BF2S Forums Historic day for the Six Counties

Vilham wrote:

Cougar wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

No. It means that the path has been opened for a peaceful transition to occur. Catholic Irish in the north now have full human and civil rights and within a couple of generations will overtake the unionist community in numbers, meaning a 32 county Republic is on the cards that London won't realistically be able to complain about. The Republic has a lot more say in the affairs of the north too with many cross-border institutions created aimed at integrating our economies, etc. --> basically facilitating a future transition to a 32 county Republic.

Awesome!  Good on you Irishmen.

I never understood why the British cared so much about Northern Ireland, but it's nice to see that someday they can maybe stay on their own island and leave others alone.

Lol says an AMERICAN.... England gave up all of its imperialism over 40 years ago... incase you didnt notice that NI has been part of the UK for 800 years. Im glad that they finally get to vote on it rather than getting bombed by the IRA for it.

IG-Calibre wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

.. I think the only real hurdle will be economic integration since Northern Ireland has a much lower standard of living than the rest of Ireland.

Oh I wouldn't say the standard of living in the North is a great deal lower than the standard of living on the rest of the Island - granted there has been chronic underfunding in terms of things like infrastructure & tourism & the business sector -specially the disparity between capital gains tax. Also things are pretty grim in and around the Ghetto's of Belfast in both Catholic / Protestant areas. However in terms of Health service, schools, universities, etc etc i'd say we are a lot better off than much of the Republic.

Vilham wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Lol says an AMERICAN.... England gave up all of its imperialism over 40 years ago... incase you didnt notice that NI has been part of the UK for 800 years. Im glad that they finally get to vote on it rather than getting bombed by the IRA for it.

Erm, there was no such thing as 'Northern Ireland' 90 years ago, never mind 800!!!! lol

So that land that is now NI just suddenly appeared out of the sea? That area of land and people have been part of the UK for 800 years...

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6633493.stm

At the end of the latest swathe of Irish-British violence, a 40 year mire of 'tit-for-tat' killings, British government-endorsed murder, internment without charge or trial, paramilitary-organisation conducted terrorist acts, kneecappings, punishment beatings, bombings, hunger strikes, lynch mobs, contentious marches, petrol bombs, military engagements, spying, assassination attempts and civil rights marches, the government of the Six Counties of northern Ireland return to power today with a very very different flavour.

Today is a day of hope and a day of success. The discrimination faced by Catholics in the six counties on a daily basis should by and large now be a thing of the past. 800 years of oppression could now be at an end. The people who will take up seats in this parliament at Stormont will be far more representative of the people than the gerrymandered stain on western society that the previous administration constituted. Arch enemies will face each other across conference tables and open forums rather than from behind barricades or through the targets of a sniper rifle.

The cross border insitutions that form part of the peace agreement pave the way for a speedy transition to a 32 county Republic of Ireland in the near future when the poor abandoned Irish in the north will finally cast their votes to reunify with their brethren south of the 'border', an event I will see in my lifetime.

CameronPoe wrote:

coke wrote:

No problem reading, just the way it reads...
As it starts with "British government-endorsed murder...
The discrimination faced by Catholics in the six counties on a daily basis should by and large now be a thing of the past. "

What about the discrimination faced by the Protestants?

That wasn't institutional - and I was speaking from the perspective of an Irishman - I'm not in a position to convey the feelings of a British person from the six counties.

IG-Calibre wrote:

coke wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

That wasn't institutional - and I was speaking from the perspective of an Irishman - I'm not in a position to convey the feelings of a British person from the six counties.

Nor am I, however I would think that the fear of being beaten, murdered, blown up by people who may well be your "neighbors" would be a unpleasant feeling for both the British and Irish in N.I.

Quite, it's worth noting at this stage that the first victims of the "troubles" were 2 innocent Catholics and a policeman murdered in 1966 by Gusty Spence who then formed the modern UVF (FACT1).  So while there is no doubting that there was a very definite tit-for-tat element to the murders here, the conflict in it's modern context was started by unprovoked Protestant sectarian murder, and, the statement that loyalist para-militarism was a "response" to militant republicanism doesn't hold up to scrutiny i'm afraid (FACT 2) - Militant Republicanism was a response to Loyalist sectarian murder and further compounded by British sanctioned internment (thousands of Catholics were held in Jail, without trial) & murder of Catholic ,civilian, un-armed , civil Right's campaigners by British military forces; most of them shot in the back (FACT3). Followed by the preceding whitewash of the affair by the British state - leading to the escalation of hostilities during the 70's and 80's . Not to mention the period  of ethnic cleansing with Catholics being burned out of their homes across the 6 counties - just to set the record straight.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

coke wrote:

Nor am I, however I would think that the fear of being beaten, murdered, blown up by people who may well be your "neighbors" would be a unpleasant feeling for both the British and Irish in N.I.

Quite, it's worth noting at this stage that the first victims of the "troubles" were 2 innocent Catholics and a policeman murdered in 1966 by Gusty Spence who then formed the modern UVF (FACT1).  So while there is no doubting that there was a very definite tit-for-tat element to the murders here, the conflict in it's modern context was started by unprovoked Protestant sectarian murder, and, the statement that loyalist para-militarism was a "response" to militant republicanism doesn't hold up to scrutiny i'm afraid (FACT 2) - Militant Republicanism was a response to Loyalist sectarian murder and further compounded by British sanctioned internment (thousands of Catholics were held in Jail, without trial) & murder of Catholic ,civilian, un-armed , civil Right's campaigners by British military forces; most of them shot in the back (FACT3). Followed by the preceding whitewash of the affair by the British state - leading to the escalation of hostilities during the 70's and 80's . Not to mention the period  of ethnic cleansing with Catholics being burned out of their homes across the 6 counties - just to set the record straight.

So you're using the "he started it" defence?  Ok then but it doesn't make sense, why would the loyalists start the violence when they already have what they want (being in union with Britain)?  C'mon man it's illiogical....

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-05-09 10:44:10)

Braddock wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Quite, it's worth noting at this stage that the first victims of the "troubles" were 2 innocent Catholics and a policeman murdered in 1966 by Gusty Spence who then formed the modern UVF (FACT1).  So while there is no doubting that there was a very definite tit-for-tat element to the murders here, the conflict in it's modern context was started by unprovoked Protestant sectarian murder, and, the statement that loyalist para-militarism was a "response" to militant republicanism doesn't hold up to scrutiny i'm afraid (FACT 2) - Militant Republicanism was a response to Loyalist sectarian murder and further compounded by British sanctioned internment (thousands of Catholics were held in Jail, without trial) & murder of Catholic ,civilian, un-armed , civil Right's campaigners by British military forces; most of them shot in the back (FACT3). Followed by the preceding whitewash of the affair by the British state - leading to the escalation of hostilities during the 70's and 80's . Not to mention the period  of ethnic cleansing with Catholics being burned out of their homes across the 6 counties - just to set the record straight.

So you're using the "he started it" defence?  Ok then but it doesn't make sense, why would the loyalists start the violence when they already have what they want (being in union with Britain)?  C'mon man it's illogical....

IG Calibre presented facts as part of his argument and you counter with a personal opinion (bias), at least ask for proof of the facts he presented or put forward a more constructive counter argument. The loyalists were responsible for some horrible sectarian crimes during the troubles (do a search on the Shankhill butchers for example) and a lot of British people are quite happy to try and forget/ignore that; it's much easier to picture your fellow Brits as innocent victims of barbaric Republican terrorism.

The way I view the troubles is that both sides are responsible for terrible atrocities and so as an argument that must be be dismissed, you must in that case look to the principles behind either sides struggle and on these grounds the Irish nationalists are (in my view) justified in their cause. They had their land occupied by colonial oppressors and were treated as second class citizens by a succession of institutionally sectarian ruling regimes ...anyone with an ounce of pride and self respect would want to stand up to that kind of treatment in my opinion.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-09 07:39:28)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Braddock wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

So you're using the "he started it" defence?  Ok then but it doesn't make sense, why would the loyalists start the violence when they already have what they want (being in union with Britain)?  C'mon man it's illogical....

IG Calibre presented facts as part of his argument and you counter with a personal opinion (bias), at least ask for proof of the facts he presented or put forward a more constructive counter argument. The loyalists were responsible for some horrible sectarian crimes during the troubles (do a search on the Shankhill butchers for example) and a lot of British people are quite happy to try and forget/ignore that; it's much easier to picture your fellow Brits as innocent victims of barbaric Republican terrorism.

The way I view the troubles is that both sides are responsible for terrible atrocities and so as an argument that must be be dismissed, you must in that case look to the principles behind either sides struggle and on these grounds the Irish nationalists are (in my view) justified in their cause. They had their land occupied by colonial oppressors and were treated as second class citizens by a succession of institutionally sectarian ruling regimes ...anyone with an ounce of pride and self respect would want to stand up to that kind of treatment in my opinion.

He didn't express facts he expressed his opinion.  Factually, "the troubles" began in the 20s with murders a plenty of both sides but he cherry picked an incident from 1966 (coincidently the same year England won the World Cup so bad year for the Irish in more ways than one).  Even in it's modern sense most agree that "the troubles" can be dated to 1968 and the riots at the NICRA March.

Saying they started in 1966 with the Gutsy Spence incident is nothing more than opinion (bias)....

IG-Calibre wrote:

well maybe you believe that those innocent Catholics deaths were legitimised by something that Happened over 40 years before, one of the victims was 18 years old FFS - but that's your opinion, we'll see how history judges it, and, I don't think the version as "pushed" by the British / Loyalists will be agreed as the official version, why? because you weren't the victors, we all lost. 

I'm dealing in Facts and The fact was there had been no - I repeat NO murders or troubles for nearly 40 years until those unprovoked sectarian murders of Gusty Spence, I think it conclusively will be viewed as the Demarcation of the start of the "Troubles" in the modern era.

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-09 08:54:23)

aardfrith wrote:

Oh for Christ's sake, we may be at a turning point in history and you're bickering like a couple of schoolkids about a fight that started decades ago.  Who gives a shit who started it?  If Mr McGuinness and Reverend Paisley can sit down together, can't we stop this stupid argument?

As it happens, I don't see it lasting.  Someone, on one side or the other, it probably doesn't matter who, will find events not going to their liking and kick-start the violence again.  Then everyone will find the weapons they'd sequestered away and we'll be back to the bombings, kneecappings and the army patrolling the streets, like they do in Basra.

I hope I'm wrong on this, I really do, but I doubt it.