Norn Ire - Why Not Let 'em At Each Other?

Mighty_Mouse

[GerryAdams]I dont want to get into the failed politics of condemnation over shooting dead people who break the parade commissons rulings, we just need to resolve the problems that are forcing the British Army to shoot people dead. And lets face it, after youve shot a few people youre taken a lot more seriously.[/GerryAdams]

Alright Sand, I have you figured... another "controversial for the sake of it" poster, me thinks!

David-[RLD]-

Any reason as to why this started?

Now, honestly, if I saw a British soldier on one of my ventures up north, I wouldn't attack them, but I wouldn't be at all friendly towards them. If I saw a British soldier in Louth I'd be less than pleased.

The fact is that the PSNI are just the RUC with a different name and different uniform. And the British army are as pro-Loyalist as ever. Not seem a bit unfair to Nationalists here?

David-[RLD]-

Oh, and the whole "shoot anyone who defies the Parades Commission" thing.

Anyone who supports that idea but thinks the IRA are scum for shooting people then there's only one title that would suit them:

HYPOCRITE!

PBC_1966

Forgive me, an outsider, for jumping in here and showing my ignorance, but I think I'm probably in the same position as most English people in simply not understanding what the real problem is in N.I.

After reading through all the above posts, I'm still just as confused. All we ever hear about on the news here is nationalist vs. loyalist, or protestant vs. catholic, which I'm sure is an over-simplification of the situation.

Does it really all stem from the events of centuries ago (*), or is it now a case of the apparent hatred and violence having gone on for so long so nobody really knows why they're fighting each other any more?

Maybe those of us from outside Ireland will just never understand it.

(*) By the way, I might be British but I will be the first the say that the English-rule in those times was grossly unfair to Irish people and not something we should be proud of. But that was a long time ago: None of the people involved -- on either side -- are still around today.

AngelofFire

Sand wrote:

Yeah, I sound like a regular SF supporter dont I?

No you just sound like an idiot, for suggestin something as ignorant and barbaric as to allow for the shooting of innocent people. I suppose you supporting the british after they shot dead innocent protesters on bloody sunday.

Mighty_Mouse

Does it really all stem from the events of centuries ago (*), or is it now a case of the apparent hatred and violence having gone on for so long so nobody really knows why they're fighting each other any more?

The war in Northern Ireland and current political turmoil is as much a civil rights movement as anythign else.ie catholics looling for equal opportunites in education, employment, etc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/

http://www.historyguy.com/northern_ireland_links.html

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/northireland1.html

http://www.historyworld.net/news/Snip3.asp

The above are a few quick "googled" linkies for ya.Might help give you a general gist of things

Sand

Alright Sand, I have you figured... another "controversial for the sake of it" poster, me thinks!

Irony

Bookmark that for future reference. While youre studying up on that give satire a whirl. Your man, David RLD should be on for being a study buddy. Angel of Fire will also be interested Id guess.

No you just sound like an idiot, for suggestin something as ignorant and barbaric as to allow for the shooting of innocent people.

i gave a sinn fein candidate a high preference in the local elections

Better yet, you voted for it.

I suppose you supporting the british after they shot dead innocent protesters on bloody sunday.

Well, when Im in doubt as to whether I should condemn an act of murderous violence I ask myself, What would Gerry Adams say? And then I know that getting into the failed politics of condemnation is going to get us nowhere, and we have to accept that the British have fully embraced the peace process, and we have to move into a bright new future for the North. The British Army were forced to take up arms to protect themselves and their communities, to fight for their basic civil rights, it was a valid war, and yes some mistakes were made but we must pay homage to their stunning sacrifices in the name of peace.

Sand

Does it really all stem from the events of centuries ago (*), or is it now a case of the apparent hatred and violence having gone on for so long so nobody really knows why they're fighting each other any more?

More simple psychology and grasping for power to be honest. People are tribal by nature, they need an us and them. A lot of the time this is just good natured rivalry, sometimes bad natured rivalry. In Northern Ireland its a lot worse because its a sure vote getter to play on peoples fears, to play on their biases and their hates. The GFA gave real advantages to being a sectarian party, and its no surprise that the two moderate parties ( the Unionist Party and the SDLP ) that brought the terrorists into the political process are being supplanted by their more extremist brethern.

Its worse because most if not all of the terrorist organisations that claim to be fighting for political reasons have for a long time been crinimal empires - "the cause" is good for bussiness, and it gives them a hell of a lot more influence than a mere drug gang would usually have. Why would SF join any policing board? That might undermine the IRAs hold on republican housing estates where the IRA are the vigilante law and order.

The terrorism in NI stopped being about politics and religion a long, long time ago. Its just greedy politicians and crinimals at this stage.

If you want to read up on the conflict, you could do a lot worse than the CAIN Website. Its very detailed and quite unbiased.

AngelofFire

Better yet, you voted for it.

No i voted cos i knew this candidate personally and he has an excellent track record of working in my area.And dont try to contrive that i voted for violence because i didnt.

The British Army were forced to take up arms to protect themselves and their communities, to fight for their basic civil rights, it was a valid war, and yes some mistakes were made but we must pay homage to their stunning sacrifices in the name of peace.

.

In the 60s nationalists were denied housing,civil protections and proper democratic representation.When the civil rights movement started these protesters were bombarded by Die Hard loyalist bigots. British soliders unnecessarily opened fire on a crowd, just because a handfull of protesters got a bit rowdy(which is understandable considering the political and social context of NI).The shooting of innocent people just for protesting epitomizes the Jingoism advocated towards nationalist/catholic people in NI by the British army and police force In NI at the time.This people were just looking for equity and to be treated in a dignified manner,very few of these protesters were even die hard republicans.

No doubt Sinn fein are strongly linked with the Provisional IRA,but shooting people dead without reason is expected of terrorists, however it is certainly not expected of a police force or the british army. It is also even more alarming that the RUC and the british army were involved in colusion with Loyalist terrorist groups and justifyed their actions on the basis that they were trying to counter terrorism.

NinjaBart

sand your satire and irony need work

Sand wrote:

Its worse because most if not all of the terrorist organisations that claim to be fighting for political reasons have for a long time been crinimal empires - "the cause" is good for bussiness, and it gives them a hell of a lot more influence than a mere drug gang would usually have.

altho your analysis of the facts is poor in most cases regarding the north you usually tend to have the actual facts at hand so can i ask you to give us some references for this? i see it said a lot but never found a good source for it.

Mighty_Mouse

That might undermine the IRAs hold on republican housing estates where the IRA are the vigilante law and order

Just out of curiorist. Why exactly do the IRA have a "hold" on republican estates and what exactly do they need this "hold" for? Don't you find it strange that with the amount of surveilance on the IRA and Sinn Fein for the last 30 yrs there has been no evidence indicating widespread dealing of drugs in the IRA?

Sand

No i voted cos i knew this candidate personally and he has an excellent track record of working in my area.And dont try to contrive that i voted for violence because i didnt.

No doubt Sinn fein are strongly linked with the Provisional IRA,but shooting people dead without reason is expected of terrorists,

I dont have to contrive - youre saying it yourself. Please, continue to protest your ignorance of SF/IRAs symbiotic relationship.

In the 60s nationalists were denied housing,civil protections and proper democratic representation.When the civil rights movement started these protesters were bombarded by Die Hard loyalist bigots. British soliders unnecessarily opened fire on a crowd, just because a handfull of protesters got a bit rowdy(which is understandable considering the political and social context of NI).

In the 60s British soldiers were denied basic human rights, not least their right to life, equal treatment under the law and protection from prejudice. When the soldiers went in to help maintain law and order these soldiers were bombarded by Die Hard republican bigots. IRA terrorists unnecessarily opened fire on these soldiers, just because a handfull of paras got a bit rowdy(which is understandable considering the political and social context of NI).

It is also even more alarming that the RUC and the british army were involved in colusion with Loyalist terrorist groups and justifyed their actions on the basis that they were trying to counter terrorism.

YES! yes it is. And you know whats more alarming, that despite castigating the British for colluding with terrorists youre voting for a party that is the political front for a terrorist organisation - giving them a mandate to get into power.

Tell me, seeing as terrorism is understandable from the IRAs point of view, but inexscusable on the part of the Loyalists and *some* factions in the British security forces will the SF link to the IRA become unacceptable collusion with terrorists when SF take seats in the Dail? Oh wait, they have them already because people such as yourself voted for them.

sand your satire and irony need work

Im limited by my audience - I mean, its come to the point where I need to provide definitions of the terms and issue disclaimers.

altho your analysis of the facts is poor in most cases regarding the north you usually tend to have the actual facts at hand so can i ask you to give us some references for this? i see it said a lot but never found a good source for it.

Dear God - what do you think those IRA men were doing when they shot McCabe, widowing his wife? Paying their telephone bill? Really, Im curious as to see what you think they were doing? Enlighten me.

Just out of curiorist. Why exactly do the IRA have a "hold" on republican estates and what exactly do they need this "hold" for?

Same question twice surely? It began no doubt as part of some counter-intelligence effort on their part - identifying any law abiding citizens who reported crinimal behaviour to the police and either intimidating them, torturing them or in cases such as mother of ten Jean McConville abducting, torturing and murdering them leaving the body in an unmarked grave to which they gave so little thought as to be unable to remember where they dumped her. It helped to remove the legitimacy of the police, and then the IRa to cement its power moved in to replace the police. Far better to have victims of petty crime come to the IRA to get justice rather than the police. Of course, power corrupts and now the IRA control housing estates to make sure a blind eye is turned to their more profitable activities.

Villain

Sand wrote:

In the 60s British soldiers were denied basic human rights, not least their right to life, equal treatment under the law and protection from prejudice. When the soldiers went in to help maintain law and order these soldiers were bombarded by Die Hard republican bigots. IRA terrorists unnecessarily opened fire on these soldiers, just because a handfull of paras got a bit rowdy(which is understandable considering the political and social context of NI).

Bloody Sunday ring any bells??

Help maintain the law and order you say, lol surely your joking right?

AngelofFire

youre voting for a party that is the political front for a terrorist organisation - giving them a mandate to get into power.

Sinn Fein are committed to the good friday agreement, even more so than the UUP.I voted in a LOCAL election for a candidate on a LOCAL issue who i knew personally and it was in the republic of ireland, I gave him my 4th preference.A SFer getting elected to south dublin county council will have no effect on the situation up north.

The party i sympathise with up north is the SDLP.

In the 60s British soldiers were denied basic human rights, not least their right to life, equal treatment under the law and protection from prejudice.

That is taken blatantly out of a context if not a lie.

The british government should of handled the situation in a democratic way, rather then making NI a police state,however they didnt have the balls to confront loyalist hardliners. it was only a few years since lord brookeborough was PM of NI.

PBC_1966

Thanks for the info/links. Looks like I have some reading to do!

Mighty_Mouse

It began no doubt as part of some counter-intelligence effort on their part - identifying any law abiding citizens who reported crinimal behaviour to the police and either intimidating them.

So do you consider the IRA as seperate to the community? In that, the community had no choice but to tolerate an IRA that they didnt want?

It helped to remove the legitimacy of the police, and then the IRa to cement its power moved in to replace the police.

So the IRA "removed" an origional trust that republicans had in police in order to "take over" policing in republican areas!!! Um....Do you have any type of new evidence that republican areas trusted the police at any stage in the last 40 years?

Far better to have victims of petty crime come to the IRA to get justice rather than the police.

Right so these republicans reporting crime to the IRA really do trust the police but just don't want/aren't let report crimes?

So really we don't have a problem between republicans and the police. Just IRA interfering making republicans "believe" there is a problem between them and the police?

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor! I think that your forgetting that republican communitys supported the IRA (still do).

NinjaBart

Sand wrote:

Dear God - what do you think those IRA men were doing when they shot McCabe, widowing his wife? Paying their telephone bill? Really, Im curious as to see what you think they were doing? Enlighten me.

this is more of your highbrow sarcasm? genius work, keep it up.

perhaps im limited by my audience here but i'll ask you again. do you have a good source for the allegation that the IRA are trafficing drugs?

pdh

Why are people getting so worked up about as to what goes on in Ulster ? As of 1998 this territory no longer constitutes a part of the national territory of Ireland per the referendum which was passed by a majority of 96%.

Maybe you ought to turn you attention to the unacceptable violence and scum who populate Limerick City. This is an issue that does happen here in our country.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

Bloody Sunday ring any bells??

Yup. It shows that you are consistently trying to refute Sand's point by refusing to accept that wrong - and great wrong - was done by both sides rather than by just one of them.......which I would hazard a guess is the point Sand is making that you're trying to refute!!!

Well done - re-inforcing a point by trying to refute it.

jc

dubhthach

pdh wrote:

Why are people getting so worked up about as to what goes on in Ulster ? As of 1998 this territory no longer constitutes a part of the national territory of Ireland per the referendum which was passed by a majority of 96%.

[pedantic]So your telling me that Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan are no longer parts of the republic? :rolleyes: [/pedantic]

ecksor

bonkey wrote:

Yup. It shows that you are consistently trying to refute Sand's point by refusing to accept that wrong - and great wrong - was done by both sides rather than by just one of them.......which I would hazard a guess is the point Sand is making that you're trying to refute!!!

You're guessing too? I can't tell the difference between his stunning humour and his extreme views and would rather not try to guess.

I posted a question on another thread regarding IRA violence and Sand's response was to start justifying loyalist violence using some of the more horrible examples he could think of with another inventive spin like the aforementioned rowdy soldiers (and didn't even answer the question). It clouds the discussion and may explain why the republican supporters automatically assume that Sand isn't trying to make that point but is instead trying to justify nationalist deaths or at least doing his best to annoy one side of the argument.

I understand that he's limited by his audience :rolleyes: but perhaps he needs to dumb it down for us.

bonkey wrote:

Well done - re-inforcing a point by trying to refute it.

I think the point that irish1 has re-inforced is that clumsy and tasteless trolls such as "a handful of paras getting rowdy" can stimulate a response.

Raskolnikov

pdh wrote:

Why are people getting so worked up about as to what goes on in Ulster ?

Like a lot of people, I have family, friends and even a partner from there.

Sand

perhaps im limited by my audience here but i'll ask you again. do you have a good source for the allegation that the IRA are trafficing drugs?

Its worse because most if not all of the terrorist organisations that claim to be fighting for political reasons have for a long time been crinimal empires - "the cause" is good for bussiness, and it gives them a hell of a lot more influence than a mere drug gang would usually have.

Wasnt the second quote the quote you were asking for backup on? If you dont know enough about the terrorists orgnisations to know about their role in organised crime then Im afraid I am not the person who has the time to teach you, nor is this the place. For starters, investigate Martin Cahills death and the reasons for it.

So do you consider the IRA as seperate to the community? In that, the community had no choice but to tolerate an IRA that they didnt want?

The IRA killed more Catholics than any other "faction" in the troubles. Yeah, Im sure they were getting along famously.

Sand's response was to start justifying loyalist violence using some of the more horrible examples he could think of with another inventive spin like the aforementioned rowdy soldiers (and didn't even answer the question).

perhaps he needs to dumb it down for us.

[/QUOTE]

I think the point that irish1 has re-inforced is that clumsy and tasteless trolls such as "a handful of paras getting rowdy" can stimulate a response.

Okay, I will break it down for you. This is also for Angel and the feigned innocence of Mouse and Irish 1 along with NinjaBart. Because of this some parts of the below are going to be more applicable to only a few of you,

A poster advocated, probably frustrated with the NI mindset, that anyone breaching the Parade commisson rulings should be shot. Im equally frustrated by that mindset so I agreed, noting it as a regrettable necesssity to highlight a point in another thread where the IRAs murders were described as a regrettable necessity. Surely if the solution to civil rights issues required the murder of innocent civillians, then whose to say the murder of innocent civillians cant work to resolve this civil rights issue?

Of course that was sarcasm, to highlight that the IRAs violence was not required - I hoped that true believers in their utter disagreement with the necessity of the British Army shooting innocents would maybe, just maybe think to themselves that maybe the IRAs shooting innocents was more than a regrettable necessity as well.

Step one occurred - hordes of howling SF fanboys descended yowling about the hideous evil of killing civillians without the slightest trace of detectable irony. Unfortunately none of them carried it that step further to examining the IRA campaign without green tinted glasses.

I tried to reinforce the point by taking a typical SF position on IRA violence, changing a few names and putting it out there. Surely the SF boys would recognise their own positions? Ask themselves why it was correct to murder there, but not here? This went wooosh over the heads of far too many.

I even went to the point of taking your commentary on the IRA campaign and changing a few names, and despite it you still dont see it. You castigate the British government for collusion with terrorists, and yet dont see a problem with electing a terrorist force into Irish government. SF mightnt be out planting the bombs (though a lot of their members did) , but then neither was the British PM.

Thats fair enough. Youre true believers, and I accept Ill never get past the Wolfe Tones conditioning where Johnny Adair is a murderous villain, whilst the Border Fox is a man who had his heart in the right place even if his methods were a little extreme. Where the IRA were the reluctant warriors protecting their community, whilst the Loyalists were the mad dog killers. Where its appalling that terrorists had links to the British security forces, yet its acceptable for you to vote for a party that has links to a terrorist group.

Youll come back and deny you hold those views at all - that you accept great wrongs were done by both sides and that neither side had any more moral claim to justification for their tit-for-tat murders and abductions. But youll slide in something about the Catholics being mightily oppressed. About the use of indiscriminate violence being understandable. Thats what betrays your real position.

Im not taking sides here - I dont view loyalists as being more justified than the republicans, I dont view the paras who gunned down the civil rights protestors as being morally just in their actions. What bothers me is the slow rewriting of history to justify the IRAs terrorism, to make it acceptable and just, whilst at the same time condemning the terrorism of others. If the paras were wrong to murder civillians, then so were the IRA. There was a lot of history in NI but that doesnt count for anything. If the IRA had extenuating circumstances then so did the Paras, and so did the Loyalists.

I await without surprise the denials that you view the murder of civillians as being morally dependant on who did it and what sob story they have to tell. But that Catholics had it awful tough in NI.

AngelofFire

Thats fair enough. Youre true believers, and I accept Ill never get past the Wolfe Tones conditioning where Johnny Adair is a murderous villain, whilst the Border Fox is a man who had his heart in the right place even if his methods were a little extreme

I never condoned any paramilitary action be it republican or loyalist, and dont say that i did in giving a 4th preference to a Sinn Fein fein candidate in a local election.I gave them a preference as part of strategic voting to squeeze the Fianna Fail Candidates out of my council, and to give support to other left wing parties.Also as part of strategic voting i gave a FG candidate a considerabley high preference that doesnt mean im a die hard fan of the blueshirts or Kevin O`Higgins.

Also Wolfetone is a man whos ideals that i hold as Values, and whos religion i share.His vision was a united irish republic free of secterianism and a unification of all people regardelss of religion,subsituting the terms "Catholic and Protestant" with the "Irish Man".

And Wolfetone died 150 years before Adair was born.

sceptre

AngelofFire wrote:

Also Wolfetone is a man whos ideals that i hold as Values, and whos religion i share.His vision was a united irish republic free of secterianism and a unification of all people regardelss of religion,subsituting the terms "Catholic and Protestant" with the "Irish Man".

And Wolfetone died 150 years before Adair was born.

I assumed he was talking about the band when I saw the word "the". Wasn't he talking about the band?

arcadegame2004

pdh wrote:

Why are people getting so worked up about as to what goes on in Ulster ? As of 1998 this territory no longer constitutes a part of the national territory of Ireland per the referendum which was passed by a majority of 96%.

Maybe you ought to turn you attention to the unacceptable violence and scum who populate Limerick City. This is an issue that does happen here in our country.

I consider Northern Ireland to be part of OUR country. The West-British tendency has not quite gone away I see.

The Irish Constitution still retains an aspiration, stating that it is the "firm willl" of the Irish people that a United Ireland should happen. We were not voting to end our Republican ethos when we voted in that referendum.

We have every right to express our views, as does our Government, with respect to events in NI. The 2 Governments are the custodians of the peace-process, and are right to attempt to broker a deal between SF and the DUP. I could never consider NI to be "foreign". Nor should I.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I consider Northern Ireland to be part of OUR country. The West-British tendency has not quite gone away I see.

The Irish Constitution still retains an aspiration, stating that it is the "firm willl" of the Irish people that a United Ireland should happen. We were not voting to end our Republican ethos when we voted in that referendum.

Previous to the 1998 referendum the Irish courts confirmed at various times that the territorial claim was a claim as of right and a constitutional imperative derived from article 2 (which was of course dependent on the Irish courts' view that the 1937 document wasn't dependent on the 1922 constitution or the Anglo-Irish Treaty of the previous year). With some clever and complicated legal gymnastics in the McGimpsey decision of course. Following the referendum the territorial claim has been dropped and hence it is only an aspiration these days. Which at a glance might sound like what you said but there's a significant difference. What you feel in your own heart and balls doesn't change the legal position of the territory. And calling people names again ("West-Brit" in this case, though I fail to see how the quoted part of pdh's post deserves such rattle-waving) doesn't change that legal position either. The 1937 constitution (see original article 3) implicitly recognised the de facto occupation and governance of Northern Ireland, the 1998 amendment tied to the GFA recognises the de jure occupation and governance (of course predicated on majority support of the populace) of Northern Ireland. Legally Northern Ireland isn't quite "foreign". Neither is it domestic. In law and in fact. Aspirations are aspirations.

Meanwhile the current aspiration you're referring to runs as follows:

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.

The first clause refers to uniting the people of Ireland, the phrase "united Ireland" appears in the second (recognising the requirement for majority support). One could argue (and it doesn't matter whether one would or not) that the aspiration as enacted refers to uniting the people rather than the territory. At the time it was left deliberately vague. Either way, as I mentioned above, there's quite a difference between the pre-1998 claim and the current "claim".

ecksor

Sand wrote:

A poster advocated, probably frustrated with the NI mindset, that anyone breaching the Parade commisson rulings should be shot. Im equally frustrated by that mindset so I agreed, noting it as a regrettable necesssity to highlight a point in another thread where the IRAs murders were described as a regrettable necessity.

Sand,

Since you took those words (necessity and regretable) from the thread where I first used it and started to twist it to your own ends to most offensive effects I did take the trouble to clarify my meaning in using those words. Please do not continue to pretend that I meant something else by it or that I described it as something when I did not.

Villain

bonkey wrote:

Yup. It shows that you are consistently trying to refute Sand's point by refusing to accept that wrong - and great wrong - was done by both sides rather than by just one of them.......which I would hazard a guess is the point Sand is making that you're trying to refute!!!

Well done - re-inforcing a point by trying to refute it.

jc

I was simply stating the other side of the coin, I have never refused to accept great wrongs were done, however I like to discuss both sides, Sand was only discussing one side from what I can see.

I think you need to revisit my post in that context.

David-[RLD]-

pdh wrote:

Why are people getting so worked up about as to what goes on in Ulster ? As of 1998 this territory no longer constitutes a part of the national territory of Ireland per the referendum which was passed by a majority of 96%.

Maybe because:

1) The north is part of Ireland. We are Irish, are we not?
2) The north is home to a large portion of the people of Ireland.
3) Many people in the south have friends and relatives in the north and vice-versa.
4) Some of us are sick of how unfairly the people in the north are treated by the British, and how the Brits attempt to deny and cover everything up.
5) Why should we accept a BRITISH army in Ireland? I could go into a huge rant about how the English have destroyed our culture and heritage but I won't. What would happen, say, if Mexican troops were found crossing the border into the USA? POW! The crater would be so large that North America would be disconnected from South America. But you see, our government is too soft to confront the British or take measures against British troops coming into the Republic. Sure, wasn't it Gerry Adams and John Hume who got the peace process going? They forced the reluctant governments to talk.

It's easy to be apathetic. All you have to do is ignore what's happening and keep going about your daily business. It takes effort to care.

I do not think that 96% voted to remove the claim on the north from the Constitution. They voted for peace.