TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- EU elections
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

The counties of Derry, Antrim, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone which are presently and temporarily occupied by Britain is where I'm refering to.

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck The counties of Derry, Antrim, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone which are presently and temporarily occupied by Britain is where I'm refering to.

change that avatar of yourse. makes me sick

Hmm, I sense an IRA/UFF fight coming up...

Dunno yet what group I will vote... I suppose the Galeusca party, they support the minority nations of Europe and also they are pro-europe.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I wonder if there was a vote in those places "occupied" tommorow would they want to free themselves from this "occupation"?

Unionists make up 18% of the Irish population. The way Ireland was partitioned to facilitate the wishes of a minority living here and a foreign government is called gerrymandering.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Should Britain give these occupied places back to the ancestors of the centuaries old kings who used to own these lands?

There's no suggestion whatsoever of land changing hands. It won't happen following a British withdrawal. What you have now you'll have then and along with it hopefully you'll have a greater say in the running of Ireland, unlike now when people who have no connection whatsoever to Ireland make the rules for part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Am I part of this occupation? Do you live in an "occupied" territory?

You're not part of the occupation. In fact your ancestry is probably the same as my own. So if you're part of the occupation so am I.
I spend a fairly equal amount of my time in 26 counties and the 6 counties.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Except im not a part of a terriorist organisation nor would or have I ever supported one....

Define terrorism. I'm not part of a terrorist orgnaisation nor do I support one. Armed struggle is not terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant change that avatar of yourse. makes me sick

Eh, no



Anyway, we're supposed to be talking about the European elections

voting for the joined forces PSD-PP, part of the EPP group

thing is i hate PP for their ultra conservative status, and they used to be anti-europe (i am totally pro-europe), but there is no better option really. the other options are crazy extreme left parties/commies, the socialists which fucked up completely our economy and must be left out at any cost, or this new ultra-conservative party that came out from inside PP

the vote is totally for PSD,they are so impopular right now among the people cause of harsh politics to keep up the economy, but i believe that is the only way to go until it stabilizes - voting against them would only make their government more fragile

the campaign over here has been total bullshit until now though, all the parties starting throwing insults at each other, now all they say in the speeches is that they should stop the insults and start talking about european issues.... when nobody actually does it

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck Define terrorism.

Hmm, I think you should ask Diginut and George Smiley to help you guys out on that one

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Ireland has never been an independant single united country, can you tell me a time when it was? Why then should we look at it in that way, perhaps we should look at unionism through an all British Isles perspective and at something that was once a reality rather than a dream. Then you will find unionists make up a massive majority...

You're right, it has never been a united independent state, but in the 12th century, when the first anglo-normans came to Ireland, nowhere would there have been states in the modern sense. Several centuries later, yes. The opinion of the British public at large has never been an issue for either Republicans (who believe the Irish people as a single unit free from foreign interference should determine their own destiny) or unionists (who believe an artifical majority should determine the future of the gerrymandered statelet. I remember watching Michael McGimpsey being questioned on television a few months back, it was put to him that the majority of Irish people and British people want a United Ireland. His response was that it wasn't for either to decide, because a so-called majority in the 6 counties wished for things to remain as they are). As for British people, most don't care either way but it's widely accepted that of those who know of the siuation a majority of them want an end to British rule in Ireland. But that's irrelevent.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Are you talking about the European union that makes 70% of all laws??

I was refering to Ireland being ruled from London (direct rule as it's called). But yes, I'm opposed to centralisation of rule through the EU just as much. I'm a great advocate of decentralisation.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic However.. You don't know who I am or where I am from. If my ancestry is not the same as you am I part of this "occupation"

Well I know you're a Unionist from the six counties. I might be wrong in thinking your ancestry is British Protestant? I assume that's the case, as it is with me.
Again, the occupation is in the sense that the British establishment have a hold on part of Ireland. Unionists will have a role in the future of Ireland (post unification), the British government will not.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Ok here is the defination of terriorism for you... "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Armed struggle comes into that A.ND is the exact same thing. Your armed struggle is not lawful by Irish, British, European or international law and therfore is is unlawful. Your armed struggle is an attempt to coerce the government and it is for ideological and political reasons!! This armed struggle is terriorism.

But I think that would imply all military action is terrorism. For example, George Washington and his army used violence to overthrow British rule in what is now the USA. It was obviously for ideolgical and political reasons (in fact pretty much all military conflicts are, but not all are terrorism). And it would further suggest that the 4th July is a terrorist celebration in my opinion. On the other hand, using Ireland as an example, would the British establishment's use of military force not be terrorism since it's applicable to the definition. I suppose everyone will have their own interpretation of what is and is not terrorism. I'm sure you're aware of the oft used cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Similarly, you have southern politicians commemorating things like the 1798 and 1916 risings (which were against the law of the land, and so terrorism to the law enforcers at the time) but at the same time jailing people for engaging in similar activity as the men from whom they (southern politicians) draw their roots. Bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Also, I was wondering what you think of the idea of a northern majority holding the key to the future of the 6 counties. I've heard people say Unionsts, holding on so strongly to the idea of northern majority, have in fact left themselves in a bad position because when the majority in the north is a nationalist one the Unionsts will have nothing to fall back on since they've stuck to this way of thinking for decades. What I'm getting as is, when nationalists make up 50.0001%, will Unionists just role over and say fair enough?

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 the campaign over here has been total bullshit until now though, all the parties starting throwing insults at each other, now all they say in the speeches is that they should stop the insults and start talking about european issues.... when nobody actually does it

hehe, first sign that EU is becomming a superstate like the US

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Who are these "Irish people" you yourself claim you are British and there are hundreds of different ethnic minorities living in Ireland. What makes someone Irish? What about immigrants, do they not have a say in a democracy? The fact of the matter is "foreign" interference is a big part of Ireland's history and foreigners live on this land now, you cant just kick them all home.

I'm not British, I'm Irish. But if you want to be that abstract about it, there are no Irish people at all, as there were no people living here about 10,000 years ago, so no one's truly Irish. Or if you want me to be really obscure, everyone is African since that's where man began. You'll find the republican movement are amongst the most open minded groups in Ireland when it comes to immigration issues. The fact that foreign rule is part of Irish history (and present) hardly justifies it does it? Stabbings are common in Limerick, so does that make it right? As for kicking people "home", if you're refering to Unionists they are home. You don't really think there's going to be ethnic cleansing, pogroms, etc.?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic You claim the British would want a united Ireland but it also seams quite clear today the Republic don't want a united Ireland eitehr!

Well they signed up to an agreement in which they made assurances that unification would be facilitated when the opportunity arises. As well as that, all the main nationalist parties (FF, FG, Labour, SDLP) in 1983 pledged their support for a United Ireland (see New Ireland Forum Report)

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic How would the small economy of the Republic of Ireland pay for a �3bn budget defecit in an �8bn economy? especially now they use the Euro I also take it you would prefer the Euro be introduced to N. Ireland - furthering the decentralisation of power to Brussles.

Well I'm opposed to the Euro, but Ireland abandoning the use of the Euro isn't going to happen and obviously it'll come into use throughout Ireland when the country is united (can't really have sterling can ya?)

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Also can you explain to me where all the money to develop the Irish economy has come from over the past 10 years?? If you are so opposed to this centralisation how did you plan to develop your nation and pay for the �3bn budget defecit in the North? Do you just advocate pulling out of the EU once the Republic becomes a contributor and leave those new nations to develop themselves?

The development of the Irish economy was due to many factors, higher standards of education provided for foreign investment and the knock on effect it had, etc. and obviously money from Europe which led to development of infrastructure, etc.
No, I'd be a bit of a lefty and would advocate helping the developing states as much as we were helped. If others did it for us, we can return the favour to those who need the help we once needed.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I just defined terriorism as you asked... check it out for yourself www.dictionary.com!

So you're sticking to what's defined there and therefore you are saying that the liberation of the colonies in 1776 and founding of the US was a terrorist action. What happened there then influenced what happened in France in 1789 and Ireland in 1798. So if Wolfe Tone was a terrorist father then surely Washington was too?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Its a pitty you are so out of touch with reality that innocent people have been killed by these freedom fighters... its a further pitty that the Catholic church has supported it.

I'm aware of that, and it's a regretful consequence of the situation here. Mistakes happened, and a lot of innocent people died, on both sides. But British rule facilitates resistance. Militant republicanism exists because British rule exists. Bring an end to the latter and the former will have no justification whatsoever to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Lets get realistic the question why do you support the continued violence for a quite frankly sad goal and why do you continue to play the opression card.. its a load of bollox to be quite honest and totally against all Christian teaching!

At present I don't support it (armed struggle) as you're seeming to suggest. Obviously I support the idea of an all-Ireland republic and on principle recognise the right of the Irish people to resist, forcefully if necessary. But the almost non-existant campaigns of the smaller republican groups at present isn't going to achieve its aims any time soon. There needs to be support from the people as there was in the past for it to be successful. And in fairness too, don't you think it's a little disrespectful to label the idea of justice a "sad goal".
Christian teaching tells us to turn the other cheek. Slaves are made that way. I for one am glad that Irish people in the past adhered to the idea of liberation and justice. Had they adhered to Christian teaching most of the people in Ireland would be second class citizens in their own country.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Does that include British immigration? What if the British decided tommorow to come to Ireland in massive numbers as to form a majority?

Well that obviously isn't going to happen. But to answer the question, yes, I'd be opposed to it if a gigantic number of people came from any given country for the sole reason of becoming a majority and seizing control of the country for the benefit of their country. It would be imperialism. As for immigration in the real sense, as we're experiencing here today, I have no problem whatsoever with it. And considering the history of people from Ireland emmigrating I can't see how anyone can try to justify keeping all non-nationals out. Obviously I subscribe to this way of thinking within reason if that makes sense. Immigration should be relative to the ability of a country to cope with the economic implications brought with it.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic How is it "foreign" when you claim yourself you are decendanded from Britain. That is the problem with Republicanism because it see's anything other than Irish foreign when white people are all the same and there is bugger all difference.

It's foreign in the sense that Irish people, for centuries, were (and some still) ruled from a country and administration other than their own. All white people are the same??? Non-whites are different???

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic As for justification, no part of Ireland is ruled unlawfully but democratically.

Well what's law? Just because something is statute doesn't mean it's morally right. I mean up until 1921 the Republic founded in 1919 wasn't recognised by British law or internationally. It was technically illegal but was the greatest victory for Irish Republicanism in its history and was the foundation of the 26 county state. The elected Sinn F�iners in 1918 setting up D�il �ireann acted illegally I'm sure, yet Unionists recognise it as a legitimate state. I wouldn't get to bogged down on what's written as law, particularly foreign law in regard to domestic issues.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Well if the the record of ethnic cleansing on the border is anything to go by... and of course the once 10% Protestant population in the Republic somehow is not only 2%, I wonder where they all went.....

Irish republicans, being anti-sectarian, would obviously be completely opposed to such sectarianism. But you are right. There were some such incidents post partition, which are completely uncondonable. I think though a fair amount of voluntary migration occurred with northern Catholics moving south and southern Protestants moving north.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic 1983 was a long time ago... There are less people readily identifying themselves with this pure republican Irishness especailly new migrants.

It was a fair while back, but the goal of unification remains central to all the nationalist parties (Fianna F�il - The Republican Party, etc.) even if they do see it as of lesser importance than other things, as is the case with some parties.
And you're right. It's not fashionable to be Republican at present, looking at Irish history it seems to be like a tide.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Do you know that the European parliament is based on a proportional population basis... do you call that gerrymandering also?

As are electoral areas for county councils, national parliaments, etc. which couldn't really be regarded as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the division of an electoral area to give an unfair advantage to one group over another.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I cant argue with that but what you must also realise is that although the GDP of Ireland is strong a rise in the likes of corporation tax rates of future rises in interest rates across Europe could see a hell of a lot of jobs and industry jumping ship especailly to the new assention countries... the Irish economy has a realitively weak GNP and that is sure to be reflected in the future. Do you honestly think Ireland can continue along the sustained low interest rate boom that it is experiencing??

The Nice Treaty further threatened to harmonise corporation tax throughout the EU, that would also apply to assention states. If this was allowed to happen then we'd be in a bad position. Our trump card in attracting foeign investment is the tax breaks that other countries don't provide. This coupled with low labour costs in the east would be a disaster. Ideally though, there should be an balancing out of GDP and GNP. Foreign companies invest in counties for the sole reason of maximising profits and exploiting their workforces. Foreign investment in the longterm is bad for a country in that it undermines native industry and tilts the GDP-GNP balance in favour of foreign capitalists at the expense of indigenous peoples and industries.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I cannot argue with the dictionary defination of a word... Perhaps you should lobby to have it changed?

Well I assumed you'd stick with the definition, I was more interested in your opinion on what constitutes a terrorist, using Washington as an example because he's someone who undoubtedly is a terrorist in a technical sense and according to the dictionary, but I can't imagine many Americans labelling their founding fathers as terrorists. I'm sure Pearse, Connolly, Sands, etc. you'd regard as terrorists, yet they have streets and the like named after them.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Its a pitty that you cannot see beyond your own small minded nationalistic dreams. Have you lost people because of the conflict? Would you be willing to die for your cause?

Immediate family, no. I know a fair few people who've lost fathers, brothers, etc. whose political beliefs have remained as they always were. If you're implying that I'd have different views if family members were killed in the conflict I'd be unable to answer since I'm not in that situation. As for dying for the cause, obviously not if it just meant another name on the list.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic No. You resist being governed because you see a dream of this future Ireland so much better than the one we've got. I say Bullshit! Things won't change one bit in your Ireland, never mind get better.

I see the dream of a future Ireland being a fair and impartial one, something Ireland past never was and arguably something the six counties are not in that a nationalist man is two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a unionist man, the east/west of the Bann divide where places with the largest proportion of nationalists are the most disadvantaged in the six counties (Derry and Strabane for example). Of course I'd resist being governed by Britain, as an Irish person it's my right!
There are economic concerns for some following a British withdrawal, the primary concern of Republicans is the right to national self determination, and the ability to, and to be let, stand on our own feet.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Perhaps you care to comment that if Irish government exists over the whole land then that rule would facilitate loyalist resistance in exactly the same way that you claim British rule facilitate's republicanism?

It would obviously be a disaster, and not something Republicans want. You should take a look at the �ire Nua (New Ireland) http://www.iol.ie/~saoirse/video/eirenua.htm plan. The aim of which is the creation of a federal Ireland in the event of British withdrawal. It's proposed that four provincial parliaments be set up. The aim is two-fold, it will facilitate decentralisation of political power to the provinces, and further to county/town council level and community level and so allowing for maximum devolution and people power, so to speak. The second is obviously to appease unionist concerns, i.e. people rule themselves, and not tyrannical rule from Dublin as I'm sure some unionists would view it.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Justice! BULLSHIT. The PIRA murdered thousands not only of Protestant people but more so the Catholic peoples and you call this shit justice....

Well if you want to get into past atrocities we can look at the great starvation in the mid nineteenth century, the failure of one crop depleated the population by millions due to the social, political and military set-up of British occupied Ireland.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Yeah just like Scotland & Wales ohh the injustice ..... Bullshit. It just shows how your goal of "religious freedom" for Catholics really amounts to nothing for people like you are not Chritian at all never mind Catholic.

Well yes, religious freedom is something written into the proclamation of 1916, "the Republic will guarantee religious and civil liberties" and is something I adhere to. The religious differences between the natives and newcomers was probably the greatest single issue that sets the Irish situation apart from the other two you've mentioned. By 1775 only 5% of Irish land was in the hands of the native Irish for example. I know the land my own family used to possess wasn't bought from the previous owners.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Great, so why are you subjecting us to the tedious task of reading your (highly informative) post?

Nor your response, buttnugget. No one really cares about European elections. No superpowers there.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Nor your response, buttnugget. No one really cares about European elections. No superpowers there. [[[smoke]]]

Must be why the thread got 48 replies then. Sorry, but you are the one who doesn't care - don't presume to speak for others.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The thing is however is that the majority of people ruled by the UK do not consider themselves Irish at all.

The majority of people in Ireland consider themselves to be Irish.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic It is their own administration and the partition of the Island was done to accomodate political autonomy for the majority both North and South.

The undemocratic gerrymander of partition it was called.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic All whites are the same, we have a distinctive western culture and the vast majority are Christian. Different groups have different religions and cultures but it is truly utter shit to say that there is a serious difference between Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh, American, Australian...Instead of concentrating on our similarities you Irish republicans attempt to highlight our differences when truly we arn't even genetically different to other white people across the world never mind culturally.

Of course there are great similarities. But let's not disengage from the issue, i.e. the stated wish of the majority of Irish people to see the country united, and this wish being denied through a unionist veto of 18%. By your logic above, the whole of the west should join together since we're all so similiar, yet a few posts back you were talking of voting for candidates that advocate pulling out of the EU (I'll assume it's because your Britishness is of more importance than being part of a collective European superstate).

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I am not talking about the law, I am talking about basic democracy

The Irish people voted as a unit in 1918 in and election that was described at the time as "an election for the freedom of Ireland", something a majority of the people endursed by voting for the candidates that, in their election campaign, stated they'd set up a Republic. The democratic wishes of the people were denied.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic is that so morally wrong?

Yes. If I thought British imperial rule (or imperialism orcastrated by any power) was right I wouldn't oppose it like I do.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Let me also make this clear, your posts suggest you are a big supported of a Palistinian state, yet that state would be set up based on this morally wrong gerrymandering how do you justify your stance?

No, it would be the ending of the occupation of Palestine and the destruction of a sectarian state founded in 1948. Palestine and the Palestinian people are a state and people currently occupied and oppressed by an artificial state. I'll not pretend to know much about the plight of the Palestinian people other than to recognise the solidarity between one resistance movement to another.
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Perhaps you would like to test that anti-secterianism for me and walk into a Falls road bar with a Rangers shirt on declaring you are a proud protestant and sing the UK national anthem?

There are sectarians on both sides, and for a person to be attacked simply because of their religion or because they're a unionist is sectarianism, not Republicanism. A person can't be both Republican and sectarian, they're complete opposites. But to answer your question, most people on the Falls would be offended by the singing of the national anthem of a state that has inflicted as much damage as it has on their community. Republicans aren't anti-protestant, look at the history of the movement, and I personally know Protestants Republicnas and Protestants who are members of the Republican movement. Sectarianism and Republicanism going hand in hand is an untruth spouted by people (particularly the British and Irish establishments) in an attempt to make people believe it and as a result undermine support for the movement.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic There is no doubt that PIRA are terriorists, murdering thousands of their own people has hardly furthered any political goal...

The most recent phase of the campaign hasn't achieved the ultimate goal which is a British declaration of intent to withdraw. Although the social conditions that existed under the old stormont regime are no longer there, and that's due largely to Stormont being brought down in the '70s (an achievement of the IRA).

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic They have murdered (sic) thousands of army and police and I see no place for that either in a civilised society. Those people have families

Brit army, RUC, etc. weren't murdered, they were killed. Their job was to enforce British rule in Ireland, and for doing so they and their families paid the price. I never gloat over anyone's death and I'd obviously symathise with their families, but the fact of the matter remains, they were killed for doing what they did, and most instances wouldn't have hesitated to kill Irish soldiers if the tables were turned (which they often were, see the Republican Roll of Honour)

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic It is also unaccecptable that Sinn Fein should be allowed to sit in government with a private army ready and waiting.

Yet it's fine for the DUP, members of which founded Ulster Resistance, an organisation that imported arms from S. Africa which are now in the hands of loyalist bigots (I justify calling them that in that they advocate the targeting and killing of innocent people "any taig'll do") and are used frequently.
Or the UUP with their links to Vanguard, or PUP with links to UVF. Or most obviously the biggest terror organisation in the country, the army of the British government (none of which have decomissioned a single bullet). But I'll agree with you. I don't think Provisional Sinn F�in or any Irish person should be administering rule on behalf of the British, all it is is an attempt by the British government to make their rule here acceptable by given Irish nationalists a mini-role (a token gesture and an attempt to get rid of Irish Republicanism)

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic And this fiar and impartial Ireland would extend the discrimination against the Protestant people to all aspects of employment and not just the police service? How would you rectify this unemployment situation? Tax and spend??

The current inequalities I speak of are derived from past investment (or lack of it) in nationalist areas of the six counties. As for the police force, to me the religious make-up of it is irrelevent (as is the background of the people in the board, i.e. nationalist/unionist). The RIC was 80% Catholic, its job was the same as the RUC when it was 93% Protestant and it's the same job of the new PSNI, enforce Brit rule. 50% Catholic, 50% Protestant, 100% British.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Of course its your right but you have to look at the clear economic benefits that the UK gives N.Ireland. It finances a �3bn black hole defecit.. something the Republic would be unable to do with a population only double that in the North.

Irish people should happily be bribed into submission?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Firstly the direct murder of the Catholic population by the PIRA within the last 30 years and continuing today in times of European human rights development is without a doubt an attrocity and a clearly preventable one, do you deny that?

Do you really want to keep flogging this atrocities thing. The religion of an innocent person killed in the north doesn't matter. Innocent people of whatever religion should never have been killed. And you'll see very few incidents of sectarianism (by that I mean targetting and killing of protestant civilians) by Republicans, with the exception of things like what happened at Kings Mills

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic We look back over a centuary ago when the famine occured and take a look at the reasons. It was the economic system employed.

The impact of the failure of one crop was drastically hightened because of British rule and conditions brought with it (the land tenure system for example). If there was no British rule there would have been no Irish disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Before the English even arrived in Ireland, it was controlled by local kings and was not in Irish hands then!

So it's perfectly acceptable to replace one tyrant with another? And the kings (Gaelic chiefs) were Irish.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic If Ireland was allowed to develop into a modern state like Scotland and Wales without continued republican interference and rebellion it would have developed just fine.

The Irish people were denied their right to independence, so of course they interfered with the administration of a foreign power. And rightly so. Imperialism is wrong and to oppose it is right.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic That misses the point. The majority of the people of Ireland who consider themselves Irish are not governed by the UK but political autonomy has been granted to the majority of those who consider themselves British. Ireland was never a united political unit so this so called "gerrymandering" is not the case. If anything gerrymandering has occured to allow those people of the Republic to govern themselves.

The Republic was proclaimed in 1916 and given a democratic mandate by the people in 1918 when they elected republican representatives to bring the Republic into existance. The partitioning of Ireland in 1921 flew in the face of the wishes of the majority of Irish people to facilitate a minority.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic No. Ireland has never been a single political unit and that unionist veto is just as relevant as the 20 odd percent of Isreal who consider themselves Palistianians and want a seperate state, which you agree with.

In both instances a sectarian state was set up and large number of people of a certain ethnicity, religion, etc. settled in the state in order to create a substantial enough number of that particular people in an attempt to justify the existence of the state.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The UK and Ireland may in this European election vote for a majority of candidates that would advocate pulling out of the EU. There is no doubt that this will be the case with N. Ireland yet in no way is that going to happen. Are our democratic wishes being denied or is there more to it than that?

They wouldn't advocate pulling out of the EU. They're critical of some aspects of Europe, but to my knowledge non of the northern candidates have said they wish to see Ireland or Britain out of EU. Opposition to entering the EEC in the beginning was an issue, but leaving the EU, from what I can see anyway, isn�t.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The people this "imperial" rule governs are not Irish people nor do the majority consider themselves Irish.

In the foreseeable future the majority of northerners will be nationalist. But in places like county Antrim, north Down, north Armagh there would always be a unionist majority. Should the country be re-partitioned? To answer yes would contradict your belief that the majority in the 6 cos should decide their own future, to answer no would indicate your subscription to my type of views, i.e. an electoral area should choose as a unit

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I dont deny that for one second and I never have! What I am pointing out is that your claim that republicanism is not secterian is bullshit as the most republican of places also have the most secterian people in that area

A Republic isn�t just an Ireland without British interference, it�s about the creation of a society of equals. Therefore republicanism is about equality, sectarianism is the opposite of equality (in that it�s about division along religious lines and drawing inequality from those lines). A brit free Ireland in which any group are discriminated against on religious grounds isn�t a Republic (as set out in the proclamation and adhered to be Republicans) irrespective of what it�s called. Stalinist Russia, in the opinion of Communists today, was a Communist state, despite it being labelled one.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic And you are telling me that the IRA never targeted and murdered innocent Protestants simply because they were Protestant. This is total bullshit and you know it.

It has happened, but very rarely. One notorious incident was when 10 Protestant men were murdered in Armagh. It was claimed by a group calling themselves the South Armagh something or other, but it's widely accepted that IRA members carried out the killings (the reason for it was nationalists were being killed indiscriminately in the north Armagh area at the time, and it was a message to those involved in those killings that IRA members could be as brutal, and that further killings of nationalists would result in similar style retribution. It worked, the killings of nationalists went down in the area. That's not to say I condone the actions of those involved in killing the 10 men). There was that incident, along with a very small number of others in which Protestants were targeted simply for being Protestants. You said yourself more nationalists were killed by IRA than unionists. Maybe they were also targeting the very people they were supposed to be protecting? right.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The falls road is a republican heartland so are you telling me that the people in that pub would just ignore this person... bullshit he would have the fuck beat of him for being a protestant. Does this mean that these people are not republican.. more bullshit.

No, they wouldn't ignore him because they'd be offended by what he's saying (would a Jew be offended if a Christian came in to a Jewish bar and started shouting Heil Hitler? Of course, and he'd probably get a kicking, not because he's a Christian, but because he's spouting hatred). And yes, anyone who attacks a Protestant for no reason whatsoever other than he's a Protestant is not a Republican, he's sectarian. Anti-Protestant sentiment isn't welcome in the republican movement. I'm telling you that as someone who knows. I'm not going to say there aren't sectarian people who purport to be republicans, what I'm saying is they are NOT republican.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Who the fuck cares you know dam well as I do that the singing of the UK national anthem is a sign of Protestantism or unionism and the singing of soilders song is a sign of Catholisism or Republicanism.

Protestantism and Unionism are not the same thing. One is a religious following, the other a political ideology. As is Catholicism and Republicanism respectively. It's attitudes like yours that add fuel to the fire of people who claim the conflict in the north in nothing but sectarian and help brand all Catholics as Republicans, all Protestants as Unionists and all Republicans and Unionists as sectarian.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Aye I heard the local Free Presbyterian church was looking for PIRA volunteers, fuck off and dont take that tiny minorty way out of proportions. Lets look at the reality today, if there was no difference in religion in this coutry, say everyone was Protestant, there would be no conflict at all.

The founders of Irish Republicanism were overwhelmingly Protestant and Dissenter. When they rose in Antrim and Down they didn't attack fellow Protestants but rose up against British rule. So even if everyone was Protestant there still would have been a desire to see the establishment of a republic. As did happen in Antrim and Down. Very few Catholics played a part.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Aye funny you should mention that, I seen the UWC flying the tricolour and shouting fuck the queen that day...

Stormont fell in 1972. The six counties were made ungovernable and as a result the Unionist regime in the north collapsed. What you're referring to is the Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974, when loyalists opposed to nationalists having a say in the affairs of the north brought an end to the Sunningdale Agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic And it just so happens this clearly illustrates you dont seam to give a fuck about any human life.

Someone else already answered this better than me, a man from Belfast called Billy McKee, he's former comander, "I felt the same about us killing their men as they felt about killing ours. Quite frankly I shed no tears". Which is true, when a Brit kills an IRA man he's a hero, when an IRA man kills a Brit he's a murdering terrorist. They obviously have no remorse killing republicans, why should republicans care about them. I do give a fuck about human life, but I don�t give a fuck about the life of anyone who�d kill a republican, or worse, intentionally kill a civilian.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Are these the same Irish soilders who planted a bomb at enniskillen, on the Shankill and in the heart of London all which resulted in murder death and destruction? Are these soilders suppored by the Irish government?

The intentional killing of civilians is inexcusable. Civilians were killed in all three you�ve mentioned, whether or not the killings were intentional is debateable. Recent revelations about Enniskillen indicate that the bomb used was remote controlled, and that it exploded prematurely due to cross signalling in the airwaves (with some other device completely unrelated). Shankill was an attempt to kill loyalist leaders meeting in the building that was destroyed (an IRA man didn�t intentionally walk into a shop and blow himself and everyone else in the shop up). The aim of bombing London was destruction of massive pieces of property, costing hundreds of millions in an attempt to make London an investment black spot (some companies withdrew from London costing the Brit government massive amounts of money). It�s called economic guerrilla warfare. You�re well aware that the intentional murder of civilians is both immoral and self defeating for the organisation carrying the murders out.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Aye and the IRA and all their comrades would never advocate such brutal secterian murders. This is a fucking joke mate you point the finger of blame constantly on the Loyalists and the British government. The IRA are a bunch of murdering bastards and you cant seam to comprehend that because it was for some "nobel" cause. This type of attitude makes me sick and it makes me pitty the likes of you. How shocking is it also that members of the IRA and their friends claim to have a Christian religion..

So it's perfectly okay for the British army (the majority of whom are Christian) to come here and kill Irish people, but it's murder when Irish people fight back. Or is their (BA) cause so noble that it's okay?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The army of this country who have been continually decomissioning their posts watching over the theives and murders living in S. Armagh since the signing of the Belfast agreement.

They're not the army of this country for a start, and which thieves in South Armagh are you refering to, the ones who stole land and set up in the middle of the GAA pitch in Crosmaglen to build a base?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Now you are making yourself clear that you are more extreme than even Sinn Fein, I take it you are a keen supporter of the Omagh bomb. Oh how that achieved a fantastic victory for your cause, those 2 unborn children were going to join the police force didnt you know! Your attitude towards other human beings is disgusting.

I�m not a supporter of PSF. However that�s not to say I completely disagree with everything they stand for. I know that locally (in my locality anyway) the PSF representatives are the most competent in the community in dealing with real issues, etc. I do however recognise that the Belfast Agreement, which they�re behind, isn�t working, has never worked and can never work. You can�t sell an agreement to one group of people as a stepping stone to a united Ireland, to another group of people as something that strengthens the union, have the respective sides vote for it based on those contradicting merits, then expect it to work. I believe that there has to be complete clarity in a settlement, and the �ire Nua proposals I pointed you towards best do that. There�s compete clarity as to what the structure of a new Ireland would be. Unlike what we have now, there would be no false pretences.
As I�ve said above, I don�t support the killing of civilians (ludicrous to suggest I support the bombing of Omagh). As well as that, what happened further strengthens my point about killing civilians, i.e. self defeating.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic � your organisation

?? I don�t have an organisation.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Your cause murdered these people and you fight on hand on heart without no apology to anyone.

The PIRA have made an apology for all the non-combatants killed in the war.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Your country does nothing to help the thousands who die because you me and the rest of this nation lives in luxury while we all partake in the exploitation of these nations. Your country is no better than any other and stop trying to pretend it is.

Not only did Britain not do anything about the conditions of mid-nineteenth century Ireland (Re: The starvation) it created the conditions that provided for it to happen. The land tenure system meant that rents had to be paid by all tenants (who made up the vast majority of the population) and leases on lands were yearly or a period at the behest of a British landlord (therefore many people felt it a waste of time to invest in the land they farmed) and so farming remain stagnant with one crop being used to feed native families and other farm produce used as payment for rent and shipped abroad. When the food of the natives failed the rent still had to be paid, hence you have the so-called famine. The rent was then collected at gunpoint by the crown forces as people starved. To equate obvious forced starvation to modern day Ireland�s lack of intervention in the developing world today is obscure. No Irish forces are in any country stealing the food of starving people. Though I�ll agree, not enough is being done by the west to prevent deaths in the developing world. But things like globalisation, world bank, IMF, etc. are the main culprits. To try to shift the blame to a small country like ours is ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic Centuaries ago thats what did happen and I'm glad that you refered to your kings as tyrants as it just illustrates how the arival of the British in your opinion didnt change the country.

It was more a case of replacing the student with the master. The arrival of the British did change the country. Prior to the arrival of the Protestant English/Scottish in the seventeenth century (the loyalists in Ireland before then were Catholic) there was no religious persecution. Following it there was, and following religious wars (culminating in the defeat of Catholic forces in 1691) the persecution extended into all aspects of life (cultural, social, political, education, etc.). Gaelic chiefs weren�t angels, but they weren�t evil bastards.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic The UK is not foreign all Irish people and British people are ethnically the same so what the fuck are you on about foreign..

Well if you�re going back to ethnicity they�re not. Celts were widespread throughout Ireland, Britain and a lot of Europe until the arrival of the Saxons who pushed westwards, and forced the Celtic people to the fringes (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, etc.). I won�t disagree that since then a lot of intermingling has occurred between the peoples since and today they�re all the one you might argue.. Just like there�s a great number of people in Ireland of British ancestry, there�s a lot of people in places like Newfoundland of Irish descent. In Newfoundland like in Ballymena, etc. the most settlers descendents have strong accents, etc of their former country and various strong ties. This seems to be your justification for British rule in the six counties (i.e. the people are of British descent). The same argument doesn�t really justify Irish rule across the ocean though does it?

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I have no problem with nationalism and I probably would be quite nationalistic myself if I did not find your type so unbelievably unbearable and secterian.

Well you can find me what you like, but I can tell you I�m far from sectarian. I make no apologies for holding the political beliefs I hold. But you�re either seeing them or trying to make them out to be something they are not, and trying to make me out to be something I�m not.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic it would be great to see Ireland in the future become perhaps part of a federal UK.

It would be shameful if some generation in the future turned their noses up at the sacrifice made by so many in the past for them.

quote:

Originally posted by mixinmusic I hope one day you find the true word of god and stop supporting in todays standard an unjust and uncalled for secterian struggle that does nothing but tear these peoples and these nations apart. Get on with your life and worry about the bigger picture ie things that threaten us all as human beings. Leave this petit conflict behind.

It is not a sectarian struggle and I am not a sectarian person (sectarianism does of course exist and it�s a disgusting thing). Opponents of republicans brand them sectarian in an attempt to demonise republicans and belittle what republicans stand for. Hopefully you don�t see me as screwed up, like you�ve said. I stand by what I believe, just as you stand by what you believe.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.