Would you like to see a united Ireland?

oscarBravo

citizen zero wrote: »

So the SAS can murder at will just because they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You don't like what they do but seem to accept it. I'm at a loss to see the difference.

That's because you're not looking hard enough. And no, they can't "murder at will", they operate within the rules of engagement as set out by the elected government to which they answer.

Hint: this is the point where you scoff at the term "rules of engagement" as if it was a meaningless phrase.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Unbelievable bulls%@te. So it STILL seems that the ownership of the bullet is MORE important to you than what it will do to a person. If you keep coming out with this type of shallow sounding tripe, well...................

Yes, you've carefully managed to avoid completely my counter-argument, that has shown you (by your own logic) to be totally supportive of every low-life murdering thug that has ever killed anyone. Reductionist arguments are a bitch, aren't they?

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Playing the race card Mac? I thought you hated it when people do that?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

I don't think that he's playing the race card. There was at the time a perception that it was alright for the Paddy's to kill each other as long as nobody on the "Mainland" was targeted. "Let them at it" seemed to be the mind set of the British Govt and by extension the British people. Rightly or wrongly decisive political action only happened after an incident which involved British people being killed or injured in Britain.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by oscarBravo: Yes, you've carefully managed to avoid completely my counter-argument, that has shown you (by your own logic) to be totally supportive of every low-life murdering thug that has ever killed anyone. Reductionist arguments are a bitch, aren't they?

More bull. It might apply to your little fantasy world as it exists in here, but i'd love to see you explain this theory to your average Russian in 1942 as he/she faced extermination from Nazi Germany. I'm not doubting your ideals or intentions oscarBravo. If you can apply these theories in practice, fair play to you. But I think they fall apart when you are washing the brain fragments off the walls, floors etc.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

I don't think that he's playing the race card. There was at the time a perception that it was alright for the Paddy's to kill each other as long as nobody on the "Mainland" was targeted. "Let them at it" seemed to be the mind set of the British Govt and by extension the British people. Rightly or wrongly decisive political action only happened after an incident which involved British people being killed or injured in Britain.

are we going to wheel out the old "No Blacks or Irish" sign as well as a good example of the way the British treat the Irish?

This has turned into a typical arguement again with all the usual "Whataboutery".

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

are we going to wheel out the old "No Blacks or Irish" sign as well as a good example of the way the British treat the Irish?

This has turned into a typical arguement again with all the usual "Whataboutery".

I'm not, but it's equally wrong to use the overuse of that old warcry to dismiss the truths which inspired it in the first place.

Erin Go Brath

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Quick Question - did that so-called "mandate" include an OK to rob our money from banks and post offices and terrorise people in this country ?

Y'see - if you PROPOSE to people what you're GOING to do FIRST, and HOW you're going to do it, and then people agree, THEN it's a mandate.

I can't honestly see a lot of decent people in the north saying "OK, go ahead" to most of the tactics used by the terrorists.....I mean, these are the minority who supposedly want to join this country as borne out by the result of the democratic vote - The North can join the Republic when a majority agree, ergo there isn't a majority at the moment who want to.

So they're hardly going to piss off their potential new fellow citizens by giving a bunch of thugs the OK to run around it with guns and break all our laws and kill Gardai, are they ?

So there was no "mandate".

The RUC were given a mandate to police the 6 Counties, look how that was blatently abused.:rolleyes: The PIRA did what they needed to do to raise funds for arms in order to protect their community from being abused by the state forces who conspired against them. If it had not been for the IRA arming themselves and becoming a force to be reckoned with, then a whole lot more Catholics would have been killed or ethnically cleansed from the region in fear of their lives.

getz

will we have a united ireland? i dont think so -as long as people in ireland keep on bringing up old history instead instead of doing what the rest of the world do-forget the passed -do any of you think the jews hate the germans now ?the poles hate the russians or the germans?the scotts hate the english the welsh hate the english?theenglish hate the germans or italy -black people in south africa hate white people in south africa--[if i keep this up i will vanish up my own a...s --]get over it ireland the UK is your best friend and neighbour-if any of you look far enough in your family tree you may well find one of your ancestors was from the british mainland == we now live in 2008

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The RUC were given a mandate to police the 6 Counties, look how that was blatently abused.:rolleyes: The PIRA did what they needed to do to raise funds for arms in order to protect their community from being abused by the state forces who conspired against them. If it had not been for the IRA arming themselves and becoming a force to be reckoned with, then a whole lot more Catholics would have been killed or ethnically cleansed from the region in fear of their lives.

that's the bit I understand, defending one's own community is a noble cause. what i don't understand is how defending your community involves attacking another.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last three words are the key part of the sentence. I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You can pretend to your heart's content that that doesn't make a difference, but you'll still just be pretending.

LOL @ a mandate making it ok. A mandate in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean anything. It just means that a government supports the acts of their military. Does the British Government support the attacks of civilians in Derry? It would appear so as they have been unable to hold their hands up for it. So tell me exactly how a mandate makes even one ounce of difference?

For all the crying you do about people defending the IRA on here, you do your fair share of defending the British attacks on the Irish people.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's the bit I understand, defending one's own community is a noble cause. what i don't understand is how defending your community involves attacking another.

Its quite simple, loyalist paramilitaries in collusion with the state forces attacked and killed many non-involved nationalists who were soft targets eg someone coming home from a GAA match. A purely ethnic cleansing operation. A Catholic death was brushed under the carpet in this godforsaken statelet. The IRA were left with no recourse (because the state wasn't protecting its citizens) but to issue threats to loyalist paramilitaries that if any innocent Catholics were killed there would be 'payback with interest'. This needed to happen to prevent more innocent Catholics getting killed. This is why Kingsmills and 'Le Mon' happened.

I wouldn't glorify these events, but i would say if the state hadn't neglected to protect its citizens these sorry events could have been avoided.

gandalf

Well its nice to see a thread titled Would you like to see a united Ireland? resort to the same old arguements from the same sides blaming each other for the past rather than looking towards the future and helping to resolve each others issues.

I can now safely answer no, I would not like to see a united Ireland at this moment because the majority of both sides are not mature enough to even consider it.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

LOL @ a mandate making it ok. A mandate in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean anything. It just means that a government supports the acts of their military. Does the British Government support the attacks of civilians in Derry? It would appear so as they have been unable to hold their hands up for it. So tell me exactly how a mandate makes even one ounce of difference?

A mandate means that the democratically-elected government can hold the military accountable for actions outside that mandate. It doesn't always work as well as it should, but that doesn't excuse the total absence of any such mandate.

For all the crying you do about people defending the IRA on here, you do your fair share of defending the British attacks on the Irish people.

Your very next post had better be an extremely specific example of me defending British attacks on Irish people, or a withdrawal of that accusation.

Otacon

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Its quite simple, loyalist paramilitaries in collusion with the state forces attacked and killed many non-involved nationalists who were soft targets eg someone coming home from a GAA match. A purely ethnic cleansing operation. A Catholic death was brushed under the carpet in this godforsaken statelet. The IRA were left with no recourse (because the state wasn't protecting its citizens) but to issue threats to loyalist paramilitaries that if any innocent Catholics were killed there would be 'payback with interest'. This needed to happen to prevent more innocent Catholics getting killed. This is why Kingsmills and 'Le Mon' happened.

I wouldn't glorify these events, but i would say if the state hadn't neglected to protect its citizens these sorry events could have been avoided.

For such a noble cause, the IRA seemed to have no issue in punishing/torturing/killing members of their own community...

Hagar

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The RUC were given a mandate to police the 6 Counties, look how that was blatently abused.:rolleyes: The PIRA did what they needed to do to raise funds for arms in order to protect their community from being abused by the state forces who conspired against them. If it had not been for the IRA arming themselves and becoming a force to be reckoned with, then a whole lot more Catholics would have been killed or ethnically cleansed from the region in fear of their lives.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's the bit I understand, defending one's own community is a noble cause. what i don't understand is how defending your community involves attacking another.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's the bit I understand, defending one's own community is a noble cause.

So If I'm reading this correctly you understand why the PIRA had to exist to defend a community under attack and that it was a noble not a criminal act

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what i don't understand is how defending your community involves attacking another.

and likewise you can't understand why the Loyalist Paramilitary groups supported covertly by the RUC and British Forces sought to defend their heritage by attempting to run the Catholic/Nationalist community out of their homes by descrimination, intimidation and violence.

If you look back at the films of the day the most obvious thing that jumps out at you is that the nationalists barricaded themselves into their streets and homes for safety. You defend from behind barricades, they are not an attacking device. It was barbaric that British Subjects had to do that to defend themselves not only from other British Subjects intent on their eradication but also from their own Police and Army who were sworn to defend their safety but who were obviously equally intent in doing them as much harm as possible.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your very next post had better be an extremely specific example of me defending British attacks on Irish people, or a withdrawal of that accusation.

Oh better it now?

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't have to like the fact that the SAS exist, or what they do, but they have a mandate from a sovereign government.

You explain to me how a mandate in anyway, shape or form effects the reality of the British attacks on the Irish people and why it's important in the scheme of things or relevant to this debate. If you were not trying to defend the British attacks, then why state that they had a mandate.

You once accused me of defending the IRA when I stated that they did not deliberately set out to kill civilians, while in the same sentence I had stated that I do not support their armed campaign.

When I even merely suggest that you are defending the British attacks on the Irish people by claiming they had a "mandate", you get antsy with me?

Pot, kettle, black. I will withdraw nothing. I stand by my comment firmly.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

So If I'm reading this correctly you understand why the PIRA had to exist to defend a community under attack and that it was a noble not a criminal act

defending their community yes, I can understand that and if you look at the early killing by the PIRA it was mainly loyalist paramilitaries. I can see how and why this happened.

Hagar wrote: »

and likewise you can't understand why the Loyalist Paramilitary groups supported covertly by the RUC and British Forces sought to defend their heritage by attempting to run the Catholic/Nationalist community out of their homes by descrimination, intimidation and violence.

If you look back at the films of the day the most obvious thing that jumps out at you is that the nationalists barricaded themselves into their streets and homes for safety. You defend from behind barricades, they are not an attacking device. It was barbaric that British Subjects had to do that to defend themselves not only from other British Subjects intent on their eradication but also from their own Police and Army who were sworn to defend their safety but who were obviously equally intent in doing them as much harm as possible.

I understood things to be slightly different to that. remember the British Army was originally sent in to defend the nationalist community. To be honest, most of the British soldiers I have met who served in NI disliked with pretty equal measure loyalists/unionists and nationalists/republicans. The RUC is an entirely different kettle of fish though, a situation was allowed to arise there that was unique and should not have been aloowed to happen.

This is all fine though, we know what went on in NI. I still don't understand how defending your community involves placing a bomb in a litter bin in a shopping centre 150 to 200 miles away and killing innocents.

hellboy99

It would be nice to see, but realisticly we couldn't afford to.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I understood things to be slightly different to that. remember the British Army was originally sent in to defend the nationalist community.

And that is exactly how they were originally received by the nationalist communities. It would appear though that as time went on and the BA started to work more closely with and under the direction of the civil powers ie the RUC they started to act as an extension of the RUC who were less than neutral in their attitude to the nationalist community. For less than neutral read "had a division called the B Specials".

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The RUC is an entirely different kettle of fish though, a situation was allowed to arise there that was unique and should not have been aloowed to happen.

The scary part is that the RUC men who were active then have risen through the ranks and are now the senior officers in the PSNI. Recruiting nationalists into the force goes some way to redressing the balance but as an organization it is still largely what it was 25 years ago. A "painted sepulchre" is the phrase that springs to mind.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is all fine though, we know what went on in NI. I still don't understand how defending your community involves placing a bomb in a litter bin in a shopping centre 150 to 200 miles away and killing innocents.

Desperation. There were no democratic avenues open. Seriously, none. Every consituency was gerrymandered to ensure that the nationalist votes yielded the minimum number of representatives. This rendered the nationalist totally impotent in terms of change via the democratic process. Beat anyone into a corner and leave them no escape they will try to get out any way they can. The only way they could get anyone to listen was to escalate the situation to the point where it could no longer be swept under the carpet. The British Govt would never have come to the table unless the weight of public opinion, however negative, was brought to bear. It must be obvious the the PIRA had the ability to bomb England long before they did so it wasn't their first choice of action. I'd say they did it as a last resort.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

And that is exactly how they were originally received by the nationalist communities. It would appear though that as time went on and the BA started to work more closely with and under the direction of the civil powers ie the RUC they started to act as an extension of the RUC who were less than neutral in their attitude to the nationalist community. For less than neutral read "had a division called the B Specials".

The scary part is that the RUC men who were active then have risen through the ranks and are now the senior officers in the PSNI. Recruiting nationalists into the force goes some way to redressing the balance but as an organization it is still largely what it was 25 years ago. A "painted sepulchre" is the phrase that springs to mind.


Desperation. There were no democratic avenues open. Seriously, none. Every consituency was gerrymandered to ensure that the nationalist votes yielded the minimum number of representatives. This rendered the nationalist totally impotent in terms of change via the democratic process. Beat anyone into a corner and leave them no escape they will try to get out any way they can. The only way they could get anyone to listen was to escalate the situation to the point where it could no longer be swept under the carpet. The British Govt would never have come to the table unless the weight of public opinion, however negative, was brought to bear. It must be obvious the the PIRA had the ability to bomb England long before they did so it wasn't their first choice of action. I'd say they did it as a last resort.

I know how the army in NI ended up, I have heard tales of known "Players" being picked up by a BA land rover, the individual having "Fenian" written across their forehead and then dumped outside an Orange lodge. Pretty shocking, but if you are a corporal and the 18 year old under your care is blown apart by a booby trapped tri colour, I guess your sense of reasoning can be affected.

The IRA started bombing the "Mainland" long before Ireland became fully independant, I think 1939 was the first time civilians were killed by an Irish bomb in Britain. I'm not sure it was considered the last resort, sounds more like taking the fight to the English to me. A last resport would imply that all other means had been exhausted, which they had not. What they did achieve was giving Irish nationalsim a bad name in England and like it or not, it is the English who needed to be convinced because that is where the majority of voters are.

Did people in England care about the killings in Ireland? yes they did, did they care enough to do anything about it? not really, different country, two sets of people who seem hellbent on killing each other, who wants to get involved in that? It's got nothing to do with the fact those people are Irish, its natural human reaction. Oh yeah, one lot keep killing our soldiers and blowing up our train stations.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know how the army in NI ended up, I have heard tales of known "Players" being picked up by a BA land rover, the individual having "Fenian" written across their forehead and then dumped outside an Orange lodge. Pretty shocking, but if you are a corporal and the 18 year old under your care is blown apart by a booby trapped tri colour, I guess your sense of reasoning can be affected.

I think a lot of that on both sides was action and reaction with innocents suffering on both sides. It has to be asked, why did he become a "player" in the first place?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA started bombing the "Mainland" long before Ireland became fully independant, I think 1939 was the first time civilians were killed by an Irish bomb in Britain. I'm not sure it was considered the last resort, sounds more like taking the fight to the English to me.

Agreed that is exactly what it was at the time. I think the events in 1979 and following were very much more out of desperation than a genuine hope of winning a military victory. I think they were trying to provoke public opinion to call for a complete pull-out of the North.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A last resort would imply that all other means had been exhausted, which they had not.

Many would argue that there were no other options left.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What they did achieve was giving Irish nationalism a bad name in England and like it or not, it is the English who needed to be convinced because that is where the majority of voters are.

Again agreed but they pushed it to the point that the English public got so sick of it they want rid of the North which I believe was the objective all along.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did people in England care about the killings in Ireland? yes they did, did they care enough to do anything about it? not really, different country,

Sure isn't that what we have been trying to tell you for the last 800 years? A different country, now kindly take your troops and flags and GTFO. :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh yeah, one lot keep killing our soldiers and blowing up our train stations.

Ah don't exaggerate now sure they only blew up Euston the once.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Sure isn't that what we have been trying to tell you for the last 800 years? A different country, now kindly take your troops and flags and GTFO. :pac:


Ah don't exaggerate now sure they only blew up Euston the once.

I took a little trip up to Bushmills and the Giants causeay the other week. In those few days i think I saw more Union flags than I have seen in 35 years living in England:eek: i would ask what could we do with them, but I'm too afraid you would offer a suggestion

You forgot Paddington as well, although tbh, it needed it.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I took a little trip up to Bushmills and the Giants causeay the other week. In those few days i think I saw more Union flags than I have seen in 35 years living in England:eek: i would ask what could we do with them, but I'm too afraid you would offer a suggestion

You forgot Paddington as well, although tbh, it needed it.

Bushmills is staunchly Unionist. Some pubs can't give their whiskey away.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Bushmills is staunchly Unionist. Some pubs can't give their whiskey away.

I was thinking of putting on my England shirt, the Dublin reg plates were getting a few dodgy looks:D

their 15 year old single malt though, pure nectar:cool:

nacho libre

citizen zero wrote: »

So the SAS can murder at will just because they have a mandate from a sovereign government. You don't like what they do but seem to accept it. I'm at a loss to see the difference.

As you see the the reductionist argument isn't just the preserve of those defending the IRA. If you have a mandate from the state, then to some people an apparatus of the state can get away with pretty much anything as having state backing confers legitmacy on their actions.
You only have to think of those who defend the bombing of Hiroshima as a classic example of this. They are consequentialists meaning, like the scum they are, they'll defend any action if it has the desired outcome. The suffering of others to achieve this aim is only an ancillary thing.

thejamescaird

McArmalite wrote: »

And since when did the people of Ireland, ( or India, Cyprus etc) ever give them a mandate to be in any part of Ireland or have the country partitioned. Instead we got the offer of take it or "terrible and immediate war *". Surely yet another fine example of british terrorism at work. The british do not occupy the north east of Ireland because they have a legitimate mandate, they occupy it through sheer terrorism and threats of more of it.


* ( A bit off topic, but I once heard that since the treaty was enforced on Ireland by violence and threat, like a man been forced to sign an incriminating document by the police beating and threating him, the 1922 treaty could be ruled as invalid under International law ?? )

Both sides failed to compromise in those days. The total failure by Sinn Fein to recognize the fact that almost 1/3 of the population of the island had unionist aspirations is as much to blame for partition as the failure of the unionists to accept nationalist aspirations.
What about the last referendum when people voted north and south en masse for the status quo including the recognition of Northern Ireland?

Armalite on a more positive note
instead of critisising the partition of ireland what would you be prepared to do in order to reverse it?
what consessions to their unionist identity would you concede in order to achieve a united ireland?.
would you for example be prepared to go back into the commenwealth?
would you be prepared to live in a symbolic federation with britain?
would you concede anything at all to unionists with whom we would have to share this idylic new situation?

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

You explain to me how a mandate in anyway, shape or form effects the reality of the British attacks on the Irish people and why it's important in the scheme of things or relevant to this debate. If you were not trying to defend the British attacks, then why state that they had a mandate.

Because they did. When they exceed that mandate, they can be held to account for it.

You once accused me of defending the IRA when I stated that they did not deliberately set out to kill civilians, while in the same sentence I had stated that I do not support their armed campaign.

Wow, you're still sore about me pointing out that your sophistry doesn't wash?

When I even merely suggest that you are defending the British attacks on the Irish people by claiming they had a "mandate", you get antsy with me?

The British armed forces have a mandate from the British people for their actions. This is a fact. There have been incidents where they have exceeded this mandate. This is a fact. There are procedures to deal with situations where members of the British armed forces have exceed there mandate. This is a fact. Those procedures are not always as effective as they should be. This is a fact.

None of the above in any way is a defence of the British armed forces attacking Irish people. I will happily defend the actions of the British armed forces when they have operated within their mandate.

Pot, kettle, black. I will withdraw nothing. I stand by my comment firmly.

I just knew you wouldn't be able to find any specific examples, and would fall back on handwaving. You're trying to imply that I'm defending the British Army for Bloody Sunday, when that was a clear example of where they exceeded their mandate.

You have stated that it doesn't matter whether or not they have a mandate. This is the same reductionist argument that Mayo Exile tried to make, in order to equate the actions of the British Army with those of the IRA. If you don't believe a mandate from a democratically-elected government makes it OK to carry out acts of violence under certain circumstances, then you don't believe that states should have armies. Is this what you believe? Or do you believe that anyone should be allowed to kill anyone at any time, for whatever reason suits them?

Straight answer, now.

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's because you're not looking hard enough. And no, they can't "murder at will", they operate within the rules of engagement as set out by the elected government to which they answer.

Hint: this is the point where you scoff at the term "rules of engagement" as if it was a meaningless phrase.

Can you tell me how when operating within the rules of engagement included the murdering of a young 15 year old boy in a incident in Dunloy Co Derry

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

are we going to wheel out the old "No Blacks or Irish" sign as well as a good example of the way the British treat the Irish?

This has turned into a typical arguement again with all the usual "Whataboutery"

Takes two to tango

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

A mandate means that the democratically-elected government can hold the military accountable for actions outside that mandate. It doesn't always work as well as it should, but that doesn't excuse the total absence of any such mandate.

Can we have even one meaningful example of where the brit government held any of there occupying forces accountable for any of the hundreds of murders they perpetrated in the six countys