Northern Ireland - The Occupied Territory?

Cú Giobach

afrodub wrote: »

Yes historically this `sounds` accurate but the fuller understanding was the majority was the United Kingdom loyalists, and to accomodate the nationalist minority within the U.K. a Free State was created.

This attitude has always "intrigued" me.
So if a people are invaded, occupied and the land they live in is given a name to suit the occupiers, this then gives some sort of validity to the occupation.

Kev_ps3

Judgement Day wrote: »

I think given that Kev_ps3 was about 12 years old when the Good Friday Agreement was voted on we shouldn't take his strange ramblings too seriously.

:rolleyes:
sorry only old west brits are take seriously on this forum, anyone who doesnt toe the line = rambling kid:rolleyes:

murphaph

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
sorry only old west brits are take seriously on this forum, anyone who doesnt toe the line = rambling kid:rolleyes:

Well, your age makes a difference Kevin. If you aren't old enough to remember the worst of the attrocities committed during the troubles, you are viewing everything in a different light to the posters old enough to do so.

My perspective on WWII would likely be very different to someone who was alive at the time.

Wolfe Tone

murphaph wrote: »

Well, your age makes a difference Kevin. If you aren't old enough to remember the worst of the attrocities committed during the troubles, you are viewing everything in a different light to the posters old enough to do so.

My perspective on WWII would likely be very different to someone who was alive at the time.

I guess everyone not born before 1969 should just shut up then?

This whole age thing is a load of sh!te, yes having lived through the events you may have a different perspective, but who is to say that it is a better one?

Just because someone is younger it doesn't mean that their opinion is irrelevant.

Alopex

murphaph wrote: »

Well, your age makes a difference Kevin. If you aren't old enough to remember the worst of the attrocities committed during the troubles, you are viewing everything in a different light to the posters old enough to do so.

My perspective on WWII would likely be very different to someone who was alive at the time.

yeah and if you didn't live there your perspective is pointless too by that definition. so really this thread should only be open to people from belfast who were alive during the 70s-90s. I'm sure if you want to comment on a thread about WW2 no one will mind or pass snide remarks about you

If judgement day said kev ps3 shouldn't be taken seriously because she's a woman I doubt you'd be defending him

murphaph

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I guess everyone not born before 1969 should just shut up then?

This whole age thing is a load of sh!te, yes having lived through the events you may have a different perspective, but who is to say that it is a better one?

Just because someone is younger it doesn't mean that their opinion is irrelevant.

Their opinion is not irrelevant, just likely to be less informed as they did not live through the times. They were not exposed to the realities of the troubles.

I feel some of the younger posters on here have a tendency to romtanticise the troubles. It's a dangerous trend tbh.

murphaph

Alopex wrote: »

yeah and if you didn't live there your perspective is pointless too by that definition. so really this thread should only be open to people from belfast who were alive during the 70s-90s. I'm sure if you want to comment on a thread about WW2 no one will mind or pass snide remarks about you

If judgement day said kev ps3 shouldn't be taken seriously because she's a woman I doubt you'd be defending him

I didn't say anywhere that Kevin shouldn't be taken seriously.

junder

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I guess everyone not born before 1969 should just shut up then?

This whole age thing is a load of sh!te, yes having lived through the events you may have a different perspective, but who is to say that it is a better one?

Just because someone is younger it doesn't mean that their opinion is irrelevant.

So you really think you have better perpesctive on the events in northern Ireland then somebody who actully lived through them? I am sorry but experience counts, and unless you have experienced events then your only point of reference is second hand accounts which for the most part fail to convay the different nuances of northern Ireland. You see for those that lived through the troubles, especially amoung combatants, be they republicans, loyalists or security forces there is grudging respect Because they know under all the bull**** that we are all guilty of they all know the real score.

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

So you really think you have better perpesctive on the events in northern Ireland then somebody who actully lived through them? I am sorry but experience counts, and unless you have experienced events then your only point of reference is second hand accounts which for the most part fail to convay the different nuances of northern Ireland. You see for those that lived through the troubles, especially amoung combatants, be they republicans, loyalists or security forces there is grudging respect Because they know under all the bull**** that we are all guilty of they all know the real score.

Often people from outside a situation who have studied said situation can have a wider and fuller perspective of the events than someone actually involved.

This is particularly true in conflicts where someone involved really only gets to see things from their own side, have their views coloured by their experiences and only actually sees first hand a very small part of the whole. For example though a French peasant farmer would know what it was actually like to live under German occupation, the wider events and political machinations would be beyond him.

Judgement Day

murphaph wrote: »

I didn't say anywhere that Kevin shouldn't be taken seriously.

I am - have you had a look at some of his posts on other topics? I think he spends too much time in another world on his Playstation.

who the fug

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You never heard anyone speak about the occupied 6 counties?

Them bleeding hippies in Munster are a pain, now we have these Dublin 4 muppets.

murphaph

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Often people from outside a situation who have studied said situation can have a wider and fuller perspective of the events than someone actually involved.

Does this apply to urban dwellers who may have studied settlement patterns commenting about the blight of rural one off housing?

Wolfe Tone

who the fug wrote: »

Them bleeding hippies in Munster are a pain, now we have these Dublin 4 muppets.

hmm?

who the fug

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

hmm?

If you be thinking I don't take the whole NI thing seriously , well you be right.

Idiots with guns are still idiots.

Wolfe Tone

who the fug wrote: »

If you be thinking I don't take the whole NI thing seriously , well you be right.

Idiots with guns are still idiots.

Then why comment on it?

who the fug

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Then why comment on it?

O come on, the pomposity of the morons on both sides is comedy gold

(Shame about the 3000 dead people, but neither side seem to remember them)

Judgement Day

who the fug wrote: »

O come on, the pomposity of the morons on both sides is comedy gold

(Shame about the 3000 dead people, but neither side seem to remember them)

Don't forget the 47,500+ injured and maimed - for what?

Cú Giobach

murphaph wrote: »

Does this apply to urban dwellers who may have studied settlement patterns commenting about the blight of rural one off housing?

It applies in many situations and in cases where there are problems to be solved great care must be taken in order to deal with the day to day realities of life, and not just advocate solutions that seem grand on paper but would be unworkable in the real world.
Someone could have a thorough knowledge of the NI situation in a historical context without ever having lived there, but if someone wants to implement a solution to a particular NI communities problem they have to understand and have at least some experience of that community and how it works.

steddyeddy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Don't forget the 47,500+ injured and maimed - for what?

Well a lot of it was for practising a different form af mass im sorry to say.

KeithAFC

Judgement Day wrote: »

who the fug wrote: »

O come on, the pomposity of the morons on both sides is comedy gold

(Shame about the 3000 dead people, but neither side seem to remember them)

Don't forget the 47,500+ injured and maimed - for what?

If you aren't from Northern Ireland, you won't understand why people are willing to die.

I think they know they lost, hince why they are still planting bombs for police officers to walk into. I think they will respect the will of the majority sooner or later, hopefully.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

If you aren't from Northern Ireland, you won't understand why people are willing to die.

I think they know they lost, hince why they are still planting bombs for police officers to walk into. I think they will respect the will of the majority sooner or later, hopefully.

To be honest keith I think your in the minority.

Cú Giobach

KeithAFC wrote: »

If you aren't from Northern Ireland, you won't understand why people are willing to die.

Conflict and war are among the most studied aspects of human behaviour and an involvement in a particular conflict is not a prerequisite to understanding that conflict.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest keith I think your in the minority.

I think if you asked the majority of Unionists, that is what they would think. They did lose. Everyone knows they lost. You either complete your main objective or you don't. They failed. Don't won't to go over it again but it does need to be said sometimes.

One group wants the whole island, the other just wants the "sacred" bit.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think if you asked the majority of Unionists, that is what they would think. They did lose. Everyone knows they lost. You either complete your main objective or you don't. They failed. Don't won't to go over it again but it does need to be said sometimes.

One group wants the whole island, the other just wants the "sacred" bit.

Why are you dividing it into two groups for instance do you know what my views are? Theres more than a for and against arguement!

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Often people from outside a situation who have studied said situation can have a wider and fuller perspective of the events than someone actually involved.

This is particularly true in conflicts where someone involved really only gets to see things from their own side, have their views coloured by their experiences and only actually sees first hand a very small part of the whole. For example though a French peasant farmer would know what it was actually like to live under German occupation, the wider events and political machinations would be beyond him.

Wider, fuller, guess it depends on what books they read, still will never know what it was like for the French peasent farmer, which is really the point.

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

Wider, fuller, guess it depends on what books they read, still will never know what it was like for the French peasent farmer, which is really the point.

And the farmer unless he studied after the war wouldn't understand the reasons for the conflict how it developed and progressed or how it affected people who lived in other areas. His knowledge would be limited to how the war affected French peasant farmers in his locality and not much more, which was my point.

junder

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And the farmer unless he studied after the war wouldn't understand the reasons for the conflict how it developed and progressed or how it affected people who lived in other areas. His knowledge would be limited to how the war affected French peasant farmers in his locality and not much more, which was my point.

The peasant farmer could learn these things if he desired, was in a posistion to etc etc,( also it's perfectly possible that said farmer was not as uneducated as you imply) unfortunately the outsider can not learn experience, you can only experience, experience. Why do you think anthropologists spend so much time living with the society they are studying. I am not unlike the peasant in that I cone from a poor uneducated background, I gained experience of the troubles living through it and saw the consequences if the troubles first hand, this is not something you can learn from a book.

RMD

Judgement Day wrote: »

Don't forget the 47,500+ injured and maimed - for what?

A different form of the Sunningdale agreement which was offered to them 25 years earlier. To think how many deaths and injuries could have been avoided is both sides weren't filled with useless bigots, they could have actually made the devolved government work first time round if they were willing to.

Richard

In terms of winning and losing, I remember hearing a quote from a few years ago - not sure who said it, but it was when there devolution was suspended.

"The Nationalists are too proud to realize they've lost and the Unionists are too stupid to realise they've won".

I think there's some truth to that.

Cú Giobach

junder wrote: »

The peasant farmer could learn these things if he desired, was in a posistion to etc etc,( also it's perfectly possible that said farmer was not as uneducated as you imply) unfortunately the outsider can not learn experience, you can only experience, experience. Why do you think anthropologists spend so much time living with the society they are studying. I am not unlike the peasant in that I cone from a poor uneducated background, I gained experience of the troubles living through it and saw the consequences if the troubles first hand, this is not something you can learn from a book.

Even you born and living in NI would have to have learned from others about the reasons for the troubles you lived through and you would have gotten a huge amount of your information about what was actually happening from the media and other people.
No one person can experience every aspect of a conflict and has to learn second hand from others in order to gain a full knowledge and proper understanding of the situation.

Of course to know what it was like to actually live through the troubles one has had to experience them, but this does not equate to a full understanding of every aspect of them, that takes learning, be that reading books, newspapers or listening to the experiences of friends in the pub.

getz

keithob wrote: »

Is the North of Ireland occupied by an Armed Force? yes in my opinion.... yet i respect the view of peoples who have the opinion that the North of Ireland is part of the UK and Brit Armed Forces on Brit Soil.

The whole Northern Question isnt relevant anymore ... its all about Global Politics.. to many lives lost and times given away to the North issue...

In my opinion the people of the North and only them should have the right to decide to be part of the UK or not. (Not some clown living in Dublin who has never even crossed the border or lived through the War years.)


Keith

they have,they will,but the dissidents will never except it,no change there.

getz

keithob wrote: »

and i also respect the view of Hardline Republicans ....

its got to a stage that its no longer about wanting to join the republic,most of the bombs that are being planted by them are in republican areas,not unionist areas,the most likely people who will be killed will be catholics. and you still support them ?

getz

keithob wrote: »

getz i did not say i support them i said i repect their views.

the war as such is over and i dont think setting off bombs here and there will make progress on the republican front.

there isnt enough feeling on the ground in republican areas for another campaign.

just what are their views,kill anyone,but loyalists,plant bombs indiscriminately,reject the ballot box,is that the kind of people the republic would like in their society,? i very much doubt it,they are not going to lay down their arms and go back working in child care ect, last month the same people who you respect the views of ,said the were going to burn dublin to the ground,because the queen was visiting the republic,violence has been around in northern ireland society so long now,it will never go away overnight,who ever runs the country,

getz

keithob wrote: »

what are there views... quite simplistic really .. British Withdrawal From Ireland.

I agree with you with regards to the bombing and killing it is wrong.

Their argument would be that these killings are justified.

ill get back to my previous point it dont matter no more! the republic dont exist yes in name ... we are controlled and dictated by the EU / IMF ...

We shud have stayed under brit rule! lol.... :_

that would mean every british citizen in northern ireland would be expected to leave, crazy,it was joining the euro that put ireland on the back foot,with control of your own system,you can value or devalue as you want,

steddyeddy

To be honest the whole thing could have been avoided or at least reduced if bigots hadnt reacted violently to catholics getting the same rights as them.

RMD

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest the whole thing could have been avoided or at least reduced if bigots hadnt reacted violently to catholics getting the same rights as them.

It's a demonstration of the different political mentalities. When the Free State was established the government made many concessions to incorporate the Unionist minority into Irish society and ensure they felt safe in Ireland. When Northern Ireland was established, no effort was made to incorporate the Nationalist minority and instead they were continually discriminated against.

No war broke out here, yet 3,000 people were killed up North. If the Nationalists were properly incorporated into a fair Northern society, I really doubt groups like the PIRA would ever have gained the support like they did to mount a significant campaign and as a result, the Troubles would have never occurred.

junder

RMD wrote: »

It's a demonstration of the different political mentalities. When the Free State was established the government made many concessions to incorporate the Unionist minority into Irish society and ensure they felt safe in Ireland. When Northern Ireland was established, no effort was made to incorporate the Nationalist minority and instead they were continually discriminated against.

No war broke out here, yet 3,000 people were killed up North. If the Nationalists were properly incorporated into a fair Northern society, I really doubt groups like the PIRA would ever have gained the support like they did to mount a significant campaign and as a result, the Troubles would have never occurred.

So it was all the big bad prods fault then?

OhNoYouDidn't

junder wrote: »

So it was all the big bad prods fault then?

Are you suggesting they are blameless?

KeithAFC

The PIRA hijacked it and used it as a goal for a UI by bombing us back to Scotland.

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

So it was all the big bad prods fault then?

Where in the name of god did he mention protestents?

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

The PIRA hijacked it and used it as a goal for a UI by bombing us back to Scotland.

So the violence wasn't a reaction to a fascistic, apartheid regime?

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So the violence wasn't a reaction to a fascistic, apartheid regime?

No it wasn't. I think some one before completely debunked the apartheid comment which is pure fantasy land but then again, we are talking about Irish Republicanism.

People in the PIRA seen it as a chance to try and blow the British and the British supporters off the island and back to Scotland. What was said in 1689 remained true in the 70s and 80s and today.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

No it wasn't. I think some one before completely debunked the apartheid comment which is pure fantasy land but then again, we are talking about Irish Republicanism.

People in the PIRA seen it as a chance to try and blow the British and the British supporters off the island and back to Scotland. What was said in 1689 remained true in the 70s and 80s and today.

What was said as I seem to forget.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

No it wasn't. I think some one before completely debunked the apartheid comment which is pure fantasy land but then again, we are talking about Irish Republicanism.

People in the PIRA seen it as a chance to try and blow the British and the British supporters off the island and back to Scotland. What was said in 1689 remained true in the 70s and 80s and today.

My uncle helped organise the civil rights marchs keith please point out which bit of discrimination he was lying about?

discrimination in jobs
discrimination in housing
the sectarian B-specials
Gerrymandering
peaceful civil rights marchs being attacked by the ruc
bloody sunday

Judgement Day

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest the whole thing could have been avoided or at least reduced if bigots hadnt reacted violently to catholics getting the same rights as them.

Let's not airbrush the IRA campaigns of the 40s, 50s etc out of the equation.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

My uncle helped organise the civil rights marchs keith please point out which bit of discrimination he was lying about?

discrimination in jobs
discrimination in housing
the sectarian B-specials
Gerrymandering
peaceful civil rights marchs being attacked by the ruc
bloody sunday

Housing was a problem for a lot of people and many Protestants had the same problem. Many Protestants actually had a good number of those problems on the list. Gerry Adams actually said pretty much the same thing in regards to housing. If even he can admit it, then its a non argument to use.

And it wasn't so much about doubting the geniune intent from within the civil rights movement from Catholics and Protestants, it was to point out that the PIRA completely ignored that once they got going.

RMD

junder wrote: »

So it was all the big bad prods fault then?

I didn't bring religion into this, which is a continous problem in these discussions, it always has to come back to religion. Feel free to replace the terms Nationalist / Unionist with Catholic / Protestant if you wish though.

No, not the general Protestant population, but in my opinion it's largely the fault of the bigots in power and those who supported them who were unwilling to even allow the notion of Nationalists being on an equal footing with them in Northern Ireland.

Give this a bit of thought, if the Nationalists were genuinely integrated into Northern Ireland the civil rights movement would never have came about. The failure of the civil rights movement combined with Loyalist attacks on Nationalist areas lead to a huge rise in support for groups like the OIRA and PIRA as they were seen to be protecting their areas, the violence eventually leading to The Troubles.

So in essence without going into detail, it's quite clear if the Catholics were integrated in Northern Irish society from the outset of it's creation, the Troubles would have never taken place as the events which lead to rise of support in Republican paramilitary groups would never have taken place. You can claim The Troubles are the fault of the OIRA / PIRA for commencing the violence in 1969, but the fact remains these groups would have had much smaller support if Nationalists were on an equal footing in the North instead of being continually discriminated against.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Let's not airbrush the IRA campaigns of the 40s, 50s etc out of the equation.

That's exactly my point though. The IRA of the 40's and 50's were a bunch of incompetent volunteers with miniscule support, the IRA didn't become a formidable force until they gained widespread support in the 1960's as a result of the attacks on Nationalist areas.

KeithAFC

Judgement Day wrote: »

Let's not airbrush the IRA campaigns of the 40s, 50s etc out of the equation.

I agree. It is the total re writing of history which is going on in the Republican movement and many here seem to be taking part in it.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Housing was a problem for a lot of people and many Protestants had the same problem. Many Protestants actually had a good number of those problems on the list. Gerry Adams actually said pretty much the same thing in regards to housing. If even he can admit it, then its a non argument to use.

And it wasn't so much about doubting the geniune intent from within the civil rights movement from Catholics and Protestants, it was to point out that the PIRA completely ignored that once they got going.

I have never read such biased rubbish in my life to be honest. Yes keith catholics and protestents were all in the same both in a far fetched conspiracy that would make the divinci code look realistic it was all a ruse to get the ira in, even though the ira refused to get involved in the original rioting as they said attacking protestents would be sectarian.

steddyeddy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Let's not airbrush the IRA campaigns of the 40s, 50s etc out of the equation.

No lets not as it illustrates my point exactly. Those campaigns were failed campaigns with little support. When the civil rights attempts were met with bigotry and violence the ira which were practically non existent at the time and had little support were practically begged to come into the area. From this they gained massive support.