Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

It wasn't me!

To "reclaim" (claim, no? Given that the north was only ever part of the same land mass, not the country?) would amount to a colonial action, imposing your rule on a populace, the majority of whom are loyal to a different government. Why does it have a right to a further six counties? By virtue of sharing a landmass? Do tell. Do the Germans then have the right to France? Austria? Poland?

LordSutch

duggie-89 wrote: »

you have outlined my point the republic has 26 counties and has a right to the further 6 and in my opinion always will. a peoples right to govern themselves can not be thrown away. yes it was signed over to the will of the people in the north i am well aware of that. but it still has a claim in my opinion. it aknowledges that its up to all the people of the north to decided but you still cant get pass the point is has a right to the north.

the proclamtion of easter states all you need to know about the territory of ireland. i suggested two points they could "reclaim" the terrority or act as peacekeepers, with the obvious choice being the peace keepers. i was merely stating that it would still be their right to "reclaim" the north but it wouldn't be the best option to do.

You do not have a claim over a further 6 counties & neither does the Government of this State (as ratified in the 1998 GFA) that said, if the good people of the North wish to leave the United Kingdom & join the 'Rep of Ireland' then thats up to them, but any 'Claim' by the South or the 'Real IRA' is shallow & hollow ..........

Maybe the UK should "reclaim" the Republic :rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

Whatever about the Good Friday Agreement, the separation was really made with the Government of Ireland Act in 1920. Since then, the choice of nationality has been entirely at the discretion of the people of the north, and as they vote to remain part of the union, any action on the part of the Republic's government would amount to colonialism.

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

You do not have a claim over a further 6 counties & neither does the Government of this State (as ratified in the 1998 GFA) that said, if the good people of the North wish to leave the United Kingdom & join the 'Rep of Ireland' then thats up to them, but any 'Claim' by the South or the 'Real IRA' is shallow & hollow ..........

Maybe the UK should "reclaim" the Republic :rolleyes:

no of course i dont cause i am an individual but the irish people have a claim to their land. not to under a foreign british rule which doesn't seek to help the people one bit.

well if thats your opinion of what the uk should do i shouldn't be too suprised.

and the difference ireland has to europe is that we are on and island and our culture and experinces are shaped as such.

It wasn't me!

So? The French and the Germans share a border too. The north and the south have never, ever been one country. Why is there a claim? You haven't addressed that? In fact, historically, any claim has been irrefutably dismantled. We have no more "claim" to the six counties than we do to, say, New York or Boston.

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

no of course i dont cause i am an individual but the irish people have a claim to their land.

Well you see that is the problem. You think an "Irish" person in the North (by which you mean Republican) has rights to decide things that a Unionist doesn't have, because you don't consider the Unionist has having a valid right to decided what happens to Northern Ireland.

So if you ignore all the Unionists, and the people on both sides who don't want a Republic, and only count the Republicans as having a valid right to decide what happens to Northern Ireland, of course you can say that the rights of the "Irish" are being ignored.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and the difference ireland has to europe is that we are on and island and our culture and experinces are shaped as such.

What has that got to do with it?

Britain is on an island, are you saying therefore that Scotland and Wales should be controlled by England, because more Britians live in England?

1stimpressions

To answer the original questions. The massive majority of this island does not want violence in the streets of the north. The north like anywhere else has its political problems and why wouldnt it looking at its recent history. But fundamental human rights infringements and descriminatiion seem to be enormously improved compared to the north a number of decades ago.
Should Ireland continue to push for a thirty two county country, why not? But any sort of violence in achieving this has miniscule public support anywhere.
All situations are seen through a prism of here and now and obviously the further you step back from the picture the greater the overall impression you will get. While one poster lauds the the canals, trams and benefits it is nonsense to suggest the Island of Ireland was not caused massive hardship at English hands in the past inluding mismanagement resulting in massive famine and landgrabbing etc. On the other hand the further we look back the more "people" we find here. When was this island a country of a people "a nation"? Although i was thought about Irish history in school and am proud of many things my ancestors have done we are really looking at a different universe altogether. there was never an official high king of Ireland although Irish tribes owned many parts of Britain. In fact the notion of a nation state is quite a modern thing. Europe was made of of tribes, states and city states... hundreds of them for most of its existence. Look in your average phone book. Where have all those surnames come from. France, England, Scandanavia etc and thats only the recorded names. There is even myths of spanish and muslims settling here in the past. The same people whoever they were who first settled this part of the world also settled in Britain at the same time. Saxon and Agles and plenty more followed in Britain. And many were planted here from 1500's. In a thousand years times most people on the planet will probably be speaking english or mandarin, ten thousand someone living here might call themselves European or Earthling or whatever and "Irish" and "English" might be a footnote like visigoths.
People rightly point out that our "culture" or "pop culture" is saturated by Britian. What to r.i.r.a want to achieve if the million unionists do vote themselves into a 32county country? What will change? As it is Irish culture as it were is taught and is allowed thrive in the north as much as is possible and is government funded,(Language, GAA, Museums). The situation on paper is not what most Irish people want as in the north being part of the UK. But in real life terms where it matters A JOB, HEALTH and SAFETY, the situation is as good a comprimise as is possible in this complex and centuries old situation. call it partition call it a border but as long as there no discrimination against Catholics/Nationalists/anybody up there i dont mind. Ive met far more third and fourth generation irish in america who are far more immersed in irish "culture" than many friends here. Fck the violence we've had enough.

sorry extremely long rant over.

Rossibaby

ArthurF wrote: »

You do not have a claim over a further 6 counties & neither does the Government of this State (as ratified in the 1998 GFA) that said, if the good people of the North wish to leave the United Kingdom & join the 'Rep of Ireland' then thats up to them, but any 'Claim' by the South or the 'Real IRA' is shallow & hollow ..........

Maybe the UK should "reclaim" the Republic :rolleyes:

you are actually one of the stupidest people i have ever seen post.and the guy above you is just as bad.so england has a right to ireland because it invaded it,terrorised the population and eventually realised through all the unrest that it would not be able to keep the 32 counties it has a right to the 6.imperialism,capitalism, you are a prat.so israel is justified to steal palestinian land??i mean just take it like that?through force?

england took the six through force of arms,but when republicans formed to try and defend our nation they are terrorists...go to america you'll fit in lovely with the republican right wing bigots over there...****ing hypocrites

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

but i wasn't talking about the a court of law i was talking about differences of views. while a court of law has pre-defined points and as few grey area's as possible.

Right, and I'm telling you that - sophistry aside - the views of anyone who defends thugs and murderers are abhorrent, by any useful standard of reasonableness.

duggie-89 wrote: »

well here is a question for you?? if a court of law told you that your beliefs and views were wrong and illegal would you change your mind???? because a court of law said so????

If I hold views and beliefs, it's not because a court told me so. I don't condemn murdering scum because what they do is illegal; I condemn them because what they do is wrong, and I have no respect for the views of anyone who doesn't think the same.

oscarBravo

Rossibaby is banned for a week.

BehindTheScenes

oscarBravo wrote: »

Common Law recognises the concept of the reasonable person: what an average "man in the street" (or on the Clapham Omnibus) would make of a situation.

The proverbial man in the street has no difficulty calling a spade a spade, and unconditionally condemning outright the brutal murder of innocents.

The problem with this is that it depends what street you are on. An average man on the street in London might possibly have a completely different opinion to the person on the streets of Sydney.

This comes from community theory and it is always dependant on what community you are dealing with.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The north and the south have never, ever been one country.

I am certain the first Irish nationalist Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone would disagree with this.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, and I'm telling you that - sophistry aside - the views of anyone who defends thugs and murderers are abhorrent, by any useful standard of reasonableness. If I hold views and beliefs, it's not because a court told me so. I don't condemn murdering scum because what they do is illegal; I condemn them because what they do is wrong, and I have no respect for the views of anyone who doesn't think the same.

Like I said above this is based on community theory. In Saudi Arabia they think it is fine to chop a thiefs hand off. It would never wash here.

Riddle101

Some people have brought up the Good Friday Agreement saying that we refused the six counties but that isn't true. it was the Government that did that, they were acting on their own accord because they love to kiss ass. But if We were to have a vote, i'm sure the majority of Irish people would be all for merging Ireland together.

Also i don't get how some of you can say that we(The Republic) are not entitled to Northen Ireland. That is not true. It was part of Ireland long before the British invaded and always will be Irish. I suppose you're going to say America belongs to Britain too because you colonised.

It wasn't me!

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

I am certain the first Irish nationalist Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone would disagree with this.

But that is neither here nor there. duggie-89 disagrees with me too, but it doesn't make him right. Historically, this island has never, ever, not in thousands of years of history, been united as one sovereign state, independent of all others. Hell, the closest we ever came was probably in the 1870's, before the partition in the Government of Ireland Act and before the Volunteers and the UVF started facing off.

It wasn't me!

Riddle101 wrote: »

Some people have brought up the Good Friday Agreement saying that we refused the six counties but that isn't true. it was the Government that did that, they were acting on their own accord because they love to kiss ass. But if We were to have a vote, i'm sure the majority of Irish people would be all for merging Ireland together.

Also i don't get how some of you can say that we(The Republic) are not entitled to Northen Ireland. That is not true. It was part of Ireland long before the British invaded and always will be Irish. I suppose you're going to say America belongs to Britain too because you colonised.

No, the point isn't that Britain colonised it, but that we never were allied with the north or joined in any more than a physical sense to it. You can say that the British have no right to be there, fine, but to say the Republic has the right to exert a claim over it is entirely fallacious.

oscarBravo

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

The problem with this is that it depends what street you are on. An average man on the street in London might possibly have a completely different opinion to the person on the streets of Sydney.

This comes from community theory and it is always dependant on what community you are dealing with.

The community I live in consists of the good people of Ireland. I accept that there's a subculture within that community that considers the murder of innocent schoolboys acceptable, but I want no part of it and am abhorred by the mere fact that it exists.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Some people have brought up the Good Friday Agreement saying that we refused the six counties but that isn't true. it was the Government that did that, they were acting on their own accord because they love to kiss ass. But if We were to have a vote, i'm sure the majority of Irish people would be all for merging Ireland together.

I don't know what planet you were on at the time, but in 1998 I voted in a referendum where I was very specifically asked to rescind my country's claim on the sovereign territory of another country, and I (like the overwhelming majority of my compatriots) voted in favour.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Also i don't get how some of you can say that we(The Republic) are not entitled to Northen Ireland. That is not true.

Actually, it is true - by virtue of the referendum I just mentioned. We consciously relinquished any such claim. You may not like that, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

Some people have brought up the Good Friday Agreement saying that we refused the six counties but that isn't true. it was the Government that did that, they were acting on their own accord because they love to kiss ass. But if We were to have a vote, i'm sure the majority of Irish people would be all for merging Ireland together.

You might want to check your history.

The Good Friday Agree was ratified by an general referendum. We did vote, and 95% of those who voted voted to give up the Constitutional claim to the entire island of Ireland.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Also i don't get how some of you can say that we(The Republic) are not entitled to Northen Ireland. That is not true. It was part of Ireland long before the British invaded and always will be Irish.

Before the Normans invaded there was no "Ireland", there as simply the island of Ireland (Hibernia). There was a number of different "states", for want of a better word, ruled by local kings and warlord.

By your logic England have a right to Wales and Scotland because they are physically attached to each other. Which is nonsense.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I suppose you're going to say America belongs to Britain too because you colonised.

Are you saying America doesn't belong to the Americans because they are descended from colonists and not native Americans? Because that is basically what you are saying about Northern Ireland, that the descendants of the the 16th Century settlements simply don't count when it comes to claim over the land they have lived in for the last 400 years.

The simple fact of the matter is that the land of Northern Ireland has for the last 400 years had a very large population of people who wish to be part of the United Kingdom. Yes they have a population of people who don't, but as it stands they are in the minority.

Why does the claim of people who don't even live in Northern Ireland over rule the claim of the people who do actually live there?

Again it is like England claiming Scotland against the will of the people who actually live there, because the lands are physically attached to each other as part of "Britain".

Erin Go Brath

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what planet you were on at the time, but in 1998 I voted in a referendum where I was very specifically asked to rescind my country's claim on the sovereign territory of another country, and I (like the overwhelming majority of my compatriots) voted in favour. Actually, it is true - by virtue of the referendum I just mentioned. We consciously relinquished any such claim. You may not like that, but that doesn't make it any less true.

True, but its not all doom and gloom as you try to make out.
Yes its now up to the inhabitants of the wee six to decide whether or not they want unification. Nationalists will soon become the majority in the North, and a 50.000001% vote in favour of a UI in a referendum, plus a referendum in the 26 (which will certainly be ratified comfortably) will mean we finally become a Nation Once again. Long overdue imo. It's going to happen certainly within the next 20 years. Get used to the idea. :p:p

It wasn't me!

A nation once. There's no "again", as it's never happened before.

Nobody's against a United Ireland. What people object to is nonsensical claims about some inherent right in the situation, which simply isn't the case.

Riddle101

Pk my bad on the good Friday agreement, i apologise

Before the Normans invaded there was no "Ireland", there as simply the island of Ireland (Hibernia). There was a number of different "states", for want of a better word, ruled by local kings and warlord.

Well Italy didn't unify itself until the 19th centuary therfore Italy there was no Italy either, yes. However The was a High King of Ireland who had overall control over the other Kings therefore he would have ruled all of Ireland as one country

By your logic England have a right to Wales and Scotland because they are physically attached to each other. Which is nonsense.

I'm not saying that just because Scotland and Wales are on the same Island as England that England has control over them. I'm saying that Ireland was split in half. Scotland wasn't neither was Wales. But Ireland dose have a right to northern Ireland

Are you saying America doesn't belong to the Americans because they are descended from colonists and not native Americans? Because that is basically what you are saying about Northern Ireland, that the descendants of the the 16th Century settlements simply don't count when it comes to claim over the land they have lived in for the last 400 years.

Let me explain. Before the Plantations Irish and British people lived together in harmony. I have no problem with that. But then one day England decides to force it's ways apon us through the plantations and therefore we were forcible removed from our land. So yes i am saying the 16th century settlement don't count simply because it wasn't there's to begin, just like the Native Americans, it was there land but they were forcibly removed from their land.

The simple fact of the matter is that the land of Northern Ireland has for the last 400 years had a very large population of people who wish to be part of the United Kingdom. Yes they have a population of people who don't, but as it stands they are in the minority.

Why does the claim of people who don't even live in Northern Ireland over rule the claim of the people who do actually live there

?

Well if you think that Northern Irish people want to stay as part of the United Kingdom then why don't they introduce Partition again. Let them decided who they want to be with rather then force them under one rule. I don't care about whether or not people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Britain but to force all counties to be apart of something they don't want is wrong. I don't mind it any other way

LordSutch

Cheap land, cheap housing, lots of green pasture, same climate, great job prospects, & friendly locals too. ~ This Advert went out 'Circa 1600ish' in Scotland, the North of England & the Border Counties, many people (rich & poor alike) took full advantage of this offer on the island next door (just 22 miles away) & the plantations began.

My point being that we cannot hold the current Planters (Unionists) responsible for the massive influx of their ancestors into the Northern part of this island many centuries ago, no more than we can criticise the 'White man' for sailing (thousands of miles away) and inhabiting New Zealand, North America, or South America!

It has been agreed by all (nearly all) that the two parts of this island have the right to determine where their futures lie, whether within the Union (as the North currently is) or maby eaving it? and forming a 'New Union' with the Republic of Ireland ~ No Bombs or threats will make it happen unless the people of the North wish to leave the UK.

Its all up to them.

P.S. 51% wouldnt be enough either (too unstable).

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Nationalists will soon become the majority in the North…

It's highly unlikely that political opinion in the North will remain as polarised, so it is debatable whether nationalists will be in the majority in the near future.

Riddle101 wrote: »

However The was a High King of Ireland who had overall control over the other Kings therefore he would have ruled all of Ireland as one country

But still, hardly a country or nation, in the modern sense. The island was split into five provinces, which in turn were split into various tuaithe – there were kings, warlords and chieftains all over the place.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I'm saying that Ireland was split in half.

International borders have changed throughout history - why is it that Republicans/Nationalists cannot accept the international border between the Republic and the North?

Riddle101 wrote: »

...i am saying the 16th century settlement don't count simply because it wasn't there's to begin...

It was nearly 500 years ago - get over it. There's a pretty good chance that you can't even trace your Irish roots back that far.

Riddle101 wrote: »

...just like the Native Americans, it was there land but they were forcibly removed from their land.

So anyone in America who is descended from Africans, Asians or Europeans should leave?

Riddle101 wrote: »

Well if you think that Northern Irish people want to stay as part of the United Kingdom...

This has got nothing to do with what Wicknight thinks; I imagine he's basing his statement on the current make-up of the Northern Assembly.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Let them decided who they want to be with rather then force them under one rule. I don't care about whether or not people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Britain but to force all counties to be apart of something they don't want is wrong.

You are aware of the Northern Assembly and the 2007 elections, aren't you? The result of those elections was:
Unionists 47.6%, Republicans/Nationalists 41.8%, Others 10.4%
Nobody is being "forced" to do anything.

Zombrex

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

True, but its not all doom and gloom as you try to make out.
Yes its now up to the inhabitants of the wee six to decide whether or not they want unification. Nationalists will soon become the majority in the North,

I think you are confusing Catholics with Nationalists.

As of 2006 only 30% of the population are in favour of Unification.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2006/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html

Its alright, the British do that as well ....

It wasn't me!

Indeed. An unfortunate misconception is that Catholicism is synonymous with nationalism, and Protestantism with unionism, when in fact there are many Catholic unionists and Protestant nationalists. It's no way as cut and dry as that. More grey area than a fog bank.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

However The was a High King of Ireland who had overall control over the other Kings therefore he would have ruled all of Ireland as one country

Not exactly. The complicated system of Kingdoms in Ireland was more like the EU or the Commonwealth, than a unified country. The King of Tara ruled over the various local kingdom of Ireland, often with military force.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I'm not saying that just because Scotland and Wales are on the same Island as England that England has control over them. I'm saying that Ireland was split in half. Scotland wasn't neither was Wales.

You seem to be confusing your terminology. Ireland as you are talking about it is the island of Ireland. It is split in half, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Britain is the island of Britain, it is split in 3 with Scotland, Wales and England making up the 3 countries on that island.

Scotland has never been split in half, but then neither has Northern Ireland. Britain on the other hand has been, in fact it is split in 3.

So again, saying that people in the South have claim over Northern Ireland is the same as saying people in England have claim over Scotland, because they are on the same island and there are more Britons in England than Scotland.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Let me explain. Before the Plantations Irish and British people lived together in harmony.

No they didn't. In fact that Plantations were devised because Ireland was troublesome, it was a plan to out breed the native Irish, a plan that worked in Northern Ireland. But anyway ....

Riddle101 wrote: »

I have no problem with that. But then one day England decides to force it's ways apon us through the plantations and therefore we were forcible removed from our land.

Who is "we" ... this happened 400 years ago. Are you arguing that the people alive right now in the South have a 400 year old claim to Northern Ireland that over rules any claim the people actually living there now, and who's families have lived there for 400 years, have to the place they have lived for the last 400 years?

There is living in the past, and then there is being silly.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I don't care about whether or not people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Britain but to force all counties to be apart of something they don't want is wrong. I don't mind it any other way

There is not a county in Northern Ireland where the majority of the population are Nationalist.

So unless you want to start allowing towns to join with the South on a town by town basis ....

Erin Go Brath

It wasn't me! wrote: »

A nation once. There's no "again", as it's never happened before.

Nobody's against a United Ireland. What people object to is nonsensical claims about some inherent right in the situation, which simply isn't the case.

The North has always been a disputed area of sovereignty since partition. The GFA takes the onus away from Britain and Irelands claim, and puts the onus on inhabitants of the Six to decide which state they want to be part of.

ArthurF wrote:

P.S. 51% wouldnt be enough either (too unstable)..

It would though, and it would go ahead.

Wicknight wrote:

I think you are confusing Catholics with Nationalists.

As of 2006 only 30% of the population are in favour of Unification.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2006/Polit.../NIRELAND.html

Its alright, the British do that as well ....

Polls such as this aren't representative.
Unification hasn't been defined for a start. People don't know what it will entail so hence a reluctance to vote for it. A proper campaign before any referedum highlighting all the pros of a UI would certainly increase this vote. Anecdotally people are also reticent of giving their views in these public polls, and a lot tend to go for the don't know option.

Kev_ps3

I can understand the Real IRA\'s position. They want a United Ireland and are willing to fight for it. I respect that.

brianthebard

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Polls such as this aren't representative.
Unification hasn't been defined for a start. People don't know what it will entail so hence a reluctance to vote for it. A proper campaign before any referedum highlighting all the pros of a UI would certainly increase this vote. Anecdotally people are also reticent of giving their views in these public polls, and a lot tend to go for the don't know option.

What exactly needs to be defined about unification? Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

A proper campaign before any referedum highlighting all the pros of a UI would certainly increase this vote.

What are the pros of a United Ireland?

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I can understand the Real IRA\'s position. They want a United Ireland and are willing to fight for it. I respect that.

:rolleyes:

I think every house in Ireland should be painted pink with purple stripes. I feel very strongly about this and I'm willing to fight for it. This will most likely involve the murder of innocent civilians. Do you respect me too?

Zombrex

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Polls such as this aren't representative.

Yet you feel confident that pretty soon the majority of people will vote for it?

You are basing that on what exactly?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

A proper campaign before any referedum highlighting all the pros of a UI would certainly increase this vote.

So the people in N.I at the moment are too dumb to know they actually do want unification, but once you explain it to them they will realise they do in fact want it...

Well how could I possibly argue with that ...

Zombrex

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I can understand the Real IRA\'s position. They want a United Ireland and are willing to fight for it. I respect that.

No, actually they are willing to blow people up from the safety of distance, for it. Bit of a difference. I would be surprised if anyone in the R-IRA was actually prepared to fight for it.