joshua magically flits between being fiction to slag off Christians and Jews then historically true also to slag them off- by the same people, funny enough! Little bit of background history- the Canaanite religion was one of sexual orgies, ritual child sex abuse, temple prostitution using slaves, and sacrificing children to the gods. Had Joshua let them off, you would be criticising him for that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Mission- oh yes, where the natives were converted to Catholicism by peaceful Jesuits who did good for the community, a community slaughtered by the secular powers in league with the Roman Catholic hierarchy as they were suspicious of the Jesuits politically, and targeted this community even though Jeremy Iron's character had no political motives- in other words, politics interfering with religion. Violence in Burma is ordinary Burmese defying a tyrannical government- but then I know you like dictatorships Obbs, so there is no surprise there. Most of the Jews in Israel are secular, not religious. That said, the Ultra-Orthodox are holding many of the Jews to ransom on religious issues while refusing to serve in the Israeli Army. The issues are not as simple as your are presenting them. Besides, why was Atheist Russia supporting Islamic Syria against Israel? YES, RELIGION IS USED ON THE BASIS OF POLITICAL CALCULATION. In other words, politics was interfering with religion. The real reason for the marches in Northern Ireland are a warning by hardline Loyalists to the Nationalists and the mainland British that if you want to expel us from the UK, look how many of us there are, watch out. I don't like it any more than you do, Obs. Of course you do this while trying to ignore my 16 points and ignore Britain's culpability in all of this. Britain is still the primary villain in Irish History. British withdrawal from the North in 1921 was still a major factor in all of this. 17. God IS all caring, but He made us autonomous and expects us to take responsibility for what we do. If we choose to reject God, then God has no obligation to stop us. If we commit violence, including in His name, then He will step back and deliberately let us take the consequences. He does not intervene in order to give the human race enough rope with which to hang itself, and to demonstrate to us how evil the human race is in its rebellion against God. God believes that the human race deserves to suffer for its own actions. If we make up false religions employing violence then God will allow those false religions to take the consequences. However, He is still merciful, coming as Jesus- and guess what- religious people betrayed and murdered Him, but He allowed this so as to take the punishment we deserve in our place. But we still need to turn from our sins and acknowledge Jesus for who He is and what this means for us. Otherwise bye bye. It's no coincidence that the symbolic Beast of Revelation 13 symbolises both human government and false man-made religion- both of which will be judged by God at the end. Also, finally, the reason why God therefore doesn't stop the violence is He is waiting for us to learn our lesson, waiting patiently for the day when the human race over-reaches itself, and if He was to intervene now, He would have to destroy this planet and the entire human race. As for Ian Paisley, Paisley while in favour for so long of the old style Stormont regime, did not invent it. He was born in 1926, Northern Ireland in 1921, and so it is the likes of Lord Craigavon, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland from 1921-1940 who devised all the bigoted strategies you mentioned. This was before Paisley was born. Besides, in 1970 the British Government forced the Northern Irish Government to bring in reforms which ended the injustices of the 1921-69 regime. The Provisional IRA came about as a result of the August 1969 riots, in which the Official IRA, a primarily Communist organisation, was not equal to the job of helping the Catholic rioters. The previous IRA campaign of 1956-62 ended in failure amongst the indifference of their own communities, and therefore had almost given up. Provisional Sinn Fein was founded in December 1969 and the Provisional IRA in January 1970. The first British soldier to be killed in the Troubles, Gunner Robert Curtis, was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 5 February 1971, AFTER the reforms ending the bigotry of the old Stormont regime had been put in place, which proves that the Provisional IRA's activities were nothing to do with the bad behaviour of the old Stormont regime. As for the view that of course the weapons should have been held onto as a bargaining tool means you believe the IRA had a right to use them, for weapons are there to be used, and how do you use weapons as a bargaining tool? By using them, of course, by killing, shooting and bombing people. Be careful what you are saying, the Warrington bombings were PART of that bargaining, as were the Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings. That must mean then that the Warrington, Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings were OK then, according to their logic. So THAT's why you are so defensive about 'not being a supporter of the IRA', I see, interesting... Yeah, common sense says then the IRA have the right hold on to their best cards, that means killing people. OK. I see. General John De Chastelain was of the view that removing weapons would create trust and bring about peace. Even Gerry Adams admitted that the gun must be taken out of Irish politics. The truth is I am reading the selfish words of someone who thinks terrorism is OK so long as it doesn't hurt them. On the one had you blame 'religion' for the wars, but seem to justify the IRA. Oh that's right, you mean Paisley the religious person is to blame for the IRA doing what they did, so what they did was OK then, or at least understandable. So then killing Protestants is right, or sort of OK, and bombing England isn't, but since the IRA were bombing England as part of them keeping their best card, as an act of common sense, then that must have been OK too. I wonder would you have said the same thing had one of your relatives died. Think VERY VERY carefully how you answer this. I'm giving you a chance to vindicate yourself. I'm an open-minded and fair-minded guy, here's your big chance to perform a save. Lastly, the two issues you are ignorant of are: The Double Double Minority Problem. Catholics are a minority in Northern Ireland. Protestants are a minority in all of Ireland. Catholics are the majority in the west of Northern Ireland, west of the River Bann, but a minority in the east. See how a 51% majority for Nationalists might be a problem? Repartition is where the East side of Northern Ireland can opt out of a United Ireland. But that brings its own problems. Protestants stuck in the west, while Nationalist West Belfast and Crossmaglen are STILL stuck in a Unionist majority. Still waiting for a proper answer to the 16 points, Obbs. You've failed in this area before and you still peddle lies about the Northern Ireland situation and misuse what you even admit is politics interfering with religion to attack religion even though politics is what is to blame. Tell me how the mainland bombings fit into your religious model (they don't) and I can explain easily why the mainland bombings fit perfectly into MY model of what it is all about.
  8. And finally, 16. Why did the UVF infiltrate my church youth club, sending their kids in to deliberately cause trouble and disrupt it?
  9. My impression was that Mandela was a terrorist, but had renounced his former way of life, and had said that in prison he realised the need to resist hatred. Respect for him seems to be across the board at South Africa, and the impression I got from BBC Question Time in Johannesburg is that he was a moderating influence in the country post imprisonment, and with his death that moderation may well have been removed. There's a lot yet to be done in South Africa. It's something I need to do some research on. I know that the terrorist incidents in South Africa listed by a poster in this thread relate to those occurring while Mandela was in prison, and when he could not communicate with the outside world, what we need to know is what he was specifically involved in. I find it very intriguing that in my facebook page, my friends are split right down the middle in their opinions on Nelson Mandela. As for Big Gerry and Mr. McGuinness, it appears that McGuinness is further down the line of renouncing violence than Adams is. This is ironic as before the ceasefires and the decommissioning of weapons it is known to have been the other way round. McGuinness has been described as a 'ruthless and pragmatic man', someone who was prepared to ditch his IRA allies. Unionists find him to be better to deal with than Adams, find him more honest and less slimy and devious than Adams. McGuinness is open about his IRA involvement, Adams is a laughing-stock in Ireland due to his hilarious continual denial of IRA involvement, even though there is clear public photographic evidence of both men being in the IRA. Adams continues with his moral ambiguity and usual exasperating display of making IRA activities the same thing as working for the police, as is clear from a statement he made in the Dail Eireann, the Irish Parliament in Dublin. McGuinness does appear in his eyes to be less cold than before, he seems to gain a lot more humanity when working with Ian Paisley, indeed everyone was astonished at how well they got on as First and Deputy First Ministers, so much so that they have been nicknamed the 'Chuckle Brothers'. Ian Paisley actually revealed that McGuinness came to him for personal counselling. When Northern Irish politicians went to South Africa, members of all parties were impressed with Nelson Mandela's advice. Mind you, Mandela advised Sinn Fein to delay IRA decomissioning as a negotiation tactic. So come to your own conclusions. There are three main social forces in society; politics, religion and economics. What you believe dictates how you behave and vice versa. Most wars are caused by issues relating to money, land, and people movements. I'd like to see how these wars are caused by believing in God: The war between our Henry II and Louis VII of France in 1173-74, the Vietnam War, the Soccer War, the Hundred Years' War, the First World War, the Rape of Nanking, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years' War. Even a more 'religious' war like the Thirty Years' War had the Protestant Danes fighting the German Protestants who were fighting the Austrian Catholics while the Catholic French sided with the Protestant Germans to fight against the Catholic Austrians. That's nice and simple then. Back to Norn Iron, as I have said to Lt Kije, while I am aware of the Catholic birthrate catching up, even Catholics are reverting to the nuclear family now and the increase could every well now bring them just short of equalling the Protestant population. Also, I wonder does he realise even a 51% majority of Catholics may not affect things as he might expect. Even Nationalists realise that 51% may not guarantee a simple changeover. Plus there is the matter of the Double Double Minority Problem combined with the spectre of Repartition. I wonder does Lt. Kije know what I am referring to. I'll reveal what I mean in a future post. ;o) I see Obbs hasn't read the chapter "Warring Gods?" in McGarry and O'Leary's book "Explaining Northern Ireland". So for the umpteenth time I shall remind him of the following: 1. The Provisional IRA murdered over 400 Irish Catholics, some of whom were gunned down coming out of Mass. 2. Why do most Protestant ministers and Catholic priests condemn their local terrorists as agents of the Devil? 3. Explain to me why only one Protestant minister and one Catholic priest died in the Troubles, and only one nun? 4. Why weren't the Church leaders involved in the negotiations? 5. Why did the IRA bomb England? Funny how they never deliberately bombed churches in England. (Yes, they did damage a church in Bishopsgate in 1993 and Beavis Marks synagogue, but that wasn't their target.) 6. Why did Loyalist terrorists threaten a Protestant church for 'ethnically cleansing' the Protestant people? 7. Explain the conflict between the Republicans and the Catholic Church, especially when Cathal Daly was the Catholic Primate of Ireland. 8. Martin McGuinness said, "The Catholic Church do not speak for the Nationalist people!" 9. Why did I have so many blazing rows with Loyalist kids in school? They were invariably Atheists. An Evangelical Christian teacher told them, "You're not Protestants. You don't believe in God, Jesus or the Bible." They said, "Yes we are. We believe that Ulster is British!" I once tried to start a conversation about Jesus and within five minutes they were arguing about Union Jacks and Irish Tricolours. They hated Jesus because He was Jewish and Mary because of the Catholics, and hated me because I was a Christian. 10. Explain why the Christians who pass by first get mocked and booed before Orange parades. 11. And here's a good one: Explain this. In the early 1970s people left churches in Northern Ireland in direct proportion to the increase in violence. This was because many people were rejecting Christianity and turning to terrorism. 12. How come, apart from bigoted Irish Americans, Catholics from all over the world weren't going to Northern Ireland in droves to help the Catholics and why were no Protestants (apart from Afrikaaners) around the world helping Ulster Protestants in militant activities? 13. The IRA accepted money and arms from Muslims. The Loyalists accepted money and arms from Jews. Two Muslims (from Egypt) were prominent in Loyalist circles. 14. Republicans are divided in whether they support Israel or support Palestine. 15. Loyalists and Republicans taunt each other with Israel and Palestine flags. The Loyalist terrorist got into trouble with their BNP, National Front and Ku Klux Klan friends as a result! (Loyalist terrorist being the only pro-Israel Nazis in the world. But they still hate Jesus.)
  10. Yes, but you are still not aware that even the Catholic birthrate is showing signs of slowing. I never said anything at all about you supporting the IRA. I am fully aware of the census figures, as the population dynamics have changed from roughly 1 million Ulster Protestants and 500 000 Catholics to 900 000 Protestants and 700 000 Irish Catholics. I actually think while this could cause more mayhem as the population levels become 50/50, but in the end it would force a greater amount of co-operation. The British Army, indeed was brought in to protect those in especially the Bombay Street area of Belfast, but the rioting was far from one-sided and they as I say were also drafted in to help the RUC and while the protection of Catholics was necessary in Belfast, this was not the case in Derry. You see, the Catholic rioters in Derry in their Battle of the Bogside deliberately forced the RUC to be over-stretched and this ironically contributed to the hammering of Catholic rioters in Belfast by Protestant rioters. (What is often forgotten is that Catholic rioters in Belfast were planning to invade Protestant areas while Protestant rioters planned to do the same with them- also, and here's a point, the demarcations of areas were much less clear-cut in 1969 than they are today anyway. Those streets most affected by the August 1969 riots in Belfast were mixed area which were transitional points between the Shankill and Falls areas- as well as in the Crumlin Road, where the Belfast Troubles actually began- ironically with the IRA throwing my Protestant grandparents out of their home in a Catholic street in May 1969, with their rioters causing the first riot in Belfast that night in the entire Troubles. With the RUC hammered too, the Army were needed to fill in the gaps and bring a stronger presence. The best sources for studying in brief the origins of the Troubles are A History of Ulster by Jonathan Bardon (my former external examiner from Dublin and so a dispassionate expert), and The Course of Irish History by T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin, Dermot Keogh, and Patrick Kiely. These are informative and very even-handed, they blow away a few myths held by those of different persuasions. As for Britain not intervening earlier, that is an understatement and a half, as part of the problem was British indifference. Britain dumped a government and a parliament on Northern Ireland which the Unionists, this may surprise you, did not want. Everyone was included in the compromise deal of the 1920s except for the Northern Catholics. A huge mistake. They then absconded from Northern Ireland from 1922-69. There was a Border Commission set up in 1925 to adjust the borders of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, but they did not bother implementing it. They did not intervene when the Unionists failed to deal adequately with defending Northern Ireland from the Nazis in 1939-41. The British Government deliberately underfunded Northern Ireland in order to try to persuade the Unionists to give up being British. (See A History of Northern Ireland by Patrick Buckley.) The Speaker of the Westminster House of Commons in the 1920s ruled that questions on Northern Ireland were not to be tabled in the House. This was a matter for Stormont. There was a real groundswell of support for Labour in the 1949 General Election in Northern Ireland (and in 1964) but both times Labour Prime Ministers Attlee and Wilson did not bother to intervene and help the Northern Ireland Labour Party from breaking the sectarian stronghold and give the Unionists a real opposition. It is now known that British military intelligence, led by Communist traitors like Philby and Blunt were involved in creating conspiracy theories and the creation of the modern UVF in 1966 to divide Unionism and provoke the IRA and bring back the Troubles (which had occurred in 1920-22), so as to hopefully destabilise and destroy Northern Ireland so they could have it thrown out of the UK. The British Government should have imposed Direct Rule in 1969, not in 1972. The Army messed up against the Catholics, oppressing them in the Falls Road Curfew. The Paratroopers famously did what they did on Bloody Sunday. The Army in 1969 also stupidly blamed all Protestants on the trouble in August 1969 which was not true and cannot be held responsible for the Battle of the Bogside. Wilson thought of intervening with the Unionist Government who had a more progressive Prime Minister at the time, Terence O'Neill, but did not bother. This was in 1964. The British stood by while idiots like William Craig undermined O'Neill and forced the RUC to stand by while loyalist mobs attacked Catholic protesters at Burntollet in January 1969. The Downing Street Cabinet's files on Northern Ireland were found by James Callaghan and Sir Richard Crossman (a major Whitehall mandarin) in August 1969 not to have been updated since 1925! We now know that Wilson and MI6 helped the Loyalists wreck the peace process in 1974 and facilitated talks between the IRA and the Loyalists to found an independent British supported Northern Ireland terrorist dictatorship so Britain could withdraw, in which the Army would attack the RUC and the population of Northern Ireland to help the terrorists take over. We know this from state papers released in January 2005. The Army threatened the Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party who ran the Executive, ordering them to resign and get out of Stormont. So the British Government in league with the terrorists deliberately sabotaged the peace process to appease the terrorists in the hope that they would take over so that Britain did not get bombed. Yeah, that really worked, not, it did the opposite, as it gave the IRA the idea of bombing pubs where English and Irish people went to mix, as in the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings. The Irish Government in 1975, a more moderate Irish Government under Cosgrove as opposed to Lynch's government from earlier, with Dr. Garrett Fitgerald as Irish Foreign Minister, was suspicious of the British Government as they seemed more biased to the terrorists than to the ordinary people who did not support them and than to the constitutinal moderate parties. He mentions this in his autobiography. So, as you can see, Britain's indifference had DANGEROUS consequences. At least John Major and Tony Blair recognised this and made up for it in their own flawed way. Local government and national government must work hand in hand. Which is why I am in favour of a multilayered and consociational deal just like the one in place, and there is no other answer. I've been arguing for it since I was a child, though sometimes in my teens usually after atrocities I wondered if a temporary dictatorship would work in getting the terrorist defeated then have power-sharing, but it is clear that only power-sharing that works. So none of us can get rid of each other!
  11. One of the veterans groups who are giving Colin Parry criticism are ex-soldiers from North Wales.
  12. Lt.Kije wrote: "They have power as as democracy works and the population demographic changes they will get more power, Londonderry is now just Derry as they out number the Protestants their, they are just playing the waiting game, unless the Protestant community starts to have as many children as the catholic comuninity they will win the North by democratic vote soon enough.They have power as as democracy works and the population demographic changes they will get more power, Londonderry is now just Derry as they out number the Protestants their, they are just playing the waiting game, unless the Protestant community starts to have as many children as the catholic comuninity they will win the North by democratic vote soon enough." I was responding to that. Especially the "catholic comuninity they will win the North" part bit, which I would have re-expressed as a democratic vote for an all-Ireland Republic would follow- the only thing then is if both sides haven't settled their differences there is the spectre of further trouble and the possibility of the new all-Ireland Republic losing the east side of the Province. The statement by Kije suggests a victory for only one side when what we need to do is work on eliminating there being two sides by uniting the community- easier said than done. I actually think in the present circumstances for the British public to want a United Ireland in spite of the Good Friday Agreement is what is inflammatory, as it goes against a democratic deal and fuels loyalist paranoia and troublemaking. Hence the 'tough- hard luck'. And it was typed flippantly, not in an inflammatory manner. This is not the kind of topic you can just casually glance over, and that is what has happened here. Also, I notice you think I am accusing you of agreeing with Lt. Kije. I'm scratching my head trying to work out how you came to that conclusion. But the question is, why did you not rebuke Lt. Kije for his comment? That comment of mine you think is so inflammatory, was a riposte to him, especially as he seems to want a one-sided solution for only one side of the community- now that is inflammatory even if perhaps not meant to be- hence the little riposte. And I talk as someone who is more than willing to accept a democratic vote out of the UK. Finally, I wasn't the one who set the rules for this with regards to majorities and minorites determining the fate of the region in question. The Government did. The Unionists insisted on it, but as birthrates shift, they could if Lt. Kije turns out to be right, be setting themselves for a fall.
  13. Oh well. You'd only be wasting your money, as it would be like trying to buy a bucket of steam or tartan paint.
  14. Lt. Kije, with regards to Belfast it is true that the troops were brought in to protect Catholics, but in fact this is because they lost the riot. It is true, the Nationalists were the ones who asked the Army to come in, but the RUC did too, as they were hammered and over-stretched in both Belfast and L/Derry. It was the stuffing of the police by both sides which was why the Army came in, as the RUC made an SOS plea. (Cops were on riot duty for a full 48 hours in some cases.) So the Army were brought in to keep the peace, and to fill in where the police couldn't cope any more. The RUC in 1969 was a very different organisation from the one that took over primacy in security again in 1977.
×
×
  • Create New...