NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the question.
The IRA have been blamed by both the UK and Irish governments for the Hostage Bank robbery, but they have denied it.
Because they were accused, they are refusing to disable thier weapons.
Not that they agreed to allow anyone check that the weapons were disarmed in the first place.
Supposision in the UK is that the IRA is unwilling to give up thier illegal activity thats why they wont surrender the weapons.

Well, when you think about it, it makes sense. When the war is lost and the cause is dead, a group of armed men is likely to employ its weapons in the pursuit of crime.

With the US now in a war on terror, will they still be allowed to campain for funds?

With the US now in a war on terror, will they still be allowed to campain for funds?
Doesn't matter, Americans will continue to donate money. :mad:

Here's the question.
The IRA have been blamed by both the UK and Irish governments for the Hostage Bank robbery, but they have denied it.
Because they were accused, they are refusing to disable thier weapons.
Not that they agreed to allow anyone check that the weapons were disarmed in the first place.
Supposision in the UK is that the IRA is unwilling to give up thier illegal activity thats why they wont surrender the weapons.

I think we both know what they want. It's peace, for sure, but only after they have what else they want.

Doesn't matter, Americans will continue to donate money. :mad:

Yeah, they never bitch about terrorism unless it's against them.

Like every other politicised group in Northern Ireland, the IRA want what everybody wants - peace, on their terms. All that changes with each group is what those terms are.

Doesn't matter, Americans will continue to donate money. :mad:

Amazing, we're giving away money that we don't have. Have fun with our rubber cheques!

Isn't the IRA one of if not the oldest terrorist group around?

Isn't the IRA one of if not the oldest terrorist group around?
Hehehe. Irish geezers with bombs

The IRA can no longer openly gather funds in the US. I think Clinton stopped it. The US supplied them for 25 years with weapons and much of what they have are supposedly M16, M60 style stuff as well as eastern eurpoean stuff.
Surely blamming the IRA for the robberies is the problem here. If a member of the Labour party (Even an MP ?) were to rob a bank we wouldn't condem the entire party. I realise the Labour party has no history of bank robbery but the comparison still stands if you are an IRA member. The more significant question would be why the police have blamed the IRA rather than "members" of the IRA. The could have distanced themselves from such a dirrect and divisive accusation. I think we can't even begin to see how much polical manipulation and manouvering is going on. The IRA will allow witnesses to disarmament but not photographs. There case is that the nationalist and British army don't disarm in the way that the IRA are being asked to. They seem to want equality of terms but I may have misunderstood it.

The IRA is an illegal organisation.

The IRA has been involved in terrorist actions and criminal activities.

If a member of it commits a crime, it is not a stretch to say the organisation as a whole knew/planned/authorised/looked the other way.

The Labour Party is a legal political party.

It is not known for illegal activities.

If a member of the Labour Party commits a crime, it is therefore understandable to see it as an action undertaken without knowledge and/or permission from the Labour Party as a whole, and therefore not blame it on the Labour Party.

And the IRA's objection to decommissioning is total BS. What are they, frickin' camera shy?

The IRA can no longer openly gather funds in the US. I think Clinton stopped it. The US supplied them for 25 years with weapons and much of what they have are supposedly M16, M60 style stuff as well as eastern eurpoean stuff.
Surely blamming the IRA for the robberies is the problem here. If a member of the Labour party (Even an MP ?) were to rob a bank we wouldn't condem the entire party. I realise the Labour party has no history of bank robbery but the comparison still stands if you are an IRA member. The more significant question would be why the police have blamed the IRA rather than "members" of the IRA. The could have distanced themselves from such a dirrect and divisive accusation. I think we can't even begin to see how much polical manipulation and manouvering is going on. The IRA will allow witnesses to disarmament but not photographs. There case is that the nationalist and British army don't disarm in the way that the IRA are being asked to. They seem to want equality of terms but I may have misunderstood it.

Because an IRA operation like the Northern Bank robbery would be planned by an IRA cell, and given the go ahead by the highest members of the IRA (like the Army Council)...so its fair to blame the IRA as an organisation instead of just a few members

The IRA/Sinn Fein have really shot themselves in the foot...it has vindicated the DUP position over the last few years and in the eyes of unionists now any feeling of trust that may have been built up towards Sinn Fein (i would really doubt if anyone in the unionist community trusted them anyway) will be completely gone.

With the DUP now being proven right over the last few years, theres no chance of a deal....

The IRA is an illegal organisation.

The IRA has been involved in terrorist actions and criminal activities.

If a member of it commits a crime, it is not a stretch to say the organisation as a whole knew/planned/authorised/looked the other way.

The Labour Party is a legal political party.

It is not known for illegal activities.

If a member of the Labour Party commits a crime, it is therefore understandable to see it as an action undertaken without knowledge and/or permission from the Labour Party as a whole, and therefore not blame it on the Labour Party.

And the IRA's objection to decommissioning is total BS. What are they, frickin' camera shy?

I agree entirely but you have to try and see this from the other side to understand their problem. The IRA see them selves as freedom fighters. They don't see themselves as illegal because they don't recognise the authority of the UK govt. to ban them. They must feel they are no different to the ANC who carried out illegal activities in S. Africa to gain power. Don't forget Nelson Mandella was jailed for supporting a bombing campaign. By any measure he was a terrorist. The success of the ANC to gain power and to run reconciliation hearings has surely encouraged the IRA to maintain their independant stance. They win in the end because "the world" demands peace so if they hold out they are more likely to get it on their terms. The point isn't whether they are "camera shy". They don't want to agree to do what no one else is expected to do. They don't see the british army dis-arming, just leaving. They could come back fully armed at a moments notice. Prehaps the govt. should be explaining the downsizing of the army in terms of disarmament due to a ceasation of hostilities with the IRA. But of course that would offend the conservative (small C) amoungst us.
The good thing. The IRA do not have the influence they had 20 years ago or the fundingwhich means they can't actually out wait us becuase their influence decreases every year. Now I 've confused my self thinking this out on the fly.

They must feel they are no different to the ANC who carried out illegal activities in S. Africa to gain power. Don't forget Nelson Mandella was jailed for supporting a bombing campaign. By any measure he was a terrorist. The success of the ANC to gain power and to run reconciliation hearings has surely encouraged the IRA to maintain their independant stance.

The difference is that in SA, blacks are in the majority, and the ANC were fighting for a majority...whereas in Northern Ireland, nationalists are in the minority, and the IRA are fighting to impose the minority will

Because an IRA operation like the Northern Bank robbery would be planned by an IRA cell, and given the go ahead by the highest members of the IRA (like the Army Council)...so its fair to blame the IRA as an organisation instead of just a few members

The IRA/Sinn Fein have really shot themselves in the foot...it has vindicated the DUP position over the last few years and in the eyes of unionists now any feeling of trust that may have been built up towards Sinn Fein (i would really doubt if anyone in the unionist community trusted them anyway) will be completely gone.

With the DUP now being proven right over the last few years, theres no chance of a deal....
Sorry I missed your post. I type really slowly.
I'm not trying to offend. Just work it out in a balanced way
The unionists are as stuck in their stance as the IRA.
When you think of this in aEuropean way it's all becomes a bit silly.
When the UK changes to the Euro (please Gods we will) then open borders, a shared currency and movement towards equality between the north and south is inevitable and sovreinty becomes less important to mr. average. Both sides (all the sides?) are living in the past and it's a bit sad really.

The difference is that in SA, blacks are in the majority, and the ANC were fighting for a majority...whereas in Northern Ireland, nationalists are in the minority, and the IRA are fighting to impose the minority will
Agreed but the republicans will tell you they are the minority because William of Orange shipped in thousands of Protestants from Scotland to make it so.
Had we all gone to SA to bolster up the white numbers would the ANC have then been wrong?
As I said in my last post which crossed yours it's all bloody silly really to live that far in the past with a strange personal spin on history to "make your point valid" which both sides do.

So, there are terrorists in Ireland. Why not take the Falluja approach? And blame the terrorists for bystanders killed!

I disagree with alot of u on this. I do not believe that the IRA are a terrorist goup i think they are simply fighting for their freedom, i mean the poms literally took their country away from them, im not blaming them thats how stuff happened back then, but i think that the IRA really just want the country to be how it used to be. I also believe that some members of the IRA just want to shit. With terrorists though youve got to look at their side of the story. To them we're the enemy, we're evil empire and to us they're the destructive opposers of truth and justice. im not siding with terrorists though, just satin their side of the story. and think of this though, since they were born, they were brought up to believe their way is right and every other way is wrong. its an irreversible situation. anyway enough deep shit. plus watch this flash move, i thought it was pretty good and it made me think. (i got most of the quotes from it)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lifecynical.php

"the love of one country leads to the hate of another" Aliyaho Pearce

There is no good, there is no evil, just hate

we all live on the same rock, can't we just get along

the ka-tet of 19 and 99

Sorry I missed your post. I type really slowly.
I'm not trying to offend. Just work it out in a balanced way
The unionists are as stuck in their stance as the IRA.
When you think of this in aEuropean way it's all becomes a bit silly.
When the UK changes to the Euro (please Gods we will) then open borders, a shared currency and movement towards equality between the north and south is inevitable and sovreinty becomes less important to mr. average. Both sides (all the sides?) are living in the past and it's a bit sad really.
my point in the first part, which was in relation to the quote, was that it is very possible to blame the IRA as an organisation for the bank raid, because the leaders of the organisation knew about it, and gave the go ahead


anyway, of course the unionists are stuck in their stance, but its not helped when the IRA does what its been doing for the last year - talking about peace etc while carrying out armed robberies, bank raids etc

what i was saying is that if the IRA had really looked like going for true peace, the DUP wouldnt be the largest party and we would have an assembly going....the support for the DUP at the last elections was in more or less direct relation to their hardline stance against nationalism

So, there are terrorists in Ireland. Why not take the Falluja approach? And blame the terrorists for bystanders killed!
Because it's wrong and no one is fooled by it?
Because the relatives of the bystanders may no agree with you?
Because it helps recruit more terrorists to a cause?

Agreed but the republicans will tell you they are the minority because William of Orange shipped in thousands of Protestants from Scotland to make it so.
Had we all gone to SA to bolster up the white numbers would the ANC have then been wrong?
As I said in my last post which crossed yours it's all bloody silly really to live that far in the past with a strange personal spin on history to "make your point valid" which both sides do.
William of Orange didnt ship anybody in, the plantation was started by Elizabeth in the early 1600s i think, William was just a protestant king who won a battle over a catholic one and became a "poster boy". which is ridiculous, because he was supported by the Pope....

people dont use history as much as you might think, sure its nice to have a bit of tradition - but the issue is nationalism vs unionism, and no amount of history is going to change that...

Because it's wrong and no one is fooled by it?
Because the relatives of the bystanders may no agree with you?
Because it helps recruit more terrorists to a cause?


hmm, guess you're right.

my point in the first part, which was in relation to the quote, was that it is very possible to blame the IRA as an organisation for the bank raid, because the leaders of the organisation knew about it, and gave the go ahead


anyway, of course the unionists are stuck in their stance, but its not helped when the IRA does what its been doing for the last year - talking about peace etc while carrying out armed robberies, bank raids etc

what i was saying is that if the IRA had really looked like going for true peace, the DUP wouldnt be the largest party and we would have an assembly going....the support for the DUP at the last elections was in more or less direct relation to their hardline stance against nationalism
Unfortunately it's hard to prove they knew if they constantly deny it. They've always claimed indepedant cells haven't they. It allows they to claim what they like. My later point was really that blaming the IRA as an organisation is a strange thing to do. It was sure to piss them off when a slight change of words to blame members of the iRA may have ben more diplomaticalty acceptable. There are things a foot that we can not hope to see. Are the powers that be trying to tell the man in the street (you more than me really) that the IRA is JUST a criminal organisation and thus attempt to sideline them even more thean they have been. Prehaps to push more people towards the DUP??
You're probably better placed to just the effect but from a distance it seems strange.

I’m from the North of Ireland; the 'government' in the north is an illegal body going against then principals of the first Dail Eireann in June/July 1919. The IRA's in every shape and forms, be it the CIRA, RIRA or PIRA, they are our community's defenders. If you get robbed you phone your local Sinn Fein rep. and nearly always you have your stuff back and the guy can’t walk. Now 'caus of the GFA (Good Friday Agreement) this is impossible. The PIRA have tried and tried to get peace in the North but due to Unionist and the British governments refusal for the acceptance of the Nationalists tradition and culture they are now finally standing up to the brits and the unionists.

You talk of the IRA as "Terrorists", what about 30th January 1972, the british army shot dead 13 innocent protestors who were protesting against internment(Imprisonment without trial) of course no loyalists were rounded up and it was mainly Catholics, only a handful of IRA were caught, who were interned, to this day not one brit has been brought to justice for this crime. And like after many events when Catholics were killed nothing will come but they will be allowed back to their battalion and greeted as heroes.

The IRA has warned of a "Spectacular" like in 1993 and 1996.

"The war will continue with or without the Provisionals" - RSF

Nearly all nationalists like myself have seen the PIRA attempt to bring peace to our land but due to pressure from the DUP + UUP this is not possible and I fully back and calls to arm and/or bombing campaigns in London, resulting in civilian casualties.

Unless you've lived here and gone through what the Nationalist community has went through of course you would be anti-IRA. In the words of Padraig Pearse - "A thing which stands demonstrable is that nationhood is not achieved otherwise than in arms"

Read up on your Irish history before you's speak on a subject you know nothing but from black propaganda!

"Ireland un-free shall never be at peace" - Pearse

William of Orange didnt ship anybody in, the plantation was started by Elizabeth in the early 1600s i think, William was just a protestant king who won a battle over a catholic one and became a "poster boy". which is ridiculous, because he was supported by the Pope....

people dont use history as much as you might think, sure its nice to have a bit of tradition - but the issue is nationalism vs unionism, and no amount of history is going to change that...
Crap - wrong royalty again. Sorry. The irony of Pour Old Bill being a hero of one side or the other amused me. Didn't he have an army of dutch and german mercs. under his control? and to find he was supported by the pope makes it even sillier.

I have never, and will never support a terrorist organisation.

Especially one that likes to blow bits out of my country of birth.

Yeah, I see why they might do it. But if I were them I wouldn't do the same. In a democratic country, terrorism is unacceptable.

If they want a United Ireland, they must go through democratic channels and have the people vote it through.

Not because 'this was the way it was before'.
Not because 'do it or we'll bomb you'.
But because 'we think it would be better, and this is why _____'.

Surely blamming the IRA for the robberies is the problem here. If a member of the Labour party (Even an MP ?) were to rob a bank we wouldn't condem the entire party...The more significant question would be why the police have blamed the IRA rather than "members" of the IRA.
Okaaay...so September 11 is not representative of al-Quaeda. The proverbial few bad apples. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately it's hard to prove they knew if they constantly deny it. They've always claimed indepedant cells haven't they. It allows they to claim what they like. My later point was really that blaming the IRA as an organisation is a strange thing to do. It was sure to piss them off when a slight change of words to blame members of the iRA may have ben more diplomaticalty acceptable. There are things a foot that we can not hope to see. Are the powers that be trying to tell the man in the street (you more than me really) that the IRA is JUST a criminal organisation and thus attempt to sideline them even more thean they have been. Prehaps to push more people towards the DUP??
You're probably better placed to just the effect but from a distance it seems strange.
i think that the IRA wouldnt be too happy about independent cells doing such a thing....and i dont think an independent cell would be able to either. Van stolen in wales...transported to NI, money stolen, then van disappears southwards

at least two cells probably....someone to steal the van and send it to NI, another one to commit the crime

I also think that the police, because of the seriousness of the crime, werent interested in being "diplomatically acceptable"...they just want to catch who did it really...

as for the politicians, well the DUP have jumped on it, Sinn Fein have denied it, Bertie Ahern (Irish PM) has accepted it, Blair has played it down....and it seems nothing will be done to Sinn Fein

Sorry I missed your post. I type really slowly.
I'm not trying to offend. Just work it out in a balanced way
The unionists are as stuck in their stance as the IRA.
When you think of this in aEuropean way it's all becomes a bit silly.
When the UK changes to the Euro (please Gods we will) then open borders, a shared currency and movement towards equality between the north and south is inevitable and sovreinty becomes less important to mr. average. Both sides (all the sides?) are living in the past and it's a bit sad really.

The pound shall never be surrendered to the French and the Germans and by God there are those who still love their country enough to fight such vile and evil plans.

yo griswalk i hear u brother. im half irish an live in australia. never been 2 ireland but i still support my heritage. the IRA arnet terroroist, and people don't bother to think what brought them to act as they are.
the ka-tet of 19 and 99

I’m from the North of Ireland; the 'government' in the north is an illegal body going against then principals of the first Dail Eireann in June/July 1919. The IRA's in every shape and forms, be it the CIRA, RIRA or PIRA, they are our community's defenders. If you get robbed you phone your local Sinn Fein rep. and nearly always you have your stuff back and the guy can’t walk. Now 'caus of the GFA (Good Friday Agreement) this is impossible. The PIRA have tried and tried to get peace in the North but due to Unionist and the British governments refusal for the acceptance of the Nationalists tradition and culture they are now finally standing up to the brits and the unionists.

You talk of the IRA as "Terrorists", what about 30th January 1972, the british army shot dead 13 innocent protestors who were protesting against internment(Imprisonment without trial) of course no loyalists were rounded up and it was mainly Catholics, only a handful of IRA were caught, who were interned, to this day not one brit has been brought to justice for this crime. And like after many events when Catholics were killed nothing will come but they will be allowed back to their battalion and greeted as heroes.

The IRA has warned of a "Spectacular" like in 1993 and 1996.

"The war will continue with or without the Provisionals" - RSF

Nearly all nationalists like myself have seen the PIRA attempt to bring peace to our land but due to pressure from the DUP + UUP this is not possible and I fully back and calls to arm and/or bombing campaigns in London, resulting in civilian casualties.

Unless you've lived here and gone through what the Nationalist community has went through of course you would be anti-IRA. In the words of Padraig Pearse - "A thing which stands demonstrable is that nationhood is not achieved otherwise than in arms"

Read up on your Irish history before you's speak on a subject you know nothing but from black propaganda!

"Ireland un-free shall never be at peace" - Pearse
Now you are confused.
I have no problem with your cause. I have known members of the IRA as friends. I have a problem with violence by anyone against any one to acheive political ends. If acts are carried out by any side, including the British Army, which are wrong then prosecutions should be made. This happens today. It happens in Iraq. It happens in the Balcans. These are crimes against humanity and should be punished.
But you really need to stop looking backwards. You have to reconsile yourself to the fact that evils have been done and will not ever be accounted for. Prehaps if you are a christian then your god gets his say in the end? South Africa has managed it so it is possible.
The way your community is often treated is WRONG but political pressure to correct that will only be made in the UK when we have sympathy with your cause. If you bomb us it re-focus's our view against you. We are then prepared to overlook illegal acts as necessary. Violence only begats violence.

I’m from the North of Ireland; the 'government' in the north is an illegal body going against then principals of the first Dail Eireann in June/July 1919. The IRA's in every shape and forms, be it the CIRA, RIRA or PIRA, they are our community's defenders. If you get robbed you phone your local Sinn Fein rep. and nearly always you have your stuff back and the guy can’t walk. Now 'caus of the GFA (Good Friday Agreement) this is impossible. The PIRA have tried and tried to get peace in the North but due to Unionist and the British governments refusal for the acceptance of the Nationalists tradition and culture they are now finally standing up to the brits and the unionists.

You talk of the IRA as "Terrorists", what about 30th January 1972, the british army shot dead 13 innocent protestors who were protesting against internment(Imprisonment without trial) of course no loyalists were rounded up and it was mainly Catholics, only a handful of IRA were caught, who were interned, to this day not one brit has been brought to justice for this crime. And like after many events when Catholics were killed nothing will come but they will be allowed back to their battalion and greeted as heroes.

The IRA has warned of a "Spectacular" like in 1993 and 1996.

"The war will continue with or without the Provisionals" - RSF

Nearly all nationalists like myself have seen the PIRA attempt to bring peace to our land but due to pressure from the DUP + UUP this is not possible and I fully back and calls to arm and/or bombing campaigns in London, resulting in civilian casualties.

Unless you've lived here and gone through what the Nationalist community has went through of course you would be anti-IRA. In the words of Padraig Pearse - "A thing which stands demonstrable is that nationhood is not achieved otherwise than in arms"

Read up on your Irish history before you's speak on a subject you know nothing but from black propaganda!

"Ireland un-free shall never be at peace" - Pearse
Bloody Sunday...13 people? sad yes, but the IRA killed 2,000. the majority innocent civilians...and you dont see an enquiry

Illegal government? The British Government of Northern was accepted by Michael Collins and the Dail...so tough shit on that one....

you cant honestly agree with an organisation that goes against every democratic principle and uses violence to impose the will of the minority on the majority?

The IRA are not freedom fighters, nor do they have any legitimate political claim. The Welsh and Scots have accepted the past and have worked as British citizens within the existing system perfectly well. Are they oppressed? Hardly. Nor let's be honest, does independent Ireland give a damn.

I cannot imagine what is lacking in some Northern Irish people and poorly informed diaspora who have had no connection with the place for over a century, that makes them react so inadequately to reality.

No-one else in the UK is planting car bombs in the name of indpendence, so they don't get an Army presence. It's a cause and effect thing. Accept reality, play the game, and the troops will leave.

The pound shall never be surrendered to the French and the Germans and by God there are those who still love their country enough to fight such vile and evil plans.. If I get enough pay at the end of the month to pay my bills then I don't care if it's pounds, euros ,franks or zlotties. During the nepolionic wars (1800's) there were very few pounds in circulation and currency from all over the world was acceptable to pay the army.Gold is gold and currency is backed by gold. If it was good enough for Wellington who am I to dis-agree.

The IRA are not freedom fighters, nor do they have any legitimate political claim. The Welsh and Scots have accepted the past and have worked as British citizens within the existing system perfectly well. Are they oppressed? Hardly. Nor let's be honest, does independent Ireland give a damn.

I cannot imagine what is lacking in some Northern Irish people and poorly informed diaspora who have had no connection with the place for over a century, that makes them react so inadequately to reality.

No-one else in the UK is planting car bombs in the name of indpendence, so they don't get an Army presence. It's a cause and effect thing. Accept reality, play the game, and the troops will leave.
Agreed 100%
If they really cared for anything but power they would sit down and sort it out. The vast majority of both sides surely just want to get on with their lives in peace. Maybe, as I said earlier, as we move further into line with europe this will all slowly fade away as an issue.

Gold is gold and currency is backed by gold.
Actually these days currencies are effectively backed by oil, more than gold. But I agree with the sentiment.

And personally, I would be proud to pay for my morning paper with Euros. :D

Actually these days currencies are effectively backed by oil, more than gold. But I agree with the sentiment.

And personally, I would be proud to pay for my morning paper with Euros. :D
I was being rhetorical (I think??)
Wouldn't it be nice to travel to and fro in europe without having to pay a middle man for exchange. I quite like Turkey too so the sooner they join the EU the better. I run out of fingers counting tukish money.

Because an IRA operation like the Northern Bank robbery would be planned by an IRA cell, and given the go ahead by the highest members of the IRA (like the Army Council)...so its fair to blame the IRA as an organisation instead of just a few members

The IRA/Sinn Fein have really shot themselves in the foot...it has vindicated the DUP position over the last few years and in the eyes of unionists now any feeling of trust that may have been built up towards Sinn Fein (i would really doubt if anyone in the unionist community trusted them anyway) will be completely gone.

With the DUP now being proven right over the last few years, theres no chance of a deal....
I have personal gaurantees that the IRA had nothing to do with the robbery. The people I know with such connections have never lied to me and have general access. I f it had been sanctioned by the IRA they would know. The IRA has been fighting an illegal war for many years and refuse to listen to reason, even from within their own ranks, but they do have what they believe to be the best interests of the Irish in mind. The problem is they have never been strong enough to exile the British and remain independant unlike the Scotish. Scotland willing joined the United Kingdom but Ireland was not given that choice. Yes a plebacite was held but the British used it as an excuse to divide the country. To truely understand the situation and culture you must first talk to those with first hand knowledge and then put yourself in their shoes.

I have personal gaurantees that the IRA had nothing to do with the robbery. The people I know with such connections have never lied to me and have general access. I f it had been sanctioned by the IRA they would know. The IRA has been fighting an illegal war for many years and refuse to listen to reason, even from within their own ranks, but they do have what they believe to be the best interests of the Irish in mind. The problem is they have never been strong enough to exile the British and remain independant unlike the Scotish. Scotland willing joined the United Kingdom but Ireland was not given that choice. Yes a plebacite was held but the British used it as an excuse to divide the country. To truely understand the situation and culture you must first talk to those with first hand knowledge and then put yourself in their shoes.
The Irish are free. its that simple. The majority of people in the north are British. Belfast is much more a British city than an Irish one, far more industrial than any Irish city ever was....it was once one of the most important industrial city in the Empire...

Who do you have these guarantees from? I would love to know who you trust over the Prime Minister of the Republic, and the Chief Constable of the PSNI on this issue...

Ian Paisely (Reverend my arse) never wanted peace with the IRA. That is why he asked for photos, and humliation for the IRA in asking for photos of weapons being destroyed.

He knew all along the IRA would not show the photos, for it would be a huge physical and visual climb down defeat for the IRA, who are proud of their struggle.

Whether the IRA commited the robbery or not, I don't know, I find it rather odd, they may have even been fitted up, but if they have done it, the only thing that I can think of is that they don't want to be humiliated by Paisely anymore and that they are going to spend the cash on weapons to renew the fight.

Everybody goes on about the IRA decommissioning, but what about the UVF, UFF, and The Red Hand Defenders? Or are they excusable from their heinous crimes because they fought under the Union flag, and often with the collaboration of the British Security Forces, ie Army and Police and Intelligence.

And why are they called loyalists? Surely that is trying to describe them as the loyal terrorists?

Actually these days currencies are effectively backed by oil, more than gold. But I agree with the sentiment.

And personally, I would be proud to pay for my morning paper with Euros. :D
Actually Money has in the past always been backed by gold reserves. Some countries, like Canada, foolishly removed this backing and now are just currency. Before Tredeau's change we were always worth more than the Americian dollar but since it we have been lucky to be worth .75 to 1. Many Arab countries do back their currency with Oil but they are the only ones. I am not sure the exact way the Euro is backed but they do still have gold backing.

Actually Money has in the past always been backed by gold reserves. Some countries, like Canada, foolishly removed this backing and now are just currency. Before Tredeau's change we were always worth more than the Americian dollar but since it we have been lucky to be worth .75 to 1. Many Arab countries do back their currency with Oil but they are the only ones. I am not sure the exact way the Euro is backed but they do still have gold backing.

Sorry, You are wrong, the last attempt at Gold backing was around the first world war, and some say, part of the cause. France refused to send the gold to other countries to cover notes held. After the war, it was impossible to make good the gap created by payments to the US (in Gold) for Goods, and the total notes in circulation. An attempt was made to use the US Dollar as a standard, but they started printing money without cover and it broke down again.
This was covered in my Economics class at school which was a long time ago, so I apologise for the inacuraccies as to reason and exact dates.

Ian Paisely (Reverend my arse) never wanted peace with the IRA. That is why he asked for photos, and humliation for the IRA in asking for photos of weapons being destroyed.

He knew all along the IRA would not show the photos, for it would be a huge physical and visual climb down defeat for the IRA, who are proud of their struggle.

yup, and thats what he wanted: the IRA to be humiliated, and thats what his electorate want. like it or not, he leads the largest party...

Whether the IRA commited the robbery or not, I don't know, I find it rather odd, they may have even been fitted up, but if they have done it, the only thing that I can think of is that they don't want to be humiliated by Paisely anymore and that they are going to spend the cash on weapons to renew the fight.

Everybody goes on about the IRA decommissioning, but what about the UVF, UFF, and The Red Hand Defenders? Or are they excusable from their heinous crimes because they fought under the Union flag, and often with the collaboration of the British Security Forces, ie Army and Police and Intelligence.

And why are they called loyalists? Surely that is trying to describe them as the loyal terrorists?
The UVF (i think, might have been the LVF) carried out one or two acts of decomissioning a few years ago...nothing major, but more than the IRA have done

and i always find it amusing that people bring up the Loyalist paramilitaries...yea they need to decomission as well, but the issue with the IRA is that Sinn Fein are their political branch...whereas neither of the major Unionist parties are aligned to any paramilitary organisation. The issue is about a party being in government while continuing to have an army...not just paramilitaries in general...its pretty complex

theyre called loyalists...because if NI was joined with the Republic, they would fight to stay in the union

The Irish are free. its that simple. The majority of people in the north are British. Belfast is much more a British city than an Irish one, far more industrial than any Irish city ever was....it was once one of the most important industrial city in the Empire...

Who do you have these guarantees from? I would love to know who you trust over the Prime Minister of the Republic, and the Chief Constable of the PSNI on this issue...
Yeah like I would name names!
Yes Belfast is more British than Irish now and doesn't that tell you something? Wouldn't you say that the occupied areas of Gaza and the West Bank are more Isreali than Arab? Yet the world is calling on Isreal to surrender those territories yet Britian is allowed to keep the occupied areas of Ireland. And like others have pointed out the IRA is not the only ones using terrorist tactics! Many of the so-called "IRA bombings" are actually being set off by "Loyalists" to help keep the mind of the English on fighting the "evil IRA".

Besides who do you think has more to gain by lieing? My people who would gain nothing by lieing to me and lose nothing by telling me the truth or the PM who still has hopes that the British and potentially the yanks will come in in full force and take out their "aggressive and evil" enemy thereby securing their power. But enough for tonight, good night and good luck.

[QUOTE=Nadkor]The Irish are free. its that simple. The majority of people in the north are British. Belfast is much more a British city than an Irish one, far more industrial than any Irish city ever was....it was once one of the most important industrial city in the Empire...

QUOTE]
The issue of nationality is less important than the issue of freedom.
Are French people living in the UK treated equally with the local population?
Are people from ethinic minorities ( 50% of the population in Leicester) and those holding foreign passports treated equally?
If we can say yes then they are free by the local terms.
Do catholics get the same response from the police as everyone else?
Do they get the same opputunities as everyone else?
Do they have the same political chances?
If the answer is yes then they are free by all reasonable measures and what we still talking about is a group of old men (on all sides) struggling to hold on to power. If "no" then that needs to be addressed. Killing people doesn't help here.

Ian Paisely . . . asked for photos, and humliation for the IRA in asking for photos of weapons being destroyed.

He knew all along the IRA would not show the photos, for it would be a huge physical and visual climb down defeat for the IRA, who are proud of their struggle.
Peace is more important than pride. If they were serious about peace, freedom and democracy, they would STFU, provide whatever evidence was required of them regardless of how embarrassing it would be, and re-enter society as ordinary private citizens. That they value their pride more than the peace process shows that they are not serious people.

Yeah like I would name names!
Yes Belfast is more British than Irish now and doesn't that tell you something? Wouldn't you say that the occupied areas of Gaza and the West Bank are more Isreali than Arab? Yet the world is calling on Isreal to surrender those territories yet Britian is allowed to keep the occupied areas of Ireland.
you live in the new world, little bit hypocritical talking about occupied territory, dont you think?

Northern Ireland isnt even claimed by the Republic anymore...since 1998. Way back in 1919, the IRA/Michael Collins/the Dail all accepted, with the Anglo Irish Treaty, the British control of Northern Ireland. they even fought a civil war and won...with that as one of the issues.

In Palestine, the West Bank/Gaza Strip were invaded, and the Palestinians never accepted Israeli control. The situation is different


And like others have pointed out the IRA is not the only ones using terrorist tactics! Many of the so-called "IRA bombings" are actually being set off by "Loyalists" to help keep the mind of the English on fighting the "evil IRA".
yea, the IRA arent the only paramilitaries...everyone knows that
but to suggest that the loyalist paramilitaries carried out the IRA bombings is ridiculous, the vast majority were claimed by the IRA, and ones that werent have more than enough proof to link them back to the IRA


Besides who do you think has more to gain by lieing? My people who would gain nothing by lieing to me and lose nothing by telling me the truth or the PM who still has hopes that the British and potentially the yanks will come in in full force and take out their "aggressive and evil" enemy thereby securing their power. But enough for tonight, good night and good luck.
Who do i think has to gain more by lying? Sinn Fein. If it was the IRA then they are frozen completely out of the political process, if they can convince everyone it wasnt then theyre ok.

[QUOTE=Nadkor]The Irish are free. its that simple. The majority of people in the north are British. Belfast is much more a British city than an Irish one, far more industrial than any Irish city ever was....it was once one of the most important industrial city in the Empire...

QUOTE]
The issue of nationality is less important than the issue of freedom.
Are French people living in the UK treated equally with the local population?
Are people from ethinic minorities ( 50% of the population in Leicester) and those holding foreign passports treated equally?
If we can say yes then they are free by the local terms.
Do catholics get the same response from the police as everyone else?
Do they get the same opputunities as everyone else?
Do they have the same political chances?
If the answer is yes then they are free by all reasonable measures and what we still talking about is a group of old men (on all sides) struggling to hold on to power. If "no" then that needs to be addressed. Killing people doesn't help here.
These days, organisations such as the police have to have to have a workforce of 50% Catholic and 50% all other religions. despite the fact that Protestants make up about 53% of the population, Catholics make up about 46% of the population, and theres maybe 1% other (im using what i can remember off the top of my head from the last census)....thats hardly fair.

These days, organisations such as the police have to have to have a workforce of 50% Catholic and 50% all other religions. despite the fact that Protestants make up about 53% of the population, Catholics make up about 46% of the population, and theres maybe 1% other (im using what i can remember off the top of my head from the last census)....thats hardly fair.
You're quibbling over a few percent, which demographic variations will cause to fluctuate anyway? :confused:

yup, and thats what he wanted: the IRA to be humiliated, and thats what his electorate want. like it or not, he leads the largest party...


To humiliate the IRA is to make it angry. Decommissioning should come out of a method more understanding to the fact it is a delicate issue for everybody, and not out of a triumphant ego trip.


The UVF (i think, might have been the LVF) carried out one or two acts of decomissioning a few years ago...nothing major, but more than the IRA have done

Yes quite a few years ago, and they have not been pressed on the issue since.


and i always find it amusing that people bring up the Loyalist paramilitaries...yea they need to decomission as well, but the issue with the IRA is that Sinn Fein are their political branch...whereas neither of the major Unionist parties are aligned to any paramilitary organisation. The issue is about a party being in government while continuing to have an army...not just paramilitaries in general...its pretty complex


It's funny, because I don't find it amusing at all, I find it quite serious and grave, but perhaps you see something humourous in this I quite clearly don't.

If you don't believe that the DUP don't have links with paramilitary organisations, then you know little about the situation.

Pressure has to be applied to the DUP and it's armed affiliates.



theyre called loyalists...because if NI was joined with the Republic, they would fight to stay in the union

That's not being loyal, because if the NI did join the rest of Ireland, then that would mean Britain had given it back to the rest of Ireland.

Thus, they would not be fighting to be loyal.

What the UDA, UFF, LVF were fighting for was not loyal to a cause to stay in the "Union": killing people because of their religion.

You're quibbling over a few percent, which demographic variations will cause to fluctuate anyway? :confused:
what im saying is that its positive discrimination...which is still discrimination, not at all fair, and wrong

the police force shouldnt have quotas like that, it should be made up of the most competent people for the job irrespective of religion or race

To humiliate the IRA is to make it angry. Decommissioning should come out of a method more understanding to the fact it is a delicate issue for everybody, and not out of a triumphant ego trip.

so? they were more than happy to release pictures and videos of its members using the weapons, but when the situation is changed to be bad for them all of a sudden they dont like photos so much. the people of NI suffered under the IRA for 30 years...the least they can do is release a few photos proving they have begun decomissioning


Yes quite a few years ago, and they have not been pressed on the issue since.
Like i say, its a start



It's funny, because I don't find it amusing at all, I find it quite serious and grave, but perhaps you see something humourous in this I quite clearly don't.

If you don't believe that the DUP don't have links with paramilitary organisations, then you know little about the situation.

Pressure has to be applied to the DUP and it's armed affiliates.

Paisley was involved in the strikes in the 70s, the DUP is not the political wing of a terrorist organisation. Its senior members dont sit on the army council of a terrorist organisation. Paisley wasnt commander of a terrorist organisation.

Theres a big difference



That's not being loyal, because if the NI did join the rest of Ireland, then that would mean Britain had given it back to the rest of Ireland.

Thus, they would not be fighting to be loyal.

So the IRA arent loyal to the Republic then?


What the UDA, UFF, LVF were fighting for was not loyal to a cause to stay in the "Union": killing people because of their religion.
maybe so, but in the future if NI joins the republic, theyll fight to stay in the Union

it can just as equally be said that the IRA killed people for their religion...actually, they were very fair and non-discriminatory.....didnt matter what religion someone was, they killed them anyway

Peace is more important than pride. If they were serious about peace, freedom and democracy, they would STFU, provide whatever evidence was required of them regardless of how embarrassing it would be, and re-enter society as ordinary private citizens. That they value their pride more than the peace process shows that they are not serious people.

If they were not serious about peace, they would still be bombing now.

Paislely did not handle the subject with any delicate handling, but smugly attempted to humiliate the other side until looking like it had been defeated.

That would look like one side was victorious over another, when both sides should seek peace in a equalitarian manner.

You're quibbling over a few percent, which demographic variations will cause to fluctuate anyway? :confused:
More importantly you're quibbling over percieved wrongs and not actual wrongs.
I don't care if my entire police force are, say jewish or Siekhs as long as when then turn up they do a reasonable, unbiased job.
In the past I know this wasn't true in NI but the re-structuring has surely had a positive effect. It certainly demonstates a willingness to attempt even handedness.

what im saying is that its positive discrimination...which is still discrimination, not at all fair, and wrong

the police force shouldnt have quotas like that, it should be made up of the most competent people for the job irrespective of religion or race
The reason stupid things get put in place is because someone, somewhere, is a stubborn idiot who won't sign unless some absurd condition is met. The IRA is a leading member of the group of organisations responsible for stupid laws in Northern Ireland. If they didn't exist and do what they do, there wouldn't be a need for any of it.

The reason stupid things get put in place is because someone, somewhere, is a stubborn idiot who won't sign unless some absurd condition is met. The IRA is a leading member of the group of organisations responsible for stupid laws in Northern Ireland. If they didn't exist and do what they do, there wouldn't be a need for any of it.
thats pretty much what i was saying....

ive been agreeing with you

what im saying is that its positive discrimination...which is still discrimination, not at all fair, and wrong

the police force shouldnt have quotas like that, it should be made up of the most competent people for the job irrespective of religion or race
Sorry Nadkor, I missed your reply and it has merit. But we have to be SEEN to be even handed or we're accused of bias. It's true in may places unfortunately.

thats pretty much what i was saying....

ive been agreeing with you
You seemed to be implying in your original post that quotas such as this made the people of Northern Ireland less free. I agree that quotas for anything are a bad idea, but comparing the quotas to the demographics, in this case there would not actually be any practical difference in police force composition, whther they were there or not. The quota simply reflects existing demographics.

You seemed to be implying in your original post that quotas such as this made the people of Northern Ireland less free. I agree that quotas for anything are a bad idea, but comparing the quotas to the demographics, in this case there would not actually be any practical difference in police force composition, whther they were there or not. The quota simply reflects existing demographics.
well....youre wrong about it reflecting existing demographics....the majority of the police force will be forcibly made up from the minority population...

doesnt make it any less free or anything, but its just wrong, as is all positive discrimination

i know someone who was told he couldnt get a job in the police because he was protestant...they actually told him that "off the record"....

so? they were more than happy to release pictures and videos of its members using the weapons, but when the situation is changed to be bad for them all of a sudden they dont like photos so much. the people of NI suffered under the IRA for 30 years...the least they can do is release a few photos proving they have begun decomissioning

The people of NI suffered under the acts of all sides for 30 years, all should provide photos of decommisssioning, but in a style that is equally a climb down for all in a non triumphant way for any side, but rather sombre.






the DUP is not the political wing of a terrorist organisation. Its senior members dont sit on the army council of a terrorist organisation. Paisley wasnt commander of a terrorist organisation.

I think you would find many people who disagree.




So the IRA arent loyal to the Republic then?

The Republic still wants NI...






it can just as equally be said that the IRA killed people for their religion...actually, they were very fair and non-discriminatory.....didnt matter what religion someone was, they killed them anyway

No actually, the IRA killed British people, loyallist paramilitaries, and British soldiers, as well as members of the community who were drug dealers or supposedly guilt of other crimes.

I certainly don't condone these killings, but the fact is, is that what the IRA did is condemned often, but what the UVF and the like did is not, and I feel if peace is to be achieved, all sides need to decommision

The people of NI suffered under the acts of all sides for 30 years, all should provide photos of decommisssioning, but in a style that is equally a climb down for all in a non triumphant way for any side, but rather sombre.
As far as im concerned, all paramilitaries need to be humiliated and made to feel extreme ashamed of their actions.


I think you would find many people who disagree.

i think youll find more people wont





The Republic still wants NI...

No it doesnt, it dropped its claim in 1998, and they voted in 1919 to leave NI with the British






No actually, the IRA killed British people, loyallist paramilitaries, and British soldiers, as well as members of the community who were drug dealers.

As well as planting car bombs in crowded towns and cities killing indiscriminately. Omagh...a mainly Catholic town had the worst killing in NI in the troubles...by an IRA bomb


I certainly don't condone these killings, but the fact is, is that what the IRA did is condemned often, but what the UVF and the like did is not, and I feel if peace is to be achieved, all sides need to decommision
You think the UVF isnt condemned for what its done? Then why does the PUP recieve pretty much no vote from the Unionist voters? the IRA seems to be actively supported by the majority of nationalists who have voted for Sinn Fein

and yes, Ive already said that both sides need to stop pissing about and decomission, and learn that in a modern society we dont blow each other up to get what we want

As far as im concerned, all paramilitaries need to be humiliated and made to feel extreme ashamed of their actions.

Yes, I agree with that, but not in a way one paramilitary organisation is humliated and another is not.


i think youll find more people wont

Yes, Probably those who think Paisley is a real reverend.







No it doesnt, it dropped its claim in 1998, and they voted in 1919 to leave NI with the British

Or face war in 1919. It dropped it's claim to help the Good Friday deal, but it was merely a token gesture of goodwill of trust towards the British, nothing more.








As well as planting car bombs in crowded towns and cities killing indiscriminately. Omagh...a mainly Catholic town had the worst killing in NI in the troubles...by an IRA bomb


That was the 'Real' IRA, a breakaway splinter group. Let us not forget the gunmen calling themselves loyal who walked into Catholic pubs to spray everyone in machine gun bullets.



You think the UVF isnt condemned for what its done? Then why does the PUP recieve pretty much no vote from the Unionist voters? the IRA seems to be actively supported by the majority of nationalists who have voted for Sinn Fein


The PUP's hardline stance has been annulled by the DUP's, who have Paisely as their head.

I don't see that as a condemnation of the UVF and it's ilk.


The UDA, LVF seems to be actively supported by the majority of those who vote for the DUP, who rejected the Good Friday agreement at first.


and yes, Ive already said that both sides need to stop pissing about and decomission, and learn that in a modern society we dont blow each other up to get what we want

Good.

There will be no full scale decommisioning, if the PIRA do, the RIRA and CIRA will continue Irelands fight for freedom.

Yes the IRA have killd 1,800 thats the price you pay for staying in our country. Although civilian death is regrettable, the Irish Republican Army, is not a traditional 'open military', they are Volunteers who receive no pay but fight for their love of Ireland and the hatred of an occupying force.

Yes the NI government aswell as the southern govt is seen by many republicans as 'illegal' they contradict the Proclomation of the Republic written by our leaders of '16. That is why there was a civil war in Ireland in the 1920's following the sell-out by Micheal Collins.

I have noticed alot of people tlaking about how the IRA are a sectarian grouping, thats total bs, between 1991-1993 the UDA killed more innocent catholics than the IRA killed innocent prods during the whole troubles.

Impose the minority onto the majority? Well there is a reason we are the minority, because the unionists wanted it that way. So Catholics would always be the minority and 2nd class citizens, but that all stopped when the 'RA came about, they got us more concessions than any peacefull methods.

The reason they want more Catholics in, is so the IRA "Wont shoot their own", they will and I support any shooting of the PSNI/RUC. Huns were in the majority in the B Specials, the RUC and the UDR all which pissed on the Catholic population and people wonder why Catholics dont join the PSNI.

"As well as planting car bombs in crowded towns and cities killing indiscriminately. Omagh...a mainly Catholic town had the worst killing in NI in the troubles...by an IRA bomb"

Quinn Brothers? 2 young Catholic children petrol bombed by the UVF. You's are a million times worse in sectairianism, also good to see Mary telling the truth about your community. Also Omagh wasnt the PIRA it was the RIRA dip-shit, 2 different organisations. The IRA is not based on sectarian basis, like the UDA/UVF/LVF/RHC, sure it was prods like Wolfe Tone who got us in the mood for rebellions.

Yes, I agree with that, but not in a way one paramilitary organisation is humliated and another is not.

urgh....you just cant quit can you


Yes, Probably those who think Paisley is a real reverend.

i was thinking more along the lines of the people who voted for him



Or face war in 1919. It dropped it's claim to help the Good Friday deal, but it was merely a token gesture of goodwill of trust towards the British, nothing more.
what can i say, they voted for it. the Republic dropped its claim, yet the IRA continues to fight


That was the 'Real' IRA, a breakaway splinter group. Let us not forget the gunmen calling themselves loyal who walked into Catholic pubs to spray everyone in machine gun bullets.
the IRA did the same thing in the past

you seem to be trying to turn this into a "your terrorist organisation is worse than mine" thread...


The PUP's hardline stance has been annulled by the DUP's, who have Paisely as their head.

I don't see that as a condemnation of the UVF and it's ilk.
The PUP are publicly known to be the political voice of the UVF, and the DUP arent, one of several reasons why the DUP has a far bigger vote than the PUP


The UDA, LVF seems to be actively supported by the majority of those who vote for the DUP, who rejected the Good Friday agreement at first.

No, its more like they were sick of Trimble giving in to Sinn Fein demands and wanted someone who was a bit more hard line...


Good.
yes. yes it is.

There will be no full scale decommisioning, if the PIRA do, the RIRA and CIRA will continue Irelands fight for freedom.

Yes the IRA have killd 1,800 thats the price you pay for staying in our country. Although civilian death is regrettable, the Irish Republican Army, is not a traditional 'open military', they are Volunteers who receive no pay but fight for their love of Ireland and the hatred of an occupying force.

Yes the NI government aswell as the southern govt is seen by many republicans as 'illegal' they contradict the Proclomation of the Republic written by our leaders of '16. That is why there was a civil war in Ireland in the 1920's following the sell-out by Micheal Collins.

I have noticed alot of people tlaking about how the IRA are a sectarian grouping, thats total bs, between 1991-1993 the UDA killed more innocent catholics than the IRA killed innocent prods during the whole troubles.

Impose the minority onto the majority? Well there is a reason we are the minority, because the unionists wanted it that way. So Catholics would always be the minority and 2nd class citizens, but that all stopped when the 'RA came about, they got us more concessions than any peacefull methods.

The reason they want more Catholics in, is so the IRA "Wont shoot their own", they will and I support any shooting of the PSNI/RUC. Huns were in the majority in the B Specials, the RUC and the UDR all which pissed on the Catholic population and people wonder why Catholics dont join the PSNI.

"As well as planting car bombs in crowded towns and cities killing indiscriminately. Omagh...a mainly Catholic town had the worst killing in NI in the troubles...by an IRA bomb"

Quinn Brothers? 2 young Catholic children petrol bombed by the UVF. You's are a million times worse in sectairianism, also good to see Mary telling the truth about your community. Also Omagh wasnt the PIRA it was the RIRA dip-shit, 2 different organisations. The IRA is not based on sectarian basis, like the UDA/UVF/LVF/RHC, sure it was prods like Wolfe Tone who got us in the mood for rebellions.
fucking Hell, you really are trying to turn this into a "my terrorists are better than yours" thread

sorry, wont bite

the IRA wants candy and hot pockets

The difference is that in SA, blacks are in the majority, and the ANC were fighting for a majority...whereas in Northern Ireland, nationalists are in the minority, and the IRA are fighting to impose the minority will

A minority who have been treated as second class citizens for most of the previous century. The majority have no right to be wrong. Yes, the IRA have overstepped the mark continuously and the end goal appears to have been forgotten at some stage, but religious bigotry by those in power will always induce a response from the downtrodden.

urgh....you just cant quit can you


What, saying that the UDA and the like should decommision too?




i was thinking more along the lines of the people who voted for him


Same difference.



what can i say, they voted for it. the Republic dropped its claim, yet the IRA continues to fight


Again refer to my last post, 1919 threat of war if they did not, 1998, token gesture to British.




the IRA did the same thing in the past


Which is exactly my point, the LVF, UDA are not condemned enough as the IRA.


you seem to be trying to turn this into a "your terrorist organisation is worse than mine" thread...


Er, well the IRA is not "mine" terrorist organisation, is the LVF, Red Hand Defenders "yours" ?

I'm saying that the Unionist Paras must be brought to account as well.





The PUP are publicly known to be the political voice of the UVF, and the DUP arent, one of several reasons why the DUP has a far bigger vote than the PUP
.

They both have the same viewpoint, so both are the political voice of the UVF.


No, its more like they were sick of Trimble giving in to Sinn Fein demands and wanted someone who was a bit more hard line...


And here you have the mirror, for supporters of the IRA may get fed up with giving into DUP demands and want someone more hard line.

What, saying that the UDA and the like should decommision too?

continuously pointing out an issue thats already been agreed with.



Same difference.
not really, in religious terms i would consider him a bit of a loony, but i dont vote on the basis of his religion, just his policies


Again refer to my last post, 1919 threat of war if they did not, 1998, token gesture to British.

but it was still done. thats the point, the Republic (however they did it) has no claim on NI


Which is exactly my point, the LVF, UDA are not condemned enough as the IRA.
like i say, forcing a point thats already been agreed with

Er, well the IRA is not "mine" terrorist organisation, is the LVF, Red Hand Defenders "yours" ?
its not, and i never said the IRA was "yours" but you can see my point

I'm saying that the Unionist Paras must be brought to account as well.
again, forcing a point thats already been agreed with


They both have the same viewpoint, so both are the political voice of the UVF.
so you would agree that the SDLP are the political voice of the IRA?
I wouldnt say so, the SDLP arent the political wing of a paramilitary organisation, just like the DUP. the PUP and Sinn Fein are.


And here you have the mirror, for supporters of the IRA may get fed up with giving into DUP demands and want someone more hard line.
more hard line like.....Sinn Fein? Both sides have polarised

What I dont get is why each of the groups can't just point out to the PSNI where the arms are and let them do the decommissioning.

No need for photos, all are verified.

I am in London and was working when the Baltic exchange went. It at no time made me think, Ohh quick lets give them what they want. Now if they proved what nice guys they were campaining with handouts of chocolates I would be better disposed to thier cause.
For me as most of the people in NI are for staying with the UK, that should be enough. Try again in 10 years with another vote, meanwhile give up the guns and show your a "man" and can deal with things you dont like, by getting back into the government and ensuring that the next vote takes place.

Paisley wasnt commander of a terrorist organisation.

What then was the Third Force?

continuously pointing out an issue thats already been agreed with.

I feel the issue must continously be pointed out.





not really, in religious terms i would consider him a bit of a loony, but i dont vote on the basis of his religion, just his policies

In politic terms, he is a loony as well.


but it was still done. thats the point, the Republic (however they did it) has no claim on NI

A government dropping a claim, does not mean it does not have a claim.






its not, and i never said the IRA was "yours" but you can see my point


Not really. You said this thread was turning into a "your terrorist organisation is worse than mine" thread.





so you would agree that the SDLP are the political voice of the IRA?
I wouldnt say so, the SDLP arent the political wing of a paramilitary organisation, just like the DUP. the PUP and Sinn Fein are.


SDLP is moderate the DUP, like the PUP, are not.


more hard line like.....Sinn Fein? Both sides have polarised

If Sinn Fein was hardline, they would not have agreed to the good friday agreement.

What then was the Third Force?
did anyone actually take that seriously? look what happened to it, it just disappeared

I feel the issue must continously be pointed out.

well it doesnt, once its been agreed with

In politic terms, he is a loony as well.

if he was a loony he wouldnt be leading the biggest party


A government dropping a claim, does not mean it does not have a claim.

they dont claim northern ireland, ergo they have no claim. they might think they have one, but right now they have no claim


Not really. You said this thread was turning into a "your terrorist organisation is worse than mine" thread.

it was turning into a debate over what paramilitary organisation was better/worse.

SDLP is moderate the DUP, like the PUP, are not.

doesnt mean a thing, neither the DUP or the SDLP, or the UUP, are representatives of a paramilitary force


If Sinn Fein was hardline, they would not have agreed to the good friday agreement.
if Sinn Fein werent hardline, they wouldnt have an army

did anyone actually take that seriously? look what happened to it, it just disappeared

The act that it just disappeared probably reflects more a change on the ground in Loyalist politics at the time rather than anything else. as to not being taken seriously, they were seriously involved with importing arms from South Africa, and it is probably pretty safe to say that individuals within it went on to join/returned to other Loyalist paramilitary groups. As to whether Paisley himself was the actual commander or just their public face remains somewhat unclear.

The point however remains, that he showed his support for illegal paramilitary tactics and was involved in the organisation at top levels.

if he was a loony he wouldnt be leading the biggest party


This hardly follows: we could reel off a list of loonies that were heads of massive political parties elsewhere... your Stalins, your Hitlers, your President from South America that spectacularly lost it a few years ago.


(I'm not directly comparing Paisley to Hitler or Stalin here, by the way).

The act that it just disappeared probably reflects more a change on the ground in Loyalist politics at the time rather than anything else. as to not being taken seriously, they were seriously involved with importing arms from South Africa, and it is probably pretty safe to say that individuals within it went on to join/returned to other Loyalist paramilitary groups. As to whether Paisley himself was the actual commander or just their public face remains somewhat unclear.

The point however remains, that he showed his support for illegal paramilitary tactics and was involved in the organisation at top levels.
so did Andrew Bonar Law, but i wouldnt call him a terrorist...

was it not more that it would become active in the event of a united Ireland?

This hardly follows: we could reel off a list of loonies that were heads of massive political parties elsewhere... your Stalins, your Hitlers, your President from South America that spectacularly lost it a few years ago.


(I'm not directly comparing Paisley to Hitler or Stalin here, by the way).
you understand my point though, hes writing Paisley off as a loony only because he doesnt agree with him...

you understand my point though, hes writing Paisley off as a loony only because he doesnt agree with him...

Agreed. However such things as the Save Ulster From Sodomy campaign do certainly appear like the work of lunatics until you realise what a (small c) conservative place the North has been throughout most of its history.

well it doesnt, once its been agreed with


It does.


if he was a loony he wouldnt be leading the biggest party


Yeah. The same way that Hitler was not looney because he led the biggest party in Germany from 1933 to 1945.




they dont claim northern ireland, ergo they have no claim. they might think they have one, but right now they have no claim


Northern Ireland is called Northern Ireland. Ireland have a claim to have the northern part of Ireland back.


it was turning into a debate over what paramilitary organisation was better/worse.


No... it was actually a debate about why certain paramilitary organisations avoid condemnation for commiting murders when other paramilitary organisations who do the same recieve condemnation.



doesnt mean a thing, neither the DUP or the SDLP, or the UUP, are representatives of a paramilitary force

The SDLP no, DUP, PUP yes.



if Sinn Fein werent hardline, they wouldnt have an army

If Sinn Fein were the IRA's spokesmen, the IRA would not release statements.

If the DUP and PUP were not hardline, they would not have an army.

you understand my point though, hes writing Paisley off as a loony only because he doesnt agree with him...

"Save Ulster from Sodomy".

It does.
no, it doesnt. if a point has been agreed its pretty patronising to keep repeating it, almost like mockery


Yeah. The same way that Hitler was not looney because he led the biggest party in Germany from 1933 to 1945.
OK, tell my why Paisley is a loony. Not just because you dont agree with the policies of his party, tell me why Paisley as a person is a loony


Northern Ireland is called Northern Ireland. Ireland have a claim to have the northern part of Ireland back.
No they dont, they retracted their claim. You might like them to have a claim, you might think they have a claim, but look wherever you want, the Republic of Ireland is not in anyway claiming Northern Ireland



No... it was actually a debate about why certain paramilitary organisations avoid condemnation for commiting murders when other paramilitary organisations who do the same recieve condemnation.
it started as that, then it got twisted into which organisations were worse for attacking which people etc. like i say "mines bigger than yours"


The SDLP no, DUP, PUP yes.
mm....you cant grasp this point can you?
how can i put this?

Neither the SDLP or the DUP have armies. Sinn Fein does, the PUP represents one. simple

you seem to think that because two groups policies are broadly similar that they are automatically united in some way. nope, sorry, thats not how it works


If Sinn Fein were the IRA's spokesmen, the IRA would not release statements.

Sinn Fein are the IRAs political representatives. If they werent hardline, they wouldnt be

If the DUP and PUP were not hardline, they would not have an army.
The DUP doesnt.

The difference is that in SA, blacks are in the majority, and the ANC were fighting for a majority...whereas in Northern Ireland, nationalists are in the minority, and the IRA are fighting to impose the minority will
well after the creation of the homelands in south africa the blacks may have technically become a minority in the rest of south africa, just like northern ireland was specifically carved out of ireland to create a protestant majority. not all catholics support the ira, but then again not all blacks supported the anc.

"Save Ulster from Sodomy".
so...because hes religious hes crazy?

well after the creation of the homelands in south africa the blacks may have technically become a minority in the rest of south africa, just like northern ireland was specifically carved out of ireland to create a protestant majority. not all catholics support the ira, but then again not all blacks supported the anc.
If you look at it historicall, it was more like the Republic was carved off the UK

In SA, blacks are a majority, in NI catholics are a minority

If you look at it historicall, it was more like the Republic was carved off the UK

In SA, blacks are a majority, in NI catholics are a minority
but the ira and irish nationalists in general would argue that ni is an artificial construct created simply to insure the largest area with a protestant majority. heck its not even all of ulster.

"Save Ulster from Sodomy".

Oh come on, look at the background: in the rest of the UK* male homsexual intercourse was only decriminalised in 1967 and faced similar opposition in Great Britain at the time, and the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign operated in the early 80s as the prospect of Northern Ireland being forced to recognise the legislation by the European Court loomed. Being a reactionary conservative force about 15 years behind the times is hardly the mark of a looney.


* except, obviously, for the Isle of Man, where one had to be very careful every time one entered Douglas until 1992.

but the ira and irish nationalists in general would argue that ni is an artificial construct created simply to insure the largest area with a protestant majority.
or...its an area left in NI because thats what the majority of the people in it wanted. When they were looking at creating NI, they knew that the north east was majority Protestat/unionist. So they looked at all of Ireland and kept counties that were, because thats what the people wanted. The 6 counties that had a Protestant majority created NI


heck its not even all of ulster.
nobody ever said it was.

well, some did, but they need to check their geography

but the ira and irish nationalists in general would argue that ni is an artificial construct created simply to insure the largest area with a protestant majority. heck its not even all of ulster.

I don't think the loyalists/unionist would argue the point here: the six counties remaining in the union was the most bloodless route that could have been gone down in the twenties. If they had been included in Eire, then it would have been the pre-dominantly priotestant/loyalist/unionists waging a war of resistance against the Republic.

Neither the SDLP or the DUP have armies. Sinn Fein does, the PUP represents one.

...

Sinn Fein are the IRAs political representatives.

You seem to be applying the same standard in different ways here: claiming that PUP don't have an army, just represent one, whereas SF both have an army and represent one. Personally I go for the line that SF represent the IRA, but clearly don't seem to have control over them, although it seems pretty clear that certain high figures in SF have at least semi-official high ranks in the IRA.

coughthatweaselmcguinesscough.

I don't think the loyalists/unionist would argue the point here: the six counties remaining in the union was the most bloodless route that could have been gone down in the twenties. If they had been included in Eire, then it would have been the pre-dominantly priotestant/loyalist/unionists waging a war of resistance against the Republic.
and anyway...it was expected that there would be a referendum in each county within 5 (i think) years...and any counties that voted for the Union with GB would stay, and any that voted against it would go to the Free State...never happened though. Although i suppose if they had it, all 6 would have stayed in the UK anyway...

I feel everyone in Northern Ireland needs to STFU, accept the current situation, and live with it.

Let's put things into perspective, that part of the UK is every bit as wealthy as the rest of the West, every bit as educated, has the same kind of elections which meet international standards, etc. Looking at the situation objectively, Northern Ireland has no real problems. All the violence of the last few decades has been the result of a tiny minority of people unwilling to lay ancient grudges to rest. People who fund their activities either through organised crime (bank robbery, drug trafficking, extortion) or through donations from Americans afflicted with some kind of misplaced romantic nostalgia. No-one is being oppressed, no-one is being freed from anything.

All those groups, whichever side they claim to represent, are criminal rather than political organisations. Compare and contrast: the Scottish and Welsh National parties never funded their political campaigns with the proceeds of drug dealing, racketeering and robbery carried out on their "turf".

no, it doesnt. if a point has been agreed its pretty patronising to keep repeating it, almost like mockery

View it whatever way you want, I call it reemphasising the point.


OK, tell my why Paisley is a loony. Not just because you dont agree with the policies of his party, tell me why Paisley as a person is a loony

Oooh let's see. saying that Catholics were all sodomists, that Catholics wanted to create an evil empire run by the pope, advocating killing catholics....




No they dont, they retracted their claim. You might like them to have a claim, you might think they have a claim, but look wherever you want, the Republic of Ireland is not in anyway claiming Northern Ireland


You're obviously not getting the point. They have a claim, retracted or not.







it started as that, then it got twisted into which organisations were worse for attacking which people etc. like i say "mines bigger than yours" .


Again... it was about paramilitary organisations escaping condemnation.


mm....you cant grasp this point can you?
how can i put this?


How about in a manner that does not lead the debate we are having going round and round in circles in a repetitive manner as it is now? Give it a go, or rest your case. You are not adding anything new.




Neither the SDLP or the DUP have armies. Sinn Fein does, the PUP represents one. simple

Sinn Fein represents it's voters and some of those voters are in the IRA.
PUP represents solely a paramilitary organisation. Simple.

you seem to think that because two groups policies are broadly similar that they are automatically united in some way. nope, sorry, thats not how it works.

Then why do you link Sinn Fein solely as the IRA's political representatives?



Sinn Fein are the IRAs political representatives. If they werent hardline, they wouldnt be

The DUP doesnt.


The DUP and PUP are the Unionist Paramilitary political representatives.

Northern Ireland is called Northern Ireland. Ireland have a claim to have the northern part of Ireland back.

Lets have a look at the relevant parts of the Irish constitution, why not:

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Point out to me where Eire (which never contained the 32 counties) make a claim to possession of North Ireland, would you? They express their desire for it, but do not claim that it does in fact belong to them.

You seem to be applying the same standard in different ways here: claiming that PUP don't have an army, just represent one, whereas SF both have an army and represent one. Personally I go for the line that SF represent the IRA, but clearly don't seem to have control over them, although it seems pretty clear that certain high figures in SF have at least semi-official high ranks in the IRA.

coughthatweaselmcguinesscough.

well....im not an expert on Ervines role in the UVF these days, so i just said he was representing them because I honestly dont know if its any more than that.

whereas with Sinn Fein...different story, everyone knows several of their high members have senior roles within the IRA of varying importance.

(I remember reading that McGuiness was Chief of Staff for a while...and in charge of Northern Command for a while as well...as well as Londonderry....God only knows what Gerry Adams gets up to in the IRA as well...)

Lets have a look at the relevant parts of the Irish constitution, why not:

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Point out to me where Eire (which never contained the 32 counties) make a claim to possession of North Ireland, would you? They express their desire for it, but do not claim that it does in fact belong to them.
they dont even pretend they can legislate for NI...

Point out to me where Eire (which never contained the 32 counties) make a claim to possession of North Ireland, would you?.


Certainly.




1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
.

Desire is in the claim.

I feel everyone in Northern Ireland needs to STFU, accept the current situation, and live with it.

What?

If we STFU, then we are stuck in this strange limbo of the peacefires and a suspended Assembly... great so we accept direct rule from London in the face of the democratic will of the people that elected their own representatives to the Legislative Assembly. Fantastic idea.

Looking at the situation objectively, Northern Ireland has no real problems.

Excepting, obviously the spectre of a return to full blown conflict, the fact that the gangsterism prevalent here is organised and operated by groups which have a community support and acceptance unimaginable elsewhere in the UK, where we still have an ongoing and rich tradition of punishment beatings and executions carried out by paramilitaries, and never mind the institutionalised divisions which exist between the two communities...

Certainly.




Desire is in the claim.
no...it says they would like it if Ireland was united, but they dont claim the north as their territory

theres a massive difference

What?

If we STFU, then we are stuck in this strange limbo of the peacefires and a suspended Assembly... great so we accept direct rule from London in the face of the democratic will of the people that elected their own representatives to the Legislative Assembly. Fantastic idea.



Excepting, obviously the spectre of a return to full blown conflict, the fact that the gangsterism prevalent here is organised and operated by groups which have a community support and acceptance unimaginable elsewhere in the UK, where we still have an ongoing and rich tradition of punishment beatings and executions carried out by paramilitaries, and never mind the institutionalised divisions which exist between the two communities...
see, he was right. no problems at all

i think they do want peace in general. But if they are used as a scapegoat in everything that happens i can see why thewy dont want to get rid of their weapons. they're not all :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: as some people think

Desire is in the claim.

Yes, they state that they want a State of 32 counties, but not that it is rightfully theirs. I could go wandering about a middle class area and say 'I want that house', but I am not claiming that it is righfully mine by doing so. I have made no claim upon it, just expressed by desire with regard to it. There is no claim upon Northern Ireland in the revised articles.

i think they do want peace in general. But if they are used as a scapegoat in everything that happens i can see why thewy dont want to get rid of their weapons. they're not all :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: as some people think
yes....yes they are

although they dont have one of those nifty green guns, but you have the general outline down. especially the guy with the balaclava on the left.

Within the decree, the statement wishes for a United Ireland, their claim being obviously that they are not yet united, but hope to achieve so peacefully.

That is the claim to the 32 states.

Within the decree, the statement wishes for a United Ireland, their claim being obviously that they are not yet united, but hope to achieve so peacefully.

That is the claim to the 32 states.
no, thats not a claim

thats a desire.

see BWO's analogy

yes....yes they are

although they dont have one of those nifty green guns, but you have the general outline down. especially the guy with the balaclava on the left.

Not the UVF though? How strange to omit them from the description of gun waving balaclava clad men.

Within the decree, the statement wishes for a United Ireland, their claim being obviously that they are not yet united, but hope to achieve so peacefully.

That is the claim to the 32 states.

Yes, they claim that they want it, but not that they do in fact possess it, or the right to it, unlike the earlier unrevised version of the Articles.

Not the UVF though? How strange to omit them from the description of gun waving balaclava clad men.
if he was talking about the UVF i would have mentioned them. But he wasnt, so i didnt.

Excepting, obviously the spectre of a return to full blown conflict, the fact that the gangsterism prevalent here is organised and operated by groups which have a community support and acceptance unimaginable elsewhere in the UK, where we still have an ongoing and rich tradition of punishment beatings and executions carried out by paramilitaries, and never mind the institutionalised divisions which exist between the two communities...
*Shrugs* Then you have a society responsible for its own downfall. Looking around the world, there are any number of more serious sectarian conflicts. Witness Israel and central Africa. If a place like Northern Ireland fails to be rational about its comparatively mild situation, I am not losing any sleep over it.

no, thats not a claim

thats a desire.

see BWO's analogy


They desire the claim, because it is a claim.

It's not the same as walking up to a house and saying you want it, because it was never yours in the first place.

They desire the claim, because it is a claim.

It's not the same as walking up to a house and saying you want it, because it was never yours in the first place.
Neither was NI.

Yes, they claim that they want it, but not that they do in fact possess it, or the right to it, unlike the earlier unrevised version of the Articles.


They don't possess it at this current time because the British claim it as theirs.

They refer silently to the fact that while they have a claim to it, they don't possess it at the moment of the writing of the article.

Neither was NI.

NI stands for Northern Ireland.

The Northern part of Ireland.

if he was talking about the UVF i would have mentioned them. But he wasnt, so i didnt.


Well maybe you should.

NI stands for Northern Ireland.

The Northern part of Ireland.
the island of Ireland, not the country

it was never a part of the Free State/Republic. So BWO's analogy stands.

Well maybe you should.
why?

it wasnt relevant to his post. So i didnt talk about it.

If he had been talking about the UVF, i would have mentioned them. He was talking about the IRA, so i talked about the IRA.

*Shrugs* Then you have a society responsible for its own downfall. Looking around the world, there are any number of more serious sectarian conflicts. Witness Israel and central Africa.

So, you argue first that we should STFU, and then in this your next post, argue that we are responsible for our own downfall by accepting the current situation and not acting to defuse it? Something of a turn about there, no?

If a place like Northern Ireland fails to be rational about its comparatively mild situation, I am not losing any sleep over it.

I'm sure those are reassuring sentiments to those lying face down as they get six packs.

If the Island of Ireland is an Island, then the whole island is Ireland.

*Shrugs* Then you have a society responsible for its own downfall. Looking around the world, there are any number of more serious sectarian conflicts. Witness Israel and central Africa. If a place like Northern Ireland fails to be rational about its comparatively mild situation, I am not losing any sleep over it.
purely out of interest, where do you live?

why?

it wasnt relevant to his post. So i didnt talk about it.

If he had been talking about the UVF, i would have mentioned them. He was talking about the IRA, so i talked about the IRA.

Because men wearing balaclavas is representaive of the IRA and the UVF.

It's not the same as walking up to a house and saying you want it, because it was never yours in the first place.

Ignoring the fact that Ireland never existed as a unified modern state comprised of 32 counties.

If the Island of Ireland is an Island, then the whole island is Ireland.
yes, the whole Ireland is called Ireland. physically.

politically, its the "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland"

Read the constitution, the Republic exercises no claim over NI, and it admits that it has no jurisdiction over NI.

names for Islands are different to the names for the political entities within them.

Because men wearing balaclavas is representaive of the IRA and the UVF.
that has no relevance to his post.

Ignoring the fact that Ireland never existed as a unified modern state comprised of 32 counties.

Ignoring the fact that Ireland calls for a United Ireland, hinting at the Northern half.

Ignoring the fact Ireland was united before British rule.

yes, the whole Ireland is called Ireland. physically.

politically, its the "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland"

Read the constitution, the Republic exercises no claim over NI, and it admits that it has no jurisdiction over NI.

names for Islands are different to the names for the political entities within them.


The consitution calls for a United Ireland to be gained peacefully, this is is referring to the 32 states. Thus they say they have a right to them.

Yeah, they never bitch about terrorism unless it's against them.

Ooh, today's PR lesson.

Attacking the US gets you an iron boot up your ass.

Attacking anyone else, and appealing to the US on the basis of some common ethnicity (Irish) or common religion (Christianity) gets you funds.

PR Advice:

1. Never attack Americans.
2. Don't hijack airliners.
3. Keep your attacks small.
4. Make sure your primary targets are police and military personnel.
5. No suicide bombers.
6. If you're Muslim, consider downplaying your religion as the reason for your fight
7. Create "friendship" organizations in the US and do your fundraising in bars that ostensibly related to your culture.
8. Make sure you have a discrete "political wing" from the "fighting wing" so that your political leaders can appear on talk shows.
9. Kidnapping and executing people can occur, but only in private. Putting it on TV or the Internet and bragging about it is a one-way ticket to losing all sympathy for your cause.

that has no relevance to his post.

Then why post how his post reminded you of the IRA?

Does it not remind you of the UVF too?

Ignoring the fact that Ireland calls for a United Ireland, hinting at the Northern half.
it says it would like one, but it never claims northern ireland to be under its jurisdiction

big difference


Ignoring the fact Ireland was united before British rule.
it was? when was this? I would love to know...and dont say before 1800 when it joined the Union, it was still under British rule then

Ignoring the fact that Ireland calls for a United Ireland, hinting at the Northern half.

Expressing their desire for it.

Ignoring the fact Ireland was united before British rule.

What 800 years ago? Are we planning on resetting all political boundries back to before the time of the renaissance?


EDIT: lest I am coming across as a rabid Loyalist/Unionist here, I have absolutley nothing against a united Ireland being attained by peaceful means with some kind of consent from the 6 counties, and am disputing your statement that the South has an ethical claim on the North - a philosophical rather than a politcal point, if you will.

Then why post how his post reminded you of the IRA?

Does it not remind you of the UVF too?
no, because he said "But if they are used as a scapegoat in everything that happens i can see why thewy dont want to get rid of their weapons. they're not all *insert gun smileys* as some people think"

the thread is about the IRA, he is talking about the IRA, so therefore there is no need to bring the UVF in to refute his description of the IRA.

What 800 years ago? Are we planning on resetting all political boundries back to before the time of the renaissance?
was it even united then? was it not a series of loosely combined small kingdoms etc?

Do they want peace? What kind of question is that? Of course they DON'T. Dr. Paisley shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with them and I support him 110%. Ian Paisley will be the salvation of that place. If anyone can make peace there, it's the good Dr.

it says it would like one, but it never claims northern ireland to be under its jurisdiction

big difference


it was? when was this? I would love to know...and dont say before 1800 when it joined the Union, it was still under British rule then


It is not under the Irish jurisdiction at this time, because the British say they have jurisdiction, this to say the republic has jurisdiction is wrong if they don't. Instead they have a claim to have it in their jurisdiction.

The fact remains, at one time, no matter how long ago, Ireland was one entity, one island without British rule.

was it even united then? was it not a series of loosely combined small kingdoms etc?

They all recognised the High King, as far as I recall, but I did not claim that it was never united, instead that it was never a 'unified modern state' - taking modern to mean 'nation state' as understood post-Enlightenment.

It is not under the Irish jurisdiction at this time, because the British say they have jurisdiction, this to say the republic has jurisdiction is wrong if they don't. Instead they have a claim to have it in their jurisdiction.

The fact remains, at one time, no matter how long ago, Ireland was one entity, one island without British rule.

Exactly what kind of claim are you talking about here - an unstated ethical one?

Expressing their desire for it.



What 800 years ago? Are we planning on resetting all political boundries back to before the time of the renaissance?


EDIT: lest I am coming across as a rabid Loyalist/Unionist here, I have absolutley nothing against a united Ireland being attained by peaceful means with some kind of consent from the 6 counties, and am disputing your statement that the South has an ethical claim on the North - a philosophical rather than a politcal point, if you will.

Thanks for your edit. Geographically and politically, NI is part of Ireland, the fact that Ireland was united hundreds and hundreds of years ago add even more credence to this.

Exactly what kind of claim are you talking about here - an unstated ethical one?

sovereignty over the northern half of Ireland.

If anyone can make peace there, it's the good Dr.

Let us not forget that his doctorate from Bob Jones University is an honourary one, and his doctorate from Pioneer Theological Seminary comes from an unaccredited establishment...

sovereignty over the northern half of Ireland.

Question: is it an ethical claim?

People claim that the North wants to be part of the UK. This is wrong. The only poll taken on this was taken in mainly protestant areas and so was highly biased.
There should be a referemdum in NI. Whatever is chosen, is chosen. This will settle this once and for all.

The IRA was set up to free Ireland, and they will not stop till Ireland is truely free. I agree with the cause, but not the means.

Question: is it an ethical claim?


If you are asking if it's morally right to end the British home rule of the Northern half of Ireland to give back to the rest of Ireland, then yes.

But foremost is that it needs to be given back to Ireland, to make it a united Ireland.

Regards the Australian, Canadian and American descendents of Irish people in this thread, I'd like to quote the good man Bono from U2, singing Sunday Bloody Sunday live in Dublin on New Years Eve in 1989 (search your P2Ps)

"Now let me tell you something, I've had enough of Irish-Americans who haven't been back to their country in 20 or 30 years coming up to me and talking about the resistance, the revolution back home, and the glory of the revolution back home. Fuck the revolution. They don't take about the glory of killing for the revolution. Whats the glory in taking a man from his bed and gunning him down in front of his wife and children. Wheres the glory in bombing a rememberance day parade or old age pensioners, the medals taken out and polished for the day. Wheres the glory in that? To leave them him dying or crippled for life or dead under the rubble of the revolution that the majority of people in my country don't want NO MORE. Say NO MORE. Wipe your tears away"

If you are asking if it's morally right to end the British home rule of the Northern half of Ireland to give back to the rest of Ireland, then yes.

But foremost is that it needs to be given back to Ireland, to make it a united Ireland.
so its morally right to impose the will of a minority upon a majority?

it wouldnt be given back to Ireland. There has never been a united, 32 county sovereign Ireland.

So if anything, it would be giving it to them, not back to them

No... just giving it back is not the solution. That said, however, the various British governments over the years have beeen extraorindarily overt to stop any chance of a referendum on the subject, which i find appauling. Should ther be, in each county today, a referendum or plebiscite on nationality, the state of Northern Ireland would lose the counties of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Armagh. A referendum was incredibly close in 1970 until the British government at the time re-drew the boundaries so catholic majority constituencies were then in a protestant majority. Edward Heath's government even went so far as to draw up secret “ethnic cleansing” plans to forcibly expel hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics and to redraw the border to create a Protestant-only “sectarian statelet”. The contents of this plan was effecitvely tantamount to invasion and ethnic cleansing of a country. This is just an insight into why today there are such deep divisions still.

No-one can argue that the political state of Northern Ireland is a unique situation on the planet, which is very difficult to completely understand objectively. Some people will always be ready and willing to kill to kep it a part of the UK, others to form a United Ireland. I think you would find that most people, catholic and protestant, could accept a self-governing place with a proportioanal representation style of goverenment, regardless of who 'claims' or 'owns' it. The fact is Northern Ireland is the property of the Northern Irish people, and what they do with it should ulltimately be their decision.

and nadkor, the fact a 32-county state never existed is based on a preseumption fed by pro-British propaganda. Ireland was a united political entity from the seventeenth century until 1921. Undisputed fact.

and nadkor, the fact a 32-county state never existed is based on a preseumption fed by pro-British propaganda. Ireland was a united political entity from the seventeenth century until 1921. Undisputed fact.
not as a sovereign nation, which is what i said

Here is what I think about the IRA

They are not Evil. If they are Evil then the Unionists are also Evil.
They are a fighting liberation force and no more terrorist then any military of
the world. In a struggle civilians will be harmed, it's the way of war.
I do not support the direct aim at civilians by any force, British,IRA,US etc.!
I respect history and history has it that the northern part, still under English "British" rule, was a part of Ireland the nation, that same part is still under occupation.
If members of the IRA are robbing banks or are part of any other illegal acts those indeviduals should be put to justice.
If Unionists or Nationalists murder civilians they should be put to justice.
I do not support the IRA but I do understand their fight, I only wish they could go about it by peacefull terms.
It seems to me that the IRA take much blame for something that is not or can not be proven.
The splinter groups on both sides are in fact radical and hostile and should be investigated by the Irish and British governments.

Here is what I think about the IRA

They are not Evil. If they are Evil then the Unionists are also Evil.
They are a fighting liberation force and no more terrorist then any military of
the world. In a struggle civilians will be harmed, it's the way of war.
I do not support the direct aim at civilians by any force, British,IRA,US etc.!
I respect history and history has it that the northern part, still under English "British" rule, was a part of Ireland the nation, that same part is still under occupation.
If members of the IRA are robbing banks or are part of any other illegal acts those indeviduals should be put to justice.
If Unionists or Nationalists murder civilians they should be put to justice.
I do not support the IRA but I do understand their fight, I only wish they could go about it by peacefull terms.
It seems to me that the IRA take much blame for something that is not or can not be proven.
The splinter groups on both sides are in fact radical and hostile and should be investigated by the Irish and British governments.


One of the hallmarks of any insurgency (of which the IRA is a part) is that they indiscriminately kill civilians, especially their own.

While a conventional military may hold some of its members responsible for indiscriminately firing on unarmed civilians (not always, though), and will design weapons and rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties (with varying effect), no insurgency in modern times has:

1) made any effort to minimize civilian casualties - in fact, the more the better
2) punished any of their members for intentionally or unintentionally killing civilians
3) established any published rules on the killing of innocent civilians and enforced them against their own members

To this end, it might then be said that the IRA and the UVF are both groups of insurgents, and, as in all modern insurgencies, have never taken the lives of innocent civilians into proper account, and indeed, see civilian casualties as a proper effect of their tactics - the primary goal of which is to instigate a climate of complete terror in the civilian population in order to pressure the government into submitting to their political goals.

Yes, they're evil, as are all insurgents in modern times.

One of the hallmarks of any insurgency (of which the IRA is a part) is that they indiscriminately kill civilians, especially their own.

While a conventional military may hold some of its members responsible for indiscriminately firing on unarmed civilians (not always, though), and will design weapons and rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties (with varying effect), no insurgency in modern times has:

1) made any effort to minimize civilian casualties - in fact, the more the better
2) punished any of their members for intentionally or unintentionally killing civilians
3) established any published rules on the killing of innocent civilians and enforced them against their own members

To this end, it might then be said that the IRA and the UVF are both groups of insurgents, and, as in all modern insurgencies, have never taken the lives of innocent civilians into proper account, and indeed, see civilian casualties as a proper effect of their tactics - the primary goal of which is to instigate a climate of complete terror in the civilian population in order to pressure the government into submitting to their political goals.

Yes, they're evil, as are all insurgents in modern times.


I was not defending their actions.
As for your comment on military actions, well.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, SS (Auswitch etc.), Bloody Sunday etc.
The objective of the militarys was to eliminate civilians at thees places.
According to you they would be terrorists.

Technically yes it wasn't.(response to nakdor) However, let us look at the true definition of sovreignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovreign or sovreign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.

1. During the period in question there was no real one leader, the period I mentioned is far too broad to consider one single person as a sovreign. Agree?

2. The State of Ireland was not a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, so it is not a sovreign nation by that definition.

3. It did have self-government, from the 14th century when Irish cheiftains set up their own governance and restricted the English to the 'Pale' around Dublin, this lasted until the 1800 Act of Union, abolishing the parliament of Ireland. However, the Irish parliament set up in 1919 governed the whole of Ireland until the forced partition in 1921. After 1922 the Irish Government of The Free State ruled only over the 26 counties of the south. Complete independence was never allowed to the Irish, the unavoidable fact is that they wanted it for centuries but the imposing threat, and use of, the vastly larger British army waiting to seize power if neccessary. This treat was maintained, as my last post showed, right up to the outbreak of the Troubles in 1970.

If we dance about the point, splitting hairs and such it can be agreed that Ireland was never a whole sovreign nation, simply through the repression by the British 'Empire Machine' of the seventeeth century onwards. Due to the fact that oppression didn't allow a sovreign nation to become anything more than a self-governing body for itself, doesn't give the oppressor any right to assume that now it has no right at all to be a unified country.

Please remember there is more than one side to every argument and, always another, equally respectable point of view. To quote a line from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird"

"You can never really understand someone until you have seen things from their point of view; put on their skin and walk around in it".

In this example we can paraphrase the person as Ireland herself.

I was not defending their actions.
As for your comment on military actions, well.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, SS (Auswitch etc.), Bloody Sunday etc.
The objective of the militarys was to eliminate civilians at thees places.
According to you they would be terrorists.
the objective at Bloody Sunday wasnt to eliminate civilians...it ended up with 13 dead for whatever reason that we wont go into, but that wasnt what they put the troops there to do....just thought i should correct you on that point

Technically yes it wasn't. However, let us look at the true definition of sovreignty:

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovreign or sovreign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.

1. During the period in question there was no real one leader, the period I mentioned is far too broad to consider one single person as a sovreign. Agree?

2. The State of Ireland was not a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, so it is not a sovreign nation by that definition.

3. It did have self-government, from the 14th century when Irish cheiftains set up their own governance and restricted the English to the 'Pale' around Dublin, this lasted until the 1800 Act of Union, abolishing the parliament of Ireland. However, the Irish parliament set up in 1919 governed the whole of Ireland until the forced partition in 1921. After 1922 the Irish Government of The Free State ruled only over the 26 counties of the south. Complete independence was never allowed to the Irish, the unavoidable fact is that they wanted it for centuries but the imposing threat, and use of, the vastly larger British army waiting to seize power if neccessary. This treat was maintained, as my last post showed, right up to the outbreak of the Troubles in 1970.

If we dance about the point, splitting hairs and such it can be agreed that Ireland was never a whole sovreign nation, simply through the repression by the British 'Empire Machine' of the seventeeth century onwards. Due to the fact that oppression didn't allow a sovreign nation to become anything more than a self-governing body for itself, doesn't give the oppressor any right to assume that now it has no right at all to be a unified country.

Please remember there is more than one side to every argument and, always another, equally respectable point of view. To quote a line from Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird"

"You can never really understand someone until you have seen things from their point of view; put on their skin and walk around in it".

In this example we can paraphrase the person as Ireland herself.
you can post all that all you want, but the fact remains that there there has never been a sovereign, independent, 32 county Irish state

I was not defending their actions.
As for your comment on military actions, well.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, SS (Auswitch etc.), Bloody Sunday etc.
The objective of the militarys was to eliminate civilians at thees places.
According to you they would be terrorists.

Indeed. The British in particular fostered the idea of killing civilians as a primary tactic in WW II, and the Germans and Americans did the same.

But, in the aftermath of WW II, the Americans have been desiging weapons with a primary goal of killing conventional military forces while minimizing civilian casualties.

The problem the US faces is that the only way to fight an insurgency is to get in there and do the small arms thing.

Civilians get killed in those sorts of things. But in our direct military attacks against conventional forces, the loss rate among military targets borders on slaughter while civilians are able to continue living.

We're making the attempt to correct - they are not.

Ever wonder why the US stopped using napalm after Vietnam?
Doesn't want to use chemical weapons?
Has switched to not only precision bombs and missiles, but even the individual cluster munitions are now programmed to find targets - and failing that, will destroy themselves before hitting the ground.

It's a proven sea change in attitude. Which the insurgents of the world cannot follow - they just cannot.

There has never been a sovreign Palestinian state.

There has never been a sovreign Kurdish state.

There has never been a sovreign Bask state.

To deny any group's right to an independence/unification, for the reasons I described previously (as you did not refute anything I am working on the asumption you have nothing to refute) on past occurrences is shockingly short-sighted. The conditions of today should be looked at rather than the coniditons of the past.

To reiterate something also, do you fully understand the reasons I mentioned for why ther was no sovreign, 32-county Irish state? If so, then your silence on the matter shows to others on this site your ineptness to participater in a clear, concise and moderated discussion with your peers.

Bah, all this nonsense about rightful claims and sovereignty...

The Republic of Ireland has as much a claim to Northern Ireland as Mexico does to California, Germany to France, Italy to Western Europe.

Times change. Borders change.

The IRA is an outdated organisation which should be condemned by all reasonable folk.

The only way Northern Ireland will join the Republic of Ireland is when a majority of the population of NI express an ardent desire to do so, and vote accordingly in a fair referendum.

Or do you prefer scaring children blind with bombs 100 yards from their school, strong enough to lift the roof of one of their buildings clean off the walls? Do you think that's an acceptable way of doing business? With friends and relatives under threat of death for simply doing their public service?

Having lived through it, you have my eternal contempt if you do think that.

(Sorry for playing the emotional card, but I'm a native of NI, and dammit it pisses me off what some people think of the situation.)

There has never been a sovreign Palestinian state.

There has never been a sovreign Kurdish state.

There has never been a sovreign Bask state.

To deny any group's right to an independence/unification, for the reasons I described previously (as you did not refute anything I am working on the asumption you have nothing to refute) on past occurrences is shockingly short-sighted. The conditions of today should be looked at rather than the coniditons of the past.

To reiterate something also, do you fully understand the reasons I mentioned for why ther was no sovreign, 32-county Irish state? If so, then your silence on the matter shows to others on this site your ineptness to participater in a clear, concise and moderated discussion with your peers.

I assume you're asking Nadkor for an answer.

But, if I may point out, it's all well and good and perhaps even just to ask for self-determination. After all, the Americans managed to do so against the British.

But the nature of modern weaponry and tactics makes for a different type of insurgency.

Insurgency, during the American Revolution, took the form of the fielding of fairly conventional military formations by the Americans. The arming of ships, fielding soldiers, etc. Military formations fought military formations - the casualties caused by the insurgency were almost guaranteed to be of the oppressor's military forces.

Insurgency in modern times is far, far more likely to kill, injure, or terrorize the very population it claims to liberate. It is by nature and plan engaged in random, horrific killing of civilians - without care and as a matter of central purpose.

It's not a pretty thing.

There has never been a sovreign Palestinian state.

There has never been a sovreign Kurdish state.

There has never been a sovreign Bask state.

To deny any group's right to an independence/unification, for the reasons I described previously (as you did not refute anything I am working on the asumption you have nothing to refute) on past occurrences is shockingly short-sighted. The conditions of today should be looked at rather than the coniditons of the past.

To reiterate something also, do you fully understand the reasons I mentioned for why ther was no sovreign, 32-county Irish state? If so, then your silence on the matter shows to others on this site your ineptness to participater in a clear, concise and moderated discussion with your peers.

the person who i was arguing with (ie not you) said that Northern Ireland should be given back to Ireland. I said that it was never taken from a nation of Ireland, so it would be giving it to them rather than giving it back to them

he then went on to dispute this, and I correctly stated that there has never been a sovereign, independent 32 county Irish state.

so, I am right. There has never been an independent, sovereign 32 county Irish state. I dont care for the reasons, i stated a single fact, and you and The State of It proceeded to argue with me for reasons i cannot see.

The Irish Republic is an independent sovereign state, so they are not being denied independence as you seemed to suggest.

As for unification, the majority of the population of Northern Ireland does not want it, so the British arent denying Northern Ireland joining the Republic against their wishes. It isnt based on whats happened in the past, its based on the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in the present.

your point was?


oh, and nice wee insult at the end there, real classy

But of course. I was merely saying to nakdor that past actions shouldnt reflect the present or future, and people that do focus on the past as a justification for the present or future, are, in my democratically celebrated opinion, short-sighted.

And, for the record, I too have lived in NI all my life.

Bah, all this nonsense about rightful claims and sovereignty...

The Republic of Ireland has as much a claim to Northern Ireland as Mexico does to California, Germany to France, Italy to Western Europe.

Times change. Borders change.

The IRA is an outdated organisation which should be condemned by all reasonable folk.

The only way Northern Ireland will join the Republic of Ireland is when a majority of the population of NI express an ardent desire to do so, and vote accordingly in a fair referendum.

Or do you prefer scaring children blind with bombs 100 yards from their school, strong enough to lift the roof of one of their buildings clean off the walls? Do you think that's an acceptable way of doing business? With friends and relatives under threat of death for simply doing their public service?

Having lived through it, you have my eternal contempt if you do think that.

(Sorry for playing the emotional card, but I'm a native of NI, and dammit it pisses me off what some people think of the situation.)
i agree 100% with you.

While the majority wants to be British, it will be British, if the situation changes, fair enough. I wont like it, but you wont see me bombing people just because they disagree with me...

But of course. I was merely saying to nakdor that past actions shouldnt reflect the present or future, and people that do focus on the past as a justification for the present or future, are, in my democratically celebrated opinion, short-sighted.

And, for the record, I too have lived in NI all my life.
like...The State of It saying Northern Ireland should be turned over to the Republic against the wishes of the minority because it was once part of some mythical independent 32 county Irish state?

the objective at Bloody Sunday wasnt to eliminate civilians...it ended up with 13 dead for whatever reason that we wont go into, but that wasnt what they put the troops there to do....just thought i should correct you on that point

I know about Bloody Sunday, I just put it in the list to give people an idea of military actions against civilians. The latter was for the fire bombings.
But the objective of the British military at Croke Park was to kill civilians and they did, murder.

But of course. I was merely saying to nakdor that past actions shouldnt reflect the present or future, and people that do focus on the past as a justification for the present or future, are, in my democratically celebrated opinion, short-sighted.

And, for the record, I too have lived in NI all my life.

Did you ever hear the story about when the Germans bombed Belfast during the War, and the fire brigades from ostensibly "neutral" Ireland drove north in the night to help put out fires and rescue people?

That's the Ireland I like to hear about.

Not all this crap. It seems to me that it would be simple enough for the British to just leave. Yes, the Ian Paisleys would be upset - but I bet that someone would come to a settlement.

The British should announce that they're going to withdraw completely within the year, and cede the territory to Ireland. Make the timetable one year.

That puts an awful lot of pressure on the bitter enders to come to the table and settle before they become irrelevant.

Different things have different effects on people. (again response to nadkor but was to slow to respond)

I'm asuming you are a unionist. If you would, put yourself in the position of a Catholic nationalist. All the bullshit, propaganda and lies aside, people of catholic faith have had a hard, yes maybe even discriminatory time of it in the past few decades and centuries, not so today thank goodness, but in the past. It's this tradition that makes these young poeple go out and join in these riots and go join these organisations and do all these comdamnable actions. To have peace in the future, an understanding needs to take place on both sides

Did you ever hear the story about when the Germans bombed Belfast during the War, and the fire brigades from ostensibly "neutral" Ireland drove north in the night to help put out fires and rescue people?

That's the Ireland I like to hear about.

Not all this crap. It seems to me that it would be simple enough for the British to just leave. Yes, the Ian Paisleys would be upset - but I bet that someone would come to a settlement.

The British should announce that they're going to withdraw completely within the year, and cede the territory to Ireland. Make the timetable one year.

That puts an awful lot of pressure on the bitter enders to come to the table and settle before they become irrelevant.
to be honest, even though im a ideally a Unionist, i think the only solution that might actually work would be a compromise one.

NI officially joins the Republic...with the British Monarch and the President as joint heads of state (people who dont want to have allegience to the Monarch pledge to the President and vice versa, and citizens of it can have dual citizenship....and NI is semi-autonomous with an assembly at Stormont.

I think that would be the best way to compromise everything...

I know about Bloody Sunday, I just put it in the list to give people an idea of military actions against civilians. The latter was for the fire bombings.
But the objective of the British military at Croke Park was to kill civilians and they did, murder.
oh i thought you were talking about Bloody Sunday in 69

When people stop saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Unionist", and get back to the reality that they found on that night the Germans bombed Belfast, and realize that they're Irish...

You're both Irish. I'm a damn Korean, and I can see that much.

to be honest, even though im a ideally a Unionist, i think the only solution that might actually work would be a compromise one.

NI officially joins the Republic...with the British Monarch and the President as joint heads of state (people who dont want to have allegience to the Monarch pledge to the President and vice versa, and citizens of it can have dual citizenship....and NI is semi-autonomous with an assembly at Stormont.

I think that would be the best way to compromise everything...

Agreed. :)

When people stop saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Unionist", and get back to the reality that they found on that night the Germans bombed Belfast, and realize that they're Irish...

You're both Irish. I'm a damn Korean, and I can see that much.
because at the end of the day...unionism vs nationalism is a pretty important debate for the people of northern ireland...it would decide who makes their laws, takes their taxes, provides their security etc...

Agreed. :)
lets start a party to get it done ;)

because at the end of the day...unionism vs nationalism is a pretty important debate for the people of northern ireland...it would decide who makes their laws, takes their taxes, provides their security etc...

Yep again. The situation in NI is unique politically, very polarised etc. as the last elections have shown.

lets start a party to get it done ;)

Hmm.. what to call it though. The Free Pie Party?

green pie for all :gundge:

Hmm.. what to call it though. The Free Pie Party?

green pie for all :gundge:
you know that if NI joined the Republic...then the Orangemen could parade whereever they want ;)

we could change it to the Piemen.

that would rock

you know that if NI joined the Republic...then the Orangemen could parade whereever they want ;)

we could change it to the Piemen.

that would rock

They can have Belfast for the marching season.. I wouldnt mind relocating to Cork, or make the marching season and st. pat's day national holidays and get everyone to celebrate them

They can have Belfast for the marching season.. I wouldnt mind relocating to Cork, or make the marching season and st. pat's day national holidays and get everyone to celebrate them
sounds fair enough to me

get both sides to celebrate the culture of....both sides

They can have Belfast for the marching season.. I wouldnt mind relocating to Cork, or make the marching season and st. pat's day national holidays and get everyone to celebrate them

Speaking as someone that lives a hundred yards away from Sean Graham's bookmakers on the Ormeau Road I think I can safely say that we won't see a cross-community celebration of the 12th for many a year to come.

Speaking as someone that lives a hundred yards away from Sean Graham's bookmakers on the Ormeau Road I think I can safely say that we won't see a cross-community celebration of the 12th for many a year to come.

Does it continue through actions or ignorance?
Have you felt the aggression still, to the rest of the world it's not reported so it like its stopped happening.
Do you think that it's getting better or worse?

Does it continue through actions or ignorance?

The curse and the blessing of the people here are their long memories.

Have you felt the aggression still, to the rest of the world it's not reported so it like its stopped happening.

Despite the 'complications' raised by the accusations of the head of the PSNI with regard to who carried out the Northern Bank robbery, I haven't actually felt that there has been a build up in inter-community aggressions. These things tend to come in waves every couple of years since the beginning of the ceasefires, and at present, despite the fact that the 'peace process' seems to be deadlocked again a relative calm still exists. Obviously, the police haven't exactly further endeared themselves to the Nationalist community by their searches and accusations, but even post-reform they have never been particularly loved by either side.

Having said this, business as usual continues - gangsterism operated mainly on the back of drug dealing carried out by the paramilitary groups, the occasional minor feud blowing up over turf and the quiet acceptance as normal of punishment beatings and knee-cappings for anti-social behaviour.


Do you think that it's getting better or worse?

The longer the peacefires contnue to be in operation the more Northern ireland is removed from the old cycle of bombings, shootings and tit-for-tat sectarian attacks, so that is in itself a good thing. Further to this, with the cessation of military activities there is no longer quite the same drive for young working class people to join the paramilitaries - not that the economic situation here exactly provides a multitude of choices for them, but it is getting somewhat better in that respect. The longer there is a hold off from the brink, the more the two communties encounter each other on the traditional neutral grounds and the greater the chance there is of a dialogue based on an actual understanding of the others situation.


In other words: do I see the activities of the politicos and MLAs as leading to aresolution of the troubles? Not really, but they have at least created a suspension of the previous open conflict which gives the people here a chance to reassess themselves and live lives whicha re for the most part 'normal'.

One of those issues where I could think about it for days and still have only scratched the surface...

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Here's hoping things get better.

was it even united then? was it not a series of loosely combined small kingdoms etc?

800 years ago there were very few unified kingdoms in all of Europe, indeed England itself was undergoing conquest by the Norman French, so perhaps this argument opens rather a can of worms.....
It can be argued that even if Ireland was not politically unified 800 years ago, it WAS linguistically, culturally more unified than many other European nations.

For the record, I'm not an IRA supporter. I would not even be counted as Irish, although I've visited Ireland. Most of my ancestry as far as I know is Slavic and I have some Jewish ancestry.

I should mention most Irish people I actually met in Ireland are not big supporters of the IRA. I should as well mention that support in the U.S. was never that strong, outside of certain major urban areas. In places like Chicago, New York or Boston and some would say San Francisco, there is very thin support. Most Irish-Americans don't have any concept of Irish history, and barely understand the music and culture. There is this yearly orgy of fake Irishness once a year called St. Patricks Day, and then that's kind of it.

It's never been exactly legal to support the PIRA financially. It's always been a good way to get investigated, which in the U.S. is a good way not to have a job. The FBI and CIA have always kept lists of known supporters and supporters who are less public.

As far as comments about Paisley being a looney, he is! He's very similar to a certain type of American Protestant. In fact most American Protestants who call themselves 'Scotch-Irish' are of the same general background ethnically as Ian Paisley, I am not saying all Protestants of 'Scotch-Irish' descent are looney in this way! Most are not. Ian Paisley has some very strong ties with Bob Jones University. He visits the U.S. pretty regularly, and has done so for many years unmolested by the authorities.
The type of religion he's involved with is at least to my mind loony, right wing, extremeist Protestantism. Not to be confused with normal forms of Protestantism. The scary part to me, is that so many American Protestants hold very similar ideas to Paisley. Even a few are too many.

As far as the bank robbery goes, it's really an operation that had some features of genuine wierd stupididy. For one thing, the money stolen is USELESS for the most part outside of Northern Ireland, as it was all Northern Ireland bills. These are not accepted widely in England, Scotland or Wales and totally not accepted in the outside world. They are highly traceable too, because they don't look like normal British money. I have not read the whole thread, (I'm tired) but so far, I have not seen anyone remark on the peculiar currency. It seems to me a sophisticated international terrorist organization would at least have made sure to steal money more valuable in international transactions.
Everyone is overlooking that so called 'Loyalist' organizations have done crimes too in the past, robbed banks etc.
Generally if the PIRA does something or other, they place some sort of claim that they did it, usually within about 48 hours.
They have claimed stuff that if I were running a terrorist organization, I'd keep quiet about, or actively deny. So I'm inclined to withhold judgement on this whole bank robbery thing.
There is something very fishy about the whole deal.

I assume you're asking Nadkor for an answer.

But, if I may point out, it's all well and good and perhaps even just to ask for self-determination. After all, the Americans managed to do so against the British.

But the nature of modern weaponry and tactics makes for a different type of insurgency.

Insurgency, during the American Revolution, took the form of the fielding of fairly conventional military formations by the Americans. The arming of ships, fielding soldiers, etc. Military formations fought military formations - the casualties caused by the insurgency were almost guaranteed to be of the oppressor's military forces.

Insurgency in modern times is far, far more likely to kill, injure, or terrorize the very population it claims to liberate. It is by nature and plan engaged in random, horrific killing of civilians - without care and as a matter of central purpose.

It's not a pretty thing.


Actually in the American Revolution there were a lot of civilian casualties. For one thing the majority of people living in the 13 Colonies didn't support the Revolution. Two thirds remained either loyal to Britain or indifferent and annoyed as hell by both sides. Yes most forces were in modern terms 'conventional' however the Americans fought in what the British considered a highly un-sporting manner, shooting from behind trees, makeing ambushes and so forth. This was condemned in the diaries of British officers and soldiers serving in America. Another thing, the Loyalists after victory of American forces did not stay on, they went to Canada. Further, for those Americans who like to rant about the French, French aid was pretty important in the American War of Independance. It's possible without French help, Americans would be singing 'God Save the Queen'.

It can be argued that even if Ireland was not politically unified 800 years ago, it WAS linguistically, culturally more unified than many other European nations.

Really? There remain many different dialects of Irish in existence even today: they are actually comprehensible to speakers of other dialects, but there is quite a bit of variation between them. Historical documents indicate that there were several other dialects which have died out in the last thousand years, and so the claim to linguistic unity is somewhat dubious - certainly they were all speaking the same language, but there was no 'standard' form of it and important grammatical and syntactical variations could be found just a few counties away.


As far as comments about Paisley being a looney, he is! He's very similar to a certain type of American Protestant. In fact most American Protestants who call themselves 'Scotch-Irish' are of the same general background ethnically as Ian Paisley, I am not saying all Protestants of 'Scotch-Irish' descent are looney in this way! Most are not. Ian Paisley has some very strong ties with Bob Jones University. He visits the U.S. pretty regularly, and has done so for many years unmolested by the authorities.
The type of religion he's involved with is at least to my mind loony, right wing, extremeist Protestantism. Not to be confused with normal forms of Protestantism. The scary part to me, is that so many American Protestants hold very similar ideas to Paisley. Even a few are too many.

It seems to me that at the end of the day the only grounds you have provided for asserting that Paisley is a looney are his religious beliefs. You haven't even specified a single belief that he holds which marks him off as a lunatic - thus on this basis it would be equally fair to call all Muslims/Nation of Islam/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/whatever lunatics.

As far as the bank robbery goes, it's really an operation that had some features of genuine wierd stupididy. For one thing, the money stolen is USELESS for the most part outside of Northern Ireland, as it was all Northern Ireland bills. These are not accepted widely in England, Scotland or Wales and totally not accepted in the outside world. They are highly traceable too, because they don't look like normal British money. I have not read the whole thread, (I'm tired) but so far, I have not seen anyone remark on the peculiar currency. It seems to me a sophisticated international terrorist organization would at least have made sure to steal money more valuable in international transactions.

You seem to have missed the point here that the operation probably suceeded in excess of the wildest dreams of those that planned and carried it out. So what if they need to burn about sixteen million pounds as it has been rendered useless due to the Northern Bank altering the design of future notes? The heiststers are still ten million up on the operation - hardly to be sniffed at.

If it was actually carried out by the IRA (I have yet to see any evidence of this, other than the word of Orde), then the vast amount of money that they took backfired on them - if it had been a much smaller amount then it probably wouldn't have put the kybosh on the whole peace process.

Insurgency in modern times is far, far more likely to kill, injure, or terrorize the very population it claims to liberate. It is by nature and plan engaged in random, horrific killing of civilians - without care and as a matter of central purpose.


This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the IRA's modus operandi - they recognise the difference between their self-defined legitimate targets and non-legitimate targets. Some civilians do fall into the category of legitimate targets. To declare that the IRA were engaged in 'random, horrific killing of civilians without care and as a matter of central purpose' is true in only one aspect - that of 'horrific killing of civilians'. The rest is spurious.

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the IRA's modus operandi - they recognise the difference between their self-defined legitimate targets and non-legitimate targets. Some civilians do fall into the category of legitimate targets. To declare that the IRA were engaged in 'random, horrific killing of civilians without care and as a matter of central purpose' is true in only one aspect - that of 'horrific killing of civilians'. The rest is spurious.
i suppose the evidence for that is the wide use of warnings before bombs

Bloody Sunday...13 people? sad yes, but the IRA killed 2,000. the majority innocent civilians...and you dont see an enquiry

Illegal government? The British Government of Northern was accepted by Michael Collins and the Dail...so tough shit on that one....

you cant honestly agree with an organisation that goes against every democratic principle and uses violence to impose the will of the minority on the majority?
As I've said here before, I'm a nationalist with an exceptionally small 'n' - but I still do support the cause. I know Nadkor is a unionist, and yet I agree with everything said in this post.

We see enquiries into Catholic deaths often (Finucane, Nelson, Bloody Sunday). I agree that they should be undertaken, but equally so should enquiries into attacks on Protestants - and I've only heard of one during the whole so-called peace process (and that was Billy Wright's, into why it was possible to kill someone with prison walls - a bit different). Even investigations into the heinous Omagh bombing - carried out by an IRA splinter group, killing both Catholics and Protestants - were pathetic. 29 people, including a pregnant women, were killed that day. Bloody Sunday should never have happened, and I hope those responsible are brought to justice, but what about these victims? What about the victims of the Shankill bombing? Bloody Friday? Etc, etc, etc. Does anyone care about any of these people?

I'm no fan of European integration, other than as I've said that I'd slightly prefer a united Ireland. However, all the bloody thugs ought to do something about it, DEMOCRATICALLY. Continued violence would only put me off their cause; in fact, that's partly why I don't feel strongly about Ireland's future. I despise the IRA as much as I despise any other terrorist organisation; just because you disagree with a particular group's point of view does not mean you can go around killing them in the name of freedom. It is disgusting.

Freedom fighters? Jesus Christ, if the person that wrote that really believes it, they have an incredibly twisted view of 'freedom'. If it weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious. I want to be free to walk down the road without being blown up. Of course, the loyalist paramilitaries have not allowed me that freedom especially, but the IRA are as much to blame as they are.

What about the case of that poor woman, Jean McConville? Mrs McConville's supposed crime was offering a badly wounded man near her home - who just happened to be a soldier - a cup of tea. The IRA kidnapped her (one of 'their own', a Catholic), murdered her, and buried her on a remote beach. Only recently - about 30 years after her death - did they reveal to her stricken family where her body lay. Even then it took much persuasion. What is so free about that? How was she colluding with the enemy? The woman demonstrated her non-sectarian, compassionate nature by trying to help an injured man - a British solider, maybe, but to her, just someone in need of help. How can any decent person honestly believe she and her family deserved what followed?!

BWO is right that they may see British/Protestant/Unionist civilians as 'legitimate' targets, but that just further demonstrates what twisted, evil fuckers they are. I would respect them, and the loyalists, a lot more if they went about and killed each other. But they didn't; they killed people who may have had no opinion whatsoever on politics and religion - even if these people did have such an opinion, only a very tiny minority acted upon it.

THEY ARE ALL SCUM - IRA, INLA, UVF, UDA etc etc etc. How can anyone defend any of them?

BWO is right that they may see British/Protestant/Unionist civilians as 'legitimate' targets, but that just further demonstrates what twisted, evil fuckers they are.

That's not entirely what I meant: some civilians due to choices that they have made (for example builders working on police stations) are seen as legitimate targets, rather than civilians being legitimate targets just because they hold different political views or religious heritage.


THEY ARE ALL SCUM - IRA, INLA, UVF, UDA etc etc etc. How can anyone defend any of them?

I can: when you are born into and live in a community which is suffering due to the actions of the other side, then the role of your paramilitary organisation is seen as a defensive one.