No it was not dominance it was to prevent a civil war. If this civil war had happened there would have been tens of thousands of people killed and society and economy would have been destroyed. The whole island would have become a third world country overnight. The main victims would have been northern catholics, the catholics of Belfast in particular would have been slaughtered, unless they managed to escape from the city. It would have been just like the war in Yugoslavia in the '90s, full of atrocities.
No it wasn't a gerrmandered state. The border had to be put somewhere, it was never going to be perfect. Unless of course you are one of these political primitives who think that an island has to be one nation just because it's an island? Fortunately as society becomes more educated and advanced there are fewer and fewer people who think this way. These political primitives would start a civil war that would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of lives and the destruction of the whole island, and then they'd probably blame the Brits for what happened!
They should have been hammered off the streets. However here you go again picking out examples of catholics being badly treated, why do you do that? nobody has denied that so there is no argument and therefore no need to keep bringing it up?
Why do I hate the IRA? Well they didn't do anything to my family it's true but they were widow makers and orphan makers, they killed about 1800, mostly innocent people. They should have been strangled at birth. Cosgrave or Dev would have strangled them at birth, they knew what to do with terrorists.
Oh god you've really gone to pot with your links haven't you?...very handy things to hide behind when you want to ignore my points.
First of all I would NOT be living under British rule today if it wasn't for the IRA (another republican myth). The Brits would have left a few years after they actually did anyway.
You mustn't know much about the sectarian geoghraphy of Belfast if you don't know how vulnerable catholic areas were at the time and now! And you think they could have defended them themselves? not a chance, without the Brits you couldn't have lasted long before being slaughtered or else chased over the border. And how did the catholics thank the Brits?...why by killing them of course...makes perfect sense!
As a supporter of terrorism yourself you naturally want to muddy the waters as to what is a terrorist and what is not. The BA is the army of a democratic state just as the Irish army is the army of a democratic state. They would work together to counter any terrorist threat if they had to.
Finally stop trying to hide behind links about selective info and say what you want in ordinary English so people can judge your argument. You'll notice I don't put up any links.
Again you are missing the point. I never said the security forces were perfect and I known some unforgivable things were done but if you look overall at it then the BA behaved with a lot of restraint under pressure. You keep going on about IRA defending catholic areas and I keep pointing out that they couldn't have done that for long. The security forces defended catholic areas for the duration of the troubles and that is a fact that you can't accept because it undermines the myth of the BA being an occupying force. The IRA should not have existed in the first place, its very existence was an act of terror while the BA was the legitimate army of the state. The IRA were the engine of the troubles and those mistakes or wrongdoing of the security forces wouldn't have happened in the first place without the IRA. Do I hate them?...Yes I hate all terrorists and hope they are wiped out.
I've no problem with the paras being charged if there is evidence of wrongdoing on their part.
Now keep your reply short, sharp and in your own words and don't be putting up links, which you use to hide behind.
You come to some daft conclusions. So just because the whole situation was dirty and compromised and far from perfect that means they didn't protect the people???....read my post again, it's the uncomfortable truth that you don't want to accept.
It was war, if you want to call it that but it wasn't a just or legitimate war. A terrorist campaign would be a more accurate description. The only way to fight terrorists is to wipe them out, unfortunate but true and that's what should have been done.
Well you shouldn't have taken it to mean everyone in the North as that's not what I meant. 'partionist mindset' is a meaningless slogan just like 'brits out peace in' and other such slogans. As for being sectarian that's a bit rich as it was you who supported the people who tried to start a sectarian civil war in the North, not me!
You always go on about republicans defending catholic areas and I always point out that that was for a brief period of time only. For the rest of the troubles it was the security forces who protected catholic areas from what would have been a pogram. This is the uncomfortable truth that you can't face up to, the Brits saved your asses.
In the 1940's Ireland had the highest rate of psychiatric incarceration in the WORLD, believe it or not. Same mindset going on, those who were awkward or wouldn't conform were shut away/up.
I'm probably wasting my time as you won't understand the difference, it will be too subtle for you but anyway:
Of course the army did some terrible things, most armies usually do at some point. Overall however the BA has a good record in the North and that is why I'm defending them. Like the Irish army they were the army of a legitimate state trying to keep the peace. Without them you and your family would have been either killed or driven over the border as refugees. Logically you should be grateful to them. I don't defend them when they do something wrong (bloody sunday) but I will recognise they saved tens of thousands of innocent lives, probably including your own.
It matters very much to me what happens in the North, a civil war in the North would have led to the destruction not only of the north but the south as well.
I also said derogatory things about northern prods but for some reason you never mention that.....let's have some balance please!
You're trying to dilute the argument, as you always do when something is pointed out to you. It's the duty of the state to protect its citizens, by overwhelming force if necessary.
Ah get a grip Pedro will ya!..familiarise yourself with the argument before you jump in, Phoenix supports violence over democratic politics, is that something you can agree with?
This terrible thing wouldn't have happened in the first place without the IRA (and Loyalist) campaign. The terrorists decided that the 'war' was going to be so dirty, not the Brits, they simply responded to what was happening (sometimes badly I admit). But the fault lies with the terrorists.
Nothing like that would have been necessary anyway if the Brits had had a formal and disciplined shoot to kill policy from the start. One hundred Gibraltars in the '70s and the problem would not have reached the '80s.
The only logic (I hesitate to use that word!) behind this is that Ireland has to be one state because it is an island....when you put it at its simplest is sounds absurd doesn't it? You are a political primitive, there are two nations in Ireland and logically should be two states, which there are. Only a tiny minority of neanderthals (like yourself) can't accept this. And any one who points this out is a 'west brit' lol.
Are there any mountains near Birmingham that you could paint a slogan on?
They have every right, that's what the People of Northern Ireland want, to stay in the UK. And every day more and more northern catholics support that.
online today!snowlynx Forum Posts (5,001)
RE: Cruel Britannia
Our own army wouldn't have been big enough or strong enough to do what the British army did.