breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

RandomName2

mylefttesticle wrote: »

You may use those words, for a lot of people it is stealing plain and simple.

Well... duh.

pO1Neil

RandomName2 wrote: »

But democracies are fundamentally underpinned by the dictatorship of the majority: it's a defining principle of how democracies work. This is fine when a democratic country is cohesive - but, in fact, when it has massive minorities, sometimes a dictatorship can be more stable and sustainable! Iraq would be a perfect example of this (it really should be 3 countries, but Turkey has threatened war, for instance, if an independent Kurdistan were to be created).

There will always be minorities in countries - the trick is to have these minorities so small that they can be integrated. The problem in NI was that there were large minorities: suddenly those afraid of oppression became the oppressors. Unionists' fear of nationalists made them an enemy they may otherwise might not have become.

So your basically saying the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh & Derry don't matter just let Britain have them to keep the Unionists happy.. There's a large Muslim community in Bradford do you think Britain should or would let them have a Islamic Republic of Britain if they wanted?

mylefttesticle

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ask yourself why does Ireland deserve independence? There is no answer you can give that cannot also be applied to the unionist minority in Ireland. That's why you're being hypocritical.

why would he ask himself such a stupid question? what would you ask such a stupid question?

mylefttesticle

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well... duh.[/QUOTE

:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

mylefttesticle wrote: »

why would he ask himself such a stupid question? what would you ask such a stupid question?

That's a loaded question. He'd ask himself the question to expose his own hypocrisy. Once he is aware of it he can act on it.

mylefttesticle

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a loaded question. He'd ask himself the question to expose his own hypocrisy. Once he is aware of it he can act on it.

Yeah sure.

You know you can just have an honest discussion you don't need to be smarmy.

pO1Neil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ask yourself why does Ireland deserve independence? There is no answer you can give that cannot also be applied to the unionist minority in Ireland. That's why you're being hypocritical.

In that case why does anybody deserve independence. Why shouldn't Britain be ruled from Dublin instead of London?

And I can answer that because people understand & can govern themselves better. Irish Republicans understand Loyalist & Loyalist fears a lot better than anybody in the British parliament.

If people vote for independence in Scotland by 51% to 49% do you think Scotland would be broke into two halves? Not a chance, because the British government at the time looked upon the Irish as untermensch.

Iwasfrozen

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Yeah sure.

You know you can just have an honest discussion you don't need to be smarmy.

Your post was hardly civil.

mylefttesticle

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Your post was hardly civil.

More outright than you subversive methods.

Your in the minority anyway so obviously you win.

RandomName2

pO1Neil wrote: »

So your basically saying the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh & Derry [sic] don't matter just let Britain have them to keep the Unionists happy..

I'm not basically saying anything.

There were three unionists camps: one which said the whole of Ireland should be kept in the union, one which said Ulster should be kept in the union, and one which said the 3 or 4 Protestant majority states should stay in the union.

The whole Ireland unionist lot quickly became the "southern unionists" and thrown out as an entirely unrealistic and ultimately unrealisable prospect (despite enclaves such as in Dublin).

So you've got the 9 county unionists and the 4 county unionists. The six was deemed an acceptable compromise by unionists - enough that the state of NI would be viable, and overall a clear Protestant majority; while sacrificing Donegal's and Moneghan's Protestant minorities.

But should that have been allowed? Probably not - it was creating a large minority in NI, which was unfair on those trapped in this bubble. It wasn't guaranteed to end in disaster, but was a clear prospect.

pO1Neil wrote: »

There's a large Muslim community in Bradford do you think Britain should or would let them have a Islamic Republic of Britain if they wanted?

Bradford is a bit small to have its own rule of law, distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom - but it does seem to be slowly moving in that direction. Of course, you need more than just a common religion to unite people into a distinct cohesive unit. Whether that should be the case is... uh.. a bit difficult to answer - a bit like saying "should Donetsk be allowed to consider itself Russian?"

pO1Neil

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm not basically saying anything.

There were three unionists camps: one which said the whole of Ireland should be kept in the union, one which said Ulster should be kept in the union, and one which said the 3 or 4 Protestant majority states should stay in the union.

The whole Ireland unionist lot quickly became the "southern unionists" and thrown out as an entirely unrealistic and ultimately unrealisable prospect (despite enclaves such as in Dublin).

So you've got the 9 county unionists and the 4 county unionists. The six was deemed an acceptable compromise by unionists - enough that the state of NI would be viable, and overall a clear Protestant majority; while sacrificing Donegal's and Moneghan's Protestant minorities.

But should that have been allowed? Probably not - it was creating a large minority in NI, which was unfair on those trapped in this bubble. It wasn't guaranteed to end in disaster, but was a clear prospect.



Bradford is a bit small to have its own rule of law, distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom - but it does seem to be slowly moving in that direction. Of course, you need more than just a common religion to unite people into a distinct cohesive unit. Whether that should be the case is... uh.. a bit difficult to answer - a bit like saying "should Donetsk be allowed to consider itself Russian?"

So you do agree the main vote that counts is the vote of the majority.

I think a Home Rule parliament in Ulster would be fine if it was under Irish sovereignty not British. Like I said Britain doesn't understand Irish problems & the best solution to a Irish problem is a Irish one. Carson for example always considered himself Irish even if he was undemocratic.

RandomName2

pO1Neil wrote: »

In that case why does anybody deserve independence. Why shouldn't Britain be ruled from Dublin instead of London?

I don't understand these two sentences: one doesn't follow from the other.

It doesn't matter where the seat of government is. It matters who holds the power - and in a democracy the side with the greater numbers hold the power. In a union with the United Kingdom Ireland's 4 million compared to the 60 million in the rest of the UK would be guaranteed to have a smaller voice (trivia: during the union Ireland was given a disproportionately large number of seats as a concession. Still always outvoted though, obviously)

pO1Neil wrote: »

And I can answer that because people understand & can govern themselves better. Irish Republicans understand Loyalist & Loyalist fears a lot better than anybody in the British parliament.

I don't even...

pO1Neil wrote: »

If people vote for independence in Scotland by 51% to 49% do you think Scotland would be broke into two halves? Not a chance, because the British government at the time looked upon the Irish as untermensch.

Irish as untermensch? I'm totally lost here...

RandomName2

pO1Neil wrote: »

So you do agree the main vote that counts is the vote of the majority.

Well... yeah

pO1Neil wrote: »

I think a Home Rule parliament in Ulster would be fine if it was under Irish sovereignty not British. Like I said Britain doesn't understand Irish problems & the best solution to a Irish problem is a Irish one. Carson for example always considered himself Irish even if he was undemocratic.

Either that makes no difference (because Northern Ireland was allowed all the freedom to make as much a mess of itself as it liked with Home Rule) or you essentially have Northern Ireland annexed to Ireland (in which case the Home Rule status would be a lie).

In fact, it would be likely to pan out slightly worse as Northern Ireland was subject to the Welfare State after WW2... and also free schooling, etc.

Iwasfrozen

pO1Neil wrote: »

In that case why does anybody deserve independence. Why shouldn't Britain be ruled from Dublin instead of London?

Because the British people don't want to be ruled from Dublin.

And I can answer that because people understand & can govern themselves better. Irish Republicans understand Loyalist & Loyalist fears a lot better than anybody in the British parliament.

Loyalists understand loyalists and loyalist fears a lot better than Irish republicans, they have the right to self determination, to decide who they themselves want to be ruled by.

If you deny a group the right to self determination you are no better than an imperialist.

If people vote for independence in Scotland by 51% to 49% do you think Scotland would be broke into two halves? Not a chance, because the British government at the time looked upon the Irish as untermensch.

Why shouldn't it be? Say the North of Scotland votes overwhelmingly for independence and the South votes to stay in the Union then why not divide Scotland?

NipNip

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because the British people don't want to be ruled from Dublin.


Loyalists understand loyalists and loyalist fears a lot better than Irish republicans, they have the right to self determination, to decide who they themselves want to be ruled by.

If you deny a group the right to self determination you are no better than an imperialist.


Why shouldn't it be? Say the North of Scotland votes overwhelmingly for independence and the South votes to stay in the Union then why not divide Scotland?

I don't want to be ruled from Dublin.

Nobody understands me as well as I understand myself. I have the right to decide who shall rule me.

Therefore, I declare my surrounding personal space as 'My own little world', where I am ruler, dictator, imperialist and leader. I is like a BOSS.

pO1Neil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because the British people don't want to be ruled from Dublin.


Loyalists understand loyalists and loyalist fears a lot better than Irish republicans, they have the right to self determination, to decide who they themselves want to be ruled by.

If you deny a group the right to self determination you are no better than an imperialist.


Why shouldn't it be? Say the North of Scotland votes overwhelmingly for independence and the South votes to stay in the Union then why not divide Scotland?

Lol, just like Irish people don't want to be ruled from London.

If Loyalists have a right to their own state than so do Republicans which they don't have.

Because in a democracy the majority vote counts as the main vote. It's like why not let the minority who voted gay marriage not to have gay marriage in their part or the southern part of America should have been allowed to keep their slaves. Why bother having a democracy every time a minority disagrees with something there going to piss off & form their own state?

Not to mention the social impacts a divided Scotland would have. Just look at the North of our own country.

Iwasfrozen

pO1Neil wrote: »

Lol, just like Irish people don't want to be ruled from London.

some of them don't want to be ruled from London, some of them do and they mainly live on the North Eastern edge of the country so it's possible to corner that piece off.

If Loyalists have a right to their own state than so do Republicans which they don't have.

The Republic of Ireland exists, last time I checked.

Because in a democracy the majority vote counts as the main vote. It's like why not let the minority who voted gay marriage not to have gay marriage in their part or the southern part of America should have been allowed to keep their slaves. Why bother having a democracy every time a minority disagrees with something there going to piss off & form their own state?

That's a ridiculous argument, following your logic the Irish people should never have gotten independence as it went against the wishes of the majority of the United Kingdom.

You either accept the right of a group of people to assert their right to political self determination or you don't. If you don't you're no better than an imperialist trying to impose your national identity onto a group of people who don't want it.

Not to mention the social impacts a divided Scotland would have. Just look at the North of our own country.

There's no reason to assume violence would break out in Scotland were it partitioned in the same way as Ireland.

pO1Neil

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

some of them don't want to be ruled from London, some of them do and they mainly live on the North Eastern edge of the country so it's possible to corner that piece off.


The Republic of Ireland exists, last time I checked.


That's a ridiculous argument, following your logic the Irish people should never have gotten independence as it went against the wishes of the majority of the United Kingdom.

You either accept the right of a group of people to assert their right to political self determination or you don't. If you don't you're no better than an imperialist trying to impose your national identity onto a group of people who don't want it.


There's no reason to assume violence would break out in Scotland were it partitioned in the same way as Ireland.

No it's not Britain only ruled Ireland by right of conquest which by last time I checked was illegal under international law. The last time I seen a poll the majority of people in the UK agreed with a United Ireland (obviously in your world only the minority of that poll counts as legit). There's a easy solution to all this - there's two islands close to each other on the edge of west Europe, neither attacks each other, both cooperate with each other on mutual concerns, they govern themselves according to the wishes of the inhabitants on each island - problem solved. Oh wait I forgot being practical is too radical & insane for you better find a more complicated system that leads to one bunch of people being upset & shouting boooooo to Johnny foreigner.

bumper234

pO1Neil wrote: »

Exactly.

I'm not pro-IRA & the IRA has done some horrible actions in Ireland along with other military organizations official & unofficial, what I support is the right of a oppressed people to rise up against a brutal & oppressive regime. If I supported the oppressed Palestinians, Vietnamese, British miners, Black South Africans, Resistance groups during WW2 etc... then I will support the right of my own countrymen to rise up & fight but that does not mean for one second I support the right of every single action they carried out during that fight & it does not mean for one second I have anything against British people.
I have more in common with someone in Bradford or Manchester who sees the world the same way I do instead of a person like Bumper who supports the oppressor. Infact I think it was Ken Livingstone who said the Irish suffered more under British rule than the Jews did under Nazi rule, now I'm not sure about that but that shows just what type of support we could get in Britain. Sinn Fein got more & could count on more support during the war from more prominent British politicians than they did Free State ones.

If I was an Irish citizen living in the North I'd want an apology from the Dublin government for a) the neglect they showed & b) for the demonetization of some communities in the North. People in the North supported the IRA because their was a power vacuum left by Dublin in the nationalist areas in the North which was filled by the IRA, it's not that hard to understand & candidly I don't believe people don't understand it the truth is they can't accept it.

Pmsl


Thanks for brightening up my commute, seriously.....you made me laugh out loud on the train with that nonsensical idiotic post

twowheelsgood

pO1Neil wrote: »

Because in a democracy the majority vote counts as the main vote.

Fine. But the majority of whom?

The majority in NI? The majority in Ireland (the island)? The majority in the UK and Ireland combined?

You no doubt will say the second of these. But why? It is as arbitrary a choice as any of the others.

crusher000

So let's run the Unionists out of the North, don't allow them to own their own home, to allow them access to a proper education or when they go for a job let's not give it to them because of their religion. Let's then intern them and prosecute them because of their religion.

Catholics would then become the majority and we could have a vote to see whom they want to be ruled by.

Hmmm any of this sound familiar ?

sillyoulfool

crusher000 wrote: »

So let's run the Unionists out of the North, don't allow them to own their own home, to allow them access to a proper education or when they go for a job let's not give it to them because of their religion. Let's then intern them and prosecute them because of their religion.

Catholics would then become the majority and we could have a vote to see whom they want to be ruled by.

Hmmm any of this sound familiar ?

No.
Its sounds like over exaggerated guff and inaccurate guff.

crusher000

sillyoulfool wrote: »

No.
Its sounds like over exaggerated guff and inaccurate guff.

Sounds to me your in denail.

So there was no internment in the North ?
Catholics weren't descriminated against ?
Catholics didn't have a vote ?

Why then was there a civil rights movement?

History has been re written.

crusher000

I have been redeemed. One or two on here will know what I'm talking about and common sense has prevailed. Play the ball not the man.

twowheelsgood

crusher000 wrote: »

Sounds to me your in denail.

So there was no internment in the North ?
Catholics weren't descriminated against ?
Catholics didn't have a vote ?

Why then was there a civil rights movement?

History has been re written.

The guff is the suggestion that the abuses you describe led to unionists being a majority.

R P McMurphy

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The guff is the suggestion that the abuses you describe led to unionists being a majority.

It increased the majority going by the flood of nationalist refugees in the 60s and 70s in counties like louth, monaghan, cavan and donegal

crusher000

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The guff is the suggestion that the abuses you describe led to unionists being a majority.

Excuse me but how did you come to that conclusion ? The reasons the Unionists held power for so long was the fact that they used the methods I posted. I never said they were a majority.

But then a lot of people on here like to presume a lot of things. Your not alone.:o

RandomName2

pO1Neil wrote: »

Sure f.... it then let's go the whole hog & give everyone [who has] a different opinion to their neighbor their own state & government.

It doesn't work like that.

It requires a consolidated group of people to declare themselves separate.

States (and even... free cities) require abstracted powers surrendered by the people - they can't exist if neighbour is against neghbour... because that tends towards anarchy.

sillyoulfool

crusher000 wrote: »

So let's run the Unionists out of the North, don't allow them to own their own home, to allow them access to a proper education or when they go for a job let's not give it to them because of their religion. Let's then intern them and prosecute them because of their religion.

Catholics would then become the majority and we could have a vote to see whom they want to be ruled by.

Hmmm any of this sound familiar ?

crusher000 wrote: »

Sounds to me your in denail.


History has been re written.

History is being re-written by you .Name me one person who was prosecuted for their being Catholic, just one!

RandomName2

crusher000 wrote: »

Excuse me but how did you come to that conclusion ? The reasons the Unionists held power for so long was the fact that they used the methods I posted. I never said they were a majority.

But then a lot of people on here like to presume a lot of things. Your not alone.:o

They were a majority...

I mean they used Gerrymandering as well to sow up the parliament, but that's a different issue. Mind you, the nationalist parties refused to take their seats for many years (because the didn't recognise the state)... so it was a moot point for a considerable time.

But the abuses described were to "encourage" nationalists and Catholics to leave for Eire/The Free State. It mostly just bred resentment.