...and in the darkness bind them

FTA69

The British Army were not "occupying their own country", that statement itself is an oxymoron. The British prescence here is rejected by the vast majority of Irish people both north and south, but to address your defenderist statement, the IRA resurgence in 1969 was forged amongst massive pogroms and ethnic cleansing by Loyalist mobs, when the British Army first came here they immediately targeted Nationalists as the root of the problem. They were and are here to put down any resistance to the status quo and as such attacking them is a defensive action in one's own country.

bonkey

FTA69 wrote:

The IRA's campaign by its very nature was defensive.

No, it wasn't.

The IRA were (and are?) seeking to re-obtain control of the 6 counties from the British, not prevent the British from seizing them. So, at best, their campaign was insurgent or rebellious, but it certainly wasn't defensive.....

Not only that, but considering that the IRA were (and are?) not seeking to re-establish what came before, they most certainly aren't defending our old national structure either.

The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

Indeed, I should go further and point out that the IRA typically refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government of the Republic of Ireland, so it would be more correct to say that (were this always the case) the IRA operated with a mind to overthrowing two existant systems, with a mind to bringing about a third new vision.

Sorry, but thats just not defensive. Individual actions may be construed as defensive in nature, but the overall campaign, aims, and so on cannot honestly be.

hc



jc

FTA69

bonkey wrote:

The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

The IRA does not seek to create "a new nation", nations consist of people and the Irish nation cannot be changed by anyone. However you are correct in your assertion that the IRA seek to create a new system of administration in Ireland, ie one that includes the entire Irish nation.

You are however incorrect in your assertion that no governmental precedent for this has ever existed, the Dáil of 1918 was elected by the Irish people as a unit and the core Republican principle is that of national self-determination ie the Irish people acting as one in order to determine their own political destiny. The goal of the Republcian Movement is indeed what you stated it is, but this goal stems from a defensive reaction to remove the British prescence.

Stabshauptmann

bonkey wrote:

No, it wasn't.

The IRA were (and are?) seeking to re-obtain control of the 6 counties from the British, not prevent the British from seizing them. So, at best, their campaign was insurgent or rebellious, but it certainly wasn't defensive.....

The PIRA was founded after a split within what we know call the OIRA because the defence of nationalist communities had been so neglected under the Goulding (sp?) era. Its early life consisted entirely of defence so it is fair to call them a defensive organisation.

Not only that, but considering that the IRA were (and are?) not seeking to re-establish what came before, they most certainly aren't defending our old national structure either.
The IRA, under the notion of fighting for a "Free" Ireland are seeking to establish a political structure which never existed before. They are seeking to create a new nation, with a new government. That is not defensive in any way, shape or form.

Of course they arent defending the ROI from british invasion, noone is claming they are, but thats a very narrow interpretaion of defence you are taking.

And while it might be convenient to argue that the IRA were protecting the people from a system which discriminated based on religion or political leanings, the simple truth is that this was never the goal of their actions. The goal was to overthrow the existant system, with a mind to bringing about a new vision for the country.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence. Im basing this claim on the links between periods of increased rioting and unionist agitation and increases in membership of the PIRA and also on statements by volunteers in "A secret history of the IRA".

Indeed, I should go further and point out that the IRA typically refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government of the Republic of Ireland, so it would be more correct to say that (were this always the case) the IRA operated with a mind to overthrowing two existant systems, with a mind to bringing about a third new vision.

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.


Strangly enough I was expecting the Shinners to ruin this thread but I was very much mistaken.

OfflerCrocGod, the reason I break down the subject is to stop one blagrent NO because I believe that through a rational debate based on departmentalisation and logic most ppl will come to a high level of agreement (but not a total one).
You refuse to participate fully, why? Is it because you are simply going on gut here and dont actually have a rational reason for your stance. If you dont want to do this rationally, fine, but please dont ruin it for those of us who do.
One point you made was that terror solves nothing and I think is_that_so but it perfectly, what Im trying to do here is win ppl over to the paradim of freedom fighter not terrorist, and to do that Ive a lot to say about the histoy of war and comparing the PIRA's record to that of the British and american armies.

Sparks, I see you havent really been able to refute my last post, I rather expecte you would, there are holes in my arguement, but if you are happy with my answers ti question one would you like to move onto question 2?

Sleepy

It's not an oxymoron in this sense as Northern Ireland is a colony of the British Empire. The British presence north of the border is hardly rejected by the majority of the Northern Irish people (or else they'd have gone home long ago) and to be honest what those of us residing in the Republic of Ireland feel about their presence is largely irrelevant.

dictionary.com wrote:

Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.

The IRA may seek to create one nation out of two, but at present there are two nations on this island.

You are however incorrect in your assertion that no governmental precedent for this has ever existed, the Dáil of 1918 was elected by the Irish people as a unit

The Dáil of 1918 was a government without a country (from the point of view of the UN and the international community) and therefore not a legal government. I know the IRA claim their tenuous link to being an "army" (rather than a well organised gang) from this fabled government but ungortunately, when a "government" doesn't possess a country, it can't be claimed to be legal.

FTA69 wrote:

The IRA's campaign by its very nature was defensive.

Re-itterating this will not make it true.

It has been pointed out to you a number of times at this stage that the campaign displays few, if any, of the traits of a defensive action yet you still peddle this line. Are you that attached to your organisation's dogma or simply incapable of tackling the arguments that dismiss it?

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

The PIRA was founded after a split within what we know call the OIRA because the defence of nationalist communities had been so neglected under the Goulding (sp?) era. Its early life consisted entirely of defence so it is fair to call them a defensive organisation.

No. It's fair to say that their early life was as a defensive organisation. They lost that title when they first attacked others.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence. Im basing this claim on the links between periods of increased rioting and unionist agitation and increases in membership of the PIRA and also on statements by volunteers in "A secret history of the IRA".

Funny, my reading of the same book gave me the impression that after the intial issue of defense in the late 60's those involved were carrying out their attacks from the position of ignorance, blood-lust and revenge.

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.

Necromancer's right on this issue, Bonkey.

Stabshauptmann

Sleepy wrote:

No. It's fair to say that their early life was as a defensive organisation. They lost that title when they first attacked others.


Funny, my reading of the same book gave me the impression that after the intial issue of defense in the late 60's those involved were carrying out their attacks from the position of ignorance, blood-lust and revenge.


Necromancer's right on this issue, Bonkey.

What I got from that post was that you agree that for most origionaly it was a matter of defence and then it progressed onto something more? Id agree to that, but what I want to establish that it was at first a defensive organisation (for the vast majority) and I want to link this to question one.

Then to move onto question two, you would immediatly say no because they went after a fight? And also because their strategies factored into civilian loss of life, that in a lot of cases it was intentional as a means to an end?

Have I taken this up right (my next post will be based on these assumption)?

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

It's not an oxymoron in this sense as Northern Ireland is a colony of the British Empire. The British presence north of the border is hardly rejected by the majority of the Northern Irish people (or else they'd have gone home long ago) and to be honest what those of us residing in the Republic of Ireland feel about their presence is largely irrelevant.

The IRA may seek to create one nation out of two, but at present there are two nations on this island.

The Dáil of 1918 was a government without a country (from the point of view of the UN and the international community) and therefore not a legal government. I know the IRA claim their tenuous link to being an "army" (rather than a well organised gang) from this fabled government but ungortunately, when a "government" doesn't possess a country, it can't be claimed to be legal.

Re-itterating this will not make it true.

It has been pointed out to you a number of times at this stage that the campaign displays few, if any, of the traits of a defensive action yet you still peddle this line. Are you that attached to your organisation's dogma or simply incapable of tackling the arguments that dismiss it?

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant, partition was forced on the Irish people against their democratic wish and remains today against the wishes of the Irish people. What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Regards the Dáil, I don't understand your assertion that it "didn't have a country", it very much so "had a country". That country was Ireland, a country whose people voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independent Republic. You somehow seem to think that the remit of a foreign, colonial government with no democratic mandate from the people of Ireland was somehow "legitimate" and that the democratically elected representation of the Irish people themselves was "illegal", how can you justify this?

Finally, you claim the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action, what about the defence of the Short Strand from Loyalist mobs throughout the war? Or the establishment of barricades to keep out the British Army and RUC? The British Army and RUC's raison d'etre was to subjugate the Nationalist people so any targeting of them was by its nature, a defensive action?

Oggy Doggy

Sleepy wrote:

3) This is impossible to argue really as it calls entirely for speculation. I'd imagine that had the IRA not begun a bombing campaign and had they stuck to being purely a defending force, the international community would have been swifter to drag the British government to a negotiating table. However, that's just my opinion, and it's no more/less valid than anyone elses.

Actually the international community could not enter into the conflict because as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Britain vetoed any involvement in the matter. This was their right and they did it!

Sleepy

Necromancer wrote:

What I got from that post was that you agree that for most origionaly it was a matter of defence and then it progressed onto something more? Id agree to that, but what I want to establish that it was at first a defensive organisation (for the vast majority) and I want to link this to question one.

Then to move onto question two, you would immediatly say no because they went after a fight? And also because their strategies factored into civilian loss of life, that in a lot of cases it was intentional as a means to an end?

Have I taken this up right (my next post will be based on these assumption)?

You have me right entirely.

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

A colony of a country means it's their property. Therefore it was their "own" country to occupy.

FTA69 wrote:

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant

So because they don't agree with you their opinion is irrelevant?

What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Quite frankly, I think it would. People have a right to self-determination or at least a say in how their future is determined. Your statements above clearly indicate that you don't respect that right.

Regards the Dáil, I don't understand your assertion that it "didn't have a country", it very much so "had a country". That country was Ireland, a country whose people voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of an independent Republic. You somehow seem to think that the remit of a foreign, colonial government with no democratic mandate from the people of Ireland was somehow "legitimate" and that the democratically elected representation of the Irish people themselves was "illegal", how can you justify this?

Because, at the time, Britain were the legal rulers of Ireland and had been for centuries.

Finally, you claim the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action

Find where I said "the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action" and I'll retract it.

The British Army and RUC's raison d'etre was to subjugate the Nationalist people so any targeting of them was by its nature, a defensive action?

I think you know how stupid a statment this is yourself by the very fact you placed a question mark after your own point.

Stabshauptmann

FTA69 wrote:

So on one hand you declare that the British Army were simply stationed in "their own country" ie implying the 6 Counties was exactly the same country as England but on the other hand you declare that the 6 Counties is a "colony of the British Empire". Which is it? Because those two statements are two very different things. Were the British justified in sending troops into India as it was a "British colony"? Or Kenya? Or Cyprus? Or any other country they invaded and subsequently brutalised?

The proportions of the populations considering themselves british is the key difference between NI and your examples.

The fact that a local majority in the 6 Counties wish to retain the status quo is irrelevant, partition was forced on the Irish people against their democratic wish and remains today against the wishes of the Irish people. What if Leitrim voted to set up its own independent state? Would the wishes of the rest of the Irish people become "irrelevant"?

Peoples republic of Cork, LNA ?

FTA69

Sleepy wrote:

A colony of a country means it's their property. Therefore it was their "own" country to occupy.

So because they don't agree with you their opinion is irrelevant?

Quite frankly, I think it would. People have a right to self-determination or at least a say in how their future is determined. Your statements above clearly indicate that you don't respect that right.

Because, at the time, Britain were the legal rulers of Ireland and had been for centuries.

Find where I said "the IRA campaign displays no examples of defensive action" and I'll retract it.

I think you know how stupid a statment this is yourself by the very fact you placed a question mark after your own point.

First of all you stated that the "IRA campaign displays few if any traits of a defensive action".

Secondly, I ask you do you suscribe to the notion of "ownership of countries"? As when a stronger country dominates another does the weaker subject become the "property" of another? What I see in that scenario is the right to self-determination being trampled, a concept later on in your post you state people "have a right to". If your answer to the above is "no" well the you are contradicting your support for the status quo in Ireland to remain.

"Irrelevant" was perhaps the worng word to use when refferring to Unionism, it is relevant as it forms 20% of the Irish nation but it certainly does not have the right to transcend the wish of the rest of country.

Regards the Dáil, Britain was not the "legal" ruler of Ireland as we never elected them as our rulers did we? By your logic the USSR was the legal ruler of Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Simply because a super-power dominates a region for centuries does not equate with it being right. The only legitimate government to claim jurisdiction over Ireland was the Dáil as that was the only body with a democratic mandate, again you are contradicting your own statement that "everyone had a right to self-determination."

Regards the IRA campaign, the question mark was a typo. Are you then denying that the British Army and RUC's role was to suppress the rebellious part of the colony? Or do you suscribe to the myth that the poor brits were piggy in the middle between the mad warring paddies?

OfflerCrocGod

Necromancer wrote:

OfflerCrocGod, the reason I break down the subject is to stop one blagrent NO because I believe that through a rational debate based on departmentalisation and logic most ppl will come to a high level of agreement (but not a total one).

I came to a level of agreement. NO.

You refuse to participate fully, why? Is it because you are simply going on gut here and dont actually have a rational reason for your stance. If you dont want to do this rationally, fine, but please dont ruin it for those of us who do.
One point you made was that terror solves nothing and I think is_that_so but it perfectly,

There is very little to participate in - you believe slaughtering and terrorizing and drugdealing etc.. are all fine activities - I don't. The rest I can't even understand.

what Im trying to do here is win ppl over to the paradim of freedom fighter not terrorist, and to do that Ive a lot to say about the histoy of war and comparing the PIRA's record to that of the British and american armies.

I call a spade a spade. Don't compare scumbags to the Allied armies during WWII it's disrespectful to those people who fought and died in WWII. Also don't compare the Brits to Hitler and Fascism; it's like comparing George Bush to Hitler - absolute and total rubbish.

Sparks, I see you havent really been able to refute my last post, I rather expecte you would, there are holes in my arguement, but if you are happy with my answers ti question one would you like to move onto question 2?

There is no argument here, you just want to tell the politics forum that the [STRIKE]Irish mafia[/STRIKE] IRA are fine by you. That trying to bring down two democratic goverments and replacing them with your own socialist goverment by means of brutal terror and crime is just fine.
Go and have a family member blow up for no reason.
Go and have a family member shot for no reason.
Go and have a family member savagely beaten for no reason.
Go and have a family member exiled from the country for no reason.
Then come back and tell me how fantastic they are. Freedom fighters my fat ass.

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

.I call a spade a spade. Don't compare scumbags to the Allied armies during WWII it's disrespectful to those people who fought and died in WWII.

Actually you could easily compare the IRA to the Allied armies. You seem to state that killing people for no reason is wrong, have I misconstrued your statements here?

If you DO in fact believe this, then you must hold the Allied armies to the same standards as you do the IRA, for the Allied armies attacked Dresden and killed over 100,000 innocent civilians. And the US attacked Hiroshima, a city of little to no military importance, killing over 100,000 innocent civilians.

Taking what you have said into account, then the Allied armies must be scumbags because they killed innocent civilians for no reason.

Now this is not my opinion at all. I'm just trying to make sense of yours.

Johnny_the_fox

gdiddy361 wrote:

And the US attacked Hiroshima, a city of little to no military importance, killing over 100,000 innocent civilians.

did Japan not bomb Pearl Harbor first.. which got the US involved in the world war in the first place??????

JohnK

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

did Japan not bomb Pearl Harbor first.. which got the US involved in the world war in the first place??????

That’s irrelevant. There is no justification for attacking civilian targets.

is_that_so

I find it unsurpising that these conversations are still so heavily couched in either proto-socialist garbage or anachronistic 19th century temrinology. Proof yet again that we are incapable of moving beyond antiquated notions. Reminds me of a quote appropriate here , alas I forget who from , which says, "we remember well our history but little understand it".

Johnny_the_fox

JohnK wrote:

That’s irrelevant. There is no justification for attacking civilian targets.

irrelevant as in.. a loyalist group leaving a bomb outside a gaa ground or attacking a chapel then??

OfflerCrocGod

gdiddy361 wrote:

Actually you could easily compare the IRA to the Allied armies. You seem to state that killing people for no reason is wrong, have I misconstrued your statements here?

I hope you are kidding me. If it is a joke then it's a bad one. You need to brush up on your WWII history if you think the allies decided to assault Europe "for no reason". That is possibly the single dumbest statement I have ever read on the Internet. The Brits aren't jackbooted Nazis - although you would love them to be as it would help hatred spread quicker and easier. The IRA is simply a collection of criminal gangs that's all - drugs, arms, robbery, intimidation etc. they are not "freedom fighters". Violence will not achieve anything good, even Mr Adams now knows this.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams has now reportedly told senior party colleagues that they should accept the latest proposals to revive power-sharing .[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]......[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A Downing Street spokesman said it is significant that Mr Paisley has said he is prepared to go into government with Sinn Féin if decommissioning were addressed.[/font]

Doesn't sound much like [STRIKE]terrorist[/STRIKE] freedom fighter talk to me.

is_that_so wrote:

I find it unsurpising that these conversations are still so heavily couched in either proto-socialist garbage or anachronistic 19th century temrinology. Proof yet again that we are incapable of moving beyond antiquated notions. Reminds me of a quote appropriate here , alas I forget who from , which says, "we remember well our history but little understand it".

Yes..........and what are you suggesting instead? Oh wait nothing. Well other then some well known aphorisms. " Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" - who's writing the garbage?

helpdogscat

All I'd say is that all of you talking about terrorist scum are living in a state created by terrorist scum and appear to be happy to do so, I don't understand ?, if you felt so strongly as you appear to, surely it is time to move to the mainland ?

sceptre

helpdogscat wrote:

if you felt so strongly as you appear to, surely it is time to move to the mainland ?

Ah but there's nothing but [strike]Frenchies and Sauerkraut-eating loons[/strike]invading and marauding Saxons there

I assumed by "mainland" you meant the large island to the east of us, though I think of it as the continent myself]

Couldn't a happy agnostic/atheist like myself with a sortofCatholicish girlfriend move to Belfast for a better life and the best of both worlds and no accusations of being in a state set up or dominated by terrorists and no need to pay a TV licence? Isn't there a place in this cruel cruel world for that kind of thing?

helpdogscat

sceptre wrote:

I assumed by "mainland" you meant the large island to the east of us, though I think of it as the continent myself?

not me, the persona I have assumed, I am imagining myself as all proper, with a triple barrel name, a Sunday Indo under my oxster, and haughty indignation as my greatest weapon

Couldn't a happy agnostic/atheist like myself with a sortofCatholicish girlfriend move to Belfast for a better life and the best of both worlds and no accusations of being in a state set up or dominated by terrorists and no need to pay a TV licence? Isn't there a place in this cruel flag-ridden Ulster fry world for that kind of thing?

uh, its cold up there mate

bonkey

Necromancer wrote:

Your information is slightly out of date. This was the case certainly with the OIRA and for a while with the PIRA but since Adams joined the army council this position has been reversed, hence SF participation in the Dáil.

Your question was posed around a timeframe spanning from well before the position has reversed. A timeframe when - by this answer - the situation was exactly what I outlined (although I shouldn't have used the current tense in the answer)

Given that WW2 has already been mentioned, this logic would be akin to saying that the German atrocities in WW2 weren't actually anything unacceptable because if you look at Germany today its not aggressively againt those it took mortal exception to 50-odd years ago.

Well that would all depend on who you asked wouldnt it, whether you are talking about the leadership or the grass roots volunteers, the bulk of the oranisation for whom it was simply a matter of defence.

Not really. What the bulk of the organisation thought they were fighting for doesn't actually mean much in terms of casting judgement on the goals and strategies. Foot-soldiers do not form policy, generals do. You cant judge policy (in my opinion) on the basis of what those who followed it thought they were doing. You can only judge it on the basis of what it was intended to do. Indeed, if part of that policy involved duplicity, i.e. keeping from the grass-roots volunteers what the real aims were, and rather allowing them to believe something else.....that would suggest even more strongly that the grass-roots belief categorically did not reflect the aims, policies, etc. of the organisation.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I came to a level of agreement. NO.
...
There is very little to participate in
...

For a man who believe's there is so little to participate in, you seem to be terribly interested in participating. Indeed, I'd go further and say that you seem to be terribly interested not in participating, but in telling us why you're not interested in participating.

Enough. We get it already. If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then don't. Just leave it alone for those who are interested.

jc

jc

gdiddy361

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

I hope you are kidding me. If it is a joke then it's a bad one. You need to brush up on your WWII history if you think the allies decided to assault Europe "for no reason". That is possibly the single dumbest statement I have ever read on the Internet. The Brits aren't jackbooted Nazis - although you would love them to be as it would help hatred spread quicker and easier.

Actually it wasn't a joke. In the respect that the Allies killed innocent civilians for NO REASON (yes, no reason. There is no justification for fire-bombing Dresden for four days straight.) they are like the IRA. that's the ONLY comparison I was trying to make.

Actually I wouldn't love the Brits to be jackbooted Nazis. I don't want Hatred spread quicker and easier. I have no hatred of the British, I only disagree with the way they've handled their occupation of Northern Ireland. And you trying to put words in my mouth and assign me motives that you have NO clue whether I actually have them is ridiculous. It only shows that your main rhetorical strategy is to resort to ad hominim attacks. It really doesn't help your position at all to use those kind of attacks. Let's debate on a purely intellectual plane shall we?

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote:

First of all you stated that the "IRA campaign displays few if any traits of a defensive action".

Well done, you quoted me correctly this time. The IRA began as a defensive organisation yes, I've agreed with you on that already. However, once they began planting car bombs, setting up mortar attacks and using incendiary devices they were no longer defensive. All three are offensive military tactics so I don't think they become defensive when used by terrorists. Or am I mistaken? :rolleyes:

Secondly, I ask you do you suscribe to the notion of "ownership of countries"? As when a stronger country dominates another does the weaker subject become the "property" of another?

It's been pretty much accepted since Roman times, yes.

What I see in that scenario is the right to self-determination being trampled, a concept later on in your post you state people "have a right to". If your answer to the above is "no" well the you are contradicting your support for the status quo in Ireland to remain.

Yes, people have a right to self-determination, exactly what you wish to deny the people of Northern Ireland. Or, those that don't agree with you at least.

"Irrelevant" was perhaps the worng word to use when refferring to Unionism, it is relevant as it forms 20% of the Irish nation but it certainly does not have the right to transcend the wish of the rest of country.

Get this into your head: the island of Ireland is not now, nor never has it been a single, unified, self-determining nation state. Northern Ireland has every right to ignore the wishes of the Republic of Ireland. We're a separate country to them. And in their country, that 20% of the population of the island of Ireland constitutes a slight majority. Irrelevant couldn't have been FURTHER from the right word!

Regards the Dáil, Britain was not the "legal" ruler of Ireland as we never elected them as our rulers did we? By your logic the USSR was the legal ruler of Afghanistan, Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Simply because a super-power dominates a region for centuries does not equate with it being right. The only legitimate government to claim jurisdiction over Ireland was the Dáil as that was the only body with a democratic mandate, again you are contradicting your own statement that "everyone had a right to self-determination."

No, we never elected them our leaders because when we invited them in (remember that, it was an Irishman that invited in the British?) the concept of democracy was unknown in this part of the world. Ireland was, by every map, international treaty or document written until the early part of the last century to be a part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, yes, Britain was the legal ruler of this Island.

Regards the IRA campaign, the question mark was a typo. Are you then denying that the British Army and RUC's role was to suppress the rebellious part of the colony? Or do you suscribe to the myth that the poor brits were piggy in the middle between the mad warring paddies?

The British Army's "Raison D'Etre" (your words not mine) is to protect the sovereignty of the British nation. The RUC's "Raison D'Etre" was to impose the law of the land in Northern Ireland. Again, I'll remind you that the British Army were initially brought into Northern Ireland in an attempt to end the pogroms being carried out by the Unionists. I'd also suggest that the IRA only became a major target for the British Army once the provos started going on the offensive. I love the way you SF'ers continuously point out the British Army's shoot-to-kill policy for IRA members, as if the IRA had a shoot-to-tickle policy with regards the army :rolleyes:

The British Army and RUC did indeed become forces trying to supress the 1 or 2% of the Northern population taking part in your "rebellion". This is however, irrelevant to your facetious argument that the IRA's campaign was defensive in nature. You cannot describe a campaing that involves planting bombs and incendiary devices, ambushing off-duty soldiers, terrorises civilians and non-combatants, robs banks, commits crimes, runs vigilante gangs and kidnaps for ransom as a "defensive" campaign. It's guerilla warfare combined with terrorism, crime and intimidation. It's about as far from it's origins as a defenderist movement as the organisation could have got.

Sleepy

gdiddy361 wrote:

Actually it wasn't a joke. In the respect that the Allies killed innocent civilians for NO REASON (yes, no reason. There is no justification for fire-bombing Dresden for four days straight.) they are like the IRA. that's the ONLY comparison I was trying to make.

Go study your WW2 History. In particular read up on the more recent studies of the Allies actions vis-a-vis Dresden. You might notice the phrase "Goebbels last great victory" bandied about.

gdiddy361

Sleepy wrote:

Go study your WW2 History. In particular read up on the more recent studies of the Allies actions vis-a-vis Dresden. You might notice the phrase "Goebbels last great victory" bandied about.

Obviously you must have read up on this history, do you know of a good resource where I can find out more. Or are you willing to simply explain what you mean by that phrase?

Regardless of why Dresden was bombed, the point to which I was responding was one where the IRA is automatically labelled as illegitimate because they killed innocent civilians. My point was simply to say that if this is the only action that needs to be taken to be labelled illegitiamte, then every single army, including those of the Allies, mmust be illegitimate. That's it.... No one has responded to this point yet....

bonkey

gdiddy361 wrote:

My point was simply to say that if this is the only action that needs to be taken to be labelled illegitiamte, then every single army, including those of the Allies, mmust be illegitimate. That's it.... No one has responded to this point yet....

I'm unsure as to what you're trying to say though?

Are you saying that - should this comparison hold true - that we should consider all armies illegitimate on account of the atrocities they have performed?

Or are you saying that comitting atrocities is ok for armies to do, and that seeing as we accept it from established armies, we should also accept it from the IRA?

Personally, I'm all for condemning anyone who commits atrocities. If that involves admitting that our "heroes" of the past have done some terrible things, then fine....I'll take fewer heroes thanks.

One way or the other, the notion that "you haven't condemned X for this act, so then it shouldn't be condemnable when done by others" is not one I would generally favour. I would prefer to see standards raised to the highest level, not lowered to the lowest common denominator.

jc

Mad Cyril

Get this into your head: the island of Ireland is not now, nor never has it been a single, unified, self-determining nation state.

Incorrect.