82 police injured in Northern Ireland's 2 nights of Catholic riots; politicians plead for calm

Then the best thing to do is solve it definitively forever. Reunite Ireland. Many people consider that to be the inevitable outcome anyway.

No the best thing would be for them to stop thinking like that. Reuniting Ireland (or any other political solution to any problem anywhere) isn't going to stop any violence if the fundamental mindset of agrievement is still present. Do you suppose that if a Palestinian state was ever set up that all violence against Israel would cease?

Go ahead and dismiss my “passionately held viewpoints”. I wouldn’t worry about it in the least.

Don't worry. I shall.

What worse problem? Was there a worse problem in the South when the British army left? No.

YES

Even the Irish civil war was not worse than the British occupation because that included tyranny and degradation.

What tyranny and degredation? Oh, of course...any British ownership counts, irrespective of what the actual consequences were

What happened that was “worse” when the British left America? Oh, right. Nothing.

Quite a lot of things actually. Systematic extermination and/or forced movement of large numbers of natives, a blatant land-grab against Canada; retention of Negro slavery (which the British outlawed several decades before the US did), a major civil war, and on an on. Of course, if North America had remained part of the British Empire, these things (or even worse) might have happened anyway. The point is that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Generations of Americans were conned into thinking they had left the old world and all its corrupt power politics behind. In fact you brought some of the desert with you. You can tell me that a united Irish Republic will be a better place, but dont ever suggest its all going to be perfect, because it certainly wont be.

They were not driven out. The British army and RUC were there to protect them. Few died in 30 years of violence. While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.

What???? I'm sorry but none of that is true. It just simply isnt. Check the thread title out for goodness sake. No im sorry, if you really and honestly believe that to be true there is no further point to this discussion.

“Those Unionists not willing to stay will pick up and move long before the handing over. Most unionist hotheads with murder on their mind will also decide to leave because they know they will have backing from no nation or major power on earth to conduct any major terrorist campaigns.”

Which is why it will never happen, they will never leave. They’ve lived through centuries of conflict and will no sooner leave than the people on the Republican side left when NI was formed. No state is going to have the political will to force them out either.

That’s your examples ? Wow.

None of those armed forces were the militaries of open westernized democracies.

Bloody Sunday, My Lai and Haditha were instances of small units going rouge and acting outside the norms of the overall armed forces. Entirely and totally regrettable but not overall state policy

You are equating your own armed forces with the state sanctioned and organised evil of the Nazis and Communists. What on earth leads you to do this ? I have to wonder what the terms of your discharge were if you are able to draw such conclusions.

With all due respect if you were referring to the original IRA then you could have been more clear.

You wrote:

“Rationally that all sounds very reasonable and logical.
What a pity that people don’t work that way.”

They will. No one would have much of a choice to do otherwise.

“Ireland after the immediate setting up of the Irish Free State was anything but a happy and economically secure place.”

True. And that’s irrelevant.

“Admittedly there was a major worldwide economic downturn at the time but Ireland certainly suffered more than most.”

It did. The British engineered Ireland that way. The British deliberately kept most of Ireland pastoral so it would not directly compete with Britain in the industrial realm.

“Anecdotal evidence is the main driving force for all political opinion in NI.”

Ireland will be reunited in any case.

“No the best thing would be for them to stop thinking like that. Reuniting Ireland (or any other political solution to any problem anywhere) isn’t going to stop any violence if the fundamental mindset of agrievement is still present. Do you suppose that if a Palestinian state was ever set up that all violence against Israel would cease?”

Yes - if Israel ceased to exist. And, likewise, if all the Palestinians ceased to exist then Israel could count on no more violence from Palestinians. Now, how likely are those possibilities? Not very likely either way. In Ireland, however, the British occupation was the problem. Once Ireland was free there was no more violence between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The civil war only occured because many Irish felt betrayed by other Irish. If the Bristish had freed ALL OF IRELAND, the whole island, no violence would have happened at all most likely. No civil war, no violence between Catholics and Protestants.

“Go ahead and dismiss my “passionately held viewpoints”. I wouldn’t worry about it in the least.”

That’s an excellent view to have.

“YES”

The civil war in the South was not nearly as bad as centuries of British oppression.

” Oh, of course...any British ownership counts, irrespective of what the actual consequences were”

It doesn’t matter if Britain lost ownership of anything in a nation it oppressed during its occupation. Protestant ownership of many key businesses continued, however, unabated. Notice, the Irish had no problem with that. The irish were much more open and generous to Protestants in the South, then Protestants have been to Catholics in the North.

“Quite a lot of things actually. Systematic extermination and/or forced movement of large numbers of natives, a blatant land-grab against Canada; retention of Negro slavery (which the British outlawed several decades before the US did), a major civil war, and on an on.”

Nope. None of that was related to the British occupation. Problems with Indians already existed before the British left and continued. So that is simply inapplicable. Land grab against Canada - sorry, but that is not “worse” than the British occupation except perhaps for the Canadians and they are not in America so that too is inapplicable. Slavery in British America was started and allowed by the British and it was in part the ideals supported by the American Revolutionaries which would ultimately lead to the abolitionist movement.

“You can tell me that a united Irish Republic will be a better place, but dont ever suggest its all going to be perfect, because it certainly wont be.”

I didn’t. I simply told the truth. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what exists now.

“What???? I’m sorry but none of that is true. It just simply isnt.”

Yeah, actually it is. Only a few thousand people have been killed by all sides and all groups in the last 40 years. The “war” in Northern Ireland is puny compared to many other such fights. Perhaps 100 times more people are dying in the drug war in northern Mexico nowadays. The fact that 82 police men were injured - BUT APPARENTLY NONE WERE KILLED - shows this is a puny, little, low-level “war”.

“Check the thread title out for goodness sake. No im sorry, if you really and honestly believe that to be true there is no further point to this discussion.”

Use whatever excuse you want to get away from dealing with the truth. Just remember, 82 injured and apparently 0 killed. Puny, little “war”.

You wrote:

“Which is why it will never happen, they will never leave.”

Ireland will be reunited. The unionists will have to make their choice one way or another.

“They’ve lived through centuries of conflict and will no sooner leave than the people on the Republican side left when NI was formed.”

The difference is that Ireland will be reunited. Unionists will have to then choose.

“No state is going to have the political will to force them out either.”

I am not so sure about that. Israel forces its citizens to move out of settlements. The unionists will have very few choices.

True. I apologise for the confusion.

3000 died in the Irish Troubles (1969-1997). Hardly puny.

Plenty of police were killed. Dont know where you get that idea from.

They will. No one would have much of a choice to do otherwise.

Well the nationalist Irish didnt think that. They decided to take on the world's biggest empire for their "freedom". There was no logic in that. So what makes you think other people won't do it? You underestimate the passion of the other side.

True. And that’s irrelevant.

Not if it shows that Ireland would have been better off if it had stayed in the Union it isn't.

It did. The British engineered Ireland that way. The British deliberately kept most of Ireland pastoral so it would not directly compete with Britain in the industrial realm.

Nonsense. No government at the time had that much control over economic development.

Ireland will be reunited in any case.

Only if enough of the "right" anecdotes gain credence

Yes - if Israel ceased to exist. And, likewise, if all the Palestinians ceased to exist then Israel could count on no more violence from Palestinians. Now, how likely are those possibilities? Not very likely either way.

True. And how likely is it that all the unionists are going to cease to exist?

In Ireland, however, the British occupation was the problem.

The palestinians would say the israeli occupation was the problem, so your analogy is utterly meaningless.

Once Ireland was free there was no more violence between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

Sure...because most of the Protestants were in Ulster. There's been plenty of violence there, or do you accept that it isn't "part of Ireland"?

The civil war only occured because many Irish felt betrayed by other Irish.

In other words, the victory wasnt Total enough. See earlier point.

If the Bristish had freed ALL OF IRELAND, the whole island, no violence would have happened at all most likely. No civil war, no violence between Catholics and Protestants.

You're dreaming. Look up "Ulster declaration". If the British had granted Home rule in 1914 (as they would have been forced to do if WW1 hadn't supervened) there would have been a full scale civil war. It would have washed It doesn’t matter if Britain lost ownership of anything in a nation it oppressed during its occupation. Protestant ownership of many key businesses continued, however, unabated. Notice, the Irish had no problem with that. The irish were much more open and generous to Protestants in the South, then Protestants have been to Catholics in the North.

How perfect they are.

Nope. None of that was related to the British occupation.

Hardly surprising. It relates to the American occupation.

Problems with Indians already existed before the British left and continued. So that is simply inapplicable.

The British were better friends to the natives than the US ever was. Witness Canada.

Land grab against Canada - sorry, but that is not “worse” than the British occupation except perhaps for the Canadians and they are not in America so that too is inapplicable.,p> We were talking about what the US did, not neccesarily what happened in the US itself.

Slavery in British America was started and allowed by the British and it was in part the ideals supported by the American Revolutionaries which would ultimately lead to the abolitionist movement.

But was ended in the British empire much earlier without the ideals supported by the revolutionaries

I didn’t. I simply told the truth. It won’t be perfect, but it will be better than what exists now.

That depends if the Irish Nationalists are better, more humane, less vengeful and more accomodating people. In other words, if they are better. Which you have gone to some length to argue that they are.

Yeah, actually it is. Only a few thousand people have been killed by all sides and all groups in the last 40 years. The “war” in Northern Ireland is puny compared to many other such fights. Perhaps 100 times more people are dying in the drug war in northern Mexico nowadays.

I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to the families of the dead. I'm also equally sure that a lot of folk have left rather than face all that.

The fact that 82 police men were injured - BUT APPARENTLY NONE WERE KILLED - shows this is a puny, little, low-level “war”.

I wasn't referring specifically to this one incident.

While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.“Check the thread title out for goodness sake. No im sorry, if you really and honestly believe that to be true there is no further point to this discussion.” Use whatever excuse you want to get away from dealing with the truth. Just remember, 82 injured and apparently 0 killed. Puny, little “war”.

Sorry, it is you who are using excuses. The issue at the point of discussion is not this particular incident...that is minor enough. The issue is that you specifically said quote "While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.“ And I'm sorry, that is just simply untrue. How can you say that this is a "puny" war that has cost only a few thousand lives on all sides, and then deny that the god-fearing Catholics arent doing their share of it? Particularly as the IRA started all the bombing in "the troubles" back in the seventies in the first place!

It's an obtuse argument.

You misunderstand scotsman. 3000 people is nothing to vlad, unless he can use it to bolster his argument as to the horrors of British "occupation". When he wants to, he can right off 3000 people as a justification for opposing British "tyranny". The end justifies the means, you see.

For a “war” it’s puny. How many have been killed in FARC’s terrorist war in Colombia over a comparable time period?

You wrote:

“Plenty of police were killed. Dont know where you get that idea from.”

The article says 82 were injured. None died. You do realize that you’re posting in a thread with the title, “82 police injured..., right?

You wrote:

“Well the nationalist Irish didnt think that. They decided to take on the world’s biggest empire for their “freedom”. There was no logic in that.”

Sure there is: they won didn’t they? The British Empire has been beaten by rebels several times. The Irish had every reasonable expectation of one day winning they just didn’t expect it to come so soon.

“So what makes you think other people won’t do it? You underestimate the passion of the other side.”

Nope. I just properly estimate the foes here. Who would support the unionists in their war against Britain and Ireland? No one. Seriously, who would do it? Britain? Oh, wait, they would be fighting Britain so the only possible ally would actually be their enemy. Didn’t that even occur to you? The simple fact is that they have few weapons, little money and little training. Against two armies, with no support from anyone in the world, they would be done in rather quickly.

“Not if it shows that Ireland would have been better off if it had stayed in the Union it isn’t.”

But it wouldn’t have been - because it would not have been free. It would still be under the heel of the British. Now it is free and prosperous.

“Nonsense. No government at the time had that much control over economic development.”

False. You seem to forget that Britain had enough control over the American colonies to impose economic controls over it. They largely failed, but only because of the great distance. Ireland was a different matter. It was just next door.

Have you never heard of Prime Minister William Pitt’s policy as introduced into Parliament in May of 1785? Ireland was not allowed to trade with other countries if that trade conflicted with Britain’s own trading company. Pitt also destroyed Ireland’s budding manufacturing companies by helping to dump cheaper British goods there. The Irish merchant shippers were wiped out by the competition underwritten by Pitt’s administration. Is all of this news to you? Did you know that by the 1820s about a quarter of Ireland’s land was not used for any kind of productive work at all but instead was used merely for land speculation? Thus, no new farms, or manufacturing, would develop. The rest of the land in use was used almost solely to produce potatos or grains or horses or cattle or sheep. Most of that was exported by companies ultimately owned by or linked to London based merchants.

I guess you never heard of the report in mid 19th century from a British crown commission lead by the economist Nassau Senior? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_William_Senior

Senior figured out that there were more than 2 million unemplyed adults in Ireland. That means more adults were out of work than actually working.

Add to all of this that millions and millions of pounds went to England addresses (i.e. absentee landlords) as rental fees rather than staying in Ireland to actually be used in Ireland’s economy and you can see why the place was so terribly impoverished!

There were fewer than 40 hospitals serving a nation of 8,000,000 people. Think about that for a moment. The economy was so bad that there were fewer than 40 hospitals for a nation of 8,000,000 people. Can you imagine that?

You might want to look at Appendix 1.2, “De-Industrialisation by Region” in Ireland before and after the famine: explorations in economic history, 1800-1925 by Cormac Ó Gráda to get some idea of how complete the process was. It was British governmental policy.

“Only if enough of the “right” anecdotes gain credence.”

Nope.

“True. And how likely is it that all the unionists are going to cease to exist?”

Very likely. Remember, they will have to choose. If they choose to stay, they cease to be unionists. If they leave, they cease to be a problem. If they fight, they die and cease to be a problem.

“The palestinians would say the israeli occupation was the problem, so your analogy is utterly meaningless.”

Incorrect. The Irish do not care if the Protestants stay. The Palestinians want all the Israelis dead. There is an enormous difference there. Remember, the South has Protestant residents and citizens and there is no violence at all.

“Sure...because most of the Protestants were in Ulster.”

Most, but not all. My point still stands. There was no violence.

“There’s been plenty of violence there, or do you accept that it isn’t “part of Ireland”?”

There has been NO VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTANTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. It does not surprise me that there has been violence in the British controlled area against both Catholics and Protestants.

“In other words, the victory wasnt Total enough. See earlier point.”

If it were total, then it would be total. “wasnt Total enough” is like “a little bit pregnant.”

“You’re dreaming.”

Nope. There certainly would have been no Irish civil war, for instance.

” Look up “Ulster declaration”. If the British had granted Home rule in 1914 (as they would have been forced to do if WW1 hadn’t supervened) there would have been a full scale civil war.”

First of all, do you mean the Ulster Covenant? There are two Ulster Declarations. One was just in 1993. The other was a version of the Ulster Covenant - but was signed by WOMEN only. Also, the Ulster Covenant was in 1912 if I recall correctly, not 1914. And anyway, it’s irrelevant. I said, “If the British had freed ALL OF IRELAND,”. Notice how there was no unionist civil war when Britain pulled out of 26 counties? There wouldn’t have been when Britain pulled out of all 32 either. And if there were it would be two nations - Ireland and Britain - which would have put down the unionists. It might have been the best thing that could have happened. The trouble makers would have been killed or imprisoned. Britain and Ireland would have fought for a common purpose. And Ireland would have been free and united and there would be ZERO violence over the last 90 years. Honestly, I don’t think 80,000 unionists were interested in taking on the British army.

“How perfect they are.”

Perfect, no. But they were certainly better than the unionists of the British.

“The British were better friends to the natives than the US ever was. Witness Canada.”

They may very well have been.

“We were talking about what the US did, not neccesarily what happened in the US itself.”

Nope. I wrote: “What happened that was “worse” when the British left America? Oh, right. Nothing.” Clearly, I meant what happend IN AMERICA. Not in India, or China or Canada for that matter.

“But was ended in the British empire much earlier without the ideals supported by the revolutionaries”

The revolutionaries themselves might not have had much influence but there was a shared body of ideals. The Quakers were active abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic for instance. If you read John Oldfield’s Popular Politics and British Anti-Slavery: The Mobilisation of Public Opinion against the Slave Trade, you’ll see that the British were keen to use some of the same organizing and pamphleting techniques used by American and French revolutionaries.

“That depends if the Irish Nationalists are better, more humane, less vengeful and more accomodating people. In other words, if they are better. Which you have gone to some length to argue that they are.”

No, actually I don’t think it much matters whether they are better or not. The counties will fall under the control of Dublin - not any nationalist group.

“I’m sure that’s of enormous comfort to the families of the dead.”

I’m sure it isn’t. The simple fact is that this is a small war. Puny, in fact. That is just a fact.

“I wasn’t referring specifically to this one incident.”

I was. Go back and read what I wrote.

“Sorry, it is you who are using excuses.”

I made no excuse at all - while you made one to leave the thread. Don’t be dishonest.

“The issue at the point of discussion is not this particular incident...that is minor enough. The issue is that you specifically said quote “While the Protestants can easily burn down Irish Catholic homes and attack Catholic school girls with impunity, Catholics really aren’t attacking the Protestants in any significant way.“ And I’m sorry, that is just simply untrue.”

No, actually it is true. Where are the bombings NOW? Where are the assassinations NOW? There really are no SIGNIFICANT attacks against Protestants.

“How can you say that this is a “puny” war that has cost only a few thousand lives on all sides, and then deny that the god-fearing Catholics arent doing their share of it?”

1) I do not assume that the Irish groups attacking anyone are “god-fearing Catholics”. Most are admitted marxists. I have no idea if any of them really believe in God let alone fear Him.

2) I never denied that the Irish have killed people.

3) I just deny that this war is anything other than puny. The political issues might be huge, but the “war” is puny. There were never more than a few or several hundred terrorists on the Irish side at any one time since 1969. Only three thousand people have been killed in 40 years. On 911 3,000 were killed in the span of about three hours. Those terrorist attacks precipitated the invasion and occupation of two entire countries on the other side of the world. If that doesn’t put into perspective the puny size of the Northern Ireland “war” nothing will.

“Particularly as the IRA started all the bombing in “the troubles” back in the seventies in the first place!”

They did - after Bloody Sunday. If the British had left in 1920 or 1922, none of that would have happened. There would be no grieving families in Ireland or Britain today.

“It’s an obtuse argument.”

Not mine. And you’re not making an argument at all.

You wrote:

“You misunderstand scotsman. 3000 people is nothing to vlad, unless he can use it to bolster his argument as to the horrors of British “occupation”.”

Vanders, don’t lie. I never said 3000 people is nothing. I said that 3000 people over 40 years means this is a puny war. It is. 3,000 people died in ONE DAY on 9/11.

“When he wants to, he can right off 3000 people as a justification for opposing British “tyranny”.”

I am not writing it off. I am just putting it into the proper perspective: 3,000 over 40 years is a puny “war”. Britain lost 60,000 in one day at the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

“The end justifies the means, you see.”

Vanders, you seem to be getting desperate. You can lie all you like about what I wrote or didn’t write, but it only makes that desperation seem ever more obvious.

Apologies, in our tete a tete about the wider issue, I thought you were referring to police deaths during the Troubles.

My stupid mistake, apologies.

No problem! :)

'There has been NO VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTANTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.' I beg to differ. 'In the border counties (Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth), there were instances of Protestants being intimidated by more extreme neighbours and groups, most notably the IRA. There are records of Protestant farmers in these areas being attacked. Many of these Protestants responded by leaving their homes and moving across the border into Northern Ireland. This also contributed to the Protestant decline between 1911 and 1926.' http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html The fate of Cork unionists 1919-1921 'Introduction In 1919 the Unionist community in County Cork was prosperous, numerous and committed in varying degrees to the Unionist cause. They had their own newspaper, held parades and maintained a complex social system. Yet by 1923 their community lay decimated, torn asunder by a campaign of murder and intimidation and forced into a supposedly "Free State" which did little to protect them. What brought about such cataclysmic changes? How was the campaign of murder conducted and for what reasons? http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm 'The June of 1922 saw one of the vilest acts against humanity committed by the Republican movement. An event took place just outside of Newry involving the slaughter of nine people which became deeply embedded on the psyche of local people - The Altnaveigh Massacre. The murders were coordinated by Frank Aiken, who went on to become External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister in the Republic during the fifties under De Valera. He continued in the Irish cabinet until 1969. A South Armagh man from a strongly republican village, Aiken showed "no compunction about shooting unarmed Protestants". ' http://www.victims.org.uk/altnaveigh.html A timely reminder of the Irish Republic's brush with a kind of ethnic cleansing 'Most of those who left were either frightened by IRA attacks or unwilling to live in a state with a dominant Catholic ethos By Fergal Keane' 'By the time I was a teenager, the Protestants of the republic were no longer regarded, by most of us anyway, as part of some strange aristocracy. Except among the wilder elements of republicanism there was little attempt to visit the sins of the Cromwellian past on the descendants of the original settlers. Yet in the years since the foundation of the state, the number of Protestants in the south had dwindled from 10 to 3 per cent of the total population. Most of those who left did so during the period described in The Story Of Lucy Gault, either frightened by IRA and vigilante attacks or unwilling to live in a state that would have a dominant Catholic ethos. In parts of County Cork, Protestants were subjected to a brutal campaign of sectarian violence. The ethnic cleansing of the Bandon Valley is one of the most odious chapters in our history, though I learned nothing about it at school. It took a Canadian academic, Peter Harte, to reveal the full savagery of the assault in his book The IRA And its Enemies.' http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/a-timely-reminder-of-the-irish-republics-brush-with-a-kind-of-ethnic-cleansing-643879.html Speak it in a whisper: Irish ethnic cleansing 'An attempt to retell the story of the murder and sacking of the Protestant family is still a taboo, writes Sarah Caden' http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/speak-it-in-a-whisper--irish-ethnic-cleansing-1200486.html 'The number of Protestants declined sharply in the Irish Free State and in its successor state, �ire. Irish Republican Army IRA ethnic cleansing in the 1920s drove many families away, the IRA in the process burning many historic homes.' http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/unionists__ireland_.html 'In 1989 the influential Dublin magazine Magill printed figures showing that between the census of 1911 – the last to precede the Treaty – and 1981, the Protestant population of the 26 Counties fell by 63%. The drop up to 1989 it estimated at 68%. The causes of this dramatic decrease – from 10% in 1911 to 3.4% in 1981 and about 2.5% by the late 1980s – were listed as "alienation from the ethos of the State, emigration, and, over latter decades, mixed marriages". The Roman Catholic Church's decree, backed by the Courts, that children in mixed marriages must be brought up as Roman Catholics, created "social and cultural apartheid" which "more often than not, heralded the end of the line for Protestant families".4 The single biggest drop in Protestant numbers, says the magazine, occurred between 1911 and 1926, when a third of the Protestant population left the State – and the main factor in forcing them out is nowhere mentioned by Dr. FitzGerald: widespread intimidation and the burning of their properties. After the Nationalists obtained possession of the 26 Counties in 1921, the pogrom against Protestants resembled the massacre of 1641 under Phelim O'Neill and the mass murder of Protestants during the 1798 Rebellion, when the systematic extermination of Protestants became a contagious disease. Within three or four years 146,000 Protestants had to flee from the new Irish State. Many more were murdered before they could manage to escape. There were 30 Orange Lodges in the city of Dublin, four District Lodges, a City Grand Lodge, Trinity College Grand Lodge, and seven Preceptories. Within a few months not a single one of them had survived. The Irish Government commandeered the magnificent Orange Hall in Dublin and used it as a Post Office. Many Protestant churches were closed for want of a congregation; numerous others had to be amalgamated. As the 1920s progressed, the anti-Protestant sectarianism of the new State increased. A memorable instance was the attempt in 1925 to outlaw divorce – which the poet W.B. Yeats, then a member of the Irish Senate, described as "a measure which a minority of this nation considers to be grossly offensive".' http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=treatment AND there historically HAS been discrimination against Protestants in the south. A fact only now being publicly acknowledged in the ROI... 'Until recently, there was discrimination against Protestants in the labour market of the Republic of Ireland. For example, Trinity College, although a Dublin University, was mainly attended by Protestants. (Even today it is a stronghold of Irish Unionism.) In many jobs, Trinity College was not accepted as a source of education, so applicants who had attended Trinity were automatically rejected. This had the effect of preventing most Protestants from applying for the jobs. There are other, more specific, cases of discrimination. For example county Clare library service was told by the Irish President, Eamonn de Valera, that it should employ a Catholic chief librarian. This discrimination meant that many Irish Protestants had to migrate to Northern Ireland or Britain to seek employment. This also contributed to the trend between 1926 and 1991.' http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html 'Notice how there was no unionist civil war when Britain pulled out of 26 counties? There wouldn’t have been when Britain pulled out of all 32 either.' WRONG. There was no civil war because Britain kept the six northern counties, where the vast majority of Protestants lived. Had they tried to give up those six and therefore all 32, all hell would have broken loose.

‘In the border counties (Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth), there were instances of Protestants being intimidated by more extreme neighbours and groups, most notably the IRA. There are records of Protestant farmers in these areas being attacked. Many of these Protestants responded by leaving their homes and moving across the border into Northern Ireland. This also contributed to the Protestant decline between 1911 and 1926.’

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

‘The June of 1922 saw one of the vilest acts against humanity committed by the Republican movement. An event took place just outside of Newry involving the slaughter of nine people which became deeply embedded on the psyche of local people - The Altnaveigh Massacre.

The murders were coordinated by Frank Aiken, who went on to become External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister in the Republic during the fifties under De Valera. He continued in the Irish cabinet until 1969. A South Armagh man from a strongly republican village, Aiken showed “no compunction about shooting unarmed Protestants”.’

http://www.victims.org.uk/altnaveigh.html