Do you consider people from Northern Ireland Irish??

lugha

mumhaabu wrote: »

I would like to see Ireland united

Why? What would anybody anywhere gain from a united Ireland?

mumhaabu wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a fabrication yes

Out of curiosity, how would you distinguish between Northern Ireland and any other territory in Europe or elsewhere whose boundaries are defined in the aftermath of warfare or the actions of an aggressor? Are the modern European countries whose borders have being defined (and redefined) by the victors in wars fabricated?

RSF Cill Dara

pablomakaveli wrote: »

the treaty that led to the creation of the free state later the irish republic and the six counties of northern ireland was accepted by a majority vote in the dail whose members are elected by the people of ireland so what you are saying is incorrect.

the treaty that created the free state was only passed because the Irish people were afraid of war

RSF Cill Dara

mumhaabu wrote: »

I take offence to being labelled a west Brit, My ancestors fought are were members of the old IRA, to hear the word IRA used today is a mockery to their achievements. The IRA are criminals involved in drugs, fuel laundering and tax evasion. The term "West Brit" usually implies a British Person trying to assimilate into the Irish way of life while still secretly watching reruns of Michael Parkinson on Sky.

I believe strongly in Democracy and the respect and freedom it guarantees. Our Personal liberty is guaranteed with Democracy and we have the right to vote and many other rights this goes back thousands of years to Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic.

The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland must be respected and at the moment the Protestant Unionist demographic are in the majority, even so alot of Catholic Nationalist & Republicans vote Unionist and would not vote in favour of a United Ireland. I would like to see Ireland united and would love to see big Ian Paisley giving Brian Cowen a run for his money in our Parliament.

the present day IRA goal is the same as the IRA`s has always been - to force a british withdrawal. they are no different than the men and women of 1916,1919 or 1969. past generations of republicans are always used to condemn the present generation. theres a long tradition of comparing the 'good old IRA' with the `bad new IRA . its nonsense. we follow in the tradition of Pearse and Connolly. The IRA are NOT drug dealers or criminals! these allegation is part of an ongoing criminalisation campaign against republicans. yes we should respect their wishes and should do more to appeal to the protestant working class . the unionist majority is rapidly disappearing . why would Nationalist & Republicans not vote in favour of a united ireland? you would like to see Ian Paisley(sectarian bigot) in Parliament.

CSC

Do you believe the CIRA have the capability of forcing a British withdrawl from the north? I personally believe their current campaign is futile with no chance of future success.

pablomakaveli

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

the present day IRA goal is the same as the IRA`s has always been - to force a british withdrawal. they are no different than the men and women of 1916,1919 or 1969. past generations of republicans are always used to condemn the present generation. theres a long tradition of comparing the 'good old IRA' with the `bad new IRA . its nonsense. we follow in the tradition of Pearse and Connolly. The IRA are NOT drug dealers or criminals! these allegation is part of an ongoing criminalisation campaign against republicans. yes we should respect their wishes and should do more to appeal to the protestant working class . the unionist majority is rapidly disappearing . why would Nationalist & Republicans not vote in favour of a united ireland? you would like to see Ian Paisley(sectarian bigot) in Parliament.

equating the old IRA with the provos is a joke. there obviously is evidence of their criminal activities and to say otherwise is blind ignorance. pearse and connolly would be disgusted if they saw the modern IRA. luckily most people on this island dont follow your kind of view.

CSC

pablomakaveli wrote: »

equating the old IRA with the provos is a joke. there obviously is evidence of their criminal activities and to say otherwise is blind ignorance. pearse and connolly would be disgusted if they saw the modern IRA. luckily most people on this island dont follow your kind of view.

But would they though? I am playing devils advocate here but how much support did the men of 1916 have when they took over the GPO. Very little from what I read and were actually jeered off the streets of Dublin. Public opinion only began to change after the executions of the leaders of 16.
I would assume that the RSF CD poster doesn't support the provos but the CIRA.

Hagar

lugha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, how would you distinguish between Northern Ireland and any other territory in Europe or elsewhere whose boundaries are defined in the aftermath of warfare or the actions of an aggressor? Are the modern European countries whose borders have being defined (and redefined) by the victors in wars fabricated?

The fact that it is an island, a very very small island, not a land mass stretching from the coast of Portugal to the Bering Straits over 8500km as the crow files has escaped you? You can't move in Ireland without bumping into someone you know. It's a small place. Who gave John Bull the right to split it up? John Bull did, no one else.

pablomakaveli

CSC wrote: »

But would they though? I am playing devils advocate here but how much support did the men of 1916 have when they took over the GPO. Very little from what I read and were actually jeered off the streets of Dublin. Public opinion only began to change after the executions of the leaders of 16.
I would assume that the RSF CD poster doesn't support the provos but the CIRA.

the people who jeered them were more angry about the damage caused to dublin rather than being against the cof the rebels. also the growing support of the home rule movement in the previous years showed that people in ireland wanted some independence.(at least in the south)

as for the CIRA, RIRA and PIRA they were all involved in criminal activities and murdered a lot of innocent people. that cant be defended.

lugha

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

you would like to see Ian Paisley(sectarian bigot) in Parliament.

One of the consequences of a united Ireland would be that we would have Ian Paisley or like minded people sitting in the Dail. I expect they would collectively make up be a fairly sizable orange block. When you consider the power smaller parties (most notably the PDs of late) have in the Dail why would you want to give such influence to a group who (leaving aside any sectarian aspects) and regardless of what labels you want to put on them, are culturally different from us?

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

the treaty that created the free state was only passed because the Irish people were afraid of war

You are debasing a democratically decision on Ireland taken by Irish people. Again I ask, what is the alternative? If we don't decide the way forward by democracy then how?

RSF Cill Dara

pablomakaveli wrote: »

equating the old IRA with the provos is a joke. there obviously is evidence of their criminal activities and to say otherwise is blind ignorance. pearse and connolly would be disgusted if they saw the modern IRA. luckily most people on this island dont follow your kind of view.

whats your evidance? 95 percent of republicans that were involved in the border campaign,1916,1919 etc. that were still alive during the war (1969) supported the republican campaign

CSC

pablomakaveli wrote: »

the people who jeered them were more angry about the damage caused to dublin rather than being against the cof the rebels. also the growing support of the home rule movement in the previous years showed that people in ireland wanted some independence.(at least in the south)

as for the CIRA, RIRA and PIRA they were all involved in criminal activities and murdered a lot of innocent people. that cant be defended.

Support for home rule and the republican/socialist ideals of Pearse and Connolly are two very different things.

Scores of innocent people were killed during the rising and subsequent war; some of the actions that took place during that period of Irish history can't be defended also.

RSF Cill Dara

pablomakaveli wrote: »

the people who jeered them were more angry about the damage caused to dublin rather than being against the cof the rebels. also the growing support of the home rule movement in the previous years showed that people in ireland wanted some independence.(at least in the south)

as for the CIRA, RIRA and PIRA they were all involved in criminal activities and murdered a lot of innocent people. that cant be defended.

they were spit at ! republicans who pursue armed struggle were always in a minority and not have much support.

lugha

Hagar wrote: »

The fact that it is an island, a very very small island, not a land mass stretching from the coast of Portugal to the Bering Straits over 8500km as the crow files has escaped you? You can't move in Ireland without bumping into someone you know. It's a small place. Who gave John Bull the right to split it up? John Bull did, no one else.

Granted out island status has immunized us to a great extent from extensive redrawing of our boundaries. True, nobody gave John Bull the right to split it up but neither did anybody give any aggressor the right to re-draw any border. If a state is fabricated because its boundaries were determined by aggressors then a sizable number of modern day states are fabricated.

At some point a pragmatic approach has to be taken to transgressions of the past. The Irish made that pragmatic decision about our island when the endorsed the Good Friday agreement.

pablomakaveli

CSC wrote: »

Support for home rule and the republican/socialist ideals of Pearse and Connolly are two very different things.

Scores of innocent people were killed during the rising and subsequent war; some of the actions that took place during that period of Irish history can't be defended also.

im not really trying to defend that either but both sides did terrible things. but back then after the rising most people in the south of ireland wanted a republic so they were more willing to fight and suffer for it. that doesnt justify the some of the things that happened but more as to why people put up with it.

the reality is that the way things are now are for the most part acceptable to most of the people in the republic and in the north. there is little reason really to change things. for the first time in decades there is peace on this island. regardless of what happened in the past i dont think anything that could risk that peace being broken is worth it.

CSC

I am not arguing against peace in Ireland and agree with you on many issues. There is a section of people out there (a minority at the moment) who will always oppose British involvement in Ireland by using armed methods.

Hagar

I think you are partially correct.
There are indeed a minority of people who would oppose British involvement by armed means. I believe though that there is a significant cross section who would welcome the withdrawal of British influence from Ireland by entirely peaceful means.

CSC

Hagar wrote: »

I think you are partially correct.
There are indeed a minority of people who would oppose British involvement by armed means. I believe though that there is a significant cross section who would welcome the withdrawal of British influence from Ireland by entirely peaceful means.

I agree with that. I think the point I was making was that no matter what there will always be groups (no matter how small and with little support from the general populace) that will use violence to achieve their aim of an Irish republic.

pablomakaveli

CSC wrote: »

I agree with that. I think the point I was making was that no matter what there will always be groups (no matter how small and with little support from the general populace) that will use violence to achieve their aim of an Irish republic.

i think if the british did pull out and there was a united ireland these groups would just find some other grievance to legitimise their existence and the continuation of their criminal activities.

i understand the point your making but the groups who claim they are fighting for ireland are using that as an excuse to carry out crime.

CSC

If you look at what has happened with the Provisinal IRA that would contradict what you are saying. Since the implemation of the GFA they have ceased to exist and haven't transformed into a Mafia-style organisation.
No doubt the current groups are using criminal activity to fund their organisations but I believe their motivation is politics and not crime/making money.

pablomakaveli

CSC wrote: »

If you look at what has happened with the Provisinal IRA that would contradict what you are saying. Since the implemation of the GFA they have ceased to exist and haven't transformed into a Mafia-style organisation.
No doubt the current groups are using criminal activity to fund their organisations but I believe their motivation is politics and not crime/making money.

the provos are linked to sinn fein so they had to stop or sinn fein wouldnt have gotten the power sharing agreement with the DUP. but some members of the provos would have built up criminal networks over the years and arent goin to give them up now.

As for current groups like the CIRA or the LVF are usually associated with drug dealers and criminal gangs rather than fighting the british or nationalists respectively. its true some people who join these organisations may be motivated by politics but these same politics can serve as a legitimate cover for carrying out crimes.

remember the RIRA members who murdered garda McCabe tried to be classed as political prisoners so they could be released.

thelordofcheese

look, they are british.
they put the queen on their money == they're british

CSC

pablomakaveli wrote: »

the provos are linked to sinn fein so they had to stop or sinn fein wouldnt have gotten the power sharing agreement with the DUP. but some members of the provos would have built up criminal networks over the years and arent goin to give them up now.

As for current groups like the CIRA or the LVF are usually associated with drug dealers and criminal gangs rather than fighting the british or nationalists respectively. its true some people who join these organisations may be motivated by politics but these same politics can serve as a legitimate cover for carrying out crimes.

remember the RIRA members who murdered garda McCabe tried to be classed as political prisoners so they could be released.

It was the PIRA that killed McCabe and not the RIRA (they weren't formed until over a year after the killing). The killers of McCabe are/were classed as political prisoners and were housed with the other republican prisoners in Castlerea. They wanted to be released as part of the GFA which saw hundreds of prisoners freed.

While I agree with you about the loyalists the likes of the CIRA would not usually be classed with drug gangs and I would assume there is very little evidence or convictions to back this up.

Republican groups will use crime (like McCabes killers trying to rob the bank van in Limerick) as a way to fund their campaign and generally not for personal gain. As I said, their main motivation is politics.

pablomakaveli

tbh im getting a bit bored of this debate as its going in circles.

lets agree to disagree.:)

Kev_ps3

The question itself it wrong. The people of the north are Irish and British, two seperate peoples, not one whole people.

Kev_ps3

thelordofcheese wrote: »

look, they are british.
they put the queen on their money == they're british

Not all of them. Irish Celtic Catholics are as Irish as you or me (not so sure about you now looking at your post). The only difference is they are ruled by an foreign power who shouldnt be there.

lugha

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

The question itself it wrong. The people of the north are Irish and British, two seperate peoples, not one whole people.

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Not all of them. Irish Celtic Catholics are as Irish as you or me (not so sure about you now looking at your post). The only difference is they are ruled by an foreign power who shouldnt be there.

Well if over half of the people in NI want to be ruled by the British and are clearly averse to being ruled from Dublin then surely democracy demands that they (the Brtiish) should remain?

A Dub in Glasgo

thelordofcheese wrote: »

look, they are british.
they put the queen on their money == they're british

By that logic, the people in the RoI are Euro as they put the € on their money

lugha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

By that logic, the people in the RoI are Euro as they put the € on their money

Er, yes. We are Europeans.

A Dub in Glasgo

lugha wrote: »

Er, yes. We are Europeans.

Not Irish then?

lugha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not Irish then?

We are Irish and European although if some get their way we will eventually be just Europeans.