| Junior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Derby, Kansas Age: 18 Posts: 24  | | | Re: Tylerguy et all
Quote: | Originally Posted by Setanta747 Quite right - my memory served me wrong. Apparently the number of civilian deaths amounted to approximately 34% of all IRA murders.
69% of the UDA murders were of civilians.
88% of UFF murders were of civilians.
84% of UVF murders were civilians.
But, as I'm sure you can appreciate, British security forces are much more visible. Therfore it was easier for the IRA to be specific, when they chose to be. Not that any of that condones murder for religious or political 'causes.' I condemn all of the 3,500+ murders. Except possibly the terrorist vs terrorist ones, such as the Loyalist or Republican internal feuds. | I cited a web page to back my claims, i asked if you could do the same, not toss out numbers arbitrarily. Also, are you saying that if the British forces where to withdraw they would have to start shooting civilians to like meet a quota or something? Excuse me but that’s ridiculous.
Quote: | It is not a war. The IRA have not declared war on the British people. All they have done is plant bombs in secret to destroy the economy, innocent Irish peoples' lives, and many British Army personell who were reinforced in Northern Ireland to protect its people from terrorist offences. That and their continued racketeering and so-called 'punishment beatings' that nobody has given them the right to do. Let them put it to the vote, and see just what percentage of Northern Ireland's population are in support of the campaign. Or even to an all-Ireland or UK vote. You can be sure those for the violence would number very small. | The IRA was at war with the English government and its forces of occupation, you can say no it wasn't over and over again but we wont get anywhere. "All they do is plant bombs to destroy the economy and Kill people" Sound like things that happen in a war to me. Look at any war and these are things that happen, the fire bombing of Berlin/Tokyo in WW2, a civilian city, struck for reason of causing economic strain on the enemy. And you want to put it to a vote? Ok, maybe not for violence, violence is a means to an end, the people you say support "violence" are the supporters of a cause or idea. So while its true that not everyone may support "violence," I can guarantee that if the Island nation of Ireland were to vote for the unification of Ireland under a united republic, free from British rule, that the outcome would be yes. Bringing us too...
Quote: But it is. Back in 1921, remember? The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in ... 1920 was it..? This let 26 counties of Ireland separate from the rest of us and form what was then the Free State. Consequently, that part of Ireland which remained within the UK, became Northern Ireland - with its own devolved government within the UK.
------
Treated differently? What do you mean? Differently than who/what?
When I mentioned a majority, I was talking about the Irish people, such as myself, who are native to this land.
----
Again - you show ignorance of unionism here. What has an English household got to do with Irish Unionists? I can only apologise that you completely missed my point.
As for your ridiculous suggestion that we "widdle" (perhaps whittle would have been a better choice of word) NI down.. well I don't need to tell you, surely, what a nightmare that would be with red tape and the economic well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. | One, allow me to congratulate you on spotting my satirical remark on how ridiculous it is to arbitrarily divide a country based on how they feel politically and make them independent nations, and assume i was actually suggesting that. As well as pointing out the "whittle" typo, hey when you cant win an argument attacking someone’s credibility through grammatical corrections is the next best thing, right? BTW: apologize, personnel, and therefore.
As you were saying about the partition of the island in 1920. That was my point, who gave them this right to split up the country along those lines, they hold no historical value or reason to be treated differently. It's as absurd as splitting up a country every election based on who voted for who, rather then treating it as a whole.
And as for that last bit about me being "ignorant of unionism" I was merely using it as an example of someone who would want to remain part of the UK, not a microscopic representation of all unionism. and in my example they happened to be British nationalist. | |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
