The Age of the Ring (Lord of the Rings) Forum

Off Topic Section => World Events => Topic started by: Waelith on October 06, 2005, 01:30:10 AM

Title: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Waelith on October 06, 2005, 01:30:10 AM
What about a topic about Northern Ireland? Should it be independent, stay part of the United Kingdom, or join with the Republic of Ireland?
Please cast your votes. Thank you. :)

(edit: It looks as though the votes are for a topic, and not against it. So I will just leave this thread open for you to discuss Northern Ireland...

Any indecent, or intolerable behaviour will cause this thread to be locked/deleted.

You have been warned... :)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 06, 2005, 01:59:46 AM
i really couldnt be arsed with it, if it goes ahead ill participate but id go on an extreme rant at times, rivaling edge's 'books' :P :P :P

ps - toicfaidh ar la.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jezebel on October 06, 2005, 03:43:01 AM
I'd like to see it discussed...

Seeing as this is a discussion board, there are always two sides to a discussion so peoples, if you feel you have something to say then do.  It's your opinion but please please PLEASE be aware that someone may say something you won't like...it always happens on this board and if you feel you don't want it to continue, then feel free to contact any of us and we'll stop the discussion right away.

We don't want anyone to get upset over things so please think about what you say before you say it...
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 07, 2005, 01:43:12 AM
I'd like to see it discussed...

Seeing as this is a discussion board, there are always two sides to a discussion so peoples, if you feel you have something to say then do. It's your opinion but please please PLEASE be aware that someone may say something you won't like...it always happens on this board and if you feel you don't want it to continue, then feel free to contact any of us and we'll stop the discussion right away.

We don't want anyone to get upset over things so please think about what you say before you say it...

I agree, Jezz.

I also think that people who may not necessarily want to discuss it don't have to, and can just ignore it. (And those voting are effectively spoiling it for those who do.)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 07, 2005, 02:14:48 AM
Only reason why I'm against it is because I couldn't be arsed with the arguement. However I'm a passionate Irish-Republican and will argue my case! 8)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 07, 2005, 04:07:49 AM
I'm for it and will argue for a united Ireland, but I've also got views on power sharing and what happens if Britain where to hand NI over.

Go for it like.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Elfy on October 07, 2005, 04:40:32 AM
I don't see why we shouldn't discuss it. I don't have overly strong views on the subject but I think it would make a great debate.  :)

Jim your sig disturbs me  :8o
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 08, 2005, 01:05:48 AM
It's bloody class.

But right, IRA decommisioning, and the DUP rejection, views.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 08, 2005, 03:07:04 AM
Theres no solution to this problem cause whteva the government does theres gunna b a losing group, which could lead to more terrorism.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 08, 2005, 09:51:11 PM
Define Northern Irish terrorism....

One mans terrorist, is anothers freedom fighter. The IRA were my freedom fighters.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 08, 2005, 11:53:55 PM
Define Northern Irish terrorism....

One who kills many others
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 09, 2005, 12:01:13 AM
The IRA army council has never, ever ordered the blatent killing of civillians. It just so happens that those civillians were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Loyalist paramilitaries however, delebritly target innocent civillians.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Waelith on October 09, 2005, 12:58:33 AM
As the voting has appears unanimous for this topic, rather than against it, I am leaving this thread open for discussion.
Constructive discussion, NO ABUSE.

Any bad behaviour, or upset, etc will NOT be tolerated, and will cause this thread to be locked/deleted PERMANENTLY.

You have been warned.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 09, 2005, 01:08:22 AM
Why the harsh warning?  ???
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Waelith on October 09, 2005, 01:13:22 AM
^^That goes for pretty much all of the topics in World Events. Its because the discussions on here can be somewhat sensitive, to some people.
The warning is there to make sure people who post in here actually think, before they post.
Like I said, any abuse or discrimination etc will be passed on to admin to deal with.


Ok... back on topic.:)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 09, 2005, 02:26:46 AM
The IRA army council has never, ever ordered the blatent killing of civillians. It just so happens that those civillians were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

I'm not saying that they ordered the direct killings but surely when there planning blow something up, they relise theres gunna b people around.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 09, 2005, 08:07:47 AM
Define Northern Irish terrorism....

One who kills many others
The British Army killed many, are they terrorists?

Quote
As the voting has appears unanimous for this topic, rather than against it, I am leaving this thread open for discussion.
Constructive discussion, NO ABUSE.

Any bad behaviour, or upset, etc will NOT be tolerated, and will cause this thread to be locked/deleted PERMANENTLY.

You have been warned.
There hasn't been any abuse yet and it won't be happening from me of Phil, no need for babysitting  :ss:

Quote
I'm not saying that they ordered the direct killings but surely when there planning blow something up, they relise theres gunna b people around.
The Irish Republican Army (the legitimate army of Ireland) almost always gave warnings to thier bombs, the authorities did not always take notice, which has all sorts of benefits to the British war machine from propaganda to outright hatred to Irish which was quite obvious at the time, even from experiences from my own family living in England at the time.



Leave Ireland for the Irish, not for Britain, not for Rome.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Lessa on October 09, 2005, 01:39:36 PM
I presume by the comment ''not for rome'' you mean the Roam Catholic church?

Please leave the church out of this discussion as religion is a whole other very sensitive discussion.

Lessa
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 09, 2005, 07:06:12 PM
That's going to be a bit hard since the situation here is based on religion to a very big extent, isn't it  ::)

No ones forced to read anything, religion is a huge factor in the problems where I live, it needs to be discussed.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 09, 2005, 07:29:57 PM
Define Northern Irish terrorism....

One who kills many others
The British Army killed many, are they terrorists?

In some peoples eyes yes.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Elfy on October 10, 2005, 04:29:22 PM
Firstly - I'm not Irish (well not much) so apologies if I get anything wrong.

Compared to some groups, I do not consider the IRA to be terrorists, I agree with Phil in that they are freedom fighters. They fought for THEIR country that WE took from them and they cannot be blamed for doing that. They did not deliberately target civilians UNLIKE Al Qaeda. I think that is the fundamental definition of terrorism, and in my eyes the IRA do not fit that. Al Qaeda do, they are pure evil and are enjoying the fear and suffering they are causing, without any genuine motive behind their cause.

What exactly is the reason that the British government cannot give Northern Ireland back to the people it belongs to? Probably nothing more than stubbornness and red tape. It's pathetic.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 10, 2005, 09:09:57 PM
What do you mean leave Ireland for the Irish? The Irish people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom.

Don't try and make out that Great Britain is somehow repressing Ireland by "keeping hold" of Northern Ireland because twice (when the Republic of Ireland was ceded and in the referendum in 1973 in which the options were "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?" and "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside of the United Kingdom?") to leave the UK, and both times decided to stay.

Personally I don't mind have any attachment to Northern Ireland, and I think the most important thing is that the people of Northern Ireland decide where they want to be. (Which they have done.)

And on the issue of religion, if I remember rightly it was actually a Pope that told the English King (Henry II) in 1150-something to invade Ireland - and it was that which effectively started English (and later British) rule of Ireland.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 10, 2005, 09:43:40 PM
I know full well about that referendum. That very referendum you speak of was boycotted by Republicans - because the referendum was only held in the North, and not the south. So in essence, the referendum vote was decided by the minority Unionist population of Ireland, because only 1% of Nationalists and Republicans took part. The turn-out was 57% - hardly what I'd call a favourable electorate.

And I don't think those Unionists would take kindly to calling them Irish.

And by the way, it was only in the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 that the British government and Irish governemt agreed it was the principle of consent that was the best way foward - initiated finally by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Blaen on October 10, 2005, 09:54:15 PM
The problem in Northern Island cannot be resolved easily. A unified Irish republic would not be in the interests of all people in Northern Ireland, but then neither would Ireland remaining part of the UK be in everyones interests either. I really can't say much more without getting on to religion and it appears I'm not allowed to talk about it incase I offend anyone ???. The problem is is that religion is a big factor in this debate and without being able to discuss it I really can't say much more. A united Ireland would be ideal in ideal circumstances but the circumstances are far from ideal....If that makes any sense ::)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 10, 2005, 10:06:51 PM
Don't worry about religion, feel free to talk about it. Religion is a serious aspect in Northern Ireland, and the conflict simply cannot be discussed without it. Otherwise, this topic should be locked immediately, because you can't talk about Northern Ireland without bringing religion into it....religion created the conflicts in Northern ireland.

To be honest it's just the admins trying to police myself and Jim, as they know we've alot to say on the issue.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 10, 2005, 10:10:48 PM
What do you mean leave Ireland for the Irish? The Irish people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom.

Don't try and make out that Great Britain is somehow repressing Ireland by "keeping hold" of Northern Ireland because twice (when the Republic of Ireland was ceded and in the referendum in 1973 in which the options were "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?" and "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside of the United Kingdom?") to leave the UK, and both times decided to stay.

Personally I don't mind have any attachment to Northern Ireland, and I think the most important thing is that the people of Northern Ireland decide where they want to be. (Which they have done.)

And on the issue of religion, if I remember rightly it was actually a Pope that told the English King (Henry II) in 1150-something to invade Ireland - and it was that which effectively started English (and later British) rule of Ireland.
The Irish people of Northern Ireland, i.e nationalists want a united Ireland, they didn't ever vote to stay part of the united kingdom.

Great Britain isn't repressing Ireland, rather it is the unionists that are holding back the future waiting for the seas to part. They refuse to speak to nationalists and through the years, the DUP especially have been 100% unco-operative. If Sinn Fein had of been this unco-operative they would have been left out of talks. But no, the people of Northern Ireland haven't decided anything.



Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 10, 2005, 10:12:25 PM
I know full well about that referendum. That very referendum you speak of was boycotted by Republicans - because the referendum was only held in the North, and not the south. So in essence, the referendum vote was decided by the minority Unionist population of Ireland, because only 1% of Nationalists and Republicans took part. The turn-out was 57% - hardly what I'd call a favourable electorate.

And I don't think those Unionists would take kindly to calling them Irish.

And by the way, it was only in the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 that the British government and Irish governemt agreed it was the principle of consent that was the best way foward - initiated finally by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

I am affraid that is simply not true. The turnout was 58% for a start and vote was 99% in favour of staying in the UK that means 58% of the people of Ireland (at least) wanted to stay in the UK. That is a clear majority and therefore a mandate to stay in the UK.

The population of Northern Ireland (the people concerned) had the opportunity to vote, and whether you like it or not a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland decided to stay in the UK. How can you argue with that?
(And not only that it was the people of Northern Ireland, not the British, that wanted to stay in the UK back in 1922.)

Why should the people in the Republic of Ireland get a say in what we do in the United Kingdom? They are a completely separate country as they wanted (and was agreed in 1922) so it's absolutely nothing to do with them what thepeople in Northern Ireland want (similarly, the French don't get a vote on whether Quebec want to leave Canada).

Phil: I'm doing a pretty good job of discussing it without mentioning religion. :) (And I only mentioned the Pope as an interesting fact as well as a reply to Elfy saying that we took Ireland but we were told by Pope.)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Blaen on October 10, 2005, 10:15:50 PM
Well the problem is the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Typically Loyalists are protestant and Republicans are catholic (That's not always the case I admit but I'm just talking generally). Most would rather resolve their differences peacefully but there is discontent with the government and there are some people who go to extremes. Some people would disagree with the term extreme but I would always consider the killing of anyone extreme, whether they be soldier or civilian. The IRA is one group but they are not the only group who are willing to kill for what they believe in and they are definately not the nastiest. It appears that though all religions preach love they seem to beget violence. I hope that the situation if Northern Ireland can be resolved without anymore bloodshed and the fact that the IRA has apparently dismantled it's weapons is a good thing.

And forgive me If I'm ignorant but isn't missing out religion like missing out a portion of the arguement? Like writing all the Pros but not the Cons? :|
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 10, 2005, 10:21:24 PM
Well I wouldn't say religion is fundamental to the argument. I would say it's a general characteristic associated with the two sides.

Religion should be left out of it - all religions are a load of rubbish anyway.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Blaen on October 10, 2005, 10:24:25 PM
I wouldn't say fundemental but you can't rule it out as part of the problem entirely.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 10, 2005, 10:29:38 PM
I know full well about that referendum. That very referendum you speak of was boycotted by Republicans - because the referendum was only held in the North, and not the south. So in essence, the referendum vote was decided by the minority Unionist population of Ireland, because only 1% of Nationalists and Republicans took part. The turn-out was 57% - hardly what I'd call a favourable electorate.

And I don't think those Unionists would take kindly to calling them Irish.

And by the way, it was only in the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 that the British government and Irish governemt agreed it was the principle of consent that was the best way foward - initiated finally by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

I am affraid that is simply not true. The turnout was 58% for a start and vote was 99% in favour of staying in the UK that means 58% of the people of Ireland (at least) wanted to stay in the UK. That is a clear majority and therefore a mandate to stay in the UK.

The population of Northern Ireland (the people concerned) had the opportunity to vote, and whether you like it or not a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland decided to stay in the UK. How can you argue with that?
(And not only that it was the people of Northern Ireland, not the British, that wanted to stay in the UK back in 1922.)

Why should the people in the Republic of Ireland get a say in what we do in the United Kingdom? They are a completely separate country as they wanted (and was agreed in 1922) so it's absolutely nothing to do with them what thepeople in Northern Ireland want (similarly, the French don't get a vote on whether Quebec want to leave Canada).

Phil: I'm doing a pretty good job of discussing it without mentioning religion. :) (And I only mentioned the Pope as an interesting fact as well as a reply to Elfy saying that we took Ireland but we were told by Pope.)
And what about within the next 10 years or less? The nationalist/catholic community is growingrapidly compared to the unionist/protestant community and has been for a while now. The "people of Northern Ireland" backin 1922 called themselves British, not Northern Irish. They wave a union jack and a scottish flag, not an Irish one or a Northern Irish one. The people in the Republic of Ireland should get a say in what goes on in Northern Ireland because they're still involved. I'm Irish with a dual citizenship, making me both British, and Irish. Sinn Fein are the largest all Ireland party, that's both the Republic and the North, so yes, it has something to do with them.

You say that the Republic shouldn't have a say, or you question why they do, yet people in Northern Ireland have no say on who is elected into your British parliament, rather we get representatives with thier own biggoted secterian views. Hardly much for being British, is it?

If 58% had aturn out with 99% wanting to stay in the UK, how many of them where nationalists or even had a say? It hasn't been untill the past 30 odd years nationalists even had civil rights never mind a choice on being part of the UK.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 10, 2005, 11:52:01 PM
Easy way to settle this ---> hold another vote (in ireland)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 11, 2005, 08:31:12 PM
Not everyone votes regardless of thier opinion. The only true way to know would be to force a vote, which isn't going to happen.

Even at that, do you think unionists would cease if there was a united Ireland? Do you think the republicans would cease if the vote said to stay in the UK? Ofcourse not. There's too many ideals out there to have it as black and white as that.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 11, 2005, 09:16:17 PM
Not everyone votes regardless of thier opinion. The only true way to know would be to force a vote, which isn't going to happen.

Even at that, do you think unionists would cease if there was a united Ireland? Do you think the republicans would cease if the vote said to stay in the UK? Ofcourse not. There's too many ideals out there to have it as black and white as that.

tru, this is a bit like the should we have gone to war arguement. There is no answers
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 17, 2005, 04:58:01 PM
And what about within the next 10 years or less? The nationalist/catholic community is growingrapidly compared to the unionist/protestant community and has been for a while now. The "people of Northern Ireland" backin 1922 called themselves British, not Northern Irish. They wave a union jack and a scottish flag, not an Irish one or a Northern Irish one. The people in the Republic of Ireland should get a say in what goes on in Northern Ireland because they're still involved. I'm Irish with a dual citizenship, making me both British, and Irish. Sinn Fein are the largest all Ireland party, that's both the Republic and the North, so yes, it has something to do with them.

You say that the Republic shouldn't have a say, or you question why they do, yet people in Northern Ireland have no say on who is elected into your British parliament, rather we get representatives with thier own biggoted secterian views. Hardly much for being British, is it?

If 58% had aturn out with 99% wanting to stay in the UK, how many of them where nationalists or even had a say? It hasn't been untill the past 30 odd years nationalists even had civil rights never mind a choice on being part of the UK.

Yes I have to admit that the Republican movement is growing (as Unionists are more often older), but they are still not a majority according to a poll by Northern Ireland Life and Times where 38% of people said they were Unionist, but only 24% said they were Republicans/Nationalist (2003).

Yes Sinn Féin are the largest all-Ireland party, but the Green party are the largest all-European party, so should we get a say in European countries' referenda?

I still think a vote is the way to go - you can't argue with one. And if people don't turn out then that's their problem, really.

You say that Northern Ireland has a democratic deficit, but that is no fault but your own. The main parties used to stand in Northern Ireland until the 60s but because they started doing so poorly they stopped putting up candidates. The Conservative Party usually put up about 3 or 4 candidates and they come about 5th every time.
And, of course, the Unionist parties are off-shoots of the Conservative Party (their official name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, afterall), and the LibDems endorse the Alliance.

And, if you want to talk about democratic deficits, I suggest you come to Sussex (and many places in the South) where thousands of people could vote Liberal Democratics and we still get a Conservative MP with a large majority (same with the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall and with Labour in many parts of the north).

May I ask, Jim, are you religious?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 18, 2005, 01:40:52 AM
You keep bringing statistics into it, but to be quite honest they're piss, they aren't how people think regardless of how many newspapers and documents tell you. You don't have to be a nationalist to want a united Ireland, and you don't have to be a unionist to want to keep direct rule, but you may not say anything untill the time would come.

Sinn Féin and the Green party are two very very different parties with different goals and agendas in the first place. Although it's not thier only objective, Sinn Féin are ultimately out to bring around a peace process and hopefully a united Ireland, not to make sure animals are being treated fairly.

A vote isn't the way to go. As far as republicans see it, Ireland is Irish land, not British, and they will always have that view, and they have every right to have that view. Unionists are afraid they will get the same treatment nationalists got living in the North under a united Ireland, but it's not true and the only reason protestants "died out" of the south is because you had to be a catholic to marry a catholic, so they converted, and as you should know, Ireland was dominated by the word of the vatican.

Remember that up untill the 70s-80s the nationalist side didn't get much of choice in who was elected anywhere, and the assembly was ran entirely of unionists, so no, it's not our fault, due to the lack of Civil rights of those times. Our politics are dominated by the partition, and nothing but that, very few people vote for policies, which is the silliest thing someone can do, especially if voting for the DUP and being working class. But with another country ruling this side of Ireland, can you blame them? It's not a normal society and it's not normal political grounds where like in England you can vote purely on policies.

Am I religious? No. What does that have to do with it though?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Blaen on October 18, 2005, 02:09:19 PM
Totally agree with you about statistics Jim. Who was it who said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on October 18, 2005, 03:39:59 PM
89% of statistics are not true. (but is this one true?)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mithrandir on October 18, 2005, 05:32:50 PM
I think that quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

You're only bashing the statistics because you don't agree with them. If I had said "85% of the population of Northern Ireland want to re-unite with the Republic of Ireland" you would've soon backed it up.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on October 18, 2005, 05:59:48 PM
Quote
I still think a vote is the way to go - you can't argue with one. And if people don't turn out then that's their problem, really.

So once a vote is placed, the book is closed and placed back on the bookshelf?

It seems you're quite sympathetic to Unionism, an opinion is an opinion. Tell me, have you any connections or ties with the North of Ireland, have you spent long periods of time in the region?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on October 19, 2005, 02:40:16 AM
I think that quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

You're only bashing the statistics because you don't agree with them. If I had said "85% of the population of Northern Ireland want to re-unite with the Republic of Ireland" you would've soon backed it up.
Balls I would have, I'd have said it was bollocks regardless. It's not a matter of statistics, they don't represent me or northern ireland.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Lessa on October 19, 2005, 01:49:04 PM
Jim watch the language please

Lessa
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Gollum on October 19, 2005, 01:54:43 PM
Balls I would have, I'd have said it was bollocks regardless. It's not a matter of statistics, they don't represent me or northern ireland.

Well what do they represent, these apparently entirely useless and unrepresentative statistics?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on October 20, 2005, 07:02:13 AM
Define Northern Irish terrorism....

One who kills many others

Every government on this Earth is accountable for that in that case friend.

Under that logic, one could define the Samurai, the Romans, the Greeks/Macedonians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the British, the Irish, the French, the Germans, the Prussians, the Americans, the South Americans, the Chinese, the Balkan, the Italians, and just about any nation that have ever gone to war as a terrorist.

In my logic however, a Terrorist is someone who kills wrecklessly, without cause, without a legitimate reason and without belief. That my friend, is where an argument about Northern Ireland can get very ugly.

LEGEND-

Correct me if my terms are wrong please.


Dealing with the extremes here, on the one side, there is the Republican Movement (IRA), who historically and factually have been fighting for the better part of a century on and off to separate Ireland from British rule, to promote civil rights our people never had, and to fight the British in a guerilla war that some thought could never end- some still do, their power has waned and there are several offshoots, each claiming to be the official wing of the IRA, however- the main wing of the IRA are the group that have decommissioned it's arms.

Then there are the Loyalists, who historically were the faction that were created to counter the Republican movement, and were around and fighting for their cause back in the days of the rising, the negotiations for home rule and up to the separation of the six counties from the rest of Ireland, they sometimes included off duty policemen, B specials, and have allegedly worked together with the British Government in collusion in a series of murders. Now, the most visible paramilitaries, they are visually the main criminal element of Unionism/Loyalism, dealing in such crimes as Drug Dealing, Prostitution, racketeering, Smuggling and gang-warfare.


In Northern Ireland, and having lived under a very self-imposed non-religious and objective view from I was 15, I have came to realise over the years just how much our people were supressed, opressed and made to look like animals over the years from the separation onwards. I tried to block out the conflict, the fear and tried to remain objective- however, all I have to do is say my address and I'll be judged on the spot not on who I am, but on where I'm from- fear unfortunately is the biggest winner of them all in our country.


The Free State had it fine, sure, it did have a civil war, and it was bloody, but out of the ashes, Eamonn DeValera created the Irish Republic, letting Michael Collins take the fall for the separation and washing his hands of us for many years. The Republic grew in Economic and political strength,

Throughout that time, the North was right up until the late 60s an unfair Unionist stronghold where Northern Irish politicians, British by their own desire were the rulers of the country while we had no voice. Northern Ireland's politicians such as James Craig (Lord Craigavon as he was known.) historically were proponants of the Union, and as such were treated well by the British goivernment, who recognised their mandates over all others. Unionists were allowed to vote (and were given the votes of their workers if they owned a business.) and local constituancies were drawn up according to how many Unionist votes they could squeeze out of an area, effectively rigging all democratic votes in a process known as Gerrymandering.


The one thing the IRA will be remembered for by the world is for "Terrorism" but that is mainly because they have been the British Government's constant thorn for as long as they can remember.....what they should be remembered for is the fact that they won our people the right to vote- the IRA's armed campaign of the 60's and 70's along with the NICRA association won our people the right to vote fairly and democratically as to whom our elected representatives are....."One Man One Vote" became a reality, and it was through the gun and the ballot box that we got there.


Our community have slowly and surely risen to a point now where the divide between sects is almost 50-50, effectively meaning that we have an equal say in this country's governance. This has been a slow and difficult process, with politicians at every turn trying to block us from getting there. People like Ian Paisley, the most hardline politician the country has ever known, who, since rising to power as the leader of the strongest Unionist party last year, has done his utmost to throw a spanner in the works of devolved government.



For years, ever since the Good Friday Agreement, the day our country could look up and see a future, the Democratic Unionist party hid behind the looming shadow of the IRA.....4-6 different Loyalist groups were and have been active over the past 10 or so years, but they always hid behind the IRA.....the UVF, LVF, UFF, Red Hand Commando and the UDA have all been almost fully functional over these long years, and the world saw the few weeks after IRA decommissioning took place, just how much Loyalism tried to cling on to that frail argument- by venting on the police and their own people- with turf wars and rival factions shooting each other across Loyalism.


To read more on our sordid politics, try this Wikipedia on Northern Ireland- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland

Anyway, enough of that backdrop post, because there's debate here that I didn't realise was there that I want into;


SIDENOTE: Religion is very much a part of this debate, and I refuse point blank to leave it out, as the Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland is part of the problem, and part of the bitterness and hatred felt by our respective communities. Personally, I could give a s[CENSORED]t what Diety, what gods, what doctrine people believe in personally, however, in the context of our country- wether or not you like it, it is a severe part of the debate.


Quote
Yes I have to admit that the Republican movement is growing (as Unionists are more often older), but they are still not a majority according to a poll by Northern Ireland Life and Times where 38% of people said they were Unionist, but only 24% said they were Republicans/Nationalist (2003).

Dude, why not look up the official figures, rather than from a poll from a commission that I for one as citizen of Northern Ireland,  have never heard of, nor was asked to take part in. The actual statistic is very clost to 50-50, something in the region of about 52%-48% or somesuch, I'm not about to look for the stats, but hey.


Quote
Well what do they represent, these apparently entirely useless and unrepresentative statistics?

The statistics you've brought to the table do not represent the view of every citizen on both sides, merely a selective group, a poll conducted with any number of people such as maybe say 1000, or maybe 10,000, possibly even 100,000.....considering the fact that there are however according to British Government estimate statistics approximately 1,710,300 people living here, and so those stats may well be inherently flawed in a general debate on the general population of this country, especially one so radically divided.



The political situation in Northern Ireland in terms of voting has been changed drastically over the past 30-40 years. Up to the 60s, the Nationalist (mainly Catholic) Community could not vote unless they were middle-upper class, which was such a rarity thanks to job bigotry that our community were mainly working class secondary industry workers, with no vote. If they could vote, the process of Gerrymandering made the vote practically useless, as Gerrymandering destroyed the Nationalist vote unfairly. Now, knowing this, the British set up a referendum in the early times, knowing well that the Nationalist vote would be minimum. That one was a resounding no, however, this is a very different country to what it was 40-100 years ago.....our people are treated as such- people, we have equal workplace opportunities, equal employment, cross community bodies and of course much more contact with each other.....which is great. The divide is close to 50-50, and our politicians have risen to a point of power where they can now rival the Unionist dominated political system now for the first time ever. Now, with that in mind, if there was a fair, democratic reforrendum, that the Irish people and Government and British Government agreed to, I think the outcome would be interesting indeed.


Indeed, I remember someone I know who is Nationalist living near a Loyalist area saying to me a few weeks ago that a canvasser for the DUP was talking to him about his vote, and told him- and I quote "We're canvassing for as much votes as we can, those "T[CENSORED]g  B[CENSORED]s" are outbreeding us."


These are interesting times we live in, and we are fortunate to be the youth that are living in such times- if I was 10 years older, things would be a whole lot different for me. The very fact that we are coming of age as our devolved Government is on it's way to being established for good can only mean good things for all of us, both sides.

Personally, I've no beef with the British people by the way, some of my best friends are from England, Scotland and Wales, it's squarely with the Loyalist and Unionist politicians of the past that allowed this shocking scenario that is our history to spiral for the past 40+ years.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 13, 2005, 06:40:10 PM
Good craic
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Mojo Toner on December 13, 2005, 09:00:31 PM
In my logic however, a Terrorist is someone who kills wrecklessly, without cause, without a legitimate reason and without belief. That my friend, is where an argument about Northern Ireland can get very ugly.

hmm, thy does seem a valid representation of a terrorist. But under tht logik, the onli terrorists are sereal killers. Because (and i believe sum1 already mentioned this) one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. People from either side, see the other side as the terrorists. Therefore, everyone is a terrorist in someones eyes. Which as u say, can make an arguement about N.Ireland v.ugly.

And I also believe u are right about the polls onli takin a small group of ppl into account. But there will never b a full survey of every1, so using statistics in this arguement is completely useless
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 14, 2005, 12:04:36 AM
A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people and declares his actions. Thus he tries to frighten the society and influence the government, pursuing his own aims or aims of some ideology.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 14, 2005, 01:31:25 AM
Quote
A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people

The British Army...Derry...13 innocent civilians...unarmed civil rights march....

...anyone? :P
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 14, 2005, 01:37:36 AM
A terrorist, from my point of view, is a man who repeatedly kills innocent people and declares his actions. Thus he tries to frighten the society and influence the government, pursuing his own aims or aims of some ideology.
The British Army in Iraq
The British Army in Northern Ireland
The American Army in Iraq
The American Army in Vietnam
The French Army in Algeria

Want me to go on? The Provisionals fought back with an armed campaign, but they also gave protection to the catholic areas of Northern Ireland from Loyalist and British Army collusion, state murder.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on December 14, 2005, 04:16:05 AM
Yep, state murder- the process whereby the British Government worked with[/b] Terrorists in a campeign to fight the IRA and supress the civil rights movement.


What gave it pain though, only made it stronger.


Guys, gals, assorted gents of all ages; go look up the murder of "Pat Finucane" and you'll see it clear as day.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 14, 2005, 08:11:11 PM
As far as I know, British army in Iraq did not intentionally killed innocent people. Killing is killing of course and guilt lies upon the government. However they did not killed them to frighten the people. They try to purge the world from those who are intolerant to other people, from those who kill innocent people in their countries. To protect the ideals of democracy, freedom.
The situation in N. Ireland is wholly different and is not comparable to that in Iraq. Maybe I’m not rightful to judge it, taking into consideration that I’m not very conversant with the situation in N. Ireland. There could not be any universal decision; there always will be some that are discontent. The actions of IRA are understandable but killing innocent people to achieve their aim, whatever good would it be is not excusable and acceptable.     
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 14, 2005, 08:47:21 PM
They shouldn't be in the country never mind "unintentionally" killing innocent people. What are the ideals of democracy and freedom? Cuz it's certainly not being practised.

The situation in Iraq can be compared to Northern Ireland in that the British army go in under the cover of helping the people, and end up killing them. The IRA gave warnings to almost all of their bombs, The security forces did not always take heed, who is to blame? The IRA for planting the bomb or the security forces not taking heed in their war of propaganda against nationalists and republicans?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 14, 2005, 10:41:50 PM
The IRA Army Council did not plan ANY bombings that would intentionally kill or maime innocent civillians. All of their attacks were either economic, militarial or political targets. I do accept however that there were rogue elements (very small minority) within the Provisional movement that did not follow the economic, etc, guidelines....who set out to kill innocent people. (La Mons bombing).

Jim's right. The IRA gave a WARNING to the bombs in order to facilitate the safe evacuation of civillians from their targets....plus, a number of years ago, the IRA Army Council APOLOGISED to all civillian casualties and their families over the troubles.

And anyway, the IRA don't exist anymore....so it's fair to say they've come along away and devoted alot to the peace process since 1997.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 15, 2005, 12:52:36 AM
So, in your opinion there is absolutely no difference between terrorists and the British Army, is not it? Do you deny the existing of Al Qaeda? If no, then how do you think the UK and US should fight it? Personally I am 100 per cent sure that there’re bases that prepare terrorists, so invasions are unavoidable as well as killing of civilians during them.
I did not name the IRA Army terrorists. I am a pacifist in nature, so I’m averse from all violence be it with warning or not.     
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 15, 2005, 02:53:33 AM
Quote
Personally I am 100 per cent sure that there’re bases that prepare terrorists, so invasions are unavoidable as well as killing of civilians during them

There was NO Al Quieda bases in Iraq before the war. If you noticed, the majority of those terroists inside Iraq are Jordanians...
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on December 15, 2005, 04:57:21 AM
The "insurgents" only appeared in the country after America's conquest.....funny that.  ???



Quote
democracy, freedom

Those people are as free as they want to be- as for us; we're free do do as we're told- you want to smoke Marajuana? NO!! THAT'S NOT RIGHT!! WE SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED!! You want healthy food at all leisure centres? NO!! THAT'S NOT RIGHT, THAT'S RIDICULOUS, HOW WILL BUILDERS AND PLUMBERS GET THEIR LUNCH??!!111 Want to protest against the government? NO!! BAD PEOPLE, GET PUT IN JAIL BAD PEOPLE!!


You are free to do as they tell you.....that's not democracy, that's not freedom- that's a candied dictatorship- sugar coated in the outside, but so very bad for you on the inside.

Democracy is rarely implemented properly, just like all governmental systems.....Monarchy, Republic, Despotism, Democracy......all have flaws, and America seems to think that their Republic is infallable, when infact it's the reason why the world hates America, and why the general populace are devoted to the flag, no matter what.....


Terrorist attacks are caused by a lack of intelligence, or a lack of acting on intelligence on the security services behalf- as far as the attackers themselves, well, they may be coming from a base- but blowing up and conquering a country by installing a puppet government for it's oil and potential economic prosperity isn't the greatest basehunt I've ever seen to be honest.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 15, 2005, 06:40:08 PM
Spot on
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 15, 2005, 08:14:51 PM
Actually I didn’t say that bases are only in Iraq. First of all I meant Afghanistan. The invasion in Iraq is a very big mistake, yes. What, in your opinion, is a remedy to stop terrorists’ attacks?     
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on December 16, 2005, 12:23:46 AM
Cutting the bull[CENSORED]t and red tape, and actually getting to the problem.

The fight against Afgahnistan was a direct retaliatory attack that stemmed from America's need to gain revenge and "Kick ass" which they did.....however, Iraq was a personal target for George Bush, and as a result, since he was already on the warpath, he decided to invade based on links his intelligence agency literally created to Saddam and the Sunii muslims, and the promise, the reassurance and the guarantee that Iraq had WMDs.

In reality, not only did it make America potentially more economically well off, but it also gave them a base in the Middle East. Unfortunately for them, it also gave them a tactical disadvantage, in that the skirmishes brought on from the instability of security as a result of the invasion has left the Americans needing the Home Guard to go in as reinforcements- leaving the American homeland relatively weakened. (See: Hurricane Katrina.)


Basically, the way to fight terrorists, is to actively hunt them down, get operatives into the organisations, commit resources into fighting the terrorists in real terms- what you do not do, is take on a small country in a backwash of public political spin, and then decide to move on to the next when you are found out to be unjustified. The main problem is, America's way of fighting "terrorism" is to point a big laser X on an entire country, and then rush in, conquer, sleep with it's resources and leave when they get what they want. (Usually the next morning after a particularly sneaky cigarette.  ;) )


Fight terrorism through exclusive means, not use it as an excuse to do other, unrelated things. Especially not on Taxpayers money.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Blaen on December 16, 2005, 01:40:07 AM
I agree with the comments Jim and Edge made. You would have thought America and the UK would have learnt lessons from the past. The British government has had experience with terrorism in Northern Ireland and still have bloody no idea how to counteract it and America's tactic of rushing in guns blazing won't work in Iraq just as it didn't work in Vietnam.

The situation in Northen Ireland has improved over the years but the issues there have yet to be resolved. Now that the IRA has reportedly given up it's weapons (I say reportedly because I somehow doubt the IRA is going to disappear entirely) the British government really doesn't seem to care about Nothern Ireland. Instead they devote valuable time and resources to a conflict that is unviable.  The British government should concentrate on it's issues at home, the NHS in crisis, the pensions problems and of course the problems in Northern Ireland before it goes and makes war on a country to generate favour with America and gain better access to the Middle-East's oil reserves.

In defining a terrorist it is easy to class any armed forces as terrorists. What we must consider is Bush's definition of a terrorist which is most likely completely different to a dictionary definition. It would probably be something along the lines of "A terrorist is someone who seeks to undermine our western values, flaunt democracy and stop America from gaining access to the resources it needs to make it richer and trash our planet just a little bit more". Sadly, The truth of the matter is a Terrorist is anyone who opposes the western world by fighting back, British and American soldiers cannot be terrorists because "they are fighting the good fight" and there is no such thing as freedom fighters anymore, unless they are sided with the America and the UK that is, only terrorists. Terrorism is used a tool through which the UK and US governments can convince the public to let them do what ever the hell they want.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 16, 2005, 06:59:55 PM
Well, ‘those people’, if you mean people of Iraq, weren’t that free. According to the recent studies, done by BBC as far as I know, most of them are for Americans and not for Saddam. Another question is that this invasion may not bring any improvements to Iraq. The degree of freedom is increased, but can this people jump from dictatorship to democracy so easily through direct interference of other countries. Maybe things should go in their usual way gradually, not abruptly. Though this way maybe very difficult and take much time.
Hunting down the terrorists is applicable to cases where they do not have the help of the government. This does refer to Iraq. In Afghanistan the rulers were  half-terrorist themselves. Getting spies and operatives into the organisations is not easy in this case and not efficient.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 16, 2005, 07:57:31 PM
Quote
In Afghanistan the rulers were  half-terrorist themselves

Ahh, yes....those US-established rulers?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 17, 2005, 12:53:35 AM
Doesn't matter who established them. They were a real menace to every man in the world. And now that terrorists' lair is destroyed by the UK and US.
 
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 17, 2005, 04:14:44 AM
aye ok
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 17, 2005, 04:30:36 AM
Well, ‘those people’, if you mean people of Iraq, weren’t that free. According to the recent studies, done by BBC as far as I know, most of them are for Americans and not for Saddam. Another question is that this invasion may not bring any improvements to Iraq. The degree of freedom is increased, but can this people jump from dictatorship to democracy so easily through direct interference of other countries. Maybe things should go in their usual way gradually, not abruptly. Though this way maybe very difficult and take much time.
Hunting down the terrorists is applicable to cases where they do not have the help of the government. This does refer to Iraq. In Afghanistan the rulers were  half-terrorist themselves. Getting spies and operatives into the organisations is not easy in this case and not efficient.

What is free? The BBC probably isn't the best source to take polls from to form your opinion, they only tell what they want the public to know. For example in Northern Ireland an IRA man crashed into 3 children, according to the BBC. The truth was he was shot, while driving by a British soldier, and was dead by the time he crashed.

The degree of freedom has increased? Sorry, no, the degree of Western corporate culture has and will increase. America has it's fingers in a lot of pies in the middle east, whatever is the "evil" is usually in some way created or helped by America.

How do you stop terrorists? You get your country, your army, and your western culture out of their country and let them be, let's see how many terrorists attacks there are then  ::) They aren't rebels without a cause, regardless of what Tony Blair, Jack Straw, George Bush, Fox news or the BBC will tell you.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 17, 2005, 07:25:05 PM
The degree of freedom in Iraq IS increased. Under Saddam’s rule there was no opposition; loads of people were killed without any justice only because they didn’t agree with the government.  Not to mention freedom of speech, opportunity to elect and to know the truth. Another question is whether invasion could bring any improvement, I mean whether people of Iraq are ready to democracy and freedom. 
Quote
How do you stop terrorists? You get your country, your army, and your western culture out of their country and let them be, let's see how many terrorists attacks there are then.
 
Highly probable. But let’s imagine that all the West influence was drawn back from the countries in question. I do not think that it would stop the attacks now, it is too late. The terrorists are unlikely to put aside their jihad, which by the way is criticised by Islam. They have now belonging to a certain country or nationality; their aim is to destroy the Western countries as may be seen in their menaces. 
By the way, if you do not trust the BBC what is the news you trust?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 17, 2005, 07:43:10 PM
The freedom of Iraq has only increased as Americas pockets increase. If you think about it, you don't have much freedom of speech in Britain or America, either. Right, it's more than what Iraq had, but it's still not much. You can still be held without trail in America and be punished under treason in both countries for speaking out and going over the limit of your average anti war demonstration. Labour MPs that speak out against the Government are removed from the party all toghether. Aye, freedom of speech. The opportunity to elect doesnt stretch far, in England you only get a choice of 3 parties (sometimes 2), all of which are bald aging middle class men with similar policies, not much choice, and do you honestly believe both governments give out the truth, and all of the truth? Ofcourse they dont.

Do you know what a Jihad is? I doubt you know the full extent of it to be honest. Simply put, there is nothing to attack if you are not there. They aren't out to destroy all western culture, thats bollocks. Palestinian Jihad isn't out to destroy western culture, Al Qaeda aren't even an organisation, never mind having a common jihad. It's still as simple as; Take your guns, armies, and culture out of their countries, and you won't have another 9/11 or london bomb. Let the Palestinians deal with Israel in their own war, without America backing Israel because of the jewish influence on the American government.

I don't trust the BBC, I don't trust any channel. I read news from all sorts of sources, and even have al jazeera, to establish my views. flibble ya BBC polls, they mean nowt.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on December 18, 2005, 12:31:08 AM
Quote
democracy and freedom.

Indoctrinated buzzwords.....nothing more.

Ready for Democracy and freedom? Democracy is not the living embodiment of freedom, and don't speak like it is; other countries are the way they are for a reason, be it tradition, religion, law, economics, war, famine, revolution or any number of different things.....point is, we've no right to be changing anything about another country unless it is justified, both legally and morally. You're making a sweeping generalisation like "maybe the people aren't ready for democracy and freedom" when in reality, it's the fact that the West have as they and I see it "conquered" Iraq that this fight still goes on- not that they aren't "ready to be free" that's bull excrement, to be totally honest.

The people of the Middle East aren't ready to have their countries conquered by Western powers again, and that is the source of a whole lot of tension and fear, fear that can be dangerous when charismatic leaders use it to wield power and create a bloodlust.....you imagine that France mobilised an army, and then conquered Poland- wouldn't their neighbouring countries get just a tad worried? Would it not send an uproar of epic proportions up the EU? Yep, it would- same situation, same difference. People hide behind the fact that it was Saddam ruling Iraq, but it could have been Joe Stalin himself sitting ruling the country with Pol Pot as his intern ( :P) and it still wouldn't make a shred of difference to the feeling of the ME.....the feeling that America is conquering neighbour Muslim states and is at war with Islam.....


Too much Captain America and Gi Joe is bad for you- the sooner people realise that "Freedom and Democracy" are buzzwords of American political spin the better- otherwise they'll all be fooled.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 18, 2005, 01:27:37 AM
All right then, let’s hope we shall live to see the days when countries won’t interfere with each other’s affairs and peoples of every country will live in what way seems best to them.

P.S. Didn’t know western mass media are so untrustworthy. What to say of here where I live  :'( ; I thought in England mass media are the most independent of government.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 18, 2005, 02:44:01 AM
It's not that they're not independent of govt - it's just that they'll put across the P.O.V that's representative of the nation....for example, they'll refer to the IRA as 'terrorists'...rather than something like 'volunteers.' If you get what I mean.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 18, 2005, 02:48:06 AM
But there must be some that give real information without emotions, I mean just giving the facts, leaving to  audience to make its own conclusion.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 18, 2005, 05:50:57 PM
Quote
All right then, let’s hope we shall live to see the days when countries won’t interfere with each other’s affairs and peoples of every country will live in what way seems best to them.

P.S. Didn’t know western mass media are so untrustworthy. What to say of here where I live  cry ; I thought in England mass media are the most independent of government.
Don't be sarcastic, it's uncalled for.

We won't see the day countries dont interfere with each other, and it's still not an excuse to invade another country illegally, and back other countries the size of wales with a nuclear arsenal to rival the past soviet union. ...i wonder who that could be?.......[/i]. This isn't a war on the middle east, it's a war on religion, and the religious stronghold happens to be in the middle east. It's all for profit. The reality of it is "terrorists" kill for god apparently, but doesn't george bush speak to god on a regular basis over a cup of tea on how to rid the world of these terrorists who want to destroy our democracy and complete freedom? What a flibbling farse.

Also, the BBC will label the IRA terrorists, not volunteers, as Phil said. But they're a recognised paramilitary organisation, who have established time and time again why they are there. That's not terrorism. They're soldiers. They may not be in an "official" army, but soldiers all the same.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 18, 2005, 07:54:48 PM
Quote
Also, the BBC will label the IRA terrorists, not volunteers, as Phil said. But they're a recognised paramilitary organisation, who have established time and time again why they are there. That's not terrorism. They're soldiers. They may not be in an "official" army, but soldiers all the same.
I don't deny that. I imagine the IRA as a group of partisans.
What about situation in Gibraltar? Is it comparable with N. Ireland?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 19, 2005, 07:02:55 PM
I can't say much about that situation, I don't know anything about it to be honest so I'll say what I do know (and its not to be quoted untill I read further into it please).

There are a lot of British in Gib, right, but where in Northern Ireland, British (ulster scots) are not the majority, I think it's a different situation in Gib where they are the majority, and it also rakes in Spain a lot of cash through tourism, you'd have to be crazy to go on holiday for 2 weeks to Belfast.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 19, 2005, 09:24:42 PM
Not quoting, but giving the facts. The majority of population is not at all British. There are such ethic groups: Spanish, Italian, English, Maltese, Portuguese, German, North Africans. In referendums held in 1967 and 2002, Gibraltarians ignored Spanish pressure and voted overwhelmingly to remain a British dependency. On both occasions well over 95 percent of voters said they wanted to remain British; on the latter occasion, the percentage was 98.97 percent. And this is despite the fact that Great Britain’s government accepted the principle of joint sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Spain.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 20, 2005, 08:12:21 PM
Well there you have it. A big difference is that in Ireland there isn't 98% wanting to stay British. Statistics dont mean much to me but when it's as enormous of a majority that 98% want to stay, then theres not much that can be said. I'm not sure if they had a liberation army fighting in Gib against British occupation, either.

Although, there are also a lot of ethnic minorities in Ireland aswell. There are muslim, asian and eastern europeans spread across it, mainly in nationalist areas since they get kicked out by racist loyalists/combat 18
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 23, 2005, 08:46:38 PM
Never heard of a liberation army too, but know that they celebrate something like the day of dependence on Britain. It doesn’t matter much though.

Quote
A big difference is that in Ireland there isn't 98% wanting to stay British.

How many people do you reckon want to stay British in N. Ireland? 
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 24, 2005, 06:44:20 AM
Judging roughly on ideology (which is synonomous with religion) id say its a 51% want to stay British/independent....compared to 49% who want a united Ireland.

I'm no Catholic, that's for sure....but I am a republican. I'm not die-hard; a united Ireland isn't my top political goal as such, i certainly wouldn't die for it.

As far as Im concerned....while I believe the IRA campaign from 1970-1994 was justified, as they were given legitamacy under Bunreacht na hEireann (Irish Constitution: it placed its terrority over Northern ireland). But, after 1998, upon the ratification of the Belfast Agreement, thus the ammendment of Articles 2+3 claiming juristriction over N.I. - there was simply no need for the IRA, and there still isnt.

But I totally respect the IRA's armed struggle during the troubles, one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 27, 2005, 11:13:18 PM
Well, like you said,
Quote
one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.
So maybe the British Army in Northern Ireland for those who want to stay British is smth like the IRA for the others?   ???

Judging by your data concerning how many people want to stay British and vice versa the situation is precious difficult. Moreover, as far as I understand these people not only want to stay British or become related to Ireland but also want N. Ireland itself to belong to Great Britain or Ireland.
If the data you provided is true then I see but one solution. N. Ireland should be ruled by both UK and Ireland, there should be established local government with certain rights, legislation and power.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 28, 2005, 12:59:10 AM
Quote
So maybe the British Army in Northern Ireland for those who want to stay British is smth like the IRA for the others?

No. Because as far as Unionists are concerned, they've got freedom.

Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 28, 2005, 01:17:19 AM
Do you think the conflict in N. Ireland tends to melt away? And if not what is the solution of the problem?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 28, 2005, 02:00:23 AM
I don't know what you mean my 'melt away'  :-\
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 28, 2005, 02:06:39 AM
I mean 'disappear'.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on December 28, 2005, 02:06:55 AM
Well, like you said,
Quote
one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter.
So maybe the British Army in Northern Ireland for those who want to stay British is smth like the IRA for the others?   ???

Judging by your data concerning how many people want to stay British and vice versa the situation is precious difficult. Moreover, as far as I understand these people not only want to stay British or become related to Ireland but also want N. Ireland itself to belong to Great Britain or Ireland.
If the data you provided is true then I see but one solution. N. Ireland should be ruled by both UK and Ireland, there should be established local government with certain rights, legislation and power.

Yeh it's called the Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement/Stormont Agreement.

The other side (since I'm nationalist/republican) don't see the British army as freedom fighters, they see them as the legitimate army of Northern Ireland and the UK. But more importantly, the IRA haven't shot at the police or army in years. The first time the Police and Army where shot at in the past few years was by Loyalists earlier this year. Loyalists are the "freedom fighters" of unionists. They're also closely linked with Combat 18, the BNP, the National Front, and are in general thugs in suits who deal drugs to people and intimidate catholics and protestants. The IRA do not.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 30, 2005, 08:00:14 PM
So, according to mentioned agreement the confict is smoothed over?
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 31, 2005, 05:36:34 AM
Investigate yourself.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on December 31, 2005, 12:23:12 PM
Well, as far as I understood, the peace process has begun. I mean disbanding of the IRA, forming of government, decommissioning of all military groups, withdrawing many UK troops. I think it's only a matter of time now.   
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Phil on December 31, 2005, 08:02:52 PM
Quote
forming of government

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on January 01, 2006, 12:30:27 AM
Quote
Well, as far as I understood, the peace process has begun. I mean disbanding of the IRA, forming of government, decommissioning of all military groups, withdrawing many UK troops. I think it's only a matter of time now.   
Right, well, there is only peace between each side for now as far as violence goes.
Political parties refuse time and time again to talk, the IRA did not disband.
The Provos (PIRA) destroyed their weapons, they did not disband.
The RIRA and the CIRA combined have the power to create another armed campaign, but probably won't apart from a few boneheaded dissidents.
The Northern Irish assembly (government) was dissolved, so direct rule from Westminster was re-established - What do you think Gerry Adams is complaining about? Unionists refuse (again) to talk and to hold back the place waiting for the seas to part.
Loyalists are yet to decommission.
And there are still as much UK troops in Northern Ireland as there are in Iraq.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on January 26, 2006, 09:33:17 AM
Well, as far as I understood, the peace process has begun. I mean disbanding of the IRA, forming of government, decommissioning of all military groups, withdrawing many UK troops. I think it's only a matter of time now.   

No offense, but you haven't exactly been keeping up on current events have you? We as a people haven't had our own government since the Northern Ireland assembly collapsed after David Trimble (the 'then' leader of the Ulster Unionist Party) and his party walked out of government after the "stormontgate" scandal, whereby security, surveilance and spying equipment was found within the Sinn Feinn offices, equipment set up by MI5 in order to pin evidence on Sinn Feinn for an unknown objective. The plan was a failure, and we all now know that it was indeed an MI5 setup.....however, in the time subsequent to the collapse of the Assembly, there has been an election- and now the Unionist vote is controlled by none other than Ian Paisley, a man who is so hardline Loyalist, that he was a visable demonstrator against so-called "Nationalist concessions" in the late 60s when NICRA and our civil rights movements finally secured more equal rights in this country. Read up on him, he's one bad dude, and not a guy I want to stay alive much longer. Yes, he IS that bad.

So, we've established that we have no gevernment save for direct rule, which usually doesn't apply much to us anyway.


As for the Peace process, it's holding strong across the Catholic/Protestant and Loyalist/Nationalist people for now; however, the Loyalists are fighting over the control of their own areas, effectively engaging in gangland turf wars within their own areas. Remember the severe disturbances a few months back? There was a spate of killings done before the disturbances- turf wars were the cause.

So we do have a fragile peace, for now, and things are looking good- but the marching season is only 3-5 months to go, and the Loyalist Orangemen are not allowed to march down the Garvaghy road again this year, so there may be some edgy moments come nearer to July.


As for the British troops, you're wrong on that count- troops have been reassigned, but there is still a large contingent of troops here at all times to help the PSNI deal with the likes of the Loyalist  riots, to deal with counter terrorist operations and to deal with keeping the peace. They are rarely deployed on foot anymore though, when I, Jim and Phil were children, they used to patrol the streets in squads- don't have any bad memories of them thankfully, some of them would kick the football about and whatnot as you do. Nowadays, if they need to go somewhere they are mass deployed in jeeps, and there are fewer squads sent. Do you know that half of the Royal Irish Regiment (joke of a name that.) are stationed at their main base almost all of their serving time?


the only two (<insert as desired>para</insert>)military organisations to decomission arms were the IRA and the LVF.....now, the LVF was a gesture, a symbolic decomissioning- they still have a good quantity of weapons, wheras the IRA have decomissioned nearly all of the arms, save for a few personal protection weapons that were kept in the offchance that they needed to defend against the UVF, UFF, UDA or whoever. Every other group, including the aforementioned "U" groups, have not decommissioned and are on fact officially "on ceasefire" even though they are for some reason able to kill each other.


The point of the matter is, the statement you made makes the situation over here sound rosey, unfortunately that isn't so- the information is all there to see- this country is more tolerant, and we  Nationalist residents now have the equal rights that so many generations of Irish men and women fought, died and campaigned for. However, the drug/arms/tobacco smuggling continues, the Loyalist fueds continue, the bickering of our politicians still continues, and we're still no closer to a Government than we were before the IRA decommissioned. All because Ian Paisley and the DUP want more.....and more.....and more.....and so on.


I am a biased source, I'll admit that.....but most of what I have just said is fact, and a portion is my own speculative opinion.


It'll be interesting how the revelation that MI5 were responsable for Stormontgate is going to bear on the Unionist politicians, as they're running out of excuses not to talk with Sinn Fein, and it's going to be an inevitable outcome that there must be some talking done between parties.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Taurendil on January 26, 2006, 07:19:25 PM
Yeah, I didn’t know such details. It seems that most of the British and Irish population of Northern Ireland are not hostile to each other. So the politicians and extremists are to be blamed.   ;)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Jim on June 04, 2006, 08:21:16 AM
Yeah, I didn’t know such details. It seems that most of the British and Irish population of Northern Ireland are not hostile to each other. So the politicians and extremists are to be blamed.   ;)
They're anything but not hositle to each other, by looking at recent events in Ballymena. But since this was posted 5 odd months ago I'll let it slip ;)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on July 14, 2006, 01:34:08 AM
And another twelfth of July passes off with yet more rioting, bad tempers, provocation and of course, what I want to write about; the Eleventh night bonfires.




It's funny.....you think of a bonfire and you think of people gathered telling stories, having a few beers and maybe a barbeque, you know, your basic family day out?



Oh not in Northern Ireland it's not.  :dry:



Here, it's a bunch of yobbos and assorted Loyalists gathering together for a common cause- to burn Tricolours, destroy memorials and to daub sectarian taunts on items, photograph them and then burn them.....


Anyone over in England hear of a 15 year old kid named Michael McIlveen that was beaten to death in Ballymena a few months back? Of course not, because he was a Catholic boy who was in Ballymena.....well anyway, the crux of this point is that on the Eleventh night, in an act I can only call sheer scumbaggery of the lowest order; the Loyalists of a town in Antrim decided that they'd write on a few tricolours the words "F**k Mickey Bo" and "Mickey Bo RIP" as well as the number of the Celtic shirt the kid was wearing when he was killed.....and then promptly burn them, while laughing at it, and enjoying themselves.

Here; for your reference:
http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=9445&opp=1



This is of course just one side of this country you people will never properly hear about.....why? Because they're Protestant men and women who are actually more British than most of you are.....in their own minds. Because the BBC would rather show British interest stories, even over here in order to hide it. This is the ugly, horrible scar of this false country that no-one but us acknowledges as a bad thing.....



I'd urge anyone interested in this on-going problem to please check it all up.....the site address I've just given you is but one source.....there are many waiting to be uncovered.




This is the reason why I won't be living here in the next 5 years.....the only question left for me to answer to myself, is where to go.....
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: In AmericEar on July 14, 2006, 09:43:19 PM
OK reading this has... well, slightly annoyed me ::) :P

I'm speaking from the point of view that I'm from the Republic of Ireland, so I apologise for my biased views.

Yes, I'm a 13 year old girl so people might take me seriously and might not. I'd rather you did though.

First of all, many people seem to be trying to define terrorism, and then having someone else point out that if that is terrorism, then something else falls under that category aswell.

Quote
terrorist

  • noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Therfore, the IRA does fall under that category, and I personally think that they are terrorists myself, they may not be maliciously killing people, but they were blowing monuments and other precious things up, and people are present when it happens. They are fighting for political aims which puts them right under that category.

One thing which I found quite stupid 'Define a Northern Ireland terrorist.' or something like that, well THAT isn't hard to work out. A terrorist for Northern Ireland. Terrorists only differ in the way that they terrorise and the reason that they terrorise.

Another point I wish to make is WHY it is under English rule (I'm not talking about the time that the Pope ordered for it to be invaded). Ireland wanted to break free from English rule so a civil war began. Eventually an agreement was made that Protestants would be in Northern Ireland, Catholics in the republic. There was still much fighting going on in Northern Ireland, partly religion, partly the fact that they wanted to break free from England. The problem is, whenever they are aloud to make decisions by themselves, they argue even more, and England has to step in to stop it. The IRA, in a way, are fighting for more arguing. It's a very difficult situation and whichever way you go, somebody isn't going to be pleased.

I also must point out that whether people like it or not, religion plays a major part in the conflicts in Northern Ireland, it's mainly Christianity though, Protestant and Catholics beliefs. So I'm sorry, but one way or another, you're gonna have to discuss it a little at least.

I hope I haven't offended anyone.
I hope that the stuff I have put helps.

Thanks for reading...

... Had to get it off my chest 'cos it was annoying me...
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: D on July 20, 2006, 02:21:46 AM
You didnt annoy me atleast Ear. infact i whole heartedly agree with you.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Edge on July 23, 2006, 07:33:42 PM
Actually, it was more a deal to keep the upper territories that were founded by the London guilds way back when, the British wanted to keep the settlements they claimed they created, so when Collins was sent over to negotiate, basically it was a question of negotiation as to how many counties, rather than the state itself to become free.....that's by the way why Collins was murdered, because DeValera knew for a fact it'd come down to that, and he allowed him to go in as the political pawn.....


Where this idea that the North was sectioned because it was all Protestant is frankly nonsense, believe me when I say, there were plenty of good Irish people left stranded and screwed by this "separation" when it happened to experience nearly 70 years of opression, civil injustice, inequality, and many years of having little or no voice in the "Democratic" system.....


"A terrorist for Northern Ireland" would be groups like the UVF, UDA, UFF, LVF, Red Hand Commandos and Paisley's wee group that I forget the name of, the Red <somethingorother>.....will have to look that one up. These groups are FOR British rule, or Unionist rule in Northern Ireland- nothing else will do for the majority of them.....

What people are arguing is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sorry to have to say this and rile you guys, but I as a human being owe much of my freedom right now to NICRA, and the IRA.....if there hadn't been fighting, if there hadn't been Civil Rights marches, if there hadn't been a campeign to highlight the gross injustices that our side of the community faced (This all happened in '69 BTW.....) then I guess I wouldn't be here right now, I'd be living in a terrace with little money and very little prospects. As it stands, I'm living just on the fringe of the inner city, I have a computer, I have a vote, and I have a voice- something you guys in Britain have had since Democracy proper was introduced.....


Also, I must apologise if it seems like I'm picking on you, but I keep seeing and hearing "IRA" but I have to ask- do you guys down South (Where I'm going today, in a minute's time! :)) even know that there's any other groups? I'm sorry, but all I ever see or hear from people from the South is the IRA this and IRA that.....trust me when I say, there are more Loyalist paramilitaries walking the streets than there are IRA volunteers in the North.

If I've time when I get back, I'll try and explain myself more fully if I can, but for now, good luck and seeya.  :)
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: In AmericEar on August 04, 2006, 12:34:10 AM
You didnt annoy me atleast Ear. infact i whole heartedly agree with you.

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

... Anyway ...

OK, I'm not too sure where your reason for the split has come from but I'll look into it, I'm sure it was a religion thing because in England Henry VIII created the Protestant religion.

Also, I apologise about implying that all Protestants were to live in Northern Ireland, I know that isn't the case, it was just the stronger opinionated Protestants who couldn't stand the Catholics that moved up. There are still many Protestants in Southern Ireland. My- for example -fathers side of my family are Protestants and my Mothers, Catholics. It shows that the religion conflict has died down, but is not totally gone.

I'm someone from 'down South' and yes I did know that there were other organisations, and everyone I know from 'down South' who is old enough to understand the situation does too. I know you aren't picking on anyone but I find that highly stereotypical and a little annoying by the many things it could imply.

Now I only mentioned the IRA (no idea why its in inverted commas) because the fact nobody seemed to believe that they were terrorists or something. Which, with proof, I have just .... proved (... that would've sounded a lot better without the two 'proves') they are.

Also these other organisations aren't talked about as much as the IRA simply because they aren't being as radical as the IRA and making it onto the news.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: In AmericEar on August 22, 2006, 10:36:56 PM
Sorry to double post.

OK I just found out that it was a political vote. Everyone voted for the North of Ireland to stay under English rule. It was a bad move at the beginning.
Title: Re: Northern Ireland?
Post by: Lessa on August 23, 2006, 02:04:34 PM
Government of Ireland At 1920 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act%2C_1920#Long.27s_committee)

Division of Ireland from 6th century onwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_Ireland)