Glademaster said:
Rathcoole said:
I did read your whole post. But I do not deal in rumours. Lets take this arugment back to the point. You refuse to say sorry to England because you think they started the troubles. The fact is England conquered and ruled in a time when it was a prefectly acceptable thing to do. They later returned the lands that asked to leave, only keeping the ones that wanted to stay. (decades before they release India, Pakastan and countless others) But nationalist palamiltiers decided they wanted the whole lot despite what the majority in the north wanted. They started attacks against innocent people who just wanted to live there lives in peace. The English guvorment did what anybody would in that sitution they defended there land.
I suspect we will never reach an agreement. So lets just say you stick to what you believe and I will stick to what I believe.
Yet you also ignore my on topic where I already apologised for the innocent caused by paramilitary groups. So I have not refused to apologise for any innocent deaths military or civilian. No I will never ever agree with you. It is not because I don't agree with the core ideal you have it is that you are singling out the Nationalist side. The Unionists and the British government are as much to blame for the Troubles as the Nationalists and the Republic of Ireland. In fact I also pointed out in my apology that the Irish and British governments could of stepped in much early to initiate the Peace process. I do agree that technically at the time it was their conquered land and they did have a certain right to defend it but their methods times and time again were crude and hamfisted. Their methods only served to fan the flames of hatred on both sides as they never gave a fuck and should of never let Unionist or Nationalist groups have arms.
So just to state again no I am not in complete agreement with you because you have a very biased view of the Troubles. I have never ever even attempted to say either side was lily white and have given atrocities from both sides yet you seem to hold the belief that it was more or less the Nationalist's fault which it wasn't. The fault lies equally with all parties in this regard.
I think you have misunderstood my entire point I will explain my side.
I believe the troubles where started by a small group of nutters trying to reclaim all of ireland for the republic.
The unionalist side having more than a few nutters people of it's own hit back. England was forced to intervene in what it say as a threat to it's lands. Which only further annoys the nationalists. They got angry at what they see as interference in their affairs. which only caused the whole thing to get worse.
Both sides start to attack the other and England is forced to intervene more and more. The more attacks the more England intervenes, the more england intervenes the more the attacks happen. It was a never ending circle of pointless violence and where did it get us?
What if instead of retailiating the unionists had simple ignored the threat? it probably would have died out from lack of support. But because we attacked back we helped escalate the conflict and grow the support for the nutters on the nationalists. Which in turn grow the support for the nutters on the unionalist side. The unionalists are just as guilty as the Nationalists. But I do not accept that it was Englands fault it started.
They where only involved because we where tearing ourselves apart. If it had not been for them we would probably still be killing each other over a stupid war, started by stupid people. That should have died out long before it got to the point it did.