I hate to tell you guys but plenty of people in the South still see this island as one country and look forward to the day when it is united and independent from any form of British rule. The good news is that not many see violence as a legitimate method of attaining this goal anymore, we are content to let the nationalist population overtake the Unionist population and let nature take its course. I don't think the North will ever return to the bad old days, no one has the stomach for it anymore and its not acceptable in the current global climate.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Hey I totally agree and Poe's assumption that this is the first step towards a merger of countries could be the mentality that will be the stumbling block....aardfrith wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, we may be at a turning point in history and you're bickering like a couple of schoolkids about a fight that started decades ago. Who gives a shit who started it? If Mr McGuinness and Reverend Paisley can sit down together, can't we stop this stupid argument?
As it happens, I don't see it lasting. Someone, on one side or the other, it probably doesn't matter who, will find events not going to their liking and kick-start the violence again. Then everyone will find the weapons they'd sequestered away and we'll be back to the bombings, kneecappings and the army patrolling the streets, like they do in Basra.
I hope I'm wrong on this, I really do, but I doubt it.
Those "campaigns" had no support within the 6 Counties, furthermore De Valera was dealing with the IRA threat in the Republic. My point still stands, that the modern "troubles" within Northern Ireland started with the callous murders Gusty Spence committed, not some 2 years later as you seem to suggest is the "accepted" beginning. We will have to wait and see how history judges it. Also I apologise i'm not suggesting you are a UVF supporter, just if you listen to Loyalists or Brits you would think they were the only victims of the conflict here, and it was all the fault of the IRA, and somehow they are vindicated because of their Britishness, no what I mean?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
As for your post though, well two world wars kind of helped reduce the violence over that period and there were two IRA Campaigns during that time (1944 & 1946). I suppose you've forgetten them though, seeing as they were failures?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-05-09 10:24:21)
Firstly, I personally don't defend Britain and the US when it comes to Iraq. Secondly, they are two completely different scenarios and aren't even remotely comparable.Braddock wrote:
You do realise that 'rhetoric' defending the campaign against Britain during the troubles is no different to rhetoric defending the British/US invasion of Iraq. It's just a matter of whether you believe in the cause that is in question.
"The campaign" involved the murdering of innocent civilians which is not justifiable by any means. I agree that you can have an opinion on NI and protest if you want but once bombs started get laid you are in the wrong. That goes for all sides and I abhor the killings from all.
Let me also take this moment to remind everyone that groups like the UVF are not British (in the sense that they are representing the British Army or Government). Digressed slightly but I feel that some people may not know that from your posts.
So Catholicism (and Protestantism for that matter) isn't(aren't) right wing? Anti-abortion laws wouldn't be imposed in NI then I suppose if you got a "unified" Ireland?Braddock wrote:
You say it's 'Jihadist' but let's get this straight, no one in Ireland is trying to force a right wing relgious ideology on anyone,
Bad example again. For starters it was America fighting for it's independence as it didn't become the USA until it got it, durr! Aside from that, those people were British and got annoyed by the lack of involvement the mainland gave them, so they wanted their own country. If anything, the indigenous Native Indians should have been doing an IRA for it to fit with this issue.Braddock wrote:
it's a territorial battle in the same way that the US fighting for their independence was a legitimate territorial struggle. It's very convenient to bundle all political groups together as 'the bad guys'.
Here you've missed one vital piece of information. What you should have said was,Braddock wrote:
If Britain were invaded by an outside power, like France for example (laughable thought I know) I would recognise your legitimate desire to tackle your oppressor without regarding you as being a 'Jihadist style terrorist'.
"If Britain were invaded by an outside power 800 years ago, like France for example I would recognise your legitimate desire to tackle your oppressor(bit strong!) without regarding you as being a 'Jihadist style terrorist'
Now, with that in mind would you recognise my right to blow up pubs in Italy because of the Roman Invasions of England in 1066?
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-05-09 10:31:25)
Man - what a stupid thing to say, tell that to all the UVF men that died at the battle of the Somme fighting for King and country, also the British State colluded with the UVF and it became its hidden hand in the collective punishment and murder of Catholic citizens for decades - FACT!=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Let me also take this moment to remind everyone that groups like the UVF are not British (in the sense that they are representing the British Army or Government)?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-05-09 10:45:59)
I never realised the Italians were still in power over there in England. I really must pay more attention.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Now, with that in mind would you recognise my right to blow up pubs in Italy because of the Roman Invasions of England in 1066?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-09 10:45:02)
Roman invasions in 1066!CameronPoe wrote:
I never realised the Italians were still in power over there in England. I really must pay more attention.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Now, with that in mind would you recognise my right to blow up pubs in Italy because of the Roman Invasions of England in 1066?
LOLOL!!!!!
Now perhaps blowing up Norman pubs in France would be relevant, but since governance of England has changed so much since then the situation isn't even close to being comparable.
Firstly I do not condone or agree with the targeting of civilians during the campaign, it was the targeting of military and security apparatus that I viewed as part of a legitimate tactical struggle. I also was in favour of the targeting of infrastructure over actual people (a popular tactic for a long time during the troubles). My comparisons with Iraq was an attempt to illustrate to you that just because it is not a war in your opinion does not mean it is not a war in the opinion of the majority of the Irish people. I have spoken with former British soldiers who hold the IRA in the utmost respect as a credible military force, they see them as an army like any other and the struggle was a war in their mind.OBS EstebanRey wrote:
Firstly, I personally don't defend Britain and the US when it comes to Iraq. Secondly, they are two completely different scenarios and aren't even remotely comparable.
"The campaign" involved the murdering of innocent civilians which is not justifiable by any means. I agree that you can have an opinion on NI and protest if you want but once bombs started get laid you are in the wrong. That goes for all sides and I abhor the killings from all.
Let me also take this moment to remind everyone that groups like the UVF are not British (in the sense that they are representing the British Army or Government). Digressed slightly but I feel that some people may not know that from your posts.
I know what you mean about the UVF not being a legitimate British Government entity but the powers that be were known on numerous occasions to be in collusion with the paramiltary forces in the North. The UVF have always been lawless thugs, I don't hold the British authorities directly responsible for their activities but the RUC, special branch and British military were responsible for many terrible acts during the troubles too.
My point is the IRA are not on a religious crusade to wipe out or subjugate British 'infidels'. Yes there are religious differences between the North and South but to suggest that the IRA's actions are inspired by any form of religious extremism is ludicrous.OBS EstebanRey wrote:
So Catholicism (and Protestantism for that matter) isn't(aren't) right wing? Anti-abortion laws wouldn't be imposed in NI then I suppose if you got a "unified" Ireland?
I agree with you on this. The native Americans did have a military wing for a number of years but were crushed.OBS EstebanRey wrote:
If anything, the indigenous Native Indians should have been doing an IRA for it to fit with this issue.
As Cameronpoe has already asked ...is Britain still being run by the Italians?OBS EstebanRey wrote:
Here you've missed one vital piece of information. What you should have said was,
"If Britain were invaded by an outside power 800 years ago, like France for example I would recognise your legitimate desire to tackle your oppressor(bit strong!) without regarding you as being a 'Jihadist style terrorist'
Now, with that in mind would you recognise my right to blow up pubs in Italy because of the Roman Invasions of England in 1066?
quite an interesting article from the local Beeb today; I think it's best if everything is just put out in the open and told and get it over with.. imo the only best intersts this takes care of is the RUC and the British state
Senior police officers have urged the government to "pause for breath" in re-examining Northern Ireland's past.
The Superintendents' Association NI said there was currently a hierarchy of victims based on political pressure.
It said inquiries and investigative teams established to probe murders and wrongdoing had put a disproportionate focus on police actions.
Anti-terrorist methods had been exposed and officers and informants could be identified, the association added.
Association president Stephen Grange said reports and investigations had been left open to misinterpretation and could cause confidence in policing to be undermined.
"We have grave concerns about the present management and focus of this process," Mr Grange told the association's annual general meeting.
"Quite simply the present arrangements are not working."
He said the government should call a halt to the process, consult widely and create a public body to manage it in the best interest of all victims.
"Only when such a body has been established and adequately resourced, with all involved having a clear understanding and expectation of what that body can deliver, can we properly contend with and learn from the past - without inhibiting our future opportunities."
'Political pressure'
Mr Grange said the investigation of aspects of the past seemed to be motivated by political pressure.
"We have to abandon this hierarchy of victimhood based on political pressure, ie the costly Bloody Sunday and Cory inquiries, or the availability and willingness of a lavishly financed body to investigate just one organisation in particular."
In March, a group representing more than 3,000 retired police officers published criticism of a Police Ombudsman's report into collusion.
The Retired Police Officers' Association, said a report by Nuala O'Loan's office, which found Special Branch had colluded with UVF members in north Belfast was riddled with basic errors of fact and judgement.
They accused the ombudsman of misusing the word "collusion" in a way which had led to it being used as "a political catchphrase".
Mrs O'Loan rejected the criticism.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-05-09 15:17:31)
Soon Ireland will have a space navy and lord it over the rest of the planet.
Ok so you support a war on infrastructure and the millitary but have you ever considered it from my point of view? Imagine that 800 years ago your country invaded another and you had nothing to do with it, then imagine being out shopping as a young child and fearing for you life because the IRA have called the city centre saying they've planted a bomb; well that's what happened to me.Braddock wrote:
Firstly I do not condone or agree with the targeting of civilians during the campaign, it was the targeting of military and security apparatus that I viewed as part of a legitimate tactical struggle. I also was in favour of the targeting of infrastructure over actual people (a popular tactic for a long time during the troubles). My comparisons with Iraq was an attempt to illustrate to you that just because it is not a war in your opinion does not mean it is not a war in the opinion of the majority of the Irish people. I have spoken with former British soldiers who hold the IRA in the utmost respect as a credible military force, they see them as an army like any other and the struggle was a war in their mind.
I don't have a problem (ethically speaking) with millitants in Iraq because they are fighting against a current British policy but I do have a problem when the IRA and other blow up shops and pubs in London because of something our country did nearly a millenia ago.
As for it being a "war" I disagree. IMO a war has to be declared between two sovereign nation's governments . Someone that is recognised as representing the country must declare it. The public can not declare war no matter how many of them get together and give themselves a name. A civil war maybe but not a "war" in the tradional sense.
I too have had to evacuate buildings because of bomb scares as a child but how about having a gun stuck in your face while being asked questions by soldiers and police and having your parents car searched from top to bottom? Because that's what happened to me as a child every time my family crossed the border to go shopping in Derry. Or being locked inside a shopping centre when loyalist thugs decided to cross the Foyle river and start a huge riot? That was quite disturbing for a young child. There's never been any terrorism in my family but it didn't stop us being treated like terrorists whenever we crossed the border.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Ok so you support a war on infrastructure and the millitary but have you ever considered it from my point of view? Imagine that 800 years ago your country invaded another and you had nothing to do with it, then imagine being out shopping as a young child and fearing for you life because the IRA have called the city centre saying they've planted a bomb; well that's what happened to me.Braddock wrote:
Firstly I do not condone or agree with the targeting of civilians during the campaign, it was the targeting of military and security apparatus that I viewed as part of a legitimate tactical struggle. I also was in favour of the targeting of infrastructure over actual people (a popular tactic for a long time during the troubles). My comparisons with Iraq was an attempt to illustrate to you that just because it is not a war in your opinion does not mean it is not a war in the opinion of the majority of the Irish people. I have spoken with former British soldiers who hold the IRA in the utmost respect as a credible military force, they see them as an army like any other and the struggle was a war in their mind.
I don't have a problem (ethically speaking) with millitants in Iraq because they are fighting against a current British policy but I do have a problem when the IRA and other blow up shops and pubs in London because of something our country did nearly a millenia ago.
As for it being a "war" I disagree. IMO a war has to be declared between two sovereign nation's governments. Someone that is recognised as representing the country must declare it. The public can not declare war no matter how many of them get together and give themselves a name. A civil war maybe but not a "war" in the tradional sense.
The Nationalist population in the North did not have a Government to declare war on their behalf. The Nationalist population of the North did not recognise the British Government that did not serve their best interests while the Government of the south sold their Northern brothers up the river, therefor the Irish Republican Army declared war on the occupying British presence.
What you're saying sounds like 'if a problem sticks around for long enough then just forget about it'. If hypothetically British and US forces stayed in Iraq for 800 years would that diminish the Iraqis right to oppose their occupation?
Last edited by Braddock (2007-05-10 06:17:38)
Look lads at the end of the Day no longer is the British State going to be torturing Children into confessing crimes they didn't commit and falsely imprisoning them for 3 years - because of their cruel anti Catholic agenda. it's a new time now!
A Derry man has walked free from court - 27 years after he was wrongly convicted.
Charlie McMenamin,45, was only 16 when he was convicted of terrorist offences in the city and was in custody for three years.
His case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Lord Justice Campbell said he and two fellow judges had "a sense of unease about the convictions".
Outside the court Mr McMenamin who lives in the Creggan area of Derry said he was delighted not only for himself but also for his mother.
"Down the years my mother encouraged me to keep trying to clear my name and now it's been done.
"It will also be great news for the rest of the family who went through torture with the British army and the RUC after I was imprisoned."
Mr McMenamin's wife Catherine was in court to hear the three judges quash his convictions.
During the hearing it was revealed that on the day the then schoolboy was alleged to have been involved in a gun attack on soldiers in the Bogside he was in a training school after running away from home.
That information led to an official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions telling the RUC that the charges were not to be proceeded with.
But the direction was never communicated to the prosecuting lawyer and the teenager was convicted on statements of admission he made to avoid more ill-treatment while in Strand Road police station."
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-05-10 11:37:09)
lol you think people dont get wrongly convicted in Ireland? You have to be kidding me. People get wrongly convicted ever day across the world.IG-Calibre wrote:
Look lads at the end of the Day no longer is the British State going to be torturing Children into confessing crimes they didn't commit and falsely imprisoning them for 3 years - because of their cruel anti Catholic agenda. it's a new time now!A Derry man has walked free from court - 27 years after he was wrongly convicted.
Charlie McMenamin,45, was only 16 when he was convicted of terrorist offences in the city and was in custody for three years.
His case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Lord Justice Campbell said he and two fellow judges had "a sense of unease about the convictions".
Outside the court Mr McMenamin who lives in the Creggan area of Derry said he was delighted not only for himself but also for his mother.
"Down the years my mother encouraged me to keep trying to clear my name and now it's been done.
"It will also be great news for the rest of the family who went through torture with the British army and the RUC after I was imprisoned."
Mr McMenamin's wife Catherine was in court to hear the three judges quash his convictions.
During the hearing it was revealed that on the day the then schoolboy was alleged to have been involved in a gun attack on soldiers in the Bogside he was in a training school after running away from home.
That information led to an official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions telling the RUC that the charges were not to be proceeded with.
But the direction was never communicated to the prosecuting lawyer and the teenager was convicted on statements of admission he made to avoid more ill-treatment while in Strand Road police station."
Last edited by Vilham (2007-05-10 11:40:56)
There's a difference between a wrong conviction, and torturing a child into confessing to something they didn't commit and imprisoning them, though only a dickhead like you can't see the difference... L-fucking O-fucking LVilham wrote:
lol you think people dont get wrongly convicted in Ireland? You have to be kidding me. People get wrongly convicted ever day across the world.