Thatâs impressively awful! :lol:
The fact that these injustices were being carried out in a partitioned and occupied area of Ireland. Are you deliberately being dense here?
Ah lovely. 
You should put that on your Twitter.
The majority of the Northern Irish population wanted to remain under British rule, so the term âoccupiedâ is not appropriate, nor is it an accurate description in the military sense of Northern Ireland at the beginning of the troubles. And in any case, it still doesnât connect the grievances of the catholic population in the North to the objective of a âUnited Irelandâ. The troubles arose in the context of civil rights marches, not a military occupation.
- Marty
- Dorris
- Mickey D
God save IrelandâŚUp the ra
âNorthern Irelandâ was a state created on solely sectarian grounds. The troubles arose from an unjust system governed by a foreign country, when the nationalists dared look for equal rights they were burned out of their homes, beaten up by security forces and many killed. It became apparent to many young me of that time that the system had to be broke - under Unionist rule, completely unopposed by the British government, that nationalists would never get equality.
Your viewpoint completely lacks perception of what the nationalist community had to go through during this era. They were part of a state they didnât want to be in and a state that openly discriminated agains them, where they were deprived equal rights, treated like dirt and suffered regular harrassment at the hands of security forces. Further to this when they stood up to the system they were burned out of their homes, beaten and killed. This was a state that the governing powers allowed develop into a sectarian shithole where Catholics had nothing. This was no accident, this was by design, it was the whole aim since the O6âs inception. Your revisionism is that of cloud cuckoo land. Speak to people who grew up in the interface areas of Belfast in the 70âs and 80âs, in the rural parts of South Ulster, where they were continually harrassed by security forces and to the people in the bogside who were treated like animals for being Catholic. This had escalated for 50 years, it was allowed to get this far, people had enough and realised there was only one alternative.
I know, it required great effort on my part.
I havenât offered any revisionism, Iâve merely explored your thinking on the matter. What you still havenât explained is the connection between the radical nationalist fantasy of a âUnited Irelandâ, and the resolution of the legitimate grievances held by the catholic community in Northern Ireland. Your thinking appears blind to the reality of what happened, a surge of consciousness in the catholic community, in tune with many other parts of the world in the late 60s, was hijacked by radical nationalists who were not primarily oriented towards the ending social discrimination, but towards the bombing of the protestant community into acceptance of Dublin rule.
The idea that the two aims are indistinguishable is patent nonsense. At the same time in the US, a much more entrenched, and infinitely more vicious system of oppression was resisted without resort to blowing up fish shops and similar atrocities. That you fail to even comprehend the distinction is perhaps a vindication of the wider point about the hegemony of the nationalist conception of Irish history, a blight reflected in the lack sophistication in political debate which persists to this day. If the Brits were gone, all the problems would have dissolved into rainbows and lollipops. I think not.
Completely irrational and delusional statement there. We have relative peace now in the O6, it took circa 30 years of conflict (after an initial 50 years of struggle and oppression) to get to where we are and you have the gall to say that. You act as if the Provoâs were bloody thirsty sectarian maniacs, thatâs ridiculous. In fact OâConaillâs and OâBradaighâs âEire Nuaâ just goes to show your ridiculous, illogical and delusional thoughts of the reality of the situation in the North. For 800 years there have been people who will oppose British rule with militant force, that will never go away, itâs been consigned to a tiny minority now and its overall effect on matters is non-existent but it will remain until Ireland is occupied. Your reading into the matter is out of touch, it was the social injustices and draconian rule of the Unionists in power that drove young nationalists to take up the gun against British rule, had these not been in place, the major revolt against British occupation would have being on a political front - much like today.
Ugly things happen in any conflict, its part of a war situation which was what he had. The problem in the O6 is solely to blame on the Free State and British governments who put in place this sectarian state and let it fester out of control.
You are clearly very blinkered and have no perception of the life these men and women endured in the O6 and until you gain some perspective, you really shouldnât embarrass yourself on commenting.
You need to learn to distinguish between a social and a nationalist struggle if youâre ever going to get past your jukebox interpretation of the troubles.
just seems odd that you would laugh at McGuiness not having a vote, considering that it seems likely our president for the last 14 years didnt either. I had thought she hadnt.
And you need to gain a thing called perception as you clearly canât identify an oppressive rule that had continually harrassed and oppressed a people of a certain ethnic identity. The fact that you still canât grasp the will of the nationalist community to break ties with this regime that had for over 800 years discriminated against and murdered them, to overthrow this regime and form a new 32 county where everyone can live in equality. From the proclamation to Eire Nua, the Republican and Nationalist movement has never veered to discriminate against those of a Unionist persuasion.
Furthermore, the republican struggle has been strongly intertwined with socialism throughout the years. Youâre embarrassing yourself now coming out with unkowldegeable statements like that.
Anyone see all those nuns at the polling office on the news? Solid Norris vote there I would say.
Dana is a shorter price with Boyles than Gay Mitchell.
:o
:lol:
Major differences in culture there. There is/ was a strong tradition of armed resistance here between both sets of communities , especially by Catholics who were physically fighting off oppression for generations. The black community on the other hand had all but been emasculated for generations post emancipation.
In some ways the likes of Martin Luther king were uncle tom house niggers, of which people like Robert F Williams would have certainly held a similar view⌠and if he had his way( Williams) fish shops would have indeed been legitimate targets.
At the end of the day a non violent approach was the only way for the black movement in the states, in the same way only a violent response to the sectarian victimization being carried out in the north was the only response.
[quote=âChocolateMice, post: 630081â]
There is/ was a strong tradition of armed resistance here between both sets of communities , especially by Catholics who were physically fighting off oppression for generations. [/quote]
Why is that relevant though?
[quote=âChocolateMice, post: 630081â]
At the end of the day a non violent approach was the only way for the black movement in the states, in the same way only a violent response to the sectarian victimization being carried out in the north was the only response. [/quote]
It is irrational to say âitâ was the only response, even after you come to some sort of conclusion about what âitâ was. In any case, the popular grievances of the catholic community as addressed by the NICRA were: the absence of one man-one vote, gerrymandering, discrimination in the administration of social housing, and discrimination at the hands of the state security forces. All these grievances were both genuine and legitimate. However, the leap from that to an offensive armed campaign (which included the detonation of bombs in civilian areas) with the purpose of forcing the majority population to accept a âUnited Irelandâ under the tricolour is a considerable one.There is a tendency to confuse the legitimate social objectives of the catholic community with the ideologically nationalist aim of a 32 county Ireland.
Bombs in civilian areas, for the most part, were military or economic targets and the majority were given warnings, the incompetence on both sides of the fence in getting these warnings across was the main cause for civilian casualties.
You held up the civil rights in the states as a shining light⌠I just merely pointed to the major differences in culture and opponent ⌠I wasnât arguing against your last point and would agree with it for the most part.
Thatâs frankly a disgusting viewpoint to hold on the murder of many of your fellow Northern Ireland citizens. There is having a controversial or contrarian view and having the view of a deluded moron. You are firmly in the latter category. The people that planted the bombs werenât to blame at all you seem to be saying.
Itâs fairly obvious history wasnât one of the subjects you studied for your A levels.