Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Skydancer on July 28, 2005, 02:29:12 PM
-
So thats one battle in the war on terror won!
Wonder when they will apologise for their murder campaign and when those who funded them will do likewise?
-
when are you guys goona apologize for the genocide carried out on catholics? or, for that matter, Cromwell?
-
So, apart from "resolving terror campaigns can provide another opportunity for transatlantic sniping", what are the lessons to be learned?
-
My personal guess is that the IRA would rather make up with the rest of the UK than be lumped together with a bunch of islamofascist terrorists. Seriously, nobody in their right mind wants to end up on the receiving end of the GWOT. Being a target in the Global War on Terror is a badge of pride for the religious nutjob terrorists, but an honest western revolutionary wants no part of that because most of the world sees the typical "terrorist" as an object of pity just as much as a threat to be stamped out. The IRA has a much different agenda and that agenda would be crippled if people start thinking of them as a bunch of backwards brainwashed religious freaks.
Whether or not you agree with the IRA's position and regardless of what has gone on in the past, the IRA must distance themselves from the rest of the terrorist whackos. If that means giving up violent forms of protest and pursuing other means to get what they feel is right and just, then that sounds good to me regardless of their motivations.
WMD (weapons of mass disney) have no effect on the IRA, so they're mostly immune to the threat that "western" society poses to the islamofascists, so they'll do just fine without resorting to killing people and blowing up stuff. The terrorists who rely on a radical anti-everything religious foundation face a formidable challenge and they're not going to give up any of their options because there really is nobody else they could be lumped together with that they'd find so distasteful.
Now if only Israel and the Palestinians could find some sort of solution, then it would be clear that there is only one real violent group of nutjobs on the loose, and everyone including mainstream (legitimate) islamic states would lend a hand wiping them out.
-
As the son of an Irish-American mother, and a catholic, I take exception to hang's statement.
There certainly has been prejudice and oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland, but in recent decades that has been a result of IRA violence and polarization of the community. Interesting, since most IRA leaders espouse a socialist, ant-religion platform, that most of the world sees the fight as "catholic" against "protestant". It's not--it is a pure revolutionary power struggle for independance.
And check the facts about our boy Cromwell. He was in Ireland for less than a year, and didn't kill indiscriminately. Yes, there were a couple of massacres, but he was no worse than the local leaders.
-
Wonder if ETA will follow lead?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Wonder when they will apologise for their murder campaign and when those who funded them will do likewise?
When does the UK apologize their oppression in Ireland?
...and there we go again, when people gets aggressive over the issue whos the one that owes the apology.
How about being happy of the peace, instead?
I'm sure the murdered people would rather choose the peace and good relations, rather than stir it up by requiring an apology in a situation in which both are guilty in a way or another.
Look to the future, not in the past.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
As the son of an Irish-American mother, and a catholic, I take exception to hang's statement.
There certainly has been prejudice and oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland, but in recent decades that has been a result of IRA violence and polarization of the community. Interesting, since most IRA leaders espouse a socialist, ant-religion platform, that most of the world sees the fight as "catholic" against "protestant". It's not--it is a pure revolutionary power struggle for independance.
And check the facts about our boy Cromwell. He was in Ireland for less than a year, and didn't kill indiscriminately. Yes, there were a couple of massacres, but he was no worse than the local leaders.
Sorry for any percieved slight. The point being, an apology is no more forthcoming for the british than it is for the irish. Both sides have laid down there arms.. it's over. Asking for an apology is just another insult.
-
Originally posted by eagl
My personal guess is that the IRA would rather make up with the rest of the UK than be lumped together with a bunch of islamofascist terrorists. The IRA has a much different agenda and that agenda would be crippled if people start thinking of them as a bunch of backwards brainwashed religious freaks.
Whether or not you agree with the IRA's position and regardless of what has gone on in the past, the IRA must distance themselves from the rest of the terrorist whackos. If that means giving up violent forms of protest and pursuing other means to get what they feel is right and just, then that sounds good to me regardless of their motivations.
Spot on.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So thats one battle in the war on terror won!
Wonder when they will apologise for their murder campaign and when those who funded them will do likewise?
Im sure my Grandmother & great grandmother would be asking the same thing about the UK government.
-
And thats the rub. whatever you think of Britain and whether or not Ulster is part of it or Ireland. Blowing up innocent women and children is not defensible. If it isn't defensible for muslims to do it it isn't defensible for the IRA either.
Yes I'm happy that that episode is hopefully over.But I'm
sorry it makes me damned mad that whilst rightly condeming arab or muslim terror, Irish terrorism is condoned and was funded by people in a nation that was supposed to be our ally. That totaly stinks and disgusts me. The very worst kind of hypocracy.
-
What was the name of the protestant version of the IRA? I know that there were in effect 2 groups in conflict (outside of the British Army) both the "orange" and the "green"(?). All I hear about anymore is the IRA.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
And thats the rub. whatever you think of Britain and whether or not Ulster is part of it or Ireland. Blowing up innocent women and children is not defensible. If it isn't defensible for muslims to do it it isn't defensible for the IRA either.
Yes I'm happy that that episode is hopefully over.But I'm
sorry it makes me damned mad that whilst rightly condeming arab or muslim terror, Irish terrorism is condoned and was funded by people in a nation that was supposed to be our ally. That totaly stinks and disgusts me. The very worst kind of hypocracy.
And there it is. Like every other one of his posts, it's all about blaming the US. Go troll somewhere else.
-
The IRA wasn't funded by the US government.
Yes, there were US citizens, particularly those of Irish descent, that gave money and support to the IRA. Much like there are British citizens that support A-Q and the Muslim terrorists that would strike the US. (Richard Reid.)
I think you'll find in retrospect, however, that US government involvement was in the "peacemaker" role.
I'm not going to slam the entire population of GB because there are British citizens that support A-Q and actively try to strike US targets.
But feel free to condemn all US citizens because some support/supported the IRA.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
But I'm sorry it makes me damned mad that whilst rightly condeming arab or muslim terror, Irish terrorism is condoned and was funded by people in a nation that was supposed to be our ally. That totaly stinks and disgusts me. The very worst kind of hypocracy.
London underground bombings were "condoned and funded by people in a nation that" is your country. Although I understand it to be a very, very small minority of British subjects who believe in Jihad and I do know that the vast majority of your citizenry was appalled as were the vast majority of Americans. I do hold the view that this minority viewpoint does not speak for the British people.
I salute the British for keeping their legendary stiff upper lip and I thank those who have finally seen the tactics of terror to be fultile.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
And there it is. Like every other one of his posts, it's all about blaming the US. Go troll somewhere else.
And there it is. A kneejerk reaction. He didn't say it was funded by the government. There always has been a sizable private fundrasing campaign in the US for the IRA.
Toad got it right.
-
Originally posted by rpm
And there it is. A kneejerk reaction. He didn't say it was funded by the government.
Neither did Funked.
-
the only meaningful way to protest is peaceful resistance..great to see them change face.
maybe there is hope afterall..?
-
Lets say England occupied the northern US during the War of 1812. For the next 190 years, an invader is camped in our Cities.
Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
I'm glad the current mouthpiece for the IRA has brought armed resistance to an end.. one would hope the English will follow suit and get off their Island.
I'm NOT taking sides.. just trying to point out there's two sides to the story.
Peace.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Lets say England occupied the northern US during the War of 1812. For the next 190 years, an invader is camped in our Cities.
Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
I'm glad the current mouthpiece for the IRA has brought armed resistance to an end.. one would hope the English will follow suit and get off their Island.
I'm NOT taking sides.. just trying to point out there's two sides to the story.
Peace.
Hey!! we stole that land fair and square!!
We still own a bit of Spain our Royal Marines stole for us too
-
I never did say that the US govt funded the IRA though some pretty influential people did.
For those who are claiming they were fighting a war ( at least thats what you seem to infer ) try telling that to the little boy in Warrington, or the women and children of Omagh or Birmingham or London.
For those that claim there are two sides to every story try applying the same principle when discussing the decacle in Iraq
or Al Quaedas aims. There is only one valid side to a story involving terrorism against innocent people and that is the side that is right.
It is galling to sit and watch the news about Islamic terror. Watch US politicians making grand speeches, then in the next item watch other US politicians acting as apologists for a terrorist organisation.
So its wrong to blow up families and kids and innocent people if you have a brown face or are a muslim, but if you are catholic and Irish thats Ok? Come on.
I'm not trolling I'm just mad when I see that kind of stuff.
Senator Kennedy and others should be deeply ashamed and yeah they owe those families they've given money to help destroy an apology.
As for the Protestant paramillitary groups. Yes they are just as bad. Racist thugs with guns. But I don't recall them planting bombs ( could be wrong)
I'm glad the IRA have ended it. Shame it took them so long and so many lives were lost before they realised that blowing up British people won't get you anywhere. Lets hope those equaly evil Muslim extremists realise too.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
Good idea cos no-one I've ever met who objects to the British being in Ireland ever has, to my knowledge.
In a small suburb that I don't recall the name of there is a protestant area and a few years ago (not many) the primary (elementary) school in that area was closed down, the children (some as young as 5) found that in order to get to their new school they had to walk through a catholic area. The people in said area (not children this time) took exception to this and thought it would be a good idea to stone these children as they ran past on the way to school.
These days the British army escorts these kids.
Ask them how they feel.
We're not there as an occuping force anymore Hang, we're there to stop them killing each other because of religion and if you actually ask anyone from Northern Ireland you'll find most are quite happy with the situation. Everyone from Northern Ireland I've ever met has been a well sorted individual who likes to take the mickey out of southside Dubliners who seem to think there's a wall.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
My personal guess is that the IRA would rather make up with the rest of the UK than be lumped together with a bunch of islamofascist terrorists. The IRA has a much different agenda and that agenda would be crippled if people start thinking of them as a bunch of backwards brainwashed religious freaks.
It didn't stop the IRA from taking Libyan money and weapons in the past...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Lets say England occupied the northern US during the War of 1812. For the next 190 years, an invader is camped in our Cities.
Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
I'm glad the current mouthpiece for the IRA has brought armed resistance to an end.. one would hope the English will follow suit and get off their Island.
I'm NOT taking sides.. just trying to point out there's two sides to the story.
Peace.
Hang the majority of the people in northern ireland consider themself british and wish to remain British. Telling them to "get off their island" is like the native americans telling every US citizen to get of their island. It aint gonna happen because they see it as theirs and it isn't ok to start blowing up civilians over it.
-
Lets say England occupied the northern US during the War of 1812. For the next 190 years, an invader is camped in our Cities.
We did occupy some of North America, after independence the US went on to occupy much of the rest. You're still occupying it, by your definition.
Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
Ask a native American how he feels about US occupation.
I'm glad the current mouthpiece for the IRA has brought armed resistance to an end.. one would hope the English will follow suit and get off their Island.
Just as soon as the majority in Northern Ireland want us to leave, we will.
Does the US apply the same principle? For example, if the majority in Hawaii wanted the US occupation to end, would it?
I'm NOT taking sides.. just trying to point out there's two sides to the story.
Oh, there certainly are two sides. There's one side that says the fuiture of Northern Ireland should be decided by the people of Northern Ireland at the ballot box, there's another that says because the majority are against them, they will murder people to get what they want.
The IRA wasn't funded by the US government.
No, but the US government allowed the funding of the IRA to continue, even after getting Noraid to declare that they were an agent of the IRA, and that's where the money went, they allowed them to keep on collecting it and sending it to fund terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
In a small suburb that I don't recall the name of there is a protestant area and a few years ago (not many) the primary (elementary) school in that area was closed down, the children (some as young as 5) found that in order to get to their new school they had to walk through a catholic area. The people in said area (not children this time) took exception to this and thought it would be a good idea to stone these children as they ran past on the way to school.
Either there was more than one incident of mongrels stonning school kids or you have things around the wrong way... not saying it hasn't happened but I havn't heard of catholics stonning protestant schoolgirls.
'The world is watching in disbelief.' So said Northern Ireland security minister Jane Kennedy, as the dispute in north Belfast over the route to a Catholic girls' school erupted into violence on Monday 3 September 2001.
The Holy Cross Catholic primary school is located in a Protestant-dominated area in north Belfast - and images of schoolgirls crying as their parents protected them from Protestants shouting abuse and hurling stones sent shockwaves around the world.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D219.htm
Excel
-
Yep, ok, the other way around then.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
I think Nashwan's post is the required reading in this thread.
The romantic fantasy of balaclava clad, AK-47 toting, pub-bombing freedom fighters fighting for an oppressed majority so popular in the States pre-911 needs to be laid to rest.
-
It was the previous administration that took Sinn Fein off the "foreign terrorist organisation" list of the US State Department. This was in 1994 after the start of peace efforts in Northern Ireland, when Gerry Adams was allowed to travel to the US.
In May of 2001 the US State Department officially designated the Real IRA as a foreign terrorist organisation.
I think it's clear there's been a change in US policy.
-
Oh, as for all the rest of it, it's the old "well, it all depends on when you stole the land".
It seems everyone feels that stealing land from the indigenous population was/is a bad thing and that it shouldn't go on anymore. Seems everyone agrees to that.
The differences appear when timelines are discussed. Stealing land was "OK" when we did it but it was bad when you did it.
Thus, you should have to give the land back or make reparations while we should not have to do that.
Everyone seems to use the same argument, they just change who the "we" and "you" are.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Ask a native American how he feels about US occupation.
As a human with Pima heritage, I would like to say that I am a citizen of the United States of America and I have no problem with the fact that my country exists on the North American land mass.
We should all realize that the native lifesytle of the original Americans was on it's way out had Jackson forced the Cherokee to Oklahoma or not. Or perhaps modern populations should abandon all lands once occupied by the Celts, the Austrailian Aborigials, as a matter of fact we should have guilt that the Cro-Magnon displaced the Neanderthal.
-
We already gave em back the South, it just happens that the North didn't want to go.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As a human with Pima heritage, I would like to say that I am a citizen of the United States of America and I have no problem with the fact that my country exists on the North American land mass. [/B]
I challenge the 'human' part of that statement. Anyone that displays the most perfect bellybutton I've ever set eyes on as an avatar is likely an alien.
an evil one, at that.
-
Which is kind of like saying the North Dakotans, South Dakotans, Nebraskans, Kansans and Oklahomans didn't want to give their land back to the Native Americans.
How suprising, eh? ;)
-
As far as natives go...I don't think anyone stole land from them in our lifetime...i believe if you are born in a nation you are every bit as "native" as they are.
claiming that whitey ripped you off is true..if you read a history book...saying that the rest of us natives should pay for that is wrong.
evryone more or less has the same rights now...
if you want to retain a certain culture..that's great!
Go for it and good luck.
-
Exactly. It's all about "when".
If my parents stole your land from you but I was born here... then I'm every bit as much a native as you are and the land is mine. ;)
-
I'm sorry, but I just don't get the sympathy for terrorists not even fighting for their own people that seems to exist here.
You'll lay out the hate for the Palistinian terrorists even though they are directing their terror attacks against an nation occupying land against the wishes of those on that land and then turn around and make excuses for the IRA who attacked a country that was in a location at the wishes of those living there.
Why?
If terrorists are universally bad, then the IRA must needs be condemned just as strongly as all the rest. If terrorists come in shades of grey, then surely the Palistinian terrorists who are actually opposing an unpopular occupation would be the lighter shade of grey, no?
If not that, then you need to explain your inconsistant view of terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
If terrorists are universally bad, then the IRA must needs be condemned just as strongly as all the rest.
Who is not condemning the IRA?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Who is not condemning the IRA?
It seems to me that some of the condemnations are coming with qualifications that we'd never see on this board for other terrorists.
Imagine this if Al-Quaeda publicly annouced it was laying down its arms:
"Yes Al-Quaeda is bad, but you know the Americans did things that provoked them. Lets just let bygones be bygones."
To me that sounds exactly like:
"Now, ask an Irishman how he feels about British occupation.
I'm glad the current mouthpiece for the IRA has brought armed resistance to an end.. one would hope the English will follow suit and get off their Island.
I'm NOT taking sides.. just trying to point out there's two sides to the story."
It is conditioning the condemnation when there wasn't the slightest excuse for what the IRA was doing after the Republic of Ireland was freed from British rule. Before that they'd have had the same justification as the Palistinians, and have been just as wrong if they used the tactics of blowing up civilians.
I don't like the romatic view of the IRA that lends even slight legitimacy to them or the misconception that the people in Nothern Ireland wanted the British out. If that had been the case the British would have left it at the same time as the rest of Ireland.
-
Would seem your comparison depends on the acceptance of "two Irelands" as the "natural" state of affairs.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Would seem your comparison depends on the acceptance of "two Irelands" as the "natural" state of affairs.
I leave that to the voters of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and they have thus far endorsed that state of affairs. If they change their tune, I expect the British to leave.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The IRA wasn't funded by the US government.
Yes, there were US citizens, particularly those of Irish descent, that gave money and support to the IRA. Much like there are British citizens that support A-Q and the Muslim terrorists that would strike the US. (Richard Reid.)
I'm not going to slam the entire population of GB because there are British citizens that support A-Q and actively try to strike US targets.
I think the main complaint was that it was going on with full knowledge of the US Government and whatever requests the British Government made it wasn't taken all that seriously until 9/11 when terrorism became 'unpopular'. (talking about the Police/security forces turning a blind eye to what was going on).
Originally posted by Karnak
I leave that to the voters of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and they have thus far endorsed that state of affairs. If they change their tune, I expect the British to leave.
And that is how it should be; democracy. Britain has encouraged independance throughout it's commonwealth countries and those that still have the Queen as Head of State. I know a lot of Northern Irish people and their passports state 'British' and they're all proud of it. As with any nation, Britain has a duty to protect its subjects and that includes those in Northern Ireland.
-
Actually, I think it was the Libyan bombing of the Berlin disco which was the turning point for the US 'winking' at IRA support.
"Please Mrs. Thatcher, we need to use your airspace so our government can strike at people who think it's just peachy to blow up our citizens anytime, anywhere."
"Well, Mr. Reagan, on that note, it just so happens we share a common interest in anti-terrorism."
-
Its also worth pointing out that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to stop the protestant population burning the catholics out of house and home. Infact the catholic population requested that the government sent troops to protect them.
All I'm saying is please root out the hypocracy. Terrorism is terrorism and it is no solution. It grates on many British people that we have been fighting a "war on terror" for the last 30 years or more. A terror sponsored by and paid for by US citizens both high and low as well as others. Those people have the blood of British families on their hands! Don't be suprised that some of us are a bit P O, d about that.
-
Just need the rest of the Nationalist and Loyalist groups to disarm now. However, if Northern Ireland became a united Ireland, and predominantly Catholic, then I wouldn't be surprised if the Loyalist Protestant faction to start bombing again.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Just need the rest of the Nationalist and Loyalist groups to disarm now. However, if Northern Ireland became a united Ireland, and predominantly Catholic, then I wouldn't be surprised if the Loyalist Protestant faction to start bombing again.
Honestly, I expect that eventually, as population balances shift, Northern Ireland will eventually be united with Ireland and then, yes, I'd be not at all surprised to see the Orangemen start the whole bloody mess all over again. Really very sad that people think they can inflict their will on a people who have made a democratic decision by blowing up random menbers of that people.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'm sorry, but I just don't get the sympathy for terrorists not even fighting for their own people that seems to exist here.
There is no "one man's terrorist is another man's freedon fighter"
While civilians may have died I do not recall the French Resistance, 40-45, blowing up schools , buses or market places.
The deliberate targeting of civilians is terrorism no matter the cause. With most of these people it is not the cause as much as it is the killing. They would find some other cause to kill for.
One only needs to look at India. They achieved their goals without violence. If the Palestinians had taken the same track they would have their country today.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I leave that to the voters of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and they have thus far endorsed that state of affairs. If they change their tune, I expect the British to leave.
Well, the "voters" of all Ireland never really got a chance to speak on the issue did they? The Act of Union was not put up for popular vote and there are allegations of massive bribery in the Irish Parliament to get it passed.
The Government of Ireland Act in 1920 introduced by the government of David Lloyd George, divided Ireland into two territories. I don't think that one was up for popular vote either. In fact, it led to the Irish Civil War of 1922-23.
So, "two Irelands" is not really the result of any popular vote is it?
Again, it all comes down to WHEN the land was stolen. The stealers always say it was OK when they did it but not OK anymore. Or perhaps that it wasn't OK then but what's done is done and can't be undone now. The ones stolen from say it was never OK.
And this is true all around the world in all these cases of stealing.
-
Toad,
I don't know if it has ever been put to a popular vote in Ireland, but it has in Northern Ireland. In addition I have seen polls of Ireland and it wouldn't come close to passing there either. In any case it needs to be both. Ireland should not be able to force Northern Ireland to join it and Northern Ireland should not be able to force itself on Ireland.
Also keep in mind that if Northern Ireland had joined the Republic of Ireland in the '70s, the IRA would simply have turned to trying to overthrow the Irish government so as to establish a Marxist state.
The fact is that the two Irelands are the way the people in Ireland want it right now. The IRA didn't like that and so took to blowing people up. I'm not saying the Brit's hands are not stained, but the IRA had no justification at all.
-
Karnak, I might say that the fact that the entire West is part of the US is the way people want it right now.
However, I think if everyone who lived West of the Mississippi had voted on that prior to Lewis and Clark's expedition the results would be a little different.
Could it be that something similar could be said about Ireland?
Like I said, it's all about WHEN the stealing happened.
-
I've actually heard more comments recently that the ROI won't want to take back NI now because it's flourishing in the EU (more so than NI). Okay, Britain built up NI and it has a lot of industry/factories, but a unified Ireland would have to convert to the Euro, design and implement a united kind of emblem for all government agencies etc., plus a lot of other internal changes to how things are run. In other words, it would cost a hell of a lot of money for it to happen.
The UK used to have around 20,000 troops over in NI. I'm not sure of the figure now because they've already withdrawn some troops already. They also run the main airfield/airport, so money for that would have to come from somewhere too.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I never did say that the US govt funded the IRA though some pretty influential people did.
For those who are claiming they were fighting a war ( at least thats what you seem to infer ) try telling that to the little boy in Warrington, or the women and children of Omagh or Birmingham or London.
For those that claim there are two sides to every story try applying the same principle when discussing the decacle in Iraq
or Al Quaedas aims. There is only one valid side to a story involving terrorism against innocent people and that is the side that is right.
It is galling to sit and watch the news about Islamic terror. Watch US politicians making grand speeches, then in the next item watch other US politicians acting as apologists for a terrorist organisation.
So its wrong to blow up families and kids and innocent people if you have a brown face or are a muslim, but if you are catholic and Irish thats Ok? Come on.
I'm not trolling I'm just mad when I see that kind of stuff.
Senator Kennedy and others should be deeply ashamed and yeah they owe those families they've given money to help destroy an apology.
As for the Protestant paramillitary groups. Yes they are just as bad. Racist thugs with guns. But I don't recall them planting bombs ( could be wrong)
I'm glad the IRA have ended it. Shame it took them so long and so many lives were lost before they realised that blowing up British people won't get you anywhere. Lets hope those equaly evil Muslim extremists realise too.
Which US politicians are supporting IRA terror? Please, give specific examples and quotes. Are any of them in a position to directly determine US policy? (the answer is "no" to that, btw).
If an American politician makes statements supporting the killing of innocents, be certain that he/she will be taken to task in the press and at the polls for it. But our constitution guarantees their right to say anything they want. Statements made by elected representatives are NOT government policy over here, and I believe the same holds true over there.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, it's all about WHEN the stealing happened.
I think that's irrelevent now. It's happened; it's just part of Anglo Irish history. Although they recently voted, there will come another time where the people of Northern Ireland will vote to see if they want to remain a part of the United Kingdom. If they vote that they want out it will then go to a Republic of Ireland vote to see whether they want Northern Ireland to be part of a bigger 'united' Ireland. Then there would be a General Election to bring in a new government for the 'united' Ireland. In all honesty I can't see anything changing for another 20 years.
-
With respect, Replicant, that's exactly what those who did the stealing always say.
It's what we in the US say about taking the entire middle of the continent starting from the time of European government involvement here until the US government took the "lower 48" states.
All I'm saying is that while all of us who have benefited from the taking of land trot out the old "what's done is done" explanation, I can also understand those that lost land saying "hey... it's not DONE... that land was MINE!"
I don't know how to fix it... after all, what's done is done. But I also realize there are going to be some people that never accept what was done.
-
Well, if all stolen lands were returned then the world would be a different place. For example, where would the USA go? Ask the Red Indian's if they could stay there? Countries have always been invaded, way before we held a moral ground. It's just how 'things' were done whether we like it or not. The UK has been invaded loads and loads of times since the original Briton's and Celts.
-
My point exactly; it's all about "when".
-
rshubert, I found this which was quite interesting (old article from 2001/2?):
Financial returns that Friends of Sinn Fein, its fundraising arm, are about to lodge with the US Justice Department show that the republicans received more than $600,000 between November 2000 and last April. This averages about $100,000 (about £69,000) a month, one of the most lucrative six-month periods since a ban on fundraising was lifted, and was mainly raised through a dinner attended by Gerry Adams last year in New York. Sinn Fein/IRA has declared that they have raised about $5m in America since 1995, the real figure raised for the overall republican cause and spent on weapons may never be known. We the victims of terrorism in Ireland from both communities call upon the Bush Administration to return the IRA to the list of international terrorist organisations and to call a halt to their fundraising, which has led to the deaths of thousands in Ireland. Full Article (http://www.victims.org.uk/iracomrades.html[/url)
Interesting links at the bottom of the following article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,11008,636441,00.html
-
Originally posted by Toad
Karnak, I might say that the fact that the entire West is part of the US is the way people want it right now.
However, I think if everyone who lived West of the Mississippi had voted on that prior to Lewis and Clark's expedition the results would be a little different.
Could it be that something similar could be said about Ireland?
Like I said, it's all about WHEN the stealing happened.
Understood, but like with the Louisiana Purchase, that is long out of living memory. What matters to me is the people living there now, not in the 1600s.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Understood, but like with the Louisiana Purchase, that is long out of living memory. What matters to me is the people living there now, not in the 1600s.
Yep. That's the key. If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
It is galling to sit and watch the news about Islamic terror. Watch US politicians making grand speeches, then in the next item watch other US politicians acting as apologists for a terrorist organisation.
The old evil U.S. empire out to getcha again there Skylilter? :)
-
Nope.
Just think that funding terrorists is wrong and worse when the source of the funds is a country allied to us!
Same as I'm sure you must feel as I do about Muslim communities in Europe backing Islamist terror.
Americans funding the IRA are the same as British Muslims backing Al Quaeda.
Rotten scumbags the lot of em.
-
Just a couple of points, corrections really.
Skydancer;As for the Protestant paramillitary groups. Yes they are just as bad. Racist thugs with guns. But I don't recall them planting bombs ( could be wrong)
You are wrong, they did plant bombs. Never bothered with warnings either. In fact the worst single atrocity until the 1998 Omagh bomb was perpretrated by them, not in Northern Ireland but the Republic, with simultaneous bombs in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974. 33 people dead. There are persistent but unproven reports they had help from elements in the British security services. British terrorists.
SwoopWe already gave em back the South, it just happens that the North didn't want to go.
You didn't give it back. We took it back with using guerrilla warfare that became a model for other countries seeking independance. Northern Ireland was artificially created to ensure a Unionist majority. It's worth pointing out that the majority of the people of Ireland consistently voted for home rule within Britain during the 19th century, not independance. As did the the House of Commons in London. This was constantly blocked by the Unionist/Conservative dominated House of Lords until 1914. So much for democracy.
karnakThe fact is that the two Irelands are the way the people in Ireland want it right now. The IRA didn't like that and so took to blowing people up. I'm not saying the Brit's hands are not stained, but the IRA had no justification at all.
Not quite, I think what we have right now is an acceptance of the status quo and a rejection of terrorism as a means of achieving the perfectly legitimate goal of a united Ireland. The IRA did not in fact start the trouble in 1969. They actually failed to protect the Catholic population when the Protestant mobs and the Police attacked Catholic areas. They were sneeringly referred to as IRA I Ran Away. The British army were brought in to protect the Catholics. They fought many gun battles with loyalist (ironic that) terrorists. The British army fighting British terrorists.
Later the newly constituted Provisional IRA began to attack the British Army which was in effect a copy of the original guerrila war in the 1920's. Many were idealists but soon they became the straightforward terrorists. In a further irony, virtually all of them are in fact British citizens. More British terrorists.
An interesting point in regard to the British army was made by Gerry Adams recently. There are more British soldiers in NI than in Iraq.
Just on the point of supposed US support for the IRA. Yes some Americans did support the IRA. But the US government never did and there are many instances of positive American help to end the problems. In fact both sides courted the US government as a sort of honest broker. Actually it is difficult to envisage the current peace process without American help. Blaming the US is unwarranted. The blame lies elsewhere.
You know, at this stage whether or not Northern Ireland rejoins the rest of Ireland or remains under the control of Britain is not particularly important to most people north or south. As long as you can live your life without fear of intimidation or sectarianism or bigotry. Being British was never really a problem for the Irish. Not being able to control their own affairs was. It is quite likely that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for the forseeable future if it becomes peaceful and prosperous. The British taxpayer of course will have to continue subsidising NI for many years to come for that to happen.
Many Catholics even now are quite happy to be British and Irish. They would vote that way too if there was no fear of a return to old Unionist supremacy and discrimation. But look who the Unionist population voted for in the last election, the Reverend Ian Paisley. A fire breathing old style bigot. The Catholics voted for Sinn Fein. Not much meeting of minds there.
But look, at the end of the day, the IRA finally woke up and smelt the coffee. War didn't work and never would have. Politics is the way ahead. It's a belated recognition. But they made the leap.
Let's just forget about the blame game. We should decommision our bitterness the way the IRA are dumping their guns. Much as I hate the IRA. I recognise they did the right thing at last.
This war is over although another more dangerous one has started.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
You didn't give it back. We took it back with using guerrilla warfare that became a model for other countries seeking independance. Northern Ireland was artificially created to ensure a Unionist majority. It's worth pointing out that the majority of the people of Ireland consistently voted for home rule within Britain during the 19th century, not independance. As did the the House of Commons in London. This was constantly blocked by the Unionist/Conservative dominated House of Lords until 1914. So much for democracy.
I'd like to know your source cos this is different to the history I learned. The 'home rule act' (put forth originally by Gladstone - the British Prime Minister) was blocked in the house of Lords due to backhanders from rich Irish businessmen who had the most to lose.
On 21 January 1919, the IRA shot dead 2 Irish policemen in county Tipperary, and this marked the beginning of what is now known as the War of Independence. The Catholic church condemned the IRA, and the locals, who knew exactly who the IRA men involved were, were also appalled. However the British clamped down hard in response and soon a guerrilla war was underway in counties Cork and Tipperary. With the post-war British army in a shambles, they were only willing to send over groups of ex-First World War solders to fight. The combination of black police uniforms and tan army outfits gave rise to the term 'Black and Tans' for these men. The 'Black and Tans' were undisciplined and often shot innocent civilians in reprisal for attacks on them. These attacks helped to create and then strengthen local support for the IRA.
In 1920 the IRA, led by a Corkman named Michael Collins, concluded that the war was not having the desired effect and decided to intensify the war. On 21 November 1920, the IRA shot dead 11 British agents. In reprisal, a group of Black and Tans fired randomly into a crowd of civilians at a Gaelic football match at Croke Park, Dublin. 12 people were killed and the day became known as Bloody Sunday. (Not to be confused with another Bloody Sunday much later.) Ten days later the IRA shot dead 17 British soldiers in county Cork.
Meanwhile, despite the conflict, the British government decided to press ahead with Home Rule and passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920. This gave Ireland 2 Parliaments (each with a Prime Minister), one for the Unionists and one for the Nationalists, but kept both Parliaments answerable to the overall UK parliament in London. Six counties (Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Armagh) were to be under the Unionist Parliament, and the citizens there agreed to the creation of 'Northern Ireland' by way of a referrendum. The first elections for the Northern Ireland parliament were held in May 1921 and the Unionists got 40 of the 52 seats. It first met in Belfast in June 1921. The new Northern Ireland Prime-Minister was the Ulster Unionist leader, Sir James Craig.
The elections were held for the Nationalist Parliament in Dublin in May 1921 also, and Sinn Féin (under Eammon de Valera) took 124 seats with the remaining 4 being taken by Unionist candidates. However Sinn Féin refused to recognise the Parliament and instead continued to meet in Dail Eireann. The 4 Unionists were the only ones who attended the new Parliament. The IRA, under Collins, continued to fight on for more independence, and made regular attacks on Protestants in Northern Ireland too. Finally stalemate was reached and a truce was signed between the IRA and the British on 11 July 1921. After 4 months of negotiations a treaty was hammered out which Michael Collins signed on behalf of the IRA. However he did not fully consult his colleagues, many of whom were horrified that he had accepted partition. This is why he is now regarded by some as a traitor.
The 'Anglo-Irish Treaty', which was agreed between Collins and the British government, replaced the Dublin Home-Rule Parliament which had been created by the Government of Ireland Act. The new Act created an Ireland which was much more independent than it would have been under pure Home Rule, and certainly much more independent than the bit of Ireland ruled by the Northern Ireland government. The new country was to be called the 'Irish Free State' and would have its own army, although it would remain within the British Commonwealth. This is a similar status to that which Canada has today. Britain would also have a representative in Ireland and would keep some naval bases in Irish waters. The treaty also set up a Boundary Commission which was to fine-tune the border to take account of Unionist/Nationalist communities close to it. The Sinn Fein leader, Eamonn de Valera, became the first Prime Minister of the Irish Free State.
The UK was renamed 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to reflect the change. To oversee that the 2 Irish states got along, a Council of Ireland was set up to manage relations. The British believed that the 2 Parliaments would soon settle their differences and agree to unite, and the Council of Ireland was to oversee this reunification as well. However, in the end, the Council of Ireland never met.
De Valera, however, was furious that Collins had signed the treaty. To him it still fell much too short of what he had been fighting for, which was an independent Ireland covering all 32 counties. However, another party leader, Arthur Griffith, disagreed with de Valera's idealist stance and strongly supported the treaty. Most members of the IRA who supported the treaty were transformed into the first official Irish Army. The split between the pro-and anti-treaty was so narrow, that Sinn Fein decided to have a vote on it in the Dail. When the Dail voted 64-57 in favour of the treaty, de Valera and a considerable number of Sinn Fein members walked out in protest. Griffith subsequently replaced de Valera as Prime Minister.
However it was not going to be that simple - those who had been outvoted in the Dail were not prepared to simply accept the rule of a Dail which had supported what they regarded as a 'treacherous' treaty. In April 1922, the anti-treaty IRA seized control of the Dublin Four-Courts and other key buildings. The situation grew very tense as the new Irish government tried to mediate with the IRA. However, the government quickly lost its patience and in June Michael Collins ordered the Irish Army to shell the Four-Courts. He succeeded in driving the IRA out of Dublin but had also triggered the Irish Civil War. The fire which the Irish Army started in the Four-Courts destroyed many priceless historic documents, including all of Ireland's accumulated census data. This makes the job of genealogists today much more difficult.
The war went on for almost a year, and was particularly intensive in Connaught and Munster. It was basically a guerilla war, involving sniper attacks, ambushes and raids. Slowly but surely the Army drove the IRA into the mountains and, as the fighting continued to disrupt local life, the IRA lost the support of the locals on which it relied. Therefore the IRA finally called a halt to its campaign in April 1923. Among the casualties of the Civil War was Michael Collins, who was shot dead in an ambush in his native county Cork. Arthur Griffith, the Prime Minister of the Free State, died of natural causes during the war.
Now I'd especially like to know how 'the people of Ireland' were supposed to have voted for home rule in the 19th century when they didn't have a parliament and the only referendum held that I'm aware of was in 1921 when the population of Northern Ireland voted to stay British. The vote for home rule went on in the British parliament and House of Lords. And of the 3 votes held, the first was defeated in the House of Commons, the 2nd in the House of Lords and the 3rd passed.....in 1920.
And, on a sidenote, many people seem to think the British have been in Ireland for 200 years or so. Incorrect. The original English (Norman) invasion of Ireland happened in 1169.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
"It's a question of when." - Toad
The epitaph of an IRA apologist?
-
Perhaps this will be the epitaph of a British colonialist?
"If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when."
-
The US has no colonies these days?
Of course they're not called colonies. They have different names to describe the same thing.
;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Just think that funding terrorists is wrong and worse when the source of the funds is a country allied to us!
So some people here helped fund the IRA. Big whoop. A very small factor in a very large world.
Same as I'm sure you must feel as I do about Muslim communities in Europe backing Islamist terror.
Actualy, I don`t feel anything about them. It`s a given and expected.
There are extremist in every society, country and in every corner of the world. That`s just the facts Ma`am.
Nothing you can do about it. It`s human nature.
Americans funding the IRA are the same as British Muslims backing Al Quaeda.
The two situations are so different they are beyond compare.
You always seem so focused on the U.S. that you usualy are missing the big picture and , quite frankly, always come out stepping on your own wee wee when you start these idiotic tirades about the evil U.S. empire.
It makes no difference what the subject, from government to guns, food, weather, time of day, weekend sports to rat killing.........you always try to slip a little ant-U.S. sentiment in. You expecting maybe a big conversion to your way of thinking or what? I hope not. I`d hate to see us have to start the fight against communism again.
I`m curious......do you ever read the many, many responses to your comments? If so, do you happen to notice any pattern here? I seriously doubt it.
You ever wonder why the majority of the Brits , Aussies, Americans, etc seem to have no problem getting along on this board, while you can draw sparks from a turnip?
You come up with so many woes and dislikes that you express personaly offends you or makes your life a living hell, to listen to you tell it, but it boils down to the U.S. being the root of all evil in 98% of your posts.
If the majority of folks from your neck of the woods felt as you do and expressed themselves as you do, there would be no alliance.
Even though you have a hair trigger when it comes to saying you are not anti-U.S., I don`t believe you actualy have a clue how utterly crystal clear your hatred, and even more importantly, your jealousy for the U.S. comes shining through.
Please take the time to go back through some of the threads you have become involved in and look at the pattern. After that, look at the response.
Give it a look, then give it a rest.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
The US has no colonies these days?
Of course they're not called colonies. They have different names to describe the same thing.
;)
Really?
I call.
Name a few present "American colonies". Show how they are exactly the same as what the British did in India, Central/East/South Africa, Hong Kong, Malta and a host of others.
Go ahead. Show us how it's "the same thing". Might as well toss Ireland in there too. Show us how conquering Ireland, creating the Plantation of Ulster with 20,000 non-Irish immigrants and dividing Ireland into two separate countries forevermore is like something we are doing.
Jackal1
Even though you have a hair trigger when it comes to saying you are not anti-U.S., I don`t believe you actualy have a clue how utterly crystal clear your hatred, and even more importantly, your jealousy for the U.S. comes shining through.
[/b]
Werd.
-
Toad, what has this got to do with the IRA ending its armed campaign? It just that it's coming across that your happy that we're getting out just-deserts for what our ancestors did?
-
Not at all Replicant.
I'm Irish descent; I've said that before. I've never given a penny to Noraid. I haven't contributed to any sort of "Free Ireland" organization or really any charity that was exclusively Irish.
However, I am pointing out how everyone, everywhere uses the same excuses to justify stealing land. I don't leave the US out of that category. As someone pointed out earlier, it probably goes back to the time of the Cro-Magnon stealing land from the Neanderthals.
In short, I don't see any justification. Not for the Brits in Ireland, not for the Brits in pre-US North America, not for the French in Indo-China, not for anyone anywhere.
It's not like India asked you guys to come straighten out their society and impose British rule or anything.
So let's just all agree it was wrong, eh? Attempts to justify the theft are ludicrous. The question is always "what do we do now"? There's no problem if the particular aggrieved party isn't actively killing people to get their land back. (Example: Native Americans in the US and Canada. They aren't blowing things up, so the countries involved give them just enough to keep that from happening.) There is a problem if the aggrieved party is blowing things up. Palesting for example. In that event, it takes more than beads and blankets to address the problem.
All I'm pointing out is what I've posted several times in this thread. A lot of people seem to subscribe to this theory:
"If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when."
I think it's BS. Colonialism was always wrong; it happened and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The Irish question? Let the voters in the ENTIRE country vote on unificiation or division, both "North" and "South" and be done with it.
Shoulda been done long ago.
-
Guam, Puerto Rico and the American Samoas?
All of 'em have had national referendums. All of 'em prefer to keep their current status. All of 'em are 'home ruled'. None of them have armies of occupation camped out there.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think it's BS. Colonialism was always wrong; it happened and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The Irish question? Let the voters in the ENTIRE country vote on unificiation or division, both "North" and "South" and be done with it.
Shoulda been done long ago.
I don't agree that it should be the entire Ireland that decide, it should be broken down first. First it should be Northern Ireland that decide whether they want to be part of a unified Ireland. That allows them the option of remaining within the United Kingdom or wanting to be part of a united Ireland. If they want to break away from the UK then the Republic of Ireland should then vote to decide if they want to accept Northern Ireland. This is the only democratic and 'safe' way of dealing with the issue. You can't force one country to accept another without a vote.
As for the colonisation issue... well, there's two sides of the coin. If no one colonised then we'd all be back in our caves. But for those that did colonised there are many good and bad issues regarding this (milking a country and providing technology/education/medicine etc.). I'm half-English, half-Welsh, only part is Celtic, but I don't have any regrets with ancient Briton being invaded by the Roman's, Angle's, Viking's, Norman's, Goth's, Saxon's etc., even if it meant that Briton's/Celt's were forced into other parts of the country/isles. It's just one of those things that's in the past and no matter what our opinions on the subject is now we can't change anything. Some may want to change things but some opt to break away (like many commonwealth countries - which has actually been encouraged) and others want to remain. As Swoop's post stated earlier, Britain tried to allow Ireland this early in the 20th Century but it all went wrong and that can happily quite easily with other countries too.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Werd.
Up. :)
YO YO YO.
-
The division of Ireland was artificial to begin with. To me, what you suggest merely perpetuates that artificial division. It's a "stacked deck". You want to settle the question? Ask ALL the people and then abide by the decision. If after the decision there are those that foster "insurgency" against the result, it would be the responsibility of all to stamp out the insurgency and enforce the results of the vote.
It's just one of those things that's in the past and no matter what our opinions on the subject is now we can't change anything.
:)
"If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when."
:) :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The division of Ireland was artificial to begin with. To me, what you suggest merely perpetuates that artificial division. It's a "stacked deck". You want to settle the question? Ask ALL the people and then abide by the decision. If after the decision there are those that foster "insurgency" against the result, it would be the responsibility of all to stamp out the insurgency and enforce the results of the vote.
I don't think that would ever work with the Catholic/Protestant divide, any different and you risk all the troubles starting again. Plus the United Kingdom have a right to protect and abide with their British subjects wishes, i.e. British in Northern Ireland. If someone wants to remain British and be part of the UK then the British Government must get involved and that's why it should just be NI that vote first since if it was a positive vote to leave the UK then it automatically takes out the British Government equation.
As for 'enforcing' the results of the vote, as you put it, well, that would prove very interesting considering what's gone on there military/police wise over the last 40 years. IRA/UFF mark II.
-
"The two situations are so different they are beyond compare."
No Jackal to the victims they are the same. They both back the terrorists who killed em.
Sorry but thats the way it is.
You think I hate the US. You are wrong. This happens to be a US board and so I happen to talk about the US. Ok I often pick up on the things I see are wrong. Trouble is many of the attitudes I see expressed here are ones I disagree with. Don't like my tone? Fraid I don't like yours either. So we'll have to lump it. Don't expect you to agree with me so how about you do likewise. What do you want in here a bunch of guys who pat each other on the back and agree about everything? Bit bloody boreing huh?
I started this thread because I was mad watching Norad supporters talking about the IRA as freedom fighters when I'd just watched news about terrorist attacks in London and seen US politicians going on about the war on terror and standing together as allies.
I'm glad its over and yeah its the past. But there are lessons here.
So far I've seen more than a few people come out as apologists for terrorists. Bit wierd when our two nations are supposed to be fighting a "war on terror" together.
Want me to say I love the USA. Fine there are many things great about the place. Trouble is all the things I don't like about it keep cropping up in here.
Right I'm off to discuss Online WW2 flight sims!
-
However, I am pointing out how everyone, everywhere uses the same excuses to justify stealing land. I don't leave the US out of that category. As someone pointed out earlier, it probably goes back to the time of the Cro-Magnon stealing land from the Neanderthals.
In short, I don't see any justification. Not for the Brits in Ireland, not for the Brits in pre-US North America, not for the French in Indo-China, not for anyone anywhere.
It's not like India asked you guys to come straighten out their society and impose British rule or anything.
So let's just all agree it was wrong, eh?
Of course it was wrong. Human history is one very long list of bad things being done to people.
Killing people now over what happened centuries ago is just one more of those bad things, though.
In a time when the west at least has tried to move away from the "kill people and take their land" way of doing business, groups like the IRA are trying to cling on to it.
The question is always "what do we do now"?
It should be, yes. And any "solution" that involves pain by people who have done nothing wrong, to compensate people who haven't actually lost anything themselves, isn't a solution.
The Irish question? Let the voters in the ENTIRE country vote on unificiation or division, both "North" and "South" and be done with it.
Why the entire country? Is it ever a good idea to ask the people of a large state if they want to absorb their neighbours?
Isn't that like holding a referendum in France and Germany over who gets Alsace and Lorraine? Or Ask the people of Mexico and New Mexico who gets New Mexico? Or even the people of the British Isles who gets the whole of Ireland?
Guam, Puerto Rico and the American Samoas?
All of 'em have had national referendums.
Ditto Northern Ireland.
All of 'em prefer to keep their current status.
Ditto Northern Ireland
All of 'em are 'home ruled'.
Ditto Northern Ireland, except when their passion for killing each other leads to suspensions of home rule.
None of them have armies of occupation camped out there.
There is a huge US military presence on Guam, at least.
If you argue it's not an "army of occupation", then how is the British Army in Northern Ireland?
For what it's worth, there's an army base in my town, and that's not a military occupation either.
The division of Ireland was artificial to begin with.
All borders are artificial. I travel between England and Wales quite frequently, I know from the map when I've crossed the border, that's about it.
To me, what you suggest merely perpetuates that artificial division.
To me, Irish independence merely perpetuates the artificial division of the British Isles, but I recognise I shouldn't have the right to dictate to my neighbours what country they live in.
How exactly is the division of Ireland any more artificial than the division between the US and Canada, between France and Belgium, between Israel and Egypt, between Haiti and the Dominican Republic?
Ask ALL the people and then abide by the decision.
All the people where? In the island of Ireland? What about all the people in the British Isles? Or what about asking all the people of Europe whether Switzerland should be part of the EU? Or if the Scots ever vote for independence, ask the people of Britain if they can have it?
Why is the Irish border so different from any other? Why is it only in Ireland that people from both sides of the border get to decide on the nationality of people on one side?
"If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when."
Do you have an alternative Toad? Do you, who seems to disagree with this statement, support reparations for the descendants of slaves, or deporting all the Europeans from the US?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
No Jackal to the victims they are the same. They both back the terrorists who killed em.
Sorry but thats the way it is.
The forest is blocking your view of the trees. Toaly different in that one concerned a small percentage of people and a small area. The other pretty much concerns the world.
You think I hate the US. You are wrong. This happens to be a US board and so I happen to talk about the US
#1 Thanks for verifying my earlier statement. :)
#2 You never 'talk" about the U.S. You use every discussion from dinosaurs to dish rags to work in your anti-U.S. sentiment. Most people here realize this and most have expressed the fact that you are not too slick about it. Like I said, you seem to be the only one not getting it".
Trouble is many of the attitudes I see expressed here are ones I disagree with.
I can certainly understand that. Most foks here are pretty level headed and have common sense. I can see where this would step on your toes.
Want me to say I love the USA.
Not really. That`s the point. You don`t have to love, like or worry about the U.S. Seems you have trouble enough in your homeland to keep your mind occupied without blaming everything from draught to hang nails on the U.S.
Trouble is all the things I don't like about it keep cropping up in here
Simple solution to that if you get the smoke out of your eyes where you can see it. :}
You denying the fact that you do not hate the U.S. would be like me saying I don`t love HDs. Your hatred and big time jealousy always shines through the thinly veiled denials.
Right I'm off to discuss Online WW2 flight sims!
Well right on! That is the most refreshing thing you have ever posted on this board.
Don't expect you to agree with me so how about you do likewise
Sorry, but to borrow a line from Merle....If you`re talking bout my country hoss, you`re walking on the fighting side of me. Us Americans are funny like that. It`s called pride.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
In a time when the west at least has tried to move away from the "kill people and take their land" way of doing business, groups like the IRA are trying to cling on to it.
[/b]
And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Is it ever a good idea to ask the people of a large state if they want to absorb their neighbours?
[/b]
Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Isn't that like holding a referendum in France and Germany over who gets Alsace and Lorraine? Or Ask the people of Mexico and New Mexico who gets New Mexico? Or even the people of the British Isles who gets the whole of Ireland?
[/b]
No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?
Originally posted by Nashwan
To me, Irish independence merely perpetuates the artificial division of the British Isles, but I recognise I shouldn't have the right to dictate to my neighbours what country they live in.
It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.
How do you artificially divide something that was artificially unified by force?
Originally posted by Nashwan
All the people where? In the island of Ireland?
[/b]
Yes; after all those are the "Irish".
Originally posted by Nashwan
What about all the people in the British Isles?
[/b]
What about them? Did they all vote when India sought independence?
Originally posted by Nashwan
Or what about asking all the people of Europe whether Switzerland should be part of the EU?
[/b]
Is any country being forced into the EU by invasion?
Originally posted by Nashwan
Or if the Scots ever vote for independence, ask the people of Britain if they can have it?
[/b]
That would probably have to be done. India had to do it that way, right? Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Burma, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Zanzibar, Gambia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland all had to aks didn't they?
I posted my alternative. Vote.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.
Yeah, it's a bugger ain't it.
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.
How many more times?
The 'English' didn't invade Ireland. The Normans invaded Ireland about a 100 years after they invaded England. Somewhere around 1169AD.
Originally posted by Toad
No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?
Think about this for a sec. Imagine you're living in Northern Ireland and someone suggests that all the Redneck Micks from south of the border should have a say in what country you should be a part of.
The only people who should have a say in what country Northern Ireland belongs to is the people of Northern Ireland.......and they've had a say, and wanna stay British.
Originally posted by Toad
It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.
This is the difference between England and Great Britain. This is what most foreigners fail to understand.
England is not Great Britain. The Scots, Welsh and Irish certainly don't want to be English.......but there seems to be no objection to being British.
In fact some of us are quite proud to be.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
we objected.
Hell, we even voted.
still had ta kick yah out. ;)
and the 'redneck mick from south of the border' line forced another nasal rechannel with coffe. That's a keeper. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
we objected.
Hell, we even voted.
still had ta kick yah out. ;)
and the 'redneck mick from south of the border' line forced another nasal rechannel with coffe. That's a keeper. ;)
Did the Indian's vote to let you stay too?
-
Yep. Had to buy the votes tho.. got manhattan fer a coupla boxes of beads. Learned that trick from you folks.... in fact I think you guys set the policy standards and did the original deals. Then we 'objected', 'voted', and when that didn't work we kicked yah out.
Yer just jealous because we didn't let yah hang around the tobacco stores, develop an alcohol dependancy and build casinos.
;)
-
And so are those nasty Palestinians. After all the Israelies have held some of that land quite a while. It now belongs to people who have done nothing wrong to compensate people that haven't actually lost anything themselves.
Well, without sidetracking this even further, Palestinian claims to the whole of Israel are not recognised by many countries, Palestinian claims to the West Bank and Gaza are. The West Bank and Gaza have only been sparsely settled, against international law, mostly in the last 20 years.
Maybe someone should have asked the English that before they invaded Ireland.
Of course they should. But I thought we'd both agreed it was wrong? Difference is I don't want to "correct" an ancient wrong with a modern one.
And if it's "right" for the people of one part of Ireland to decide what happens to their neighbours on the island, it's just as "right" for the people of one part of the aerchipelago to decide what happens to their neighbours in the rest of the aerchipelago.
You can also expand that principle up to continents, even the whole world, if you like. What if the rest of the world decides on one world government, do they have the "right" to force the US to join?
No, to me it's like asking the people of the whole of Ireland if Ireland should be whole. Who better to ask?
The people of Britain if the British Isles should be whole? Ireland is one of the British Isles, after all.
What about the people of Europe if Europe should be whole? Why let those Norwegians, Swiss etc opt out if their neighbours don't want them to?
It was artificially united to begin with. IIRC, neither Scotland or Wales was all that eager to unite under the English throne either. Ireland has repeatedly shown their reluctance to be ruled by the English crown.
How do you artificially divide something that was artificially unified by force?
No-one asked the people of the various Irish kingdoms if they wanted to be united either, various kings and ivaders fought each other for centuries, and killed a lot of people, to do it.
See, if you're going back in history to a point before Ireland was united with Britain, why stop at any particular point? Why not go back to the various petty Irish kingdoms, and see if they want to unite? Then Ulster, as one of the kingdoms, gets a seperate vote from the rest.
There is nothing particulary "special" about Ireland, it's got the same sort of history as the rest of Europe, it's been invaded and used as a battleground for a long time, just like every other part of Europe. There's no particular "natural" rason for Ireland to be one country anymore than there is for Britain, or any other part of Europe.
Should the Serbs be asked whether Croatia is entitled to independence? Or Slovenia, Bosnia, etc? What about the Russians if they want to absorb Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia?
Yes; after all those are the "Irish".
Well, no. The majority of the population of Northern ireland consider themselves British, after all. They are descended more from the Scots (who are of course mainly descended from the Irish who ivaded Scotland long before that).
Who are you to tell them whether they are Irish or British. Can't they decide that for themselves?
What about them? Did they all vote when India sought independence?
No, but India is one of the British Isles, Ireland is.
Is any country being forced into the EU by invasion?
No. Should it be? I'd say no, but you are claiming the people of a larger entity should have the right to absorb people from smaller entities, eg the island of Ireland gets to decide the status of one of it's constituent countries. If so, why doesn't the contitent of Europe get to decide the status of it's constituent countries?
That would probably have to be done.
It certainly wouldn't. It's up to the Scots if they want independence, they don't have to ask permission from England.
And if you are claiming they do, then don't the people of England get a say about Ireland too?
India had to do it that way, right? Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Burma, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Zanzibar, Gambia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland all had to aks didn't they
Ask who? their neighbours?
My principle is the fate of Botswana is up to the people of Botswana, the fate of Ireland up to the Irish, the fate of Northern Ireland up to the Northern Irish.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Yeah, it's a bugger ain't it.
[/b]
Yes it is a bugger. I guess the Israelis have a right to that land now according to the Northern Ireland precedent. ;)
Originally posted by Swoop
How many more times
The 'English' didn't invade Ireland. The Normans invaded Ireland about a 100 years after they invaded England. Somewhere around 1169AD.
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/nations/ireland_invasion_03.shtml
At which point Henry II suddenly sat up and took notice of what was going on in the west. He had meant to use Diarmait's appeal to get a foothold in Ireland.
What he had inadvertently created was a monster: a colony of Anglo-Normans, who answered to exactly the kind of jumped-up superbaron Henry was busy sitting on in every other part of his enormous empire.
So in the winter of 1171, Henry crossed the Irish Sea himself, coming with an army big enough to give the likes of Strongbow serious second thoughts. It was then, in the wattle palace of Dublin, that he took the homage of all the six Irish kings, including Ruadrai Ua Conchobair.
[/u]And though everything that happened afterwards in the sad history of England and Ireland wants to say this was the moment when Ireland lost her freedom, [/u]no one at the time saw it that way at all.
Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.
Originally posted by Swoop
The only people who should have a say in what country Northern Ireland belongs to is the people of Northern Ireland.......and they've had a say, and wanna stay British.Originally posted by Swoop
Yeah, Northern Ireland was stolen fair and square and no one else gets a vote. Same logic the extremist Israelis use on their right to stolen land.
How come the British citizens in India didn't get their own little enclave when India gained independence? Why isn't there an independent Bengal where the population is primarily British citizens?
Originally posted by Swoop
The Scots, Welsh and Irish certainly don't want to be English.......but there seems to be no objection to being British.
In fact some of us are quite proud to be.
So when are the citizens of the Irish Republic going to get their British citizenship? I mean, they have been asking for it, haven't they?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.
Of course he allowed the Normans, he was a Norman - the whole monachy was of Norman descent since the Norman invasion of 1066; Henry II was raised in the French province of Anjou and first visited England in 1142. He acquired Normandy and Anjou upon the death of his father in September 1151, and his French holdings more than doubled with his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitane (ex-wife of King Louis VII of France). The continental empire ruled by Henry and his sons included the French counties of Brittany, Maine, Poitou, Touraine, Gascony, Anjou, Aquitane, and Normandy.
So when are the citizens of the Irish Republic going to get their British citizenship? I mean, they have been asking for it, haven't they?
[/b]
WTF you on about Toad?
I'm tired of this thread, but I see no one replied to the post I made earlier about the international terrorist organisations list. I have no sympathy with terrorists friend.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The West Bank and Gaza have only been sparsely settled, against international law, mostly in the last 20 years.
[/b]
Yep, it's all about when. If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". The last 20 years isn't long enough... now. ;)
And if it's "right" for the people of one part of Ireland to decide what happens to their neighbours on the island,
[/b]
So have we settled on the "20 years rule" then? The the "5 second rule" for food that hits the floor?
"No land stealing allowed during the last 20 years. All stealing 21+ years ago is fine."
:)
The people of Britain if the British Isles should be whole? Ireland is one of the British Isles, after all.
[/b]
Ireland is an island about the size of South Carolina. It got along nicely before Henry II allowed the Normans to set up shop. The division into two states is apparently OK though because the theft of Irish land was more than 20 years ago. Despite, of course, centuries of unrest and rebellion that continued through the Easter Rising and into the IRA era.
What about the people of Europe if Europe should be whole? Why let those Norwegians, Swiss etc opt out if their neighbours don't want them to?
[/b]
What government existed that ruled Europe as a whole prior to individual areas of Europe ruling themselves?
There is nothing particulary "special" about Ireland, it's got the same sort of history as the rest of Europe, it's been invaded and used as a battleground for a long time, just like every other part of Europe.
[/b]
Again we're back to "when". You're OK with conquest by force of arms as long as it was ancient enough not to affect what you desire or feel is right.
Had the Nazi's conquered Europe, it'd all be OK in another 20-50 years or so after all the WW2 actual participants had died out. Is this the line of thinking?
In Ireland's case, the Irish fought (weakly) off and on for centuries.
Well, no. The majority of the population of Northern ireland consider themselves British, after all.
[/b]
Pretty much by design, this area was settled by non-Irish under the aegis of the English throne. Is it then suprising they consider themselves "British"?
Who are you to tell them whether they are Irish or British. Can't they decide that for themselves?
[/b]
Certainly. That's why I think all Ireland should vote on it.
b[]No, but India is one of the British Isles, Ireland is.
[/b]
Who decided the "British Isles" are a political/govenmental entity?
No. Should it be? I'd say no, but you are claiming the people of a larger entity should have the right to absorb people from smaller entities,
[/b]
Funny, I thought YOU were the one saying a larger country, England, has the right to absorb people from smaller entities like Ireland. As long as it's more than 20 years ago, of course. ;)
eg the island of Ireland gets to decide the status of one of it's constituent countries. If so, why doesn't the contitent of Europe get to decide the status of it's constituent countries?
[/b]
I think Europe does that every once in a while. 1914 and 1939 spring to mind and now the EU seems to be trying a bit of a more voluntary approach. :)
My principle is the fate of Botswana is up to the people of Botswana, the fate of Ireland up to the Irish, the fate of Northern Ireland up to the Northern Irish.
As the Church Lady says, "how conveeeeenient". But you do have that "20 year rule" thing going for you on the theft of Ireland from the Irish.
-
-
A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.
Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?
Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
C'mon Nexx, you know better than that!
edit.. nevermind!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.
King Henry the II was a Norman. What point are you trying to make here?
Originally posted by Toad
So when are the citizens of the Irish Republic going to get their British citizenship? I mean, they have been asking for it, haven't they?
No they havn't. No-one from The Republic of Ireland has ever asked to be British, to my knowledge anyway. The citizens of Northern Ireland have though. And they've got it as well. They are British.
Are you confusing The Republic of Ireland (Eire) with Northern Ireland?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.
Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?
Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Can you provide links for that?
You Will Normally Be Eligible For A British Passport if:
You were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983.
You were born in the United Kingdom after 1 January 1983 and one of your parents was either a British citizen or settled in the United Kingdom.
Your father was born in the United Kingdom.
You were born to a United Kingdom born mother after 1 January 1983.
You have been registered or naturalised as a British citizen.
British citizenship can occasionally be claimed through a United Kingdom born grandfather depending on the date and place of birth of the applicant and his/her father. If you and your father were born in New Zealand then you cannot claim through a United Kingdom born grandfather.
(United Kingdom does not include ROI!)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.
Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?
Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Er....what?
I have never, ever, met an Irishman (read: From The Republic of Ireland, the southern bit) who regarded himself as British wanted a British passport. They have Irish passports. And The Republic of Ireland is not subject to the British crown, they hold the same status Canada does.....ie, they are part of the British Commonwealth (ie we'll fight for em should they get into some serious strife) but otherwise hold independant status.
It's Northern Ireland that's part of Great Britain......and since they were asked, want to be and have British passports........back to my original question: What on earth are you talking about?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
King Henry the II was a Norman. What point are you trying to make here?
[/b]
Henry wasn't the King of England? As King of England he didn't land an army in Ireland in 1171?
Are you confusing The Republic of Ireland (Eire) with Northern Ireland?
[/IMG]
Sorry, forgot the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Henry wasn't the King of England? As King of England he didn't land an army in Ireland in 1171?
He was King of England because his great granddaddy invaded.
That's what happens when someone invades. They crown themselves King.
Henry was Norman. He wasn't English. He was crowned King of England because the Normans had conquered the damn place. England was ruled from Normandy at the time.
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, forgot the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags!
What?!
What on earth does Southern Ireland have to do with anything? It's not them you've been arguing for. Sarcasm has nothing to do with it either.
The points that you don't seem to be able to address is that The Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland) is an independant state and that Northern Ireland voted to stay under 'English' rule.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Henry wasn't the King of England? As King of England he didn't land an army in Ireland in 1171?
So it was the Norman's fault anyway, because it was the Norman's who invaded Ireland, you said it yourself. Henry wasn't just the King of England but also the other areas I listed earlier.
Looks like Henry II put (allowed) the Normans in power in Ireland. Looks like Henry then landed an army in Ireland and this the moment, as BBC points out, that Ireland lost her freedom.
[/b]
But Toad, what point are you trying to make? That it's okay to use terrorist methods to get what you want or that all countries that have been invaded should give them back to their rightful owner? (in which there is currently a NI and ROI assembly trying to sort out what's best for both countries - they're are representing the people of both countries yet this still isn't good enough for you? You should get yourself over and offer your services! :))
-
Nexx, no one here has any sympathy for terrorists. No one I've seen anyway.
I haven't seen a single person supporting the IRA for example.
What you seem to be upset about, IMO, is that some of us think the Irish have a valid complaint. I'm one of those.
I also think Native Americans have a valid complaint against what happened after they allowed the Jamestown settlement to survive, what happened after the US government came into being, after Canada was established on their lands. I can see the validity to their argument.
I could cite other examples but I hope you see my point.
It is indeed "all about when". If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
It's the argument EVERYONE uses. It's what the US uses in response to Native American claims. It's the response Canada uses in response to Native American claims. It's the response Russia used after WW2 until the breakdown of the SU. It's the response some folks use to justify "Northern Ireland".
None of those things will change, although in the case of the SU it did. Doesn't mean we shouldn't realize it for what it is.
-
Well so far Toad seems to think that the population of the Republic of Ireland should all be British.
I'd like to see how long he'd last if he said that in a pub in Dublin on a saturday night.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
What you seem to be upset about, IMO, is that some of us think the Irish have a valid complaint. I'm one of those.
Which Irish exactly?
The ones in the South who rule their own country and have bugger all to complain about or the ones in the North who voted to stay British and also have nothing to complain about.
Or perhaps you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland who like to throw stones at Catholic children on their way to school that can't anymore cos of the British Army tank in the way?
Why do you think the British Army is present in Northern Ireland today, right now, this minute?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Hangtime
I found this:
British Subjects*
This generally applies to people who were born before 1 January 1949 and who had a connection with either British India or the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland).
*British nationals who hold these citizenships may need visas that are not required by British Citizens. Check with your travel agent or with the authorities of the country you are due to visit with their UK Consulate or Embassy. These telephone numbers are available from Directory Enquiries.
I can only assume that up until 1949 applicants from the ROI were allowed British passports because their father would have been British since the ROI would have been part of Great Britain in his lifetime.
-
Well, I know quite a few Irish people (majority are Catholic and from the ROI) and they are quite happy with how things are at the moment. The Protestants in the North that I know do not want a united Ireland. I can't comment any further than that. I haven't been back to NI since 1996.
-
Yep, it's all about when. If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
What's your rule, Toad?
So have we settled on the "20 years rule" then? The the "5 second rule" for food that hits the floor?
"No land stealing allowed during the last 20 years. All stealing 21+ years ago is fine."
No, you're being silly. I note that you won't put forward any ideas of your own about when it's "OK", apart from suggesting that the invasion of Ireland (800 years ago) is not, the invasion of native American lands (up to 150 years ago) is.
Ireland is an island about the size of South Carolina. It got along nicely before Henry II allowed the Normans to set up shop.
What do you mean "got along nicely"? Got involved in wars amongst it's seperate kings, got invaded by the Vikings, invaded parts of Britain, ran slaver raids against Britain and the European mainland, etc.
In short, it "got along" just the same as every other Euorpean country at the time.
The division into two states is apparently OK though because the theft of Irish land was more than 20 years ago.
No, the division into two states is OK because there are two seperate population groups, each centred in different areas, that consider themselves different, one of which wishes to be "Irish", the other "British"
Let's be clear about this, if there weren't two seperate groups then Ireland would be united now. The fact that it's not isn't down to what happened hundreds of years ago, it's down to the wishes of the current communities.
What government existed that ruled Europe as a whole prior to individual areas of Europe ruling themselves?
Romans? Should the Italians have the right to dictate nationality to all their old areas?
HRE? Should the Germans have the right to re-unite various territories?
And what about Ireland? When the Normans "invaded" Ireland was 6 seperate kingdoms.
And why exactly should political boundaries of 800 years ago deny democratic rights to people who live there now? I'm pretty sure no-one in Northern Ireland was alive 800 years ago.
Again we're back to "when". You're OK with conquest by force of arms as long as it was ancient enough not to affect what you desire or feel is right.
No, I think it was wrong. I just don't think the people who live there now can be blamed for it, any more than I think you personally can be blamed for slavery or stealing land from native Americans.
And unlike you, I apply the same standards to everyone, not one rule for the Irish, another for everyone else.
Had the Nazi's conquered Europe, it'd all be OK in another 20-50 years or so after all the WW2 actual participants had died out. Is this the line of thinking?
No. Never "OK". The question isn't what's "OK" several hundred years ago, because we cannot change what happened in the past.
We can only change what happens now and in the future, and what's the point in punishing those alive now for what their ancestors did in the past?
Toad, do you feel you're to blame for slavery or theft of land from native Americans? Do you feel you should compensate them?
Pretty much by design, this area was settled by non-Irish under the aegis of the English throne. Is it then suprising they consider themselves "British"?
Not at all. The US was mainly settled by Europeans, is it suprising they don't consider themselves native Americans? Israel was settled by Jews, is it suprising they don't consider themselves Arabs?
Are you willing to apply the same principle to Israel? One referendum amongst the Arabs and Jews to see who rules Israel, winner takes all?
I think it would be stupid, but it seems to be your position, at least if you apply the same logic to the ME that you apply to Ireland.
Or is Ireland a special case because you have Irish ancestry?
Certainly. That's why I think all Ireland should vote on it.
If you think the Irish should have a say on whether some British people are British or Irish, why shouldn't British people have a say on whether Irish people are British or Irish?
Your position continues to be that Ireland is a special case, the Irish should have special rules. If your "rules" only apply to one side, not the rest, it's a pretty sure sign they aren't fair.
Who decided the "British Isles" are a political/govenmental entity?
Who decided Ireland is?
Both are geographic entities, neither is a political entity. Again, you are arguing one should be a political entity, not the other. Why one, and not both?
I think Europe does that every once in a while. 1914 and 1939 spring to mind and now the EU seems to be trying a bit of a more voluntary approach.
And which do you think is the correct approach? I'd say voluntary, but you don't seem to agree, at least in one case.
Funny, I thought YOU were the one saying a larger country, England, has the right to absorb people from smaller entities like Ireland.
No, I'm saying it was wrong. It happened a long time ago, and you can't change what happened in the past.
And nobody alive now had a hand in doing it, and nobody alive now lost anything when it was done.
And above all, changing it now would punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who did nothing right, and that's just silly.
As the Church Lady says, "how conveeeeenient"
Well, my principle applies to all people, everywhere. Yours seems to have one rule for Ireland, one for everyone else.
But you do have that "20 year rule" thing going for you on the theft of Ireland from the Irish.
And what's your rule, Toad? If you're Irish you get wrongs from 800 years ago righted in your favour now. If you're American, you get to keep what you stole.
You're Irish American, aren't you? How conveeeeenient.
A significant number of people in the Irish Republic regard themselves as British. They have a British heritage and background, yet they do not qualify for a British passport under the provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as amended by the 1981 Act.
Um, anyone from Ireland when it was part of the UK qualifies for British citizenship. Anyone born in the Irish republic as a foreign citizen doesn't, although they have a right of residence in the UK.
What's difficult about that? Do Canadians and Mexicans qualify for US citizenship?
Now where else on the planet can one be a subject, yet not a citizen?
Apparently, only in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
You do realise that those born in the Irish Republic are citizens of the Irish Republic, and not British subjects, those born in Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom?
-
LOL! Been to Dublin, been to the pubs, talked US politics, Irish politics, drank beer, sang songs even talked about Irish reunification.
Lasted all night, no fisticuffs and no raised voices, really.
I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?
-
Ya know......once upon a time, a few years back now, I was driving through a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and I saw a bumper sticker on someone's truck. It said: British out of Ireland.
Now before I saw this I never realised how totally misinformed the Americans are over the whole Irish situation.
The facts of the matter are:
The Southern bit of Ireland is an independant country known as The Republic of Ireland. They rule themselves, are not taxed from England, not governed by England and have no British troops stationed anywhere in the country.
The Northern bit of Ireland is part of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (official title) because the population voted that way.
There are two reasons that there are British troops in Northern Ireland.
1. Cos the IRA seems to think that the population should want to be Irish, not British.
2. Cos if we weren't there there'd be a religious war going on between the two sects there.
If we pulled out there'd be nothing left of Northern Ireland other than a smoking crater and a lot of dead bodies.
And now Top Gear has started on BBC2 so I'll be back in an hour.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?
While I'm watching TV answer this, don't ignore it like you did earlier:
Imagine you're one of those people who live in Northern Ireland and voted (majority) to stay part of Great Britain. Why should the population of another country get to vote how you should live?
It's up to the population of Northern Ireland isn't it?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
And The Republic of Ireland is not subject to the British crown, they hold the same status Canada does.....ie, they are part of the British Commonwealth (ie we'll fight for em should they get into some serious strife) but otherwise hold independant status.
Ireland isn't even part of the Commonwealth, they left in 1948 (iirc)
I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?
Why are you so opposed to having the British Isles, ALL of the BRITISH ISLES, vote and settle the question once and for all?
Personally, I'm opposed to the principle of one country having a say in another's sovereignty.
It's just a general principle that I'd apply to ALL countries.
-
Sorry, Nashway, it doesn't seem like you have one principle applies to all people, everywhere.
I know you don't approve of the Israeli occupations by force.
However, it appears to me that you're OK with occupation by force as long as it is done at some variable time in the past that suits your argument.
As I stated earlier, I realize none of this stuff is going to change. However, I can also see validity in the claims of the folks that had their lands stolen from them, including the Native Americans.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL! Been to Dublin, been to the pubs, talked US politics, Irish politics, drank beer, sang songs even talked about Irish reunification.
Lasted all night, no fisticuffs and no raised voices, really.
I'm a little mystified... why are you guys so opposed to having ALL of IRELAND.. the whole island... vote and settle this question once and for all?
But you haven't been to Northern Ireland?
Why are we opposed to have ALL of IRELAND vote? Because it isn't fair on the people living there. The people in Northern Ireland are British, the people in the ROI are Irish. If the Irish in NI wanted to move to the ROI then they can move if they wished to, nothing is stopping them. So, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and answerable to the British Government. The BRITISH Government can allow a referendum (which they did fairly recently if I remember correctly) to the people of Northern Ireland and allow them to decide if they want to be part of the ROI. The REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Government can also ask the ROI if they would like to vote in a referendum if they would like to accept Northern Ireland (hell, they could even ask if they wanted to be part of the UK, eh? Didn't think of that!). Neither country have rule over the other country so how can they enforce a referendum? I'm sure it wouldn't be legally binding since there is not an overall government.
Besides, if there was a united vote it would just cause more bloodshed and that dear Toad is what you don't understand. The religion and division is still strong in many and if you FORCE two sides together that are NOT READY to go together (see above) yet then you'll just cause more problems. That is what we DON'T want and that is what you don't understand. e.g. if the majority of Northern Ireland didn't want a united Ireland, yet the majority of ROI did want a united Ireland (and had more voters) then that isn't a recipe for peace is it?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Ya know......once upon a time, a few years back now, I was driving through a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, and I saw a bumper sticker on someone's truck. It said: British out of Ireland.
Now before I saw this I never realised how totally misinformed the Americans are over the whole Irish situation.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
You're gonna let some random retard from Cleveland with a silly bumper sticker sway your judgement of all Amreekans?
-
Folks, once we get the 'semantics' (LOL!! I said it!!) on Ireland vs GB, the UK, et al; we'll have a look at China's claim on Taiwan.
;)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Imagine you're one of those people who live in Northern Ireland and voted (majority) to stay part of Great Britain. Why should the population of another country get to vote how you should live?
It's up to the population of Northern Ireland isn't it?
[
Basically, in US terms, Northern Ireland was "gerrymandered". Ireland was divided into sections that gave the desired result after the division.
Gerrymandering is a term that describes the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of congressional districts to influence the outcome of elections.
The purpose of gerrymandering is to either concentrate opposition votes into a few districts to gain more seats for the majority in surrounding districts (called packing), or to diffuse minority strength across many districts (called dilution).
-
we should allow america to vote on whether it should be unified or not.
-
Just Shannon and Dublin; those were our two layover cities.
-
Fuball, I wouldn't be suprised if the issue of secession comes up again in the US in the next 100 years. ;)
-
Ok, Top Gear is on about snowmobiles in Iceland so I'm back for a minute or two.
Toad,
you're sidestepping the question again. Ignore the previous vote. Answer the question:
Why should the people of a different country get to vote on how the population of Northern Ireland get to live? Why shouldn't it soley be up to the population of the country in question?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Aye, snowmobile owned that Jeep! :)
Toad, any comments to my post above?
-
Sorry, Nashway, it doesn't seem like you have one principle applies to all people, everywhere.
I know you don't approve of the Israeli occupations by force.
That's the thing, Toad. I don't support the settlements, but on the other hand I do support Israel's 1967 borders.
I don't think the people of Egypt and Jordan should have a say in the fate of Israel, I think that's up to the Israeli citizens.
And likewise, I don't support Israeli's having a say over the West Bank and Gaza, because that's up to the Palestinians. (I'd even be open to allowing the Israeli settlers having a say, just so long as it's a democratic vote with the Palestinians also voting)
So I DO apply the same principle everywhere. Then again, if I was an Arab or Jew, perhaps I too would have a biased view of the situation.
However, it appears to me that you're OK with occupation by force as long as it is done at some variable time in the past that suits your argument.
No, I still think they were wrong. I just don't want to "correct" them by doing something wrong now.
I recognise that colonistation of Australia was wrong, for example, but I don't think 20 million Australians should be stripped of their rights now because of it. They didn't do anything wrong, their ancestors did.
And in many cases, not even their ancestors. How do you tell a 20 year old Australian whose grandparents immigrated from Poland in 1945 that he has to lose his rights because of what white settlers did in Australia in the 19th century?
How is dispossing him now in any way right?
My principle is if you steal something, you've done something wrong, and you should be punished, and the person who had his goods stolen should be compensated.
But the people in Northern Ireland didn't steal anything, their ancestors did, and the people in the Irish repbulic didn't have anything stolen, their ancestors did.
So why should people who did nothing wrong get punished, and why should people who didn't have anything stolen get compensated?
And that's a principle I'm willing to apply everywhere. You seem to want to compensate the Irish, but not anyone else.
As I stated earlier, I realize none of this stuff is going to change. However, I can also see validity in the claims of the folks that had their lands stolen from them, including the Native Americans.
I can see the validity in all the ancient claims, I just don't support trying to do anything about it now.
You seem to want to apply a special rule to the Irish though, or are you willing to apply it everywhere? Eg compensation to descendants of former slaves, Egyptians getting to decide Israel's status, etc?
-
Tell me this.
Why was there NEVER a popular vote on the division of Ireland?
No vote on the Act of Union.
No vote on the Government of Ireland Act.
The division was basically the result of the Anglo-Irish treaty after the "war for Independence".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me this.
Why was there NEVER a popular vote on the division of Ireland?
No vote on the Act of Union.
No vote on the Government of Ireland Act.
The division was basically the result of the Anglo-Irish treaty after the "war for Independence".
If you give them chance there will be. They've come along way and they've got further to go, but if the process I described earlier goes ahead and they decide on a united Ireland then it'll happen.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Why should the people of a different country get to vote on how the population of Northern Ireland get to live? Why shouldn't it soley be up to the population of the country in question?
It's no sidestep.
I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.
It's one "country" that exists because six counties of Ireland gerrymandered into one political entity. The other 26 counties were separated to ensure the desired result.
Clear enough?
-
Now I have to go. Time for a bit of dog training and recreational shooting. (That should get Skydancer in here as well. Maybe I'll take the motorcycle to the range. ;)
I'll chat more; forgive any apparent failure to respond. It's just coming a bit fast and furious. I'll get back to you later. If I've missed something, ask again.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's no sidestep.
I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.
It's one "country" that exists because six counties of Ireland gerrymandered into one political entity. The other 26 counties were separated to ensure the desired result.
Clear enough?
Jesus Toad, with that comment I'm glad you're not in the peace process because you'd definitely restart all the problems. You clearly do not have a scooby doo about the whole picture of appeasing both sides. Why do you think it's taken so long to get this far? It's only going to progress through concessions but comments like those are not going to help the process.
And on that note I'm ignoring everything else you write on this post because I simply disagree with your view point.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's no sidestep.
I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.
Well the people who live in Northern Ireland do and I think if any of them read your post they might be the tiniest bit upset by it.
Originally posted by Toad
It's one "country" that exists because six counties of Ireland gerrymandered into one political entity. The other 26 counties were separated to ensure the desired result.
Clear enough?
Source?
AFAIK the vote that went on showed a clear majority of the population of Northern Ireland wanted to stay British and those in the South wanted to be Irish.
Are you saying that vote should have been blanket and no county should have been allowed an option?
Kinda like those in Southern USA who don't think of themselves as part of the Union but are forced to be cos Lee lost the war?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.
I'm sure Henry II said the same about Ireland. And I know Hitler said the same about Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig etc. And Saddam said the same about Kuwait.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet most of the wars in history started with people in one country thinking their neighbours shouldn't be a seperate country at all.
Why should the people in one country tell those in another whether they are seperate or not? If the other people want to be seperate, why shouldn't they be?
Tell me this.
Why was there NEVER a popular vote on the division of Ireland
Because representative democracies tend to let their representatives vote for them, that is their job, after all.
There has been one such vote in Northern Ireland, though, they voted to remain part of the UK.
But then again, in your view they shouldn't have the right to decide their own fate, their neighbours should get to decide for them.
I'm curious why the same principle can't apply elsewhere? Why can't the people of the British isles decide on whether Ireland is part of the UK or not? Why is Ireland so special, that only it can't be subdivided, when everywhere else can?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Well the people who live in Northern Ireland do and I think if any of them read your post they might be the tiniest bit upset by it.
[/b]
Yeah and a lot of the Israelis living on Palestinian land think they shouldn't have to move too.
It's all about when my friend.
The last vote in 2004 shows 59% want to remain part of the UK. I think the time will come when there's no longer a majority in favor of staying. Not like I worry about it though.
Are you saying that vote should have been blanket and no county should have been allowed an option?
[/b]
I'm saying that from the time of the Normans through the Act of Union, the Easter Rising, the Civil War, through the Government of Ireland Act, through the formation of the Republic, through the Troubles and on up to the present... there has never been a nationwide vote of all Ireland on what should be done. The people of Ireland were never asked.
Kinda like those in Southern USA who don't think of themselves as part of the Union but are forced to be cos Lee lost the war?
[/b]
Think on this; every single State in the US had to vote to join the Union. The States that voted were independent entitites that had never "conquered" a neighbor State; no State boundaries were set by warfare/occupation between States.
You probably don't see the difference. That's OK; as I said, I believe, in time, Ireland will reunite.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm sure Henry II said the same about Ireland. And I know Hitler said the same about Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig etc. And Saddam said the same about Kuwait.
[/b]
They probably said it but they also knew they just stealing land.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet most of the wars in history started with people in one country thinking their neighbours shouldn't be a seperate country at all.
[/b]
That and them thinking their neighbors couldn't stop them militarily so taking the land was a given no matter what their neighbors thought.
Why should the people in one country tell those in another whether they are seperate or not? If the other people want to be seperate, why shouldn't they be?
[/b]
Because there's absolutely no justification for "Northern Ireland" to have ever been made seperate from the rest of Ireland and they never, ever held a referendum of all Ireland on the subject? Instead they "gerrymandered" a favorable outcome.
Because representative democracies tend to let their representatives vote for them, that is their job, after all.
[/b]
As if Ireland was ever allowed to vote on the subject. Was the Act of Union the result of "representative democracy" in an Ireland where the "popery laws" had essentially eliminated Catholics from the political arena?
After the Treaty of Limerick (1691), the Irish Parliament, filled with Protestant landowners and controlled from England, enacted a penal code that secured and enlarged the landlords' holdings and degraded and impoverished the Irish Catholics.
As a result of these harsh laws, Catholics could neither teach their children nor send them abroad; persons of property could not enter into mixed marriages; Catholic property was inherited equally among the sons unless one was a Protestant, in which case he received all; a Catholic could not inherit property if there was any Protestant heir; a Catholic could not possess arms or a horse worth more than £5; Catholics could not hold leases for more than 31 years, and they could not make a profit greater than a third of their rent.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church was banished or suppressed, and Catholics could not hold seats in the Irish Parliament (1692), hold public office, vote (1727), or practice law. Cases against Catholics were tried without juries, and bounties were given to informers against them.
The Catholic Emancipation Act wasn't passed until 1829.
That's your representative democracy that passed the Act of Union in 1800?
There has been one such vote in Northern Ireland, though, they voted to remain part of the UK.
[/b]
Yeah, by 59% in the gerrymandered counties. Had all of Ireland voted, could the result have been a bit different?
I'm curious why the same principle can't apply elsewhere?
There had to be a large English population in select parts of India. Why weren't those folks gerrymandered into a seperate nation? The Nation of English Bengal or something? Why can't you just do what was done in NI in all the former colonies? Gerrymander the areas with heavy British citizenship, let them vote on being seperate and see how it turns out.
I wonder how that would have worked.... I'm betting you could draw the voting lines so as to ensure some seperate nations that wished to remain in the Commonwealth. ;)
-
I admit that I have never understood the Irish situation or the one in Scotland for that matter.
Are you brits saying that if there was a vote by all the people in Ireland... that it would be one country seperate from the UK?
Are you saying that a small portion of the Irish want to remain british so you are occupying the country in order to conform with their wishes out of the goodness of hearts?
If Scottland voted to leave the UK you would have no problem with that?
lazs
-
The people of Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. They're happy with it, why aren't you?
-
I'm not happy or unhappy about it. I really don't know that much about it.
In reading all this tho it just seems that there was never a countrywide vote on it. What I am reading is that 59% of a small, handpicked portion of a country decided to be under british rule at one time and this is the basis for keeping a country split in half.
What is the population of Ireland and what is the number of people who voted to give their part of the country to england?
If it is not one country shouldn't one of the countries be renamed? They can't both be "Ireland" can they?
lazs
-
Are you saying that a small portion of the Irish want to remain british so you are occupying the country in order to conform with their wishes out of the goodness of hearts?
No, the majority of part of Ireland wants to remain British. Their parliament voted for that back in the 20s, the people have supported it since.
It's as much "occupied" as Hawaii, Texas or California is by the US.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK, just as much as England, Wales or Scotland, it's people are UK citizens just as if they were born in England, Wales or Scotland.
The rest of Ireland didn't want to remain part of the UK, they left, the people there are not citizens of the UK, just as the French are not citizens of the UK.
The argument comes because some, like Toad, feel that Ireland has a "special" status, and that Ireland must be one country, and cannot be divided. Why, I don't know, as I've asked a lot of people who hold that view, and none have ever given me an answer.
If Scottland voted to leave the UK you would have no problem with that?
None whatsoever, that's their right. I'd probably be sad to see them go, but it's up to the Scots, no-one else.
Because there's absolutely no justification for "Northern Ireland" to have ever been made seperate from the rest of Ireland
Why?
Why is it OK for part of the UK to break away (Ireland), but not OK for part of Ireland to break away?
Why is it only Ireland that must remain indivisible?
Plenty of countries have divided, Czecholslovakia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Pakistan/India/Bangladesh, Norway, why not Ireland?
nd they never, ever held a referendum of all Ireland on the subject?
Why should they? They never held a referendum of all of the UK on the subject either. Should Irish independence have been conditional on support of the UK population? If not, why should Northern Irish independence be conditional on the Irish population?
Why is Ireland indivisible when other places aren't?
Instead they "gerrymandered" a favorable outcome.
The defenition of Gerrymandering excludes international boundaries, becuase it's designed to ensure support for one party.
Country "boundaries" are called "borders", and they are drawn up to divide populations. Thus the Mexican border with the US is designed to have Mexicans on one side, Americans on the other (although that's breaking down these days). Is that "gerrymadered"?
What about Israel? It's borders were drawn up to have a Jewish majority on the Israeli side, an Arab majority on the Arab side. Gerrymandered?
In the end the whole Irish question comes down to one thing: does a population have a right to independence from their neighbours if they wish it, and their neighbours don't?
Whichever way you answer it, NI has a right to remain part of the UK. Either because they wish independence from Ireland, and that's their right, or because if they don't have that right, then the Irish don't have the right to independence from the UK.
Why should the Irish have the right to independence from Britain, but the Northern Irish not have the right to independence from Ireland?
There had to be a large English population in select parts of India.
No, there was always a very small British population in India. The 1901 census shows the Indian population at 295 million (all figures include Pakistan, Burma and other areas that were part of the Raj)
Out of that 295 million population, 97,000 were British born, of whom 60,000 were soldiers.
There were in total 641,000 foreigners in India, of which the largets group were Nepalese, at 250,000. There were a total of 104,000 Europeans, a few thousand Americans, a few hundred Australians, about 8,000 Africans.
Why weren't those folks gerrymandered into a seperate nation? The Nation of English Bengal or something?
Because there were nowhere near enough of them, and the few there were were spread out all over India and Pakistan.
But India does actually provide a very pertinent example. At independence, Pakistan and India formed sperate states, even though they had both been just "India" under the British Raj.
Was that wrong? Should Pakistan have been forced to remain a province of India? Should the Indians have decided Pakistan's fate?
And as they didn't, should there be one vote in India and Pakistan now on whether Pakistan becomes part of India? It's obvious who'd win, about 160 million Pakistans, 1.1 billion Indians. Should the Indians decide the Pakistani's nationality?
If not, why not, because that's the principle you want to apply to Ireland.
Why can't you just do what was done in NI in all the former colonies? Gerrymander the areas with heavy British citizenship, let them vote on being seperate and see how it turns out.
What, like the United States, or Australia, or Canada, or New Zealand?
In the other colonies there were never that many colonists concentrated in one spot.
But many larger colonies were broken up into seperate countries, eg India into India, Burma, Pakistan etc.
I wonder how that would have worked.... I'm betting you could draw the voting lines so as to ensure some seperate nations that wished to remain in the Commonwealth.
Such as? Any example spring to mind?
As I said, India/Pakistan seems the most pertinent example, where the country was split up along population lines. "Gerrymandered", as you'd call it.
-
If it is not one country shouldn't one of the countries be renamed? They can't both be "Ireland" can they?
They aren't. One is the Republic of Ireland, the other is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In reading all this tho it just seems that there was never a countrywide vote on it. What I am reading is that 59% of a small, handpicked portion of a country decided to be under british rule at one time and this is the basis for keeping a country split in half.
You have misunderstood.
In the last vote (in 2004) the majority of 59% wanted to stay British.
Not 'at one time'. Now.
There will continue to be votes in the north every few years or so I'm sure, until such time that the majority wants to join southern Ireland. When they do, we'll leave.
The reason we've been there for so long isn't because we're occupying the country, we're there to stop trouble between the minority that want the majority to bend to their wishes.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Swoop, what vote are you referring to?
-
And as soon as the risk of any terrorist activity is completely gone then 99% of British military will be withdrawn. They've already cut down on the amount of personnel there and since the IRA have anounced ending its armed campaign they have already started to dismantle observation posts etc. Today BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4734747.stm) have anounced that the Royal Irish units are to be disbanded.
The Catholic and Protestant issue is not just in Northern Ireland but other parts of Europe too.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The last vote in 2004 shows 59% want to remain part of the UK.
The same one that you already referred to.
As for the 1st vote......nope, it wasn't countrywide. The south had already made it quite clear that they wanted independance.....and they got it in the 1920s.
Six counties (Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Armagh) were to be under the Unionist Parliament, and the citizens there agreed to the creation of 'Northern Ireland' by way of a referrendum. In 1921.
To paraphrase: The south revolted and got independance. The north was asked "Do you lads wanna join up with the south or d'ya wanna stay with us?" And they replied "We wanna stay with you." And have continued to do so ever since.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
And in answer to the "Why should Ireland be divided" question.....
Why shouldn't they if that's what they want?
I mean after all, the British, Americans and Australians fought for a long time to keep both Korea and Vietnam divided.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, the majority of part of Ireland wants to remain British. Their parliament voted for that back in the 20s, the people have supported it since.
[/b]
As pointed out, Catholics couldn't hold political office or vote when the Act of Union was passed in 1801. Not exactly sporting.
I'm not sure what you're referring to wrt "their parliament" voting for that in the '20's. Are you referring to the Irish Free State being was established as a dominion in 1922, (the six northern counties remaining as part of the United Kingdom) as a result of the Anglo-Irish treaty "ending" the Anglo-Irish war?
Why, I don't know, as I've asked a lot of people who hold that view, and none have ever given me an answer.
[/b]
None have given you an answer you like to hear. ;)
Why is Ireland indivisible when other places aren't?
[/b]
Ireland is a small island, the size of South Carolina. The simple solution is to ask everyone on the island how it should be. Funny how none of the proponents of seperatism seem to want the indigenous population of a small island to vote on seperation. Why is there fear of a general vote on "one Ireland" where the majority rules?
The defenition of Gerrymandering excludes international boundaries, becuase it's designed to ensure support for one party.
[/b]
Nonetheless, the idea of gerrymandering has been used to create Northern Ireland. By carefully selecting the boundaries delineating who can vote, the result was assured before the vote was taken.
Why not just ask ALL of Ireland? Because there would be only ONE Ireland. That's the sum of it. Instead, those that stole Ireland from the Irish want to hold on to it as long as they can. Too bad the Catholics get to vote now, eh? If only they could have kept that dang Catholic Emancipation Act from passing.
In the end the whole Irish question comes down to one thing: does a population have a right to independence from their neighbours if they wish it, and their neighbours don't?
[/b]
Exactly. The Irish wished independence from their neighbors in England. Despite several hundred years of resistence, armed and otherwise, they were unable to keep their "neighbors" from conquering them, taking their land, preventing them from holding public office, preventing them from voting and other "neighborly" restrictions on their lives.
Now, if given a chance to vote as a whole, they would return to being an entirely independent island. But it seems the UK won't allow them the right to Independence.
No, there was always a very small British population in India.
[/b]
Ah. Just not enough Brits in India to get away with creating a seperate nation.
But India does actually provide a very pertinent example. At independence, Pakistan and India formed sperate states, even though they had both been just "India" under the British Raj.
[/b]
Indeed it does. An example of "how not to do it" just like Ireland.
Britain's Parliament passed in July 1947 the Indian Independence Act, ordering the demarcation of the dominions of India and Pakistan by midnight of Aug. 14-15, 1947, and dividing within a single month the assets of the world's largest empire, which had been integrated in countless ways for more than a century.
Racing the deadline, two boundary commissions worked desperately to partition Punjab and Bengal in such a way as to leave a majority of Muslims to the west of the former's new boundary and to the east of the latter's, but as soon as the new borders were known, no fewer than 10 million Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs fled from their homes on one side of the newly demarcated borders to what they thought would be "shelter" on the other.
In the course of that tragic exodus of innocents, some 1 million people were slaughtered in communal massacres that made all previous conflicts of the sort known to recent history pale by comparison. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties.
Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Tara Singh later asked, "The Muslims got their Pakistan, and the Hindus got their Hindustan, but what did the Sikhs get?"
Well done, that.
Good thing they didn't have a vote by the people who actually lived in those places.
And what do we have today as a result of that most excellent solution of the UK dictating who shall live in what nation?
We have a timeline of conflict; three wars and an ongoing nuclear standoff. Good show. At least Ireland didn't get mucked up THAT badly. IMO.
-
Because there's absolutely no justification for "Northern Ireland" to have ever been made seperate from the rest of Ireland and they never, ever held a referendum of all Ireland on the subject? Instead they "gerrymandered" a favorable outcome.
Wrong, the partition was justified under the terms of the Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921, the provisions of which were ratified by the elected representatives of the south in 1922; maybe you should read up on it?
Moreover, partition was not the land grab you seem to think, but rather a pragmatic decision taken to spare the strife and bloodshed that would have almost certainly resulted had the 6 counties of Ulster been forced into an independant Irish state. The british government of the time and in fact successive preceding governments had been in favour of a united Ireland under dominion status.
Also, the idea of some mythological united and indivisible Ireland is just a MYTH. Before the conquest by the British, Ireland didn't consist of a single political unit, in fact it was just a bunch of infighting mini-kingdoms and fiefdoms. You only have to look at what a basket case the place was for decades after independance to understand why the protestant north wanted nothing to do with the whole thing.
-
As pointed out, Catholics couldn't hold political office or vote when the Act of Union was passed in 1801. Not exactly sporting.
And that has what to do with the 1920s vote by Northern Ireland to opt out of independence?
I'm not sure what you're referring to wrt "their parliament" voting for that in the '20's. Are you referring to the Irish Free State being was established as a dominion in 1922, (the six northern counties remaining as part of the United Kingdom) as a result of the Anglo-Irish treaty "ending" the Anglo-Irish war?
No, I'm refering to the clause in the Angle Irish treaty that allowed the Northern Ireland parliament to decide for itself whether to join in Irish independence or not. They chose not to.
None have given you an answer you like to hear.
No, Toad, none have given me answer.
What's yours? Why can't Ireland be divided?
Ireland is a small island, the size of South Carolina.
So it's size? Ireland is too small to be divided?
By area, the Republic of Ireland ranks 125th in the world, out of 270 countries. Ireland is actually in the upper half, area wise.
It's as big as Belgium and the Netherlands combined. Perhaps they should be forced to combine, too?
By population, it ranks 126th.
There are a great many countries smaller than Ireland, so size can't be the reason (unless you think all the smaller countries in the world should be absorbed by their neighbours, whether they like it or not?)
The simple solution is to ask everyone on the island how it should be.
Why? Why not ask everyone in the UK? Again, why is Ireland special? You keep saying it is, but you don't say why
Why must Ireland remain one, when other areas are subdivided?
Why is there fear of a general vote on "one Ireland" where the majority rules?
Perhaps in the same way the Canadians would oppose a poll in North America to see whether Canada should join the US. Should Canada decide, or should Canda and the US hold one vote, with the majority deciding?
People all over the world like to control their own destiny, not have it decided by their bigger neighbours.
We've already agreed it was wrong when that was done in the past, now you want to do it again in the future.
Nonetheless, the idea of gerrymandering has been used to create Northern Ireland. By carefully selecting the boundaries delineating who can vote, the result was assured before the vote was taken.
Did Irish independence rely on carefully dileneating the boundaries on who could vote? Don't remember the English, Welsh and Scots getting much say, for example.
And I don't remember the Russians being asked if Estonia should become independant, the Serbs if Slovenia should, the Egyptians if Israel should be formed.
Instead, those that stole Ireland from the Irish want to hold on to it as long as they can
No, instead those who live there get to decide for themselves.
Self determination for all peoples, it's in the UN charter.
Exactly. The Irish wished independence from their neighbors in England.
And who should decide that? The Irish themselves, or the whole of the UK? And if it's the Irish themselves, why when the Northern Irish wish independence isn't it the Northern Irish who decide? Why is it the larger entity then, when it's the smaller entity when the Irish are seeking independence?
Why does the basic principle change when you are applying it to the Irish?
Ah. Just not enough Brits in India to get away with creating a seperate nation.
No, not enough people there who wanted to be a seperate nation.
It is after all entirely up to the poeple of Northern Ireland, not the UK as a whole.
Indeed it does. An example of "how not to do it" just like Ireland.
Try looking at the history of Indian independence that preceeded it. Jinnah had been calling for a seperate Pakistan since 1940, Britain opposed it at first, it was only the massive communal violence following the war that changed the plans. Look up "Direct Action Day" to get a sample. Around 10,000 dead in the riots in Calcutta alone.
I'm absolutely amazed, though, that you think India should hold a vote on whether to absorb Pakistan. It seems foolhardy to me, especially when you look at the areas where the two populations are mixed, like Kashmir.
Perhaps after the Indians vote to absorb Pakistan, we could see Rwanda on a much, much larger scale? Perhaps the world's first nuclear civil war?
Good thing they didn't have a vote by the people who actually lived in those places.
How do you think they'd have voted? The Muslims had been agitating for independence, and would have voted for it. The Hindus didn't want partition, and would have voted against. Result: civil war, on a very large scale.
And even now you are advocating that India should be allowed to absorb Pakistan.
And what do we have today as a result of that most excellent solution of the UK dictating who shall live in what nation?
We have a timeline of conflict; three wars and an ongoing nuclear standoff.
3 small wars, but far more people have been killed in the various civilian massacres amongst those populations that are still mixed. For example, 2,000 dead in the 2002 Gujarat riots, 40,000 in Kashmir since 1990.
Good luck on your plan of forcing Pakistanis to acept being absorbed by India.
Good show
Yes, it's a shame. India was such a peaceful place before the British arrived, too [/sarcasm]
-
Going back to a previous point:
Originally posted by Toad
I, and many others, just don't see "Northern Ireland" as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that.
59% of the population of "Northern Ireland" do see it as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that either.
What do you say to that?
That they shouldn't?
That they should see things the way you do?
Why?
Why aren't the Northern Irish allowed an opinion of their own?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Good thing they didn't have a vote by the people who actually lived in those places.
And what do we have today as a result of that most excellent solution of the UK dictating who shall live in what nation?
We have a timeline of conflict; three wars and an ongoing nuclear standoff. Good show. At least Ireland didn't get mucked up THAT badly.
The thing with that example is that the drive toward partition in India was driven by domestic opinion within the subcontinent and not by deliberate british policy. Many voices within the british establishment warned against exactly the consequences that resulted.
So, you've just demonstrated that you know as much about the partition of India as you do about the partition of Ireland, i.e. not a lot. Good work.
As for the current state of Pakistan, you might want to review US involvement in that benighted place over the last 30 years or so before you start to point the finger too much.
-
And another thing. Your definition of Gerrymandering is as follows:
"Gerrymandering is a term that describes the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of congressional districts to influence the outcome of elections. "
Therefore......a vote made by the entire population of both northern and southern Ireland for the future sovereignty of Northern Ireland in which pretty much all the south would vote "we want em!" and 59% of the North would vote "Bugger off!" isn't Gerrymandering?
Sounds like it to me.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
ok... I'm still not getting it...
Of the 59% of the people that voted to remain part of england... was that number? how many people? What is the total population of the whole island I know as "Ireland"?
seems that it is not the same as the examles of states being part of the U.S. I could divide out a few chunks bigger than northern Ireland I bet and get 59% of those guys to want to leave the U.S. that wouldn't seem too fair to everyone else tho.
Why not just have a total vote?
if more people in all of Ireland want to remain british then I have no problem with troops being stationed there to protect their wishes..
It's like the Scottland example... do you guys think that it would be possible to make a division somewhere in Scottland that would garner 59% of the vote that would say they wanted to leave the UK?
I bet some kind of boundry could be made? Would you accept that or would you then want the entire country to vote on it? Seems that now you are only willing to accept a vote of the ENTIRE population of Scottland.... not some portion and then a divided Scottland.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok... I'm still not getting it...
Of the 59% of the people that voted to remain part of england... was that number? how many people? What is the total population of the whole island I know as "Ireland"?
seems that it is not the same as the examles of states being part of the U.S. I could divide out a few chunks bigger than northern Ireland I bet and get 59% of those guys to want to leave the U.S. that wouldn't seem too fair to everyone else tho.
Why not just have a total vote?
if more people in all of Ireland want to remain british then I have no problem with troops being stationed there to protect their wishes..
It's like the Scottland example... do you guys think that it would be possible to make a division somewhere in Scottland that would garner 59% of the vote that would say they wanted to leave the UK?
I bet some kind of boundry could be made? Would you accept that or would you then want the entire country to vote on it? Seems that now you are only willing to accept a vote of the ENTIRE population of Scottland.... not some portion and then a divided Scottland.
lazs
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Republic (south) of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. Northern Irish are British; Republic of Ireland are Irish. So, the people in Nothern Ireland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom; they didn't want to be part of the Republic of Ireland.
Imagine that Canada had the option of joining the USA as a whole North America as it was when it was a British Colony. Canada don't want to join the USA but some people are saying why not let USA vote too and decide whether Canada joins the USA even though Canada doesn't want to. This is clearly taking away Canada's right to decide its own future.
The British troops are based in Northern Ireland because it's part of the United Kingdom (no different to US troops being based in Hawaii or wherever). They are there predominately there to keep the peace between the Protestant and Catholic divisions. Since the IRA ceasefire and confirmation that they have ended their armed campaign, British troops are already being downsized and will pull out when there is peace (there are still many other terrorist factions in N. Ireland).
Scotland (not Scottland) and Wales have already gone through a devolution process (regaining more independance from London - 'the government'). The Scottish have their own Parliament and can make their own laws. If the Scottish voted to govern themselves and be seperate to the rest of the UK then they would be allowed to. It is entirely their choice, not England's, not Wales', just Scotland's choice. Laws are in place to allow this to happen, hence 'devolution'. I would accept it because I believe each country has a right to decide their OWN future (not their neighbours). Scotland already does have a border with England and if they did seperate then this is where the border would continue to be.
-
"I apply the same standards to everyone, not one rule for the Irish, another for everyone else. "
My point exactly!
Terrorist is a terrorist. And those who fund and support them are the same. Not an anti US statement its an anti terrorism statement!
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Wrong, the partition was justified under the terms of the Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921, the provisions of which were ratified by the elected representatives of the south in 1922; maybe you should read up on it?
[/b]
Maybe I did.
The War for Independence ended because the British had exhausted the Irish Republican Army.
The British were offering only dominion status, insisting on an oath of allegiance to the crown and an exclusion of the six counties in Ulster. The first might have been acceptable to many if it didn't come with the oath, and the last was unthinkable, if it were to be permanent. On Dec. 3, these terms were rejected by the Irish cabinet. The negotiations were at an impasse, but Lloyd George was about to play the card that England always used as the end game with the Irish: physical force.
The negotiations resumed on Dec. 4 and on the night of Dec. 5, Lloyd George presented the Irish with an ultimatum: Sign the treaty or the war will begin again in three days. Griffith and Collins were ready to sign. Rightly or wrongly, Collins believed that the Irish forces could not sustain the all-out war the British were likely to initiate; certainly Collins would have been one of the finest judges of this.
Note that partitioning Ireland was "unthinkable" to the Irish negotiator but that the English threat of force made them cave in.
And what choice would the 2nd Dail have but to ratify if their General, Michael Collins, told them their army could not withstand another English campaign against them.
Yes, it was ratified. With an English gun to their heads. That's a fair vote, right?
And it was so fair and well received that the Irish Civil War was the result.
Moreover, partition was not the land grab you seem to think, but rather a pragmatic decision taken to spare the strife and bloodshed that would have almost certainly resulted had the 6 counties of Ulster been forced into an independant Irish state.
So it wasn't an English "landgrab"? Is that your point? It was only a "Unionist" landgrab by those in the 6 counties around Ulster?
It's clear what the majority of people in Ireland wanted. They just weren't militarily strong enough to hold out long enough against the English army.
Also, the idea of some mythological united and indivisible Ireland is just a MYTH. Before the conquest by the British,
It's not a bit mythological to say that the people of the island saw themselves as IRISH prior to conquest by the British. It's not mythological to say that those Irish people resisted the British throughout the centuries of occupation, always trying to regain their Independence.
What's really mythological is saying that an artificially introduced population has a right to have a slice of Ireland for itself because they held the land long enough, by using force, to claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
You and the rest of the folks here are supporting that concept. Yep.. we stole it fair and square, held it long enough and now it's ours.
Nothing wrong with that as I said. Just about every powerful country has the same thing in their background somewhere.
The problem is that the "rightful owners" haven't quite given up in Ireland. ;) But then... that's their history, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
And that has what to do with the 1920s vote by Northern Ireland to opt out of independence?
[/b]
Well, the Act of Union formed a new country ("The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland") by uniting England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, did it not? Is this not where all the “but they’re citizens of the UK!” arguments take their basis? Of course, the majority of Irish couldn’t hold political office or vote when the Act was passed……
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, I'm refering to the clause in the Angle Irish treaty that allowed the Northern Ireland parliament to decide for itself whether to join in Irish independence or not. They chose not to.
[/b]
As previously discussed, the Anglo-Irish treaty was essentially negotiated at gunpoint and the Irish had no real choice but to accept it. They lost the war; that does not mean that the treaty was just. Ireland got Dominion status and got partitioned and the Irish Civil War was the result.
The Northerners got to keep what their ancestors had stolen by force of arms. I'm sure they would vote for that.
Originally posted by Nashwan
What's yours? Why can't Ireland be divided?
[/b]
It shouldn’t be divided because it’s the result of force of arms against an unwilling population that has been fighting for Independence throughout the history of occupation. It validates the "If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now". It's all about when." concept. The Irish never thought of themselves as part of the United Kingdom prior to invasion; they were forced to kneel. Essentially, they never gave up.
Originally posted by Nashwan
So it's size? Ireland is too small to be divided?
[/b]
Nope. It’s the fact that they were NOT a part of any other nation until forced into the UK. Ireland was Ireland, a small essentially homogeneous population on an island that has been fighting to regain its Independence throughout the history of its occupation.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why must Ireland remain one, when other areas are subdivided?
[/b]
It’s the fact that they were NOT a part of any other nation until forced into the UK. Ireland was Ireland, a small essentially homogeneous population on an island that has been fighting to regain its Independence throughout the history of its occupation. The fact that other areas have been forced to subdivide doesn't make it right.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Perhaps in the same way the Canadians would oppose a poll in North America to see whether Canada should join the US. Should Canada decide, or should Canda and the US hold one vote, with the majority deciding?
[/b]
Ah, but NO ONE in Canada or the US has been fighting for hundreds of years to reunify Canada and the United States into the original entity of “North America”. The only ones that could legitimately raise such an issue are the Native Americans on both sides of the border. They haven't raised the issue. No one is calling for such a vote because there is no such issue, no concern.
Did Irish independence rely on carefully dileneating the boundaries on who could vote? Don't remember the English, Welsh and Scots getting much say, for example.
[/b]
Why ever would the English, Welsh and Scots get much say in IRISH affairs? At any time? Unless by force?
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, instead those who live there get to decide for themselves.
Self determination for all peoples, it's in the UN charter.
[/b]
Yes indeed. All that’s needed is to very narrowly define “there” and make sure your definition of “there” will give the desired voting result. Ireland was not divided in an international sense before the English conquest.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why does the basic principle change when you are applying it to the Irish?
[/b]
Because due solely to the English conquest, Ireland was artificially divided. We all agree the English conquest was wrong, I believe. Justification based on that conquest just doesn't stand up.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Try looking at the history of Indian independence that preceeded it.
[/b]
Try looking at it this way: why did the East India Company go to the Indian sub-continent? England ends up with an Indian Empire as a result, Victoria proclaimed Empress of India.
The English set the boundaries of the Indian Empire. When finally England couldn’t wait to rid itself of its Indian Empire, a rush job drew new boundary lines and Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act in July 1947.
Now tell me, who would you hold responsible for the creation of Pakistan and India with boundaries that remain in dispute?
The result has been essentially the same as it was in Ireland. British come, British rule, British divide, British leave, locals fight each other to regain what they feel was theirs. And what’s the common factor there?
Originally posted by Nashwan
Yes, it's a shame. India was such a peaceful place before the British arrived, too [/sarcasm]
Yeah, that’s right. I forgot. You guys conquered the known world to bring peace to peace-lovink pipples everywhere. Funny me; I was thinking it wasn't the business of the British Empire to conquer the Indian subcontinent in the name of "peace" at all.
;)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
59% of the population of "Northern Ireland" do see it as a "separate country". Can't be any plainer than that either.
What do you say to that?
[/b]
That it's only a small percentage of the voters in of all Ireland, obviously.
What if all of Metropolitan London voted to be a separate country? You'd say all of England had to vote on that, right?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
The thing with that example is that the drive toward partition in India was driven by domestic opinion within the subcontinent and not by deliberate british policy. Many voices within the british establishment warned against exactly the consequences that resulted.
[/b]
Yeah; Attlee was of the opinion Britain couldn't afford India. Mountbatten's marching orders were pretty much to get out ASAP. So the end result was a rush job that left a lot of problems. Hmmmm.... a pretty common thread throughout a lot of former English colonies.
So, you've just demonstrated that you know as much about the partition of India as you do about the partition of Ireland, i.e. not a lot. Good work.
[/b]
You haven't really impressed me with your contributions to the thread so far either. I'll let you know if I see you demonstrating notable insight in these areas.
As for the current state of Pakistan, you might want to review US involvement in that benighted place over the last 30 years or so before you start to point the finger too much.
Always tough sweeping up after an Empire. ;)
-
First time I've ever had to use the ignore list....
-
Toad,
In light of your responses I have to ask, just so as I get it straight, Does this mean you condone the IRA blowing up innocent women and children in order to "free" Ireland from British tyranny?
This thread after all was about terrorism and its supporters. Not whether or not Ireland should be united.
-
Ya know.....he's got a point, we have gone slightly off topic here.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Note that partitioning Ireland was "unthinkable" to the Irish negotiator but that the English threat of force made them cave in.
And what choice would the 2nd Dail have but to ratify if their General, Michael Collins, told them their army could not withstand another English campaign against them.
Yes, it was ratified. With an English gun to their heads. That's a fair vote, right?
And it was so fair and well received that the Irish Civil War was the result.
You're going to have to come up with something better than an unattributed "Ireland First" article as a source for a start. Once again, you cannot separate the romantic Irish myth from reality.
In 1921 the IRA was at the verge of collapse. At the same time, Lloyd George was under pressure from domestic and world public opinion to end the conflict. Lloyd George and the King in conjunction with the South African Jan Smuts managed through fairly devious means to get the British Cabinet to agree to a reconciliation which led directly to the truce that ended the conflict. I'll reiterate that for your benefit - Lloyd George wanted an end to the conflict
The subsequent treaty with all its provisions was approved by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, by the Dáil Éireann and by both houses of the British Parliament. So much for your claims of illegitimacy.
And it was so fair and well received that the Irish Civil War was the result.
And the chief instigator of the civil war, Eamon de Valera later said that the biggest regret of his career was not accepting the 1921 treaty.
So it wasn't an English "landgrab"? Is that your point? It was only a "Unionist" landgrab by those in the 6 counties around Ulster?
No, it wasn't a landgrab at all, it was the legitimate choice of the majority of the population of Ulster who had lived in the region for hundreds of years.
What's really mythological is saying that an artificially introduced population has a right to have a slice of Ireland for itself because they held the land long enough, by using force, to claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
You and the rest of the folks here are supporting that concept. Yep.. we stole it fair and square, held it long enough and now it's ours.
Well that's the reality of it. How do you feel about Jews taking Arab lands, or Europeans taking native american lands? Or is Ireland a special case? Please tell us why?
You haven't really impressed me with your contributions to the thread so far either. I'll let you know if I see you demonstrating notable insight in these areas.
Insight? What like citing an unattributed article from a partisan website to support your dubious claims? I'm not impressed by the total lack of context to any of your assertions, but then I'm not surprised by it either.
Yeah; Attlee was of the opinion Britain couldn't afford India. Mountbatten's marching orders were pretty much to get out ASAP.
The move towards independence and separatism for India's muslims dated to long before the Atlee government though, which you would know if you had done anything other than skim the subject before getting back to us. For some badly needed context why don't you read up on the career of people like Allama Iqbal or Mohammad Ali Jinnah, then look at the circumstances surrounding the Lahore Resolution of 1940?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Ya know.....he's got a point, we have gone slightly off topic here.
He has no point.
He started this thread of with a troll and got more than he bargined for. What ever way you paint it, Bitain will always come out of these discussions smelling like crap, and so it should, it created the mess in Ireland, past , recent past and present. You reap what you sow.
Sometimes it pays to let sleeping dogs lie.
Excel
-
Blowing up innocent people is wrong! Terrorism is wrong!
( unless you think terrorism directed at your own nation's citizens is wrong! )
Call it a troll if you like. I prefer to call it a question, or an observation based upon the utter hypocracy I witnessed on my TV screen.
Honestly are you realy saying it was OK for the IRA to blow up people in a pub, shopping in a street, attending a memorial service for veterans.
It doesn't matter what your politics are these things are wrong. I cannot believe there are people on this board who think they are justifiable.
This is not anti USA its purely anti terror. Go back and read the opener if you like. I never mentioned the US. It was others who chose to pursue that line. When you chose to go down that route I responded.
I think anyone who funds, supports, trains, equips these scumbags is equal to them.
Don't matter if you are from the USA, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Britain, Palistine, Israel wherever. Support The IRA, UDA, Al quaeda whoever it is that tgts innocent civillians and you are wrong.
Work out why they are doing it. Take a balanced view even understand their motives ( you have to know the enemy to defeat them ) but don't tell me its right to blow up women and kids or that these guyswere fighting a war. If they were where are the uniforms?
To quote you
"You reap what you sow. "
That sounds uncomfortably like something said by the Islamist terrorists in relation to US/British policy in the ME. Do you realy think that Excel1
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
This is not anti USA its purely anti terror. I never mentioned the US.
Well then someone is using your account because these were posted using your ID. :)
I never did say that the US govt funded the IRA though some pretty influential people did.
Watch US politicians making grand speeches, then in the next item watch other US politicians acting as apologists for a terrorist organisation.
A terror sponsored by and paid for by US citizens both high and low as well as others.
-
Point of order!
"Go back and read the opener if you like. I never mentioned the US. It was others who chose to pursue that line. When you chose to go down that route I responded."
Apologies if you misinterpreted me. Read the opener of the thread again and consider what the response could have been!
And remember that it takes all sorts of opinions to make a lively debate.
Its going to be pretty dull if all you ever hear is how wonderfull eveyone else in this world thinks eveything American is.
Now do you agree that those who fund back and support terrorism are as guilty of being lowlife as the terrorists themselves? That was what this thread was supposed to be about! Not yank bashing, though admittedly it was US Norad supporters on the news that got me riled in the first place. It could just as easily been British Muslims for they were in the news too!
-
well I am sure that it is a lot more clear to all you brits that live with it but I am still not understaning..
the examples given don't seem to jibe with what is Ireland. Are you guys saying that Ireland was allways two countries... North and south?
If not, how did it get that way? I mean... Canada and the U.S.A were never one country. Parts of the U.S. were once Mexico and we simply took them. I wouldn't pretend that a vote would count tho because we drove out the former residents.
It does seem tho that you are "protecting the rights" of a small handful (59% of one portion) of the population and keeping a small little island divided to boot.
What about the 41% in that portion who don't want a divided country? that seems like a lot of people. It just seems fair to unite the country under one rule... or at least have a vote of all the people in the country as to wether they want to be a divided or whole country and under who's rule.
Do you think you would lose such a vote?
Replicant... it used to piss off my grand dad when I spelt Scotland Scottland... he was born there. I used to say "but you call yourself Scottish?" still... inside joke.
I am sure that it is much more complicated but it just seems to me to be such a tiny little place and all one island and one people historicaly... why not just let the people who live on the island decide?
lazs
-
Speaking asa Brit, I'm equaly confused. Personaly I care not whether NI is part of Britain or part of Ireland. What I do care about is double standards. Vis a Vis Terrorism.And I'll reiterate wherever they are to be found. Thats what this thread is about!
-
If you want us to say that in an undeclared war, Non military groups deliberately targeting civilians is terrorism...
I think everyone allready said that. I don't think that anyone would say that the IRA has not been guilty of terrorist acts in the past.
lazs
-
Agreed but what of those who fund and support them. Are they to be included in the definition of terrorist.
-
If it can be probven that a person or persons supports with money or aid, a group or faction that advocates terrorism then they should be punished.
If it can be proven that the drunken waste of humanity ted kennedy did so then he should be executed but...
he is not so easy to pin murders on...
lazs
-
Then we agree!
-
I have had an outstanding time watching this thread develop...
and I've learned a lot, reminded myself of a few things and remain unimpressed with the wooden headed British insistance that Northern Ireland is a 'legitimate' exercise in Imperialism.
In the first world war, for the first time, civilian populations became the targets of the Military. The IRA was conducting WAR. This does not excuse them of heinious acts of violence... it explains them.
In the hearts and minds of Irish Patriots there's but one Ireland, the militant faction has decided to pursue other means to that end. That is a good thing, for the British and for Ireland.
One would hope that the British military presence will end eventually, that the Irish will one day again live in a United Ireland and that the Troubles, such as they now are, will be dealt with by an Irish military, and not a British one.
-
Yes thats asmaybe. But you might be forgetting that we have had terrist atrocities in this country for a long time. Al quaeda didn't invent terrorism. What rankles is that those who actively funded and supprted it will never be bought to book. I just don't get it when you cry out in anger at the deaths of American women kids innocents call it an atrocity and themn claim the IRA were somehow different!
-
WTG IRA!
Good news.
Let there be drinking, dancing and fornication!
-
It's funny to see people pretend that there was one wonderful united Ireland and Irish that has been torn horrible assunder by the evil British, instead of a Island (certainly not an nation) of tribal lords that got thier butts kicked because they spent more time trying to kill each other instead of the English.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
One would hope that the British military presence will end eventually, that the Irish will one day again live in a United Ireland and that the Troubles, such as they now are, will be dealt with by an Irish military, and not a British one.
And yet you've already made you're decision "One would hope.... that Irish will one day again live in a United Ireland". It's up to the people in Ireland to decide that, not for us to decide for them. People have so many ideals and blame the past. Well people can live as much in the past as they like but that really doesn't make decisions does it? The upshot of it is that both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, via Stormant, are working together to see if there is a future or not. The problem is that those in Northern Ireland (albeit titled British but are actually born and raised there) do not want that to happen just yet (even if Northern Ireland voted to leave the UK it doesn't mean that they want to be a united Ireland does it?). So, what's the point in forcing a country to rejoin another country if they don't want it because it'll just cause more infighting. And if you realise from your ivory towers how devastating the infighting has been then you just have to ask anyone whose lived there or has been on the receiving end of it.
For Ireland to reunify there must be peace and although ONE terrorist group (one of many) have now publically ended its armed campaign it doesn't mean that everyone wants to live together and shag each others sister. Why? Because life there is still not balanced yet, it's not ready and the other terrorist groups will simply resurface until they're satisfied.
You can have idealologies but putting them into practice will be another thing. Why do you think it's taken so long to get this far? The peace fire, albeit a short spell of IRA terrorism, started nearly 10 years ago. It's got a long way to go yet.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Yes thats asmaybe. But you might be forgetting that we have had terrist atrocities in this country for a long time. Al quaeda didn't invent terrorism. What rankles is that those who actively funded and supprted it will never be bought to book. I just don't get it when you cry out in anger at the deaths of American women kids innocents call it an atrocity and themn claim the IRA were somehow different!
Skydancer, if I was an irish patriot, I'd bomb the hell outta the invader.. I'd strike where I could, as often as I could and I'd take the fight to the enemy's shores the moment I could.
.. just as i would as an American Patriot, faced with the same circumstances.
I do not hold with religious 'terror'.. I do not condone the acts of barbarism conducted by fanatics spewing hate directed at the western world. The tactics they employ are not original, tho; are they?
The same tactics used by Jewish Patriots against the British 50 years ago, ain't they? Dosent make it right.. just show's it's not new.
It's a war.. and it's been said before.. one nations freedom fighters are another's terrorists. Part of the landscape now. Thing to do is isolate the source... be it a nation or a group; and snuff it if we can.
The IRA have laid down their arms. That's a victory for you Brits. Now, move on. Ther's not a hell of a lot for your side to be proud of in that old fight.. suggest you get buzy on the one ahead.
-
So you're content with terrorism because it's one persons freedom fighters? So I don't expect any American's to complain about Korea, Vietnamese, Iraqi's, Afghan's etc. You reap what you so as someone said earlier.
I'm totally against this by the way, but the way you've phrased it sounds like it's okay.
It's just that in Ireland many people hang onto the past. There's people like that on both sides and it's difficult for them to move forward because they're extremists. That's what some of you sound like to me. You want things to be right but are hanging onto the past so much it'll never happen. Britain wants it to move on, it would make things so much easier, but those in Ireland (both sides) haven't quite decided what to do yet. Perhaps some of you should move there and tell them where they're going wrong? In the meantime I'll let them make their own decisions.
Incidently, it's isn't a victory for Britain regarding the IRA disarming. It's a victory for everyone concerned in NI and the ROI because it means things can start to move on. Don't you want that to happen?
-
Originally posted by Replicant
So you're content with terrorism because it's one persons freedom fighters? So I don't expect any American's to complain about Korea, Vietnamese, Iraqi's, Afghan's etc. You reap what you so as someone said earlier.
I'm totally against this by the way, but the way you've phrased it sounds like it's okay.
It's just that in Ireland many people hang onto the past. There's people like that on both sides and it's difficult for them to move forward because they're extremists. That's what some of you sound like to me. You want things to be right but are hanging onto the past so much it'll never happen. Britain wants it to move on, it would make things so much easier, but those in Ireland (both sides) haven't quite decided what to do yet. Perhaps some of you should move there and tell them where they're going wrong? In the meantime I'll let them make their own decisions.
Incidently, it's isn't a victory for Britain regarding the IRA disarming. It's a victory for everyone concerned in NI and the ROI because it means things can start to move on. Don't you want that to happen?
Nexx.. you know better than that. You know where I was and what I was doing between Sept11 and Oct22. Please, reread what I posted. and think a minute.
Please.
-
Why did you write
Skydancer, if I was an irish patriot, I'd bomb the hell outta the invader.. I'd strike where I could, as often as I could and I'd take the fight to the enemy's shores the moment I could.
.. just as i would as an American Patriot, faced with the same circumstances.
[/b] then? As it has been pointed out, Ireland was invaded nearly 900 years ago. If you meant back then you'd do that then fine, but if you meant today, which is how I read it?
All I want is peace there but I want it done in such a way that problems will never arise again. That's why it has to be done correctly and that's why 'us' Brit's are saying that it has to go through the correct process. The ROI know this too, they're not stupid and that's why I keep emphasising that it's going to take time.
-
First off Swoop this I find seriously offensive:
Think about this for a sec. Imagine you're living in Northern Ireland and someone suggests that all the Redneck Micks from south of the border should have a say in what country you should be a part of.
I'm not sure which rule is violated by that comment and how it got through. I know you can't edit it now but please withdraw it. One thing it does do is diminish all of you comments and now colours my view of your character. It's a completely unacceptable comment.
But to answer a previous point before you became offensive:
Now I'd especially like to know how 'the people of Ireland' were supposed to have voted for home rule in the 19th century when they didn't have a parliament and the only referendum held that I'm aware of was in 1921 when the population of Northern Ireland voted to stay British. The vote for home rule went on in the British parliament and House of Lords.
The Irish Home Rule party in short. Which in successive British general elections was sent to Westminster to achieve just that. The whole of the people of Ireland voted in those elections.
Then there was the 1918 British general election:
Election results (http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Irish_general_election,_1918#Seat_totals)
This was the last all Ireland election and the results are pretty clearcut. A majority of Irish people voted for some form of self government. Most wanted a Republic, some Home Rule. A minority wanted to remain ruled from London. Sinn Fein won most seats and a mandate to split from Britain mainly due to the same ludicrous first past the post electoral system still in use in Britain today.
Does that answer your question?
Then what do I know? I'm a mere 'redneck mick'. But to those of you who tell us 'foreign' Irish to mind our own business and let those nice loyal Irish live in their little six county paradise. I ask you this: What business is it of yours you English, Scottish and Welsh foreigners?
I was always anti IRA but when I read some of the tripe written here. I now see where they might be coming from.
Swoop I await your answer.
-
Just for the record CPXXX It isn't coming from me. I think Ireland might well be better off unified but that isn't the point here( least it wasn't till the apologists started )
I realy can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff. Its OK to blow up innocent people because its a freedom fight! Are you guys serious. British and Irish Women children and innocent men!!!
Please tell me I'm wrong.
As for doing our bit in the war on terror. I think we are.
We have all the suspects for the recent bomb attempts in London in custody. We have troops fighting alongside your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the same young men the IRA was killing too.
I think we as a nation are doing our bit. What a shame that the people posting here value their freinds so much that they think its OK to murder them if the cause is right! !
Go back and read your words please!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Toad,
In light of your responses I have to ask, just so as I get it straight, Does this mean you condone the IRA blowing up innocent women and children in order to "free" Ireland from British tyranny?
This thread after all was about terrorism and its supporters. Not whether or not Ireland should be united.
Of course I don't. If you can quote any example of my condoning that, I'll happily apologize. I don't think I do so, but feel free to give it a go.
-
Forgive me but you tone seemed to indicate you might support the IRA.
Glad we cleared that one up.
I asked because the thread was about terrorism and support for it, not about the Irish question.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
The subsequent treaty with all its provisions was approved by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, by the Dáil Éireann and by both houses of the British Parliament. So much for your claims of illegitimacy.
[/b]
Let's see... you admit the Irish Republicans were about to collapse but maintain the threat of renewed military operations by the English wasn't coercion? The treaty was just the instrument of surrender.
Had the Dail rejected it, what would have happened? In your opinion, of course.
No, it wasn't a landgrab at all, it was the legitimate choice of the majority of the population of Ulster who had lived in the region for hundreds of years.
[/b]
Ah, back to the old justification: If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now".
Well that's the reality of it. How do you feel about Jews taking Arab lands, or Europeans taking native american lands? Or is Ireland a special case? Please tell us why?
[/b]
Israel should return to its UN mandagted borders (1947, IMO)
Euros taking NA lands was wrong. We hold them under the If you can hold the land long enough, with or without using force, you can claim what happened "before" doesn't matter "now" justification. I personally think the NA have a case for compensation; at present, they're not pursuing it here or in Canada.
Ireland the same; the Irish have a case for unity.
Clear enough?
Insight? What like citing an unattributed article from a partisan website to support your dubious claims?
[/b]
And your support is......? Your opinon?
Just because it comes from what you deem a "partisan website" that doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Historically, you don't argue that the Republicans were militarily beaten... you just don't like the source I use.
The move towards independence and separatism for India's muslims dated to long before the Atlee government though,
[/b]
You miss the point. The India/Pakistan situation derives from what uniquely British origin? The Raj.
I admire the Brits in general, love the country, enjoy the people.
However, as US citizens are blind in some areas of their history, so do some of the UK supporters seem blind in areas.
Look around at the former British Colonies. Look at a list of "trouble spots" in the world. See any similarities? The India/Pakistan problems. Ireland's "Troubles". Africa's problems. No connection right, no common factor?
-
First, since you've taken the step of escalating my personal views to be those of all americans, I'll do the same and assume that yours are those of all British citizens...
I meant that if my nation was invaded, my lands and property forfiet, my family imprisoned, my childern forced to schools I did not condone I'd fight and I'd use whatever means necessary to free my family, restore my lands and redeem my children to the schools of my choice.
AND SO WOULD YOU!.. or your not a 'free' man.
And once you get it through that thick wooden english head of yours that NO nation; not yours, not mine, not theirs has any gawd damn claim to the moral high ground where oppression is concerned... and oppression of the Irish is not a 900 year old incident.. it's a 900 year long ongoing policy as far as certain political groups in Ireland are concerned.
Now, climb outta that programed mind-set of yours and look at it from the other side. If you can't then yer doomed to lose.. because you cannot fight effectively if you cannot come to grips with the other sides motives and tactics.
Now, as a 'disinterested' third party observer, I've watched Toad make excellent, calm and reasoned points all the way up this thread.. and he's run into thick headed, see no reason responses from programed null-data inoperative-to-reason british minds that fall back on BS 'historical' allegory to defend self-serving british propaganda.
Stunning.
Electrifiying, in fact. If the body of citizens in your nation are incapable of seeing the Point of Irish rebellion, then you are incapable of seeing the point of the American rebellion... as such yer no smarter as a nation now than you were 250 years ago... and your talk of the rights of free men is just window dressing for a socialist agenda of 'status-quo'.
Peace!
Our war of revolution is over.. the Irish one is entering a new phase. Again, the enemy; OUR enemy is not Ireland or the IRA. The era of Armed Insurgency has been declared 'over' by our mutual governments and the political faction called the IRA. Now, how we gonna impose that ban on Islamic Militants?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Forgive me but you tone seemed to indicate you might support the IRA.
Glad we cleared that one up.
I asked because the thread was about terrorism and support for it, not about the Irish question.
Well, the thread starts with a discussion of the IRA as terrorists. I think you can see how that might lead to a discussion with regards to the roots of IRA terrorism?
However, you and Swoop do have a point. We have gone a bit far afield and off the topic.
Also, it's pretty well hashed out position-wise. I doubt much new thought will debut.
I'm willing to continue if others are interested but that should be in a different thread I guess.
So, if someone wants to start another thread I'll reply in that one.
Ta.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Our war of revolution is over.. the Irish one is entering a new phase. Again, the enemy; OUR enemy is not Ireland or the IRA. The era of Armed Insurgency has been declared 'over' by our mutual governments and the political faction called the IRA. Now, how we gonna impose that ban on Islamic Militants?
Yes, and how many times have I said that living in the past isn't going to get them anywhere. It is for THEM to decide what is going to happen but all I've heard from Toad and you is that the British deserve everything they've got and they've not helped the peace agreement. No one has replied to this yet. I'm am sick and tired of this continual bs. I honestly don't care who controls Ireland, all I want is peace but every argument we've had has been met with opposition thinking that we give a flying **** who rules the roost. I'm sure if you asked the majority of British people they'd have wanted to pull out of Ireland years ago. We can see the things that have gone wrong but by arguing about the past isn't the way forward for Ireland. They have to move on. If they keep bringing up the past then they'll simply get nowhere because the past, regrets, anger will be everyones minds. Sectarian hatred is brought up in children from a young age and this is the problem. They have to come to an agreement but only if both parties want to be together. Forcing one country to be with another that it doesn't want to be with is not going make everything right; it'll just make things worse. And ask yourself, do you really want to see that? Because all I've heard is that Ireland should be together no matter what, but what of the implications of that? That's why both parties should vote so both sides are happy. The future is yet undecided, it is there for the making, and with both governments working together it'll eventually get there but only in a democratic but also diplomatic way. That's the thing that pisses me off, neither are accepting that. They have to get on, and btw, the IRA are not the only terrorist group; only one of many.
I just can't believe anyone can be so arrogant, ignorant of the entire issue. They have to earn each others trust and work together, it's not going to happen overnight. Let THEM DECIDE, or can't you just fathom that?!
-
"the IRA are not the only terrorist group; only one of many"
True.
Toad I see a point to rebellion but I don't see it has to involve putting bombs in litter bins in shopping centres, or blowing up horsemen and spectators on cermonial duties, or murdering people out for a drink, or killing people attending memorial services or killing old men on their boats, or any of the other cowardly disgusting acts that have been comitted in that rebellions name! If thats what it comes to that rebellion has lost its moral legitimacy ages ago.
What makes these kind of actions any different from those of Islamist terrorists, ETA sepratists, the Red army faction, Bader Meinhoff, Tim Mcveigh's loony group ( don't know the name ) or any of the other moraly repugnant groups that kill and maim.
-
I just can't believe anyone can be so arrogant, ignorant of the entire issue.
Arrogant? Ignorant?
How many nights till dawn have you spent loading fire trucks, driving into a NYC horror story? How many wives, sons and brothers of those lost to terror have you comforted? How many funerals did YOU attend?
Whats YOUR contribution to the war on terror, enh?
And why is it 'only americans' that are able to see both sides of the Irish equation and not get pissy?
Stuff it, Nexx. yer barkin the wrong tree.
-
I did find an interesting article on Wikipedia of all places.
"Likelihood of a United Ireland
The Good Friday agreement, which most parties (with the notable exception of the DUP) and both the British and Irish governments support, states that a majority of voters in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland would have to approve a United Ireland.
No referendums on the matter are planned in the near future as most political attention is currently focused on implementation of the Good Friday Agreement or possable changes to it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Reunification"
The way I read this is that independant votes would have to be taken in either country. And to quote the Progressive Democrats "Nationalism must be made legally, institutionally and economically legitimate within Northern Ireland." In other words, the process has to be legal, hence why each country has to vote. It's not in the constitution to decide otherwise, unless you want to ignore the voters of course.
-
well.. for me.. If I were Irish I would probly kill british soldiers. I would do this because I would look at them as the only reason that we couldn't have a united Ireland. I would not consider myself a terrorist unless I killed civilians.
I would demand that the british allow my entire country to vote on what kind of government it wanted..
So long as you do not allow the entire population of Irealand to vote for their destiny then you will be fighting. I do not condone terroriom but look at those who would demand a vote and kill only soldiers and police as simply soldiers.
Since they have no uniform you could maybe call them spys and shoot em. That would be fine with me.
What are the gun laws like in the independent Ireland compared to the subject Ireland?
lazs
-
Laz, you still don't understand do you.... you ever heard of countries voting to decide such things?
Well, if I was a British soldier and faced with a terrorist then I'd probably shoot you too.
-
Yes I take my hat of to you hangtime! Indeed you are one of the good guys.
However
"And why is it 'only americans' that are able to see both sides of the Irish equation and not get pissy? "
Why ist that Europeans are often able to see both sides of the situation in the ME and not get pissy?
I know about you guys getting pissy, I get it all the time in here! For trying to do just what you have suggested re the ME.
Lazs according to you you'd be quite safe shooting British soldiers as they couldn't shoot back. We Brits know nothing about guns dont ya know!
:lol
Wouldn't try it for real though if I were you. Your theory might get blown away in a hail of lead from a GPMG or SA80!:lol :lol ;)
-
Gents.. ( and thanks, Nexx) it's time to retire the sides I think..
I'm hopin the Irish Troubles are on the mend... both sides have work to do. (actually, all five sides, Protestant, Catholic, NI, ROI and UK)
Laz, the SAS have an excellent record in NI.. in terms of getting to and eliminating (exterminating) armed insurgents. Very, VERY good. You really don't wanna mess with 'em... good friend of mine is ex-sas, nicest guy you'd ever wanna meet. (lives here now.. likes the gun laws.. LOL!) Mention IRA and frankly your blood will run cold. Instant transformation. Seen the look before.. and the guy knows 'the business'.
And now an Irish toast...
"here's to you 'n here's to me,
here's to hoping we never disagree..
but if that should ever come to be..
then "**** you!" and here's to me!"
-
That's just peachy, Lazs. Because, as it happens, the IRA has only ever killed police and soldiers...
(http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/olmedia/65000/images/_65586_johnathan_ball150.jpg)
3 Years Old
(http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/olmedia/65000/images/_65586_tim_parry300.jpg)
12 Years Old
Killed by IRA bombs in Warrington in 1993. Where's the heroism in that? Where's the honour there? And you have the gall to call them freedom fighters, Hangtime?
At best the attitudes expressed by some Americans in this thread can be laid right alongside the view that "Sept.11 was terrible, but the US has made some bad foreign policy judgements".
At worst, tacit justification and tacit acceptance.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Point of order!
" never mentioned the US. It was others who chose to pursue that line. When you chose to go down that route I responded.
You responded to what you were fishing for to begin with.
Thinly veiled, but good try.
Not yank bashing, though admittedly it was US Norad supporters on the news that got me riled in the first place
Bingo! You found another way to work it in.
That was what this thread was supposed to be about
What color was the turnip truck? :}
There has been forms of terorrism for as long as history has been recorded and there will be forms of it until the end of these times I`m sure. Controlling it to a large degree is the key and as much as can be expexted.
There has also been revolts since the beginning of recorded history. Oranges/apples.
-
Deleted
Rule 4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Jackal1 I'd like to record here and now that you seem to be simply fishing to stir up the pond yourself . Take my views as you will. I'm sure there are those who will agree with you and likewise those who don't. Basicaly I am stating that I abhor terrorists and those who fund and back them. I would hope you might agree with that. One day you will read the entire post and not just the bits you think will make your case for labeling me as a yank basher, I live in hope.
Frankly I can't be bothered to argue with you about it anymore! :rolleyes:
-
Killed by IRA bombs in Warrington in 1993. Where's the heroism in that? Where's the honour there? And you have the gall to call them freedom fighters, Hangtime?
You have the gall to impune that your goverments hands are clean in Ireland?
In the north of Ireland 3646 people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict. 363 people have died directly as a result of actions perpetrated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army - 75 of whom were children. The overwhelming majority of those killed posed absolutely no threat whatsoever - they were unarmed when killed. Almost 200 were civilians and a proportionately high number of the overall deaths have occurred in highly controversial and disputed circumstances where there is evidence of a shoot to kill policy. 89% of those killed directly by the State were from the nationalist / republican community.
There are approximately 90 killings where the perpetrators remain unidentified. Civilians have died in situations where involvement has been denied by the British Government despite the evidence indicating otherwise. Other civilians have also been killed by off duty members of the State's armed groups.
Some 15,000 Irish Republicans went to prison during the course of the conflict serving a total of 100,000 years - in relation to killings by the State only 4 serving members of the British Army went to prison serving a total of 15 years and 3 months . All were subsequently released significantly early into their sentences and reinstated back into their regiments, two were promoted. No Royal Ulster Constabulary members were ever sentenced to imprisonment.
Additionally, Loyalist paramilitaries have claimed the lives of 1051 people. Many of these killings occurring in circumstances where there exists clear and irrefutable evidence of collusion by the Royal Ulster Constabulary / British Army and Loyalist death squads.
The combined actions of the British State and Loyalist forces are responsible for 1414 deaths.
BBC News.. The Stevens Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2954773.stm)
Don't wave your bloodstained hands at me, Dowding.
Next, the Mau Mau uprising. After that, Burma. Then we can get into Malayisa. And Palestine. Then India. And there's plenty more in Africa. And that's just the last 50 or so years. How far back you wanna draw the line, oh Holier than Thou Dowding? Tell me, save me some research time.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
One day you will read the entire post and not just the bits you think will make your case for labeling me as a yank basher
Not only read the entire post, I read the entire thread. It still comes out the same. They are your words in one of many, many threads and posts that you always work in some anti-US sentiment and attempt to blame my country for all of your perceived woes.. They are not my words in my posts, but yours in your posts.
I didn`t label you anything on this board, but you have sure done a fine job of it and like I posted earlier in the thread, you are not even slick about. Read the responses to the majority of your posts, as said earlier, and see if a light might eventualy go off somewhere.
You`re not cutting it in the "slipping this one in" division.
According to you everything from stomach aches to constipation in your country , is in some way, directly the blame of the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Some 15,000 Irish Republicans went to prison during the course of the conflict serving a total of 100,000 years - in relation to killings by the State only 4 serving members of the British Army went to prison serving a total of 15 years and 3 months . All were subsequently released significantly early into their sentences and reinstated back into their regiments, two were promoted. No Royal Ulster Constabulary members were ever sentenced to imprisonment.
Under the British policy of internment, many of the the 15,000 were jailed without trial on just the suspicon that they were associated with the IRA.
The ironic thing is that if it hadn't been for the anti catholic policy of the British government, the provisional IRA would never have gained the support that it did. Catholic Irish in NI had their backs to the wall and no where else to turn for help. This fact seems to be lost on some British when they try too apportion the blame of the IRA's more excessive actions on others.
Excel
-
I'm retiring from this post but here's some more promising news:
Military move heralds end of era (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4739227.stm) - as I've mentioned many times, it's time to look away from the past and look to the future. There will still be some British military left in Northern Ireland but they'll be in a support role to the Police (reduction from 20,000 to 5,000 in two years). Do remember that the British government have had very little to do with making decisions in Ireland for quite awhile; the decisions have been coming from both NI and the ROI (they have their parliaments but people with old ways; time for people with new ways - this is the step required).
Only when everyone is at peace, with absolutely no threat of reprisals no matter what religion you have, will I see a chance of a referendum. Optimism! And how I wish I was down my local Irish pub now sinking a Guinness or 6! See also. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4725973.stm)
Peace Out!
-
The general will report when the job is done, the new church witnesses will speak and the IRA's 'P O'Neill' might well pen his last words of this "war".
The past few days have given us the stuff of history - words and actions that point towards a better peace than the one we have had so far.
But there is another question: Are the loyalist paramilitaries watching and listening?
Because, in the here and now of Northern Ireland, it is their guns that are loudest.
[/b]
I too, hope the loyalists ALSO put their weapons 'beyond use'... and if they don't, that the State's resources be used as expeditiously against them as they were used against the IRA.
Most encouraging developments, indeed!
-
I am trying to figure out how my saying that I would kill british soldiers if my demands for a countrywide vote were not met could be translated into me joining the IRA much less killing women and little kids.
I am sure that the british troops there are very competent. Any group that wished to kill them would have to use their head.
replicant... you say that the people have voted... I read this whole thread and can't see where the entire island of Ireland voted on anything much less haveing british troops on their land.
Again... I would not join the IRA (they kill civilians)..... Again... I would kill soldiers and police (they kill civilians)..
I would hope that I could kill enough soldiers and police that my demands for a vote would be published.
I would kill soldiers.... I bet the soldiers would kill and incarcerate a lot fo civilians to get to me.
So what are the gun laws in the two parts of Ireland? if they are different countries how do they differ?
lazs
-
Just a point Lazs
The British Army's presence was requested by the catholic population in the late 60's as they were being persecuted by te Proddys and wanted protection.
The welcome news is that troop numbers are now being reduced asa result of the republican movement renouncing terrist tactics and the terrorist group the IRA standing down. Itsall good news realy.
As an aside I think that the tours British troops have to do in NI equips them well for peacekeeping and security roles. John Simpson did an interesting report on the news the other night about how British troops were percieved in Basra.
Many Iraqis interviewed actualy said, whilst they didn't want them there permanently they appreciated their presence and their biggest worry at the moment was that our Govt would withdraw them too soon. One of the things they liked was the fact that they could have a laugh and a joke with British Squaddies. It was notable that British troops were patroling without full combat gear, helmetsand the like.
I maintain that it was a mistake to get involved in the first place but I am changing my opinion on withdrawing the troops. They ought to stay till the Iraqi forces are up to taking over. I do believe that it is better to use the "softer approach" that the British forces use. Their battle for hearts and minds appears to be working.
As for branding you a terrorist sympathiser I think that is wrong. You are the only American who has categoricaly stated in this thread that you do see the IRA as a terrorist organisation and in your words
"If it can be proven that the drunken waste of humanity ted kennedy did so then he should be executed but...
he is not so easy to pin murders on... "
Very true.
By the way when do you fly in the MA? Be good to have another scrap like the last one!
;)
-
Sky, if I may..
1. While obstensibly the presence of the British Military was to keed the loyalist militia and the IRA factions apart, in practice the British Military wound up backing the Loyalists and the Royal Ulster Police.. this left the Catholics with no armed 'protection' other than the IRA .
2. I don't condone or support the IRA. I also don't condone or support the Loyalist Para Military Groups who are also guilty of bombings and heinious atrocities. They also deserve the 'terrorist' monicker, and all it implies.
3. The British Military, the 'Para's' and the Royal Ulster Police have been working together to 'stamp out the IRA menace', excesses have occured, including illegal SAS hit teams operating in country for many years. In effect.. your governments been supplying intel and material support as well as active support to one (pro loyalist) terrorist group to defeat another.
Lastly, again, I condemn both the IRA and the Loyalists for their slaughter of innocents. I applaud the recent efforts to halt and curb British Military involvement in the situation and am glad peace appears to be at last on a faster track than the last cease-fire accorded.
Lets hope it's over.
-
Hang
It is true to a certain extent that the British military would not necessarily target the Loyalist groups as much as the Nationalist ones, but be more leanient to a certain degree. This is because the Republican/Nationalist groups would be targetting the military directly and therefore were more likely to be engaged than the Loyalist groups. However, the British military have engaged and killed many members of the Loyalist groups (and also imprisoned members too). I can remember the groups feeling betrayed by the British because they were protecting the Catholics who were the Protestants enemies. Either terrorists would fight if out if they were backed in a corner, no matter which side they were on and no matter who it was against.
When I was in Newry, NI, the local residents never bothered with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Police - their Police Station was like Fort Knox!) and instead they'd get in touch with the local Senn Fein representative and they'd send round masked members of the IRA to sort out local problems. I was actually witness to this whilst I was there! Very scary! I took quite a few photos of the area whilst I was there but unfortunately they're back in the UK at the moment. My Catholic Nothern Irish girlfriend (I'm British Protestant) at the time told me many stories of how some of her friends had been killed or threatened. Some were simply because a Protestant had fallen in love with a Catholic (other people hit simply worked for British government companies such as the Royal Mail (US Mail)). This is the issue that worries me the most because hatred is bred into children from a very young age. It has to change for the future of Ireland.
The British government, and other western governments (including the US agencies such as the CIA) have provided information of known terrorists in Ireland in both North and South of the border.
Now, we just need these old fogeys to let the younger generation take over! :D
-
Sky, your blindness and preconception is showing again.
Originally posted by Toad
Nexx, no one here has any sympathy for terrorists. No one I've seen anyway.
I haven't seen a single person supporting the IRA for example.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Hang
It is true to a certain extent that the British military would not necessarily target the Loyalist groups as much as the Nationalist ones, but be more leanient to a certain degree. This is because the Republican/Nationalist groups would be targetting the military directly and therefore were more likely to be engaged than the Loyalist groups. However, the British military have engaged and killed many members of the Loyalist groups (and also imprisoned members too). I can remember the groups feeling betrayed by the British because they were protecting the Catholics who were the Protestants enemies. Either terrorists would fight if out if they were backed in a corner, no matter which side they were on and no matter who it was against.
When I was in Newry, NI, the local residents never bothered with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Police - their Police Station was like Fort Knox!) and instead they'd get in touch with the local Senn Fein representative and they'd send round masked members of the IRA to sort out local problems. I was actually witness to this whilst I was there! Very scary! I took quite a few photos of the area whilst I was there but unfortunately they're back in the UK at the moment. My Catholic Nothern Irish girlfriend (I'm British Protestant) at the time told me many stories of how some of her friends had been killed or threatened. Some were simply because a Protestant had fallen in love with a Catholic (other people hit simply worked for British government companies such as the Royal Mail (US Mail)). This is the issue that worries me the most because hatred is bred into children from a very young age. It has to change for the future of Ireland.
The British government, and other western governments (including the US agencies such as the CIA) have provided information of known terrorists in Ireland in both North and South of the border.
Now, we just need these old fogeys to let the younger generation take over! :D
Yep. Read last night about another Catholic girl being kidnaped, raped and murdered back in March. Grafitti on the alley walls, disgusting. Another Provo splinter group.. street thugs; a gang really...
I hope it can be stopped.. religious violence abolutely disgusts me. Sickening evil.. a freaking menace to society. And yer right, both sides teach the hate to their young.
I fear for our futures.. if modern christians can't live among each other in peace..
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am trying to figure out how my saying that I would kill british soldiers if my demands for a countrywide vote were not met could be translated into me joining the IRA much less killing women and little kids.
I am sure that the british troops there are very competent. Any group that wished to kill them would have to use their head.
replicant... you say that the people have voted... I read this whole thread and can't see where the entire island of Ireland voted on anything much less haveing british troops on their land.
Again... I would not join the IRA (they kill civilians)..... Again... I would kill soldiers and police (they kill civilians)..
I would hope that I could kill enough soldiers and police that my demands for a vote would be published.
I would kill soldiers.... I bet the soldiers would kill and incarcerate a lot fo civilians to get to me.
So what are the gun laws in the two parts of Ireland? if they are different countries how do they differ?
lazs
I think I know what you are getting at. Guerrilla warfare in effect. Many joined the IRA on that basis. Fighting for freedom etc. I met one or two who did just that. They left when it became apparent that the IRA had become terrorists and that killing civilians and planting random bombs was acceptable to them.
In the end the IRA ran into a kind of stalemate with the British army. There was in fact a form of mutual respect. The British army became far too dangerous to attack so the provos went for softer targets.
Killling soldiers didn't work, as after all, soldiers are in effect there to be shot at. Killing civilians didn't work either, as it happened, hence the end of their campaign.
As an Irishman, I had no problem serving in the British armed services and actually enquired about joining at one stage. But it never worked out. But several friends and acquaintences who did just that. One joined the Paras that I know of. I worked with a guy who served in the Irish Guards, an elite regiment in the British army. He was one of those guys wearing a red jacket and a bearskin guarding the Queen from other Irishmen. None of them qualified as British and were from the republic. The SAS have many Irishmen serving in it. Yet I would bet money that almost all of them favoured a united Ireland but only through peaceful means. The IRA was the enemy.
So you see the situation was not as clearcut as you think.
On the gun law situation. Northern Ireland falls under British juristiction. The laws are a bit different from Britain, handguns are allowed, mostly for protection purposes and the usual rifles and shotguns are in use but all must be licensed.
In the Republic of Ireland the laws are quite tough, thanks mostly to the IRA who the authorities were afraid would arm themselves by stealing guns from legitimate owners. All handguns and large calibre rifles were taken into custody in the 1970's. Not confiscated, the owners still owned them but couldn't bring them out of the police station. The police wouldn't issue licences for new handguns or large calibre rifles, although strictly speaking there was no law against owning one. This was tested in court recently by a sports target shooter. He won the case and later a European and world championship with his new rifle. This opened the door and now you can buy handguns (with restrictions). The only problem is that you must have a seperate licence and pay a yearly fee for each gun. Apparently there are around 213, 000 legally held firearms in Ireland. That in population of less than four million.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
First off Swoop this I find seriously offensive:
Hmm. I chose the wrong time to duck outta this thread didn't I.....
Right then, glad I checked back in.
Cpxxx,
I am not of the opinion that everyone from Southern Ireland is a 'redneck mick'. I was speaking from the point of view of a fella I used to work with while in Holland who's from Belfast and certainly does think the entire population of Eire are 'redneck micks'. I recall vividly a party he threw during which he regaled us with a lengthy, and - at the time - very humorous monolog involving convincing a lad from Dublin that there's a wall between north and south that he used to throw stones over as a kid.
However, I'm digressing.
I don't think of Irishmen as redneck micks. I withdraw, retract, rescind, revoke and bury the statement where the sun doesn't shine and, as I can see while reading back over the post that you could certainly take it that I do, apologise for the wording.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Wait a minute, Hangtime. I'm not the one posting qualified condemnation of terrorists.
Unlike yourself, I haven't posted apologetic statements on the behalf of the IRA et al.
Skydancer, if I was an irish patriot, I'd bomb the hell outta the invader.. I'd strike where I could, as often as I could and I'd take the fight to the enemy's shores the moment I could.
It would seem you are well versed with the mindset of the Warrington freedom-fighter (sic).
As for British atrocities, I make no excuses for them. My hands are clean - and my conscience clear. Ironically, there is often much talk on these boards of 'understanding' the wrong-doer as a fault of liberalism. I have no intention of 'understanding' the terrorist, or feeling 'empathy'. I'll leave that to you and your compatriots.
-
Dowding generaly I agree though don't confuse understanding with sympathising. In order to defeat your enemy you must first try to understand him. Thats not "liberalism" thats sense!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Wait a minute, Hangtime. I'm not the one posting qualified condemnation of terrorists.
Unlike yourself, I haven't posted apologetic statements on the behalf of the IRA et al.
It would seem you are well versed with the mindset of the Warrington freedom-fighter (sic).
As for British atrocities, I make no excuses for them. My hands are clean - and my conscience clear. Ironically, there is often much talk on these boards of 'understanding' the wrong-doer as a fault of liberalism. I have no intention of 'understanding' the terrorist, or feeling 'empathy'. I'll leave that to you and your compatriots.
Well, I could tell yah what I really think, but it'd just get censored.
So instead, I've decided to join the IRA so I can collect the bottle of baileys creme bounty. I'll get the cats and the recruiter drunk and i'll talk him into sending 'em to an IRA terrorist bombmaking camp in Libya. Once they get trained up in suicide school I'll send 'em to england to bomb yer ass.
Cheers, Dowding!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am trying to figure out how my saying that I would kill british soldiers if my demands for a countrywide vote were not met could be translated into me joining the IRA much less killing women and little kids.
lazs, the troubles in Northern Ireland that led to the bloodshed between the British , catholics and protestants over the last 30 or 40 years originated from the civil rights protests of the catholic minority in the mid to late 1960's. They wanted and end to the institutionized discrimination against them by the protestant majority. When the protestant goverment in NI outlawed the civil rights marches the trouble really begun. Both the police and protestant mobs got stuck into the catholics, it was open season on them. The discrimination had turned to persecution and the IRA were of no help to the catholics as they had largely disarmed and disbanded in the early 1960's.
The plight of the catholics in NI was for all the world to see, and even though it was causing huge embarresment to the British government they were reluctant to get directly involved, but they had no choice because their puppet government in NI had lost control of the situation there.
The IRA had reformed to protect the catholics from the protestants and police. British troops were sent to NI in 1969 to do the same, and initaly they did that. There were many catholics that had expectations that the Brits would put things right in NI but the British governments desire to rid NI of the IRA once and for all saw them take a pro- protestant anti-catholic stance that alienated the catholics and at the same time increased the support for the IRA.
The IRA lost a large part of it's support through it's use of terror tactics that I don't condone, but it had a large support base to start with, protestant thugs, the RUC and British policy in NI ensured that.
Excel
-
well... I am learning a lot here. thanks cpxx and excel. I guess that I would be happy if my countrymen were doing everything they could to peacfully unite my country but I am too impatient and stupid to participate in that so I would do my part by killing british soldiers and cops and politicians.
I guess where I get the (wrong?) impression that I could do that is not because I don't think the soldiers are competent and well trained (I do) but that I mistakenly think in terms of the U.S.. One huge continent with lots of wilderness and big cities to hide in. I imagine it is somewhat harder to lay low in such a tiny island.
dowding... I think you still qualify as a liberal... liberals feel sympathy only for SOME criminals and scumbags... ones that don't share their ideas are never given any sympathy.
lazs
-
Apology accepted Swoop. It did seem out of character. As for your Belfast friend. That view is still common in the North with the more insular types. When they do visit they are shocked to find a normal modern liberal rich European country populated with people who could give a s*** what religion you are. Unlike the North which still clings to a lot of the old sectarianism.
Actually Lazs, small though Ireland is, there are plenty of places to hide out in the wilderness. Not an hour out of Dublin city, there is a area which is completely devoid of any evidence of human existence except for a road called the 'military road' built two hundred years ago by the British to chase rebels.
Your idea of shooting cops and soldiers is all very well but suppose all the cops and many of the soldiers were actually fellow countrymen? That is the much of the problem.
-
cpxx... here in America we had a little slaughter fest bout 140 years ago where brothers were killing brothers because they wore different color uniforms. Americans are not that adverse to slaughtering countrymen or even relatives for that matter.
lazs
-
yep. could kill my brother for 'losing' my uncles .45acp
rat bastard.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Unlike the North which still clings to a lot of the old sectarianism.
Unfortunately it isn't just something that's local to NI but also in Scotland, especially in Glasgow (particularly with the Football clubs!!). Is sectarianism present in other parts of the UK?
-
I don't know... I guess that if here in the states most of the people wanted to leave the union and they were killing folks and we had to have federal troops even in the areas that were pro federal government....
I would expect that we would either have a nationwide vote (all the states) or simply have another civil war.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would expect that we would either have a nationwide vote (all the states) or simply have another civil war.
lazs
And there it is. Spot on. Nail on the head, etc, etc, etc.