"IF" a United Ireland did happen...(Mod warning in OP, stay on topic!))

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

All armies are 'terrorists' to somebody...it's meaningless terminology designed for the gullible and willfully one-sided and has no place in a serious political discussion.

Not true, not all armies are terrorists to somebody. That is a typical SF/IRA deflection.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Not true, not all armies are terrorists to somebody. That is a typical SF/IRA deflection.

Armies function on the creation of 'terror' and can therefore legitimally be called or defined as 'terrorists'.
In the history of the world there has been no such thing as a benign or benevolent 'army'. Every single one underscores their authority with the threat of physical force. You and Katydid can't (or won't) see that because the British army are not threatening or 'terrorising' you. Talk to the people of the Bogside about how they precieved the British Army and the British government on the day after Bloody Sunday or the people of Ballymurphy or the border about how that army behaved over the course of the conflict.

Terrorism is a term used by those who want to obscure the truth of what happened. You are no better than Maggie Thatcher when you use it.
You got suckered by her and others in a selfish British government (and their footsoldiers in the Irish government) and you don't have the personal integrity to own up to it. Sad.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Armies function on the creation of 'terror' and can therefore legitimally be called or defined as 'terrorists'.
In the history of the world there has been no such thing as a benign or benevolent 'army'. Every single one underscores their authority with the threat of physical force. You and Katydid can't (or won't) see that because the British army are not threatening or 'terrorising' you. Talk to the people of the Bogside about how they precieved the British Army and the British government on the day after Bloody Sunday or the people of Ballymurphy or the border about how that army behaved over the course of the conflict.

Terrorism is a term used by those who want to obscure the truth of what happened. You are no better than Maggie Thatcher when you use it.
You got suckered by her and others in a selfish British government (and their footsoldiers in the Irish government) and you don't have the personal integrity to own up to it. Sad.

That is a load of rubbish, and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

"Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors."

The army of a democratic state is by definition a state actor.

If you want to talk about State terrorism, have a read of this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Armies function on the creation of 'terror' and can therefore legitimally be called or defined as 'terrorists'.
In the history of the world there has been no such thing as a benign or benevolent 'army'. Every single one underscores their authority with the threat of physical force. You and Katydid can't (or won't) see that because the British army are not threatening or 'terrorising' you. Talk to the people of the Bogside about how they precieved the British Army and the British government on the day after Bloody Sunday or the people of Ballymurphy or the border about how that army behaved over the course of the conflict.

Terrorism is a term used by those who want to obscure the truth of what happened. You are no better than Maggie Thatcher when you use it.
You got suckered by her and others in a selfish British government (and their footsoldiers in the Irish government) and you don't have the personal integrity to own up to it. Sad.

It is the intention behind the use of violence that defines terror. The Allies in WW2 caused terror amongst the German civilian population, but in most cases (there were shameful exceptions) the action taken was for the greater purpose of gaining strategic advantage over the enemy, whose negative intentions were clear.

Of course, it's not always as clear cut as the example of WW2. In most cases, armies are used by governments for their own political purposes, and as often as not, the terrorising of the population is totally unnecessary - note the last invasion of Iraq by the Americans.

However, terror is not the purpose of an army. Its function is primarily to defend the territory in which it is the authorised force; hence the term "defence forces". That it steps beyond this role, for good or for bad, at times, doesn't make it a terrorist organisation.

The raison d'être of Al Quaida, or ETA, or the UVF or IRA was not defence of anyone (although the IRA used that short window in time where there was a perceived need for defence in the nationalist community to excuse thirty years of violence, long after any need for defence had passed). Their raison d'être is and was very simple; to create an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst the population in order to force a government, or, in the case of Al Quaida, an entire democratic system, into acting in a way they wish them to act.

Armies sometimes act as terrorists, but terrorists are always terrorists.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That is a load of rubbish, and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

"Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors."

The army of a democratic state is by definition a state actor.

If you want to talk about State terrorism, have a read of this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

IMO and many others, the British army behaved as 'terrorists'. They subjugated the Nationalist people and enforced an illegal, bigoted and sectarian statelet with the illegal use of force = 'terrorism'.
That they have just moved on to somewhere else in the world, to continue to do it, in their selfish interests is plainly evident to anybody with a brain.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

IMO and many others, the British army behaved as 'terrorists'. They subjugated the Nationalist people and enforced an illegal, bigoted and sectarian statelet with the illegal use of force = 'terrorism'.
That they have just moved on to somewhere else in the world, to continue to do it, in their selfish interests is plainly evident to anybody with a brain.

SOME members of the British Army behaved as terrorists. SOME off their own bat, SOME on the direction of superiors. But most just got on with the job they had to do. They did the same as any army in the circumstances, faced with the threat of terrorism to the civilian population, would do.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

It is the intention behind the use of violence that defines terror. The Allies in WW2 caused terror amongst the German civilian population, but in most cases (there were shameful exceptions) the action taken was for the greater purpose of gaining strategic advantage over the enemy, whose negative intentions were clear.

Of course, it's not always as clear cut as the example of WW2. In most cases, armies are used by governments for their own political purposes, and as often as not, the terrorising of the population is totally unnecessary - note the last invasion of Iraq by the Americans.

However, terror is not the purpose of an army. Its function is primarily to defend the territory in which it is the authorised force; hence the term "defence forces". That it steps beyond this role, for good or for bad, at times, doesn't make it a terrorist organisation.

The raison d'être of Al Quaida, or ETA, or the UVF or IRA was not defence of anyone (although the IRA used that short window in time where there was a perceived need for defence in the nationalist community to excuse thirty years of violence, long after any need for defence had passed). Their raison d'être is and was very simple; to create an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst the population in order to force a government, or, in the case of Al Quaida, an entire democratic system, into acting in a way they wish them to act.

Armies sometimes act as terrorists, but terrorists are always terrorists.

As usual self serving nonsense ^^^

An army acting in your interests are not 'terrorists'.
SF are being 'retrospectively' (YOUR words and justification) rewarded for what they supported and did in NI.
Your argument (if you had a coherent one) has been long lost.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

SOME members of the British Army behaved as terrorists. SOME off their own bat, SOME on the direction of superiors. But most just got on with the job they had to do. They did the same as any army in the circumstances, faced with the threat of terrorism to the civilian population, would do.

Some members of the IRA behaved as 'terrorists' (Gerry McCabe etc) But most got on with the job they had to do = the dismantling of a bigoted and sectarian statelet. They achieved success on that front (even Unionists agree that it was a sectarian state) and disbanded. They did the same as any army in the circumstance, faced with the threat of terrorism from the state.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

As usual self serving nonsense ^^^

An army acting in your interests are not 'terrorists'.
SF are being 'retrospectively' (YOUR words and justification) rewarded for what they supported and did in NI.
Your argument (if you had a coherent one) has been long lost.

An army acting is someone's interest can be terrorists if they break the laws and conventions to do so. Such as the Americans in Iraq.

I don't see the relevance to this discussion anyway, since we're not talking about an army. We are talking about terrorists.

How are SF being "rewarded"? Some gullible fools, who have no problem with child abuse or terrorism, have voted for them. But at the end of the day, the majority of people in this country are decent people, and SF will never get into a position of control in this country.
If they do, that is the day I leave this country I was born in and love. Love far more than those who turn a blind eye to murder and sexual abuse of its people.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some members of the IRA behaved as 'terrorists' (Gerry McCabe etc) But most got on with the job they had to do = the dismantling of a bigoted and sectarian statelet. They achieved success on that front (even Unionists agree that it was a sectarian state) and disbanded. They did the same as any army in the circumstance, faced with the threat of terrorism from the state.

So it was terrorism to kill Gerry McCabe but not Colin Parry or Mary Travers or all those people in Birmingham? How do you work that out?

The "job"of the IRA was to create terror and fear in these islands. They did that job very well, fair play to them.

Happyman42

The "job"of the British Army was to create terror and fear in these islands. They did that job very well, fair play to them.

Your argument has been lost. Go and read some real history and not the one fed to you by those who caused the problem in the first place.

droidman123

katydid wrote: »

Just as despicable. It seems to me you only think it's wrong when members of the British Army go renegade. No issue at all with an entire organisation dedicated to murder...

there is a fundamental difference there, when the british army killed innocent civilians it was seen as "legimate" and no punishment followed.

K-9

Mod:

This is the Opening Post:

Does Republican Sinn Fiens strategy of a federal Ireland with four different parliaments not seem more fair to Unionist instead of being out breathed by Catholics (assuming for arguments sake Catholics want a UI) and being shoved into one & being ruled from Dublin?

How this thread has ended up as another "who started it" one, I don't know, but that isn't the subject matter. The subject is the future and the possibility of a United Ireland, not repeating the same arguments about who started the Troubles.

DeJa VooDoo

There's plenty of partitionists on this thread who don't want a united Ireland and are just interested in attacking SF at all costs for their own agenda driven reasons.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

An army acting is someone's interest can be terrorists if they break the laws and conventions to do so. Such as the Americans in Iraq.

I don't see the relevance to this discussion anyway, since we're not talking about an army. We are talking about terrorists.

How are SF being "rewarded"? Some gullible fools, who have no problem with child abuse or terrorism, have voted for them. But at the end of the day, the majority of people in this country are decent people, and SF will never get into a position of control in this country.
If they do, that is the day I leave this country I was born in and love. Love far more than those who turn a blind eye to murder and sexual abuse of its people.

So are you saying that if the people/party in power in Ireland are involved in child abuse you will be leaving? If yes I am surprised your still here so given past Irish governments turning a blind eye to the decades of abuse and sheer evil committed in the mother and child homes, magdelene laundries and in various church dioceses.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

Some gullible fools, who have no problem with child abuse or terrorism, have voted for them.
But at the end of the day, the majority of people in this country are decent people, and SF will never get into a position of control in this country.
If they do, that is the day I leave this country I was born in and love. Love far more than those who turn a blind eye to murder and sexual abuse of its people.

I voted for SF in last year's local and European elections, are you calling me a 'gullible fool'?

Either way, this country would be better off with more forward looking people anyway.

People who yearn for a return to what went before have no place in the future society of this country.

Perhaps somewhere more sectarian or even more authoritarian might suit you. Try North Korea. Make sure you get on the right side though.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

There's plenty of partitionists on this thread who don't want a united Ireland and are just interested in attacking SF at all costs for their own agenda driven reasons.

Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed hold the view that a United Ireland is a bad idea and not be allowed post on this thread to say that?

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Either way, this country would be better off with more forward looking people anyway.

People who yearn for a return to what went before have no place in the future society of this country.

.

I agree with this. There are so many people who have tied themselves to a very tired and old "republican" or "united Ireland" mast for the last 100 years or more. Now that we have dropped our territorial claim, we should be moving on forward and forgetting about the aspiration for a united Ireland. Those who get caught up in the wrongs of the past should be left in the past and the rhetoric left there with them.

I would love to see the 26-county Ireland for once stand proud on its own two feet and say that we don't need anything else to make us whole, we are great the way we are and move forward on that basis.

katydid

droidman123 wrote: »

there is a fundamental difference there, when the british army killed innocent civilians it was seen as "legimate" and no punishment followed.

And that was wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right; it does not excuse terrorist violence or murder

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

The "job"of the British Army was to create terror and fear in these islands. They did that job very well, fair play to them.

Your argument has been lost. Go and read some real history and not the one fed to you by those who caused the problem in the first place.

Please outline exactly which bit of history I have not been accurate in? It's all very well to talk, not so easy to come up with logical argument or facts...

ardmacha

DeJa VooDoo wrote:

There's plenty of partitionists on this thread who don't want a united Ireland and are just interested in attacking SF at all costs for their own agenda driven reasons.

While this may be true, the sheer uselessness of SF policies makes attacking them easier.

Godge wrote: »

Those who get caught up in the wrongs of the past should be left in the past and the rhetoric left there with them.

The wrongs of the past do indeed belong to past, unless they have been continuing all along.

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

There's plenty of partitionists on this thread who don't want a united Ireland and are just interested in attacking SF at all costs for their own agenda driven reasons.

You don't have to be against a united Ireland to despise terrorist supporters. Less of the hysterics.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

So are you saying that if the people/party in power in Ireland are involved in child abuse you will be leaving? If yes I am surprised your still here so given past Irish governments turning a blind eye to the decades of abuse and sheer evil committed in the mother and child homes, magdelene laundries and in various church dioceses.

If the taoiseach of my country is a man who condoned and covered up for child abuse, and/or if a terrorist supporting party who tolerate this individual come into any kind of power, I will, if I can, leave the country. The thought of that man and his hero worshippers having any influence over my life and my livelihood turns my stomach.

Irish governments may have turned a blind eye to abuse, but they did so in an abstract form, as did the vast majority of the population. Everyone knew it went on but no one was prepared to stand up and do something. This bears no comparison to the actions - or rather the failure to act - of a man who knew his niece had suffered abuse at the hands of his own brother. A man whose own father was an abuser and who knew the horrors of abuse allowed his brother to walk around free, working with vulnerable children. That is the lowest of the low in terms of behaviour. Even if he didn't have a dodgy terrorist past, his behaviour in this regard is despicable; yet he is supported, defended and idolised by his followers, which means they are equally vile.

katydid

ardmacha wrote: »

The wrongs of the past do indeed belong to past, unless they have been continuing all along.

That's the problem. SF continue to defend terrorism, attend commemorations for terrorists, argue the case for leniency for terrorists, such as in the case of the "letters of comfort". And, of course, continue to give blind support to a man who has been proven to have covered up for a child abuser.

The past is not another country for SF

katydid

Godge wrote: »

I agree with this. There are so many people who have tied themselves to a very tired and old "republican" or "united Ireland" mast for the last 100 years or more. Now that we have dropped our territorial claim, we should be moving on forward and forgetting about the aspiration for a united Ireland. Those who get caught up in the wrongs of the past should be left in the past and the rhetoric left there with them.

I would love to see the 26-county Ireland for once stand proud on its own two feet and say that we don't need anything else to make us whole, we are great the way we are and move forward on that basis.

I wouldn't say totally forget the aspiration. But it should certainly be put on the long burner until they get their act together in the North. We don't need anything to make us whole, I think we've figured that out already, but one day, if they sort out their bigotry and sectarianism, and they can persuade a million unionists to give up their allegiance to Britain.

I won't hold my breath, though.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

. Less of the hysterics.

That's a cracker!

eire4

katydid wrote: »

If the taoiseach of my country is a man who condoned and covered up for child abuse, and/or if a terrorist supporting party who tolerate this individual come into any kind of power, I will, if I can, leave the country. The thought of that man and his hero worshippers having any influence over my life and my livelihood turns my stomach.

Irish governments may have turned a blind eye to abuse, but they did so in an abstract form, as did the vast majority of the population. Everyone knew it went on but no one was prepared to stand up and do something. This bears no comparison to the actions - or rather the failure to act - of a man who knew his niece had suffered abuse at the hands of his own brother. A man whose own father was an abuser and who knew the horrors of abuse allowed his brother to walk around free, working with vulnerable children. That is the lowest of the low in terms of behaviour. Even if he didn't have a dodgy terrorist past, his behaviour in this regard is despicable; yet he is supported, defended and idolised by his followers, which means they are equally vile.

The McAleese report shows that up until even 1996 the governement sent girls and women to work for nothing in the Magdelene Laundries despite knowing about the abuse many suffered there and how the women and girls were treated like slaves. That is direct involvement nothing abstract there. The Ryan report detailed sex abuse of children on an industrial scale which was sheer evil in my opinion. The report blamed the government for allowing the abuse to continue for decades with toothless inspections which deferred to the church and did not even make sure that the children had adequate food clothing and education. Again that is direct goverment involvement in abuse of a most evil nature.


So again are you going to leave the country as you originally stated given that our past governments knew and left so many of our fellow citizens to be abused physically, sexually and mentally for decades?

DeJa VooDoo

eire4 wrote: »

The McAleese report shows that up until even 1996 the governement sent girls and women to work for nothing in the Magdelene Laundries despite knowing about the abuse many suffered there and how the women and girls were treated like slaves. That is direct involvement nothing abstract there. The Ryan report detailed sex abuse of children on an industrial scale which was sheer evil in my opinion. The report blamed the government for allowing the abuse to continue for decades with toothless inspections which deferred to the church and did not even make sure that the children had adequate food clothing and education. Again that is direct goverment involvement in abuse of a most evil nature.


So again are you going to leave the country as you originally stated given that our past governments knew and left so many of our fellow citizens to be abused physically, sexually and mentally for decades?

Kenny's been a TD for 40 years.
Does anyone honestly believe he was never told of abuse happening in state institutions?
In 40 years?
It's not credible that he knew nothing of the allegations being made all that time.
Then again, kenny and credibility don't really go hand in hand, do they?

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

The McAleese report shows that up until even 1996 the governement sent girls and women to work for nothing in the Magdelene Laundries despite knowing about the abuse many suffered there and how the women and girls were treated like slaves. That is direct involvement nothing abstract there. The Ryan report detailed sex abuse of children on an industrial scale which was sheer evil in my opinion. The report blamed the government for allowing the abuse to continue for decades with toothless inspections which deferred to the church and did not even make sure that the children had adequate food clothing and education. Again that is direct goverment involvement in abuse of a most evil nature.


So again are you going to leave the country as you originally stated given that our past governments knew and left so many of our fellow citizens to be abused physically, sexually and mentally for decades?

I refer to my previous answer.

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

I wouldn't say totally forget the aspiration. But it should certainly be put on the long burner until they get their act together in the North. We don't need anything to make us whole, I think we've figured that out already, but one day, if they sort out their bigotry and sectarianism, and they can persuade a million unionists to give up their allegiance to Britain.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.
Sectarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I refer to my previous answer.

Ahh that would be the one where you started back tracking on your previous "I will leave Ireland" and changing it too "if I can" after your self righteous indignation about child abuse in regards to Gerry Adams but not having the same indignation when it comes to the industrial scale abuse and sheer evil which our own government was directly involved in according to the McAleese and Ryan reports. Never mind the mother and child home abuse which we are still learning about.
You hate Gerry Adams and that is an opinion your fully entitled to have. But at least try and be consistent when it comes to child abuse. Or is it that most of the victims that our own governments turned their backs on and allowed to be abused came mostly from disadvantaged and at risk backgrounds so no worries they don't really count. Is that your opinion as clearly it was the opinion of many in power in Ireland who knew what was happening.

The Golden Miller

Godge wrote: »

I agree with this. There are so many people who have tied themselves to a very tired and old "republican" or "united Ireland" mast for the last 100 years or more. Now that we have dropped our territorial claim, we should be moving on forward and forgetting about the aspiration for a united Ireland. Those who get caught up in the wrongs of the past should be left in the past and the rhetoric left there with them.

I would love to see the 26-county Ireland for once stand proud on its own two feet and say that we don't need anything else to make us whole, we are great the way we are and move forward on that basis.

We dropped our claim as a compromise, to move forward and away from violence, not because anyone voluntarily wanted to drop it.

You'd love that would you? What pride is there to be taken from a man made political creation? I don't identify with that. I'm Irish and identify with Ireland, the land I was born in, regardless of of any man made structure or imaginary borders put in place and regardless of anyone else who inhabits the land. So when you tell people you are Irish do you envisage and picture in your head of the country and it encompassing 32 counties, or do you envisage a 26 county political state? Being Irish predates and transcends any political entity, and it's Ireland I'm proud to be from, encompassing every piece of land sprawling to every coast. If you ask anyone to draw or picture the country they come from, their default setting will be to draw or picture all 32 counties. Why? Because they are Irish. I don't hear to many people shouting they are proud to be from the Republic or Ireland or 26 counties. No pride to be taken in that whatsoever. You only hear it from the likes of yourself, who place more pride in political agenda's over your country and all it encompasses

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.
Sectarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. And you're telling me this because...

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Ahh that would be the one where you started back tracking on your previous "I will leave Ireland" and changing it too "if I can" after your self righteous indignation about child abuse in regards to Gerry Adams but not having the same indignation when it comes to the industrial scale abuse and sheer evil which our own government was directly involved in according to the McAleese and Ryan reports. Never mind the mother and child home abuse which we are still learning about.
You hate Gerry Adams and that is an opinion your fully entitled to have. But at least try and be consistent when it comes to child abuse. Or is it that most of the victims that our own governments turned their backs on and allowed to be abused came mostly from disadvantaged and at risk backgrounds so no worries they don't really count. Is that your opinion as clearly it was the opinion of many in power in Ireland who knew what was happening.

It would be the one where you got your answer...

DeJa VooDoo

Just as well kenny and his labour lackey ran back across the border when the talks were taking place recently, it seems he's nothing but a hindrance to political and social progress in the 6 counties.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/32973

eire4

katydid wrote: »

It would be the one where you got your answer...

Ahhh so you will not address my point that our government has had decades of involvement in abuse of children and women on a massive scale as shown in both the McAleese and Ryan reports and I shudder to think of the horrors that await us with the mother and child homes.


Your lack of conststency on abuse is very clear to see. Most of those abused were from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds so maybe like many in power who clearly didn't think they mattered you have the same view point. Either way your lack of consistency is very clear.

K-9

Not a hope that this thread will get back to the topic at this stage.