IRA to lay down arms

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Blair is a murderer, but I don't see anyone saying he can't be Prime Minister.

Begin, Rabin, and Sharon were all terrorists at one time.

menachem begin waited 30 years from his last affiliation with a terrorist organization (without going into the details of what the Irgun did and how it compares to the IRA, a deadly threadjack) till he became PM. Same wait for Gerry Adams?

Sharon and Rabin were terrorists? Where did you get that from?

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: no kidding

Originally posted by MarkG
so perhaps you propose to have a system where each of us is subject to the decision of a democratically appointed committee of apolytoners which decides on what kinds of issues we can post about?

Currently it is a non-democratic committee of one ( that one being you ) . But I'd hather have you as sole member rather than let some of the other inmates get on the committee .

[MarkG]

actually it's a very democratic committee of two (me and dan)
decisions are taken by a president (we take weekly turns) but all actions are ratified by a bi-weekly session of the committee

[Bereta_Eder]

reading this thread title always remindes me of the song
baby lay down your arms param param

[our_man]

Anyway the RUC know that if they try to "discriminate" against the Catholics the whole neighbourhood will go up in flames.

Freudian slip? Or nostalgia perhaps? It's the PSNI nowadays chum.

Unionists hate Republicans because they killed thousands of Unionists and the Republicans hate the Unionists because the Unionists retaliated.

The PIRA came about due to the fact that no-one was willing to defend Catholics in the North. Sadly it didn't take them long to abandon their original purpose and stoop to the level of the B specials and their ilk. It was because the Unionists persecuted Catholics and denied them civil rights that the Republicans retaliated through violence. This is what you must understand - the PIRA would never have grown if the Unionists had not laid the foundations for it. You even said the British army was sent in to protect Catholics - this was because even London realized that the Unionists were running riot up there. As to your other statements with regard to the pre-Troubles situation, it seems that we have a difference of opinion (as do many other posters) with your definition of 'relatively well'.

So Saxonking and Cockney, since you both seem to affirm the democratic process, I have one serious, final question for both of you: if, within the next 25 years say, a referendum were held in the North and it voted to rejoin the South, would you accept it?

I've met Protestants who believed that Catholics in Eire and the Six Counties were dark haired because their ancestors slept with shipwrecked Spanish sailors from the Armada, and so on, ad nauseam.

Maybe an element of truth... People on Ireland's West Coast, especially around Galway, are meant to be darker - this is because Galway used to be a major trading port with Spain and well, sailors being sailors...

[SaxonKing]

Freudian slip? Or nostalgia perhaps? It's the PSNI nowadays chum.

So it is.

The PIRA came about due to the fact that no-one was willing to defend Catholics in the North. Sadly it didn't take them long to abandon their original purpose and stoop to the level of the B specials and their ilk. It was because the Unionists persecuted Catholics and denied them civil rights that the Republicans retaliated through violence. This is what you must understand - the PIRA would never have grown if the Unionists had not laid the foundations for it. You even said the British army was sent in to protect Catholics - this was because even London realized that the Unionists were running riot up there. As to your other statements with regard to the pre-Troubles situation, it seems that we have a difference of opinion (as do many other posters) with your definition of 'relatively well'.

And unionist men wouldnt have swelled the ranks of the loyalist paramilitaries if it wasn't for IRA violence. It doesn't matter who stated it or who is responsible, what matters is the present and the future. Also the IRA in the recent years did not fight against Catholic discrimination but rather to Unite NI and EIRE against the wishes of the democratic majority. A generation of Unionists have grown up who did nothing to the Catholics, had no hand in their discrimination and see themselves as the victims, alone and betrayed. Betrayed by the London and attacked through the constant stream of money pouring into the IRA's hands from the "Irish" abroad.

So Saxonking and Cockney, since you both seem to affirm the democratic process, I have one serious, final question for both of you: if, within the next 25 years say, a referendum were held in the North and it voted to rejoin the South, would you accept it?

I would not be happy about it but we must accept it, we must however seek the best deal possible for the Unionists and give them dual citizenship, we must offer the Unionists help in establishing themselves on mainland Britain if they decide to leave NI and we must be ready to defend them if the Republicans do not live up to their promises of peace.

It would be quite funny though if the Unionist para militaries started targeting the "Irish" abroad that have funded the attacks on their community for decades, true justice.

[our_man]

It would be quite funny though if the Unionist para militaries started targeting the "Irish" abroad that have funded the attacks on their community for decades, true justice.

No, it wouldn't. I don't like the IRA or their supporters either, but to suggest you would find something like this funny betrays your true character. You're just as bad as the bigots on both sides of the divide in the North.

[Agathon]

[q]I think you'll find they already are there. I had no idea that you were such a fan of repatriation of ethnic/religious minorities.[/quote]

I'm not. That's not what I said. If they are so desperate to be British, they can move to Britain. If not, they can live in a unified Ireland.

Enoch Powell

[SaxonKing]

No, it wouldn't. I don't like the IRA or their supporters either, but to suggest you would find something like this funny betrays your true character. You're just as bad as the bigots on both sides of the divide in the North.

Thats your opinion. From my point of view the bastards that funded the people that shot at me, the people that killed one of my best mates and the people that killed thousands of innocent civillians and soldiers are even worse than the terrorists themselves. They are a bunch of cowards, if they belive in the cause so much why not come over and fight for it yourself instead of funding the murder of thousands of innocents while they sit in their comfy chairs, safe from harm and far away from the consequences of their actions.
It would indeed be nice to show them what they have been funding firsthand.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Clearly what we need to do is to establish what the "save point" is for the world's borders, and return to that point. For those arguing for re-introduction of a single state covering the entire land mass of Ireland, we're cleary looking at turning back the clock by centuries.

Naturally, it would have to be universally applied across all nations. We can't be unfair about this, after all. Are we all agreed then?

Americans?

Australians?

New Zealanders?

[C0ckney]

this is something you might know laz. has ireland ever been united as one country (kingdom etc.), except under english or british rule?

i can't think of a time since we got involved there, but i don't know much about british history before the norman conquest.

[our_man]

Naturally, it would have to be universally applied across all nations. We can't be unfair about this, after all. Are we all agreed then?

Why not? As long as there's a democratic majority that wants it. There would probably be one or two exceptions, as there are other factors that might come into play, but I say give Tibet back to the Tibetans, among many others.

I personally stated that I don't really care either way. But if in the future the majority population of NI wants to join with Ireland, I say let them. I presume from your statement that if there ever were a democratic referendum that united NI with the Republic, you'd disregard it?

[our_man]

this is something you might know laz. has ireland ever been united as one country (kingdom etc.), except under english or british rule?

In common with most European countries during the early part of the 2nd millenium, Ireland lacked a strong central government, and I don't think you could ever consider the island 'united' in the modern sense of the world. Brian Boru was High King of Ireland however during the final Viking invasions, and he commanded as much power as his English counterpart at that time. Foreign invasions and plantations prevented Ireland from really developing a political unity.

I'm not too familiar with Irish history in the 17th century, but the island was probably united during the Confederate Ireland period, with it's capital at Kilkenny, before it was crushed by Oliver Cromwell. A large part of the country also stood behind Hugh O'Neill and Hugh O'Donnell at the beginning of that century.

[lord of the mark]

a different perspective. I think its a big issue when a people that has a distinctive national identity, is denied a state (surprise!!!) While statehood is not always possible in such cases, i think the international system should lean in that direction, esp when there are real historic claims, etc, etc.

That is what is strikingly NOT the issue in Northern Ireland. On either side. The loyalists demand to remain in the UK. They dont demand it so hard that they think moving to London or Edinburgh is a real solution - yet not even the wildest irish nationalist lays claim to london, and so they would be pretty safe there. Similarly for all the longing to be part of an Irish Republic, the republicans of the North dont move en masse to Dublin, the capital of an economically thriving, democratic, Irish Republic.

The demographic issue would look a lot different if, over the decades of the 20th c , there had been mass migration from say, Scotland to Ulster. But there hasnt been. And why would there be? A UK loyal Protestant Scot, or borderer, or whatever, has no particular reason to leave island of Great Britain. Which makes one wonder why such folks need the particular land of Ulster to maintain their national identity.

Both sides have viable states - this is just a brawl over a border, over which side among the NI locals gets to stay and enjoy its national identity without moving, and which has to face the choice of living as a minority or moving. Which makes killing over it, just that much harder to fathom.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
[q]I think you'll find they already are there. I had no idea that you were such a fan of repatriation of ethnic/religious minorities.

I'm not. That's not what I said. If they are so desperate to be British, they can move to Britain. If not, they can live in a unified Ireland.

Enoch Powell [/QUOTE]


Yes it is. They are already British, and in 'Britain' or the United Kingdom.

'Twas a Freudian slip on your part, methinks.


In any case, given that some of the Unionists have roots going back 400 years, this is ultimately as absurd as expecting all non-native peoples to leave the U.S., Australia, South Africa and South America.


Ain't gonna happen.