| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| singforsam |
Royal Scots Dragoon GuardsI’m so thrilled that The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are going to be on concert. They have an amazing CD out right now – Spirit of the Glen. They include tracks like Amazing Grace, Rod Stewart’s Sailing, and Paul McCartney’s Mull of Kinfrye. For info on their tour dates, check this out: 31-Jan 8:00pm Bloomington, IN Indiana University Auditorium 1-Feb 8:00pm East Lansing, MI Catherine Herrick Cobb Great Hall 2-Feb 8:00pm Cleveland, OH Palace Theatre 4-Feb 7:30pm Pittsburgh, PA Heinz Hall for Performing Arts 5-Feb 8:00pm Louisville, KY Whitney Hall Check out their website and feel free to reply to me or post your comments to their web page below. http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Roya...sic&qid=1201051539&sr=8-1 Sam Fontana |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
tell them to get a real job. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Knew it would only be a mater of time before you posted. Shame it was a bit of a let down after all this wait. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
if you want to pay for my flights and ticket to see them al get hold of a bucket of s***e when am on my way. i wont disappoint yi a second time 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Selling drugs? Kneecapping teenagers? Putting bombs in shopping centres? Murdering other people's children? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
thats a pretty good dscription of the british army right enough, glad we agree. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
You forgot shooting kids joyriding in cars, shooting in the back young men walking down the street and shooting others who were protesting for civil democratic rights. A great bunch of lads these mercenary killers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
As you approve of the same methods you can have little cause for complaint. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
I differentiate between the violence of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressor. Dont you? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Not getting what you want doesn't mean you are 'oppressed'. It's just something that happens in a democracy. But then, contempt for democracy is something else you have in common with fascists. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
For one thing, you do a injustice with this statment of the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland who where opressed from basic civil rights yet didn't go down the path of violence. That's just typical of the 'solidarity' which some I'd say easily influenced people try and show with people while not really knowing the full story. Neither violent campaign bought about any 'success'. The British Army and Loyalist Paramilitaries never managed to destroy the PIRA or Repubicanism and the PIRA and other Republican Paramilitaries came no closer to achieving an United Ireland. What they did both succeed in doing though was causing suffering. Not really something to celebrate though is it? In terms of the British Army, they where indeed misused in Northern Ireland, something the British State must take responsibilty for. However this isn't the school playground now where you can just swagger round hitting other kids you don't like and calling them names. Look at a wider context at where the British soldiers have been sent and done some good. I know Parkhead has said he would rather countries stay out of eachothers business, but frankly if that involved turning a blind eye to attorcities like Kosovo and Sierra Leone than that isolationist idiocy can bugger off straight away! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
In the early 70s there were 14 unarmed civilians shot dead during a civil rights protest in Derry by 1 Para , in the space of three days 11 unarmed civilians were shot dead by 1Para in Ballymurphy, Belfast and a further 6 unarmed civilians were shot dead in New Lodge, Belfast. There are many other examples of deadly force used against unarmed civilians in Ireland by the British Army. Does this constitute oppression in your eyes? No wonder the RA were supported by more and more of the people and their ranks swelled. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
it always amazes me how those who call republicans terrorists but not the british army aways resort to telling us how bad republicans were when we give the countless list of british army murders. surely they shouldnt be comparing what they deem terrorists with a "legitimate" army? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
At the end of the day sovereign states are the only 'bodies' allowed to have an army and arm them. That is a huge part of international law. Others are Paramilitaries or Militias. The PIRA where an Illegal Paramilitary organisation. Whilst attrocities like Bloody Sunday did indeed become a huge PR Coup for the PIRA many Republicans and Catholics who where opressed did not follow the path of armed insurrection, yet campaigned tirelessly for equal rights and freedom.
It's just a shame that certain people, including Parkie and Iainmhor choose to ignore these people, choosing instead to celebrate those who didn't succeed in achieving anything. Playground politics at it's worse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
For many the IRA is the legitimate army of the yet to be established 32 county Irish Republic.
I salute the endeavours of most towards Irish freedom and equality. Tactics and strategy are never, from a Republican perspective, predicated upon the armed struggle tactic. Elections, boycotts, strikes, education and a plethora of other tactics are fine. Von Clausewitz said "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and the aphorism that politics is the continuaton of war etc is valid. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Now I'm sure you know as well as I do that chances are dear old Karl would have been talking about International Politics here and the relationships between countries here not legitimising the use of violence by internal groups against states. Which takes us back to my point that only states have the right to have an army, not individual groups with an axe to grind against the state. Armed Struggle, though drawing illusions of heroicism amognst certain people didn't achieve anything and I'll say it again, merely enables people like yourself to ignore the actions of the majority who while equally opressed didn't descide that death and murder was a legitimate way to avenge that. And don't give me that s***e about the IRA being the legitimate army for many etc. They are not the legimate army for most, including those who support an Irish Republic. They wheren't legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. No romantic views of Irish Politics can change that. They where nothing more than a Paramilitary Organisation, no more of a legimimate army than the UVF, UDA or even the Shankill Butchers where 'legitimate' defenders of the Union. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Moreover, if they were a legitimate army under 'occupation', their 'war' would still be illegal at international law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Can we expect the PIRA to don blue berets and undertake an international peace keeping mission any time soon?
Does the legitimate government of the Republic of Ireland consider the Irish Republican Army as the legitimate army of the State? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
I doubt it the provos gave up their weapons and sold out to administer British rule from Stormont. The second point you make is irrelevant the Irish Free State gave up the constitutional claim to the north of Ireland so should have no say in the legitamacy of Ogaigh naEireann . Bertie Ahern and co do not live in the sectarian statelet in the Wee Six. Could I suggest some peacekeeping end British military occupation and send the MI5 Brits on their way out of their new building in the north and back home to Britain. In case anybody is unaware we should remember MI5 had also intended to set up camp in Glasgow. No coincidence to keep a snoop on us potentially rebellious Scots. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
The 1919 Dail, apparently sitting under the authority of the 1916 Easter Proclamation, recognised it as such. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
It's not 1919 any more. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
So what do you suggest? That the armed conflict in Northern Ireland should be allowed to continue under the pretext that it's 'heroic'? While the establishment of Northern Ireland in 1919 clearly was cynical by the British State that doesn't change the fact that in 2008 it is a legitimate border and forms part of a legitimate (though not always moral) state in the world. The Irish Republic in a Referendum (not just the Government of Aherne) withdrew any claims in their constitution to the North. This was to enable a far more meaningful peace agreement to go through. What would you have prefered ? Violence eventhough it didn't achieve anything? Some supporter of an Irish Republic you are! Northern Ireland clearly still has huge issues in terms of it's secterian society etc, but how can violence be justified in this situation? Only with actual community cohesion and actual rebuilding can this vile element begin to be erradicated, not by some fanstasists in Scotland banging a drum thinking violence one day would have got the Brits out of Ireland! Idiots! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
The Provos in their time certainly did their bit for international anti-imperialism. FARC, PLO, ETA and so on. The IRA provided the bulk of the Connolly Column to fight fascism in Spain. On your second point- no. They would be held to be an illegitimate government according to the old Republican position. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
If any Idiots exist it is those in London that thought in times past that dividing with partition the historic 9 Counties into six on the basis of religion or loyality to Britain would result in a peaceful outcome. I do not glorify violence but I do recognise the right of insurgents to bear arms in any country where military occupation exists. There is not even a UN peacekeeping force in Ireland but Brit soldiers and their presence that cannot be justified on the basis of their rule of law of British government and monarchy they represent. I covered already that the 26 County Irish Republic gave up constitutional claim to the north after the good friday agreement. What is meaningful about a peace agreement that does not solve the root cause of the conflict? Sectarianism has not subsided take a look at the so-called peace wall in Belfast it gets higher. You wonder what I would of preferred perhaps a statement of withdrawl from the British and UN troops being deployed is a possibility during the establishment of an All Ireland referendum and not two separate referendums north and south. Conquest of Ireland by England was not morally correct 800 years ago and occupation today cannot be justified. Better the Irish people are allowed to decide as a unit. It is very interesting how yourself or others here choose to throw the accusation of violence or supporter of the Ra at me. The reality is you know little about what I respect or support. I actually have much respect for the INLA who have remained on ceasfire since the Irish people in the north voted to endorse the GFA while the Irish Republican Socialists maintain the right to never support the GFA or Stormont. The INLA show courage and interest that violence today should not happen and any self-respecting Republican in Ireland or Scotland should feel same. Any heroism is a fact of Irish history and the rebellion that goes back 800 years since English invasion of the island of Ireland and best this be respected. A more meaningful peace would be for the British to re think about their military presence and the right of the Irish as a unit to decide the future of the island. That is not a view from someone who wants violence for the Irish far from it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I've made the important bit here bold. This is now 2008 and while partition may not have been the most just decision in 1919 it was made. In 2008 the people of Northern Ireland have a right to decide for themselves regardless of politics what they wish to see happening to it. That is a good thing.
This is where your immature take on Northern Irish Politics begins to dig you a little hole. You claim to support the right of people to take up arms if they are under military occupation. Ok, so who defnines this military occupation? Northern Ireland is after all a part of the United Kingdom. As a result of this the state can place soldiers in that pieace of land. This isn't some occupited terrotiry a la Gaza or the Golan Hights we've got here, but a part of the UK. Most people in Northern Ireland want to remain a part of the UK. surely using your logic it would accpetable for Loyalists to bare arms if the entire island of Ireland where allowed to vote on reunification? After all, why should the people of Cork or Dublin be allowed to force an outcome on the people of Belfast?
Of course there aren't UN Peacekeepers there. Do you honestly see a member of the UN Security Council allowing foreign troops on to it's land? There is an argument why it should have been there in the past, but now? Why? The British Soldiers and the State have as much right to be in Northern Ireland as they do to be in Scotland, Wales or England. Military Campaign came to an end last year.
It makes more inroads towards stopping that root cause than anything you've suggested so far! How does supporting the rights of people to take up arms stop the conflict? Since 1997, be it with a load of hurdlles we've now seen Sinn Fein take a part in governing Northern Ireland. Far more was achieved by this than in the 78 years between 1919 and 1997. The people of the Irish Republic voted for this, so going back to your idea of a vote for the whole of Ireland. If the majority of RoI voted for an end to their claim of NI and the majority of NI people voted for the GFA surely that is an Ireland wide vote on a linked issue. So whats wrong with that?
Would forcing reunification tomorrow stop it then would it? Or, as is more likely would the need an even high wall?
Again, an All Ireland referendum. Why, they are two different states. No way would either side have accpeted the results if it was one referendum for the whole of Ireland. The UN presence was a no brainer, the UK forces had everyright to be there as I said earlier, it's a part of the UK like Scotland, Wales and England. Not an occupying force at all. What you want is something which would never never never have worked. For one thing its undemocratic.
Thats why we have the vote. Wales was occupited by England in 1282. I am a Welsh Nash as I don't agree with the Union. However I want to see Independence actually work for Wales so know that I need to support of most Welsh to get it to work. For Northern Ireland to join the RoI a majority support in NI is needed, otherwise it's fail badly - again, some Republican you are!
Don't you think that forcing a decision on the majority of the British people in NI might make things a little bit worse? Increasing secterian conflict, even destabilising the Republic?
You said you supported the right of people to arm themselves not me.
Neither do you clearly.
The INLA where even stranger than the IRA. Merely a protest army, made up of pissed off IRA men. Why are you brining the Scots into this now? Whats it got to do with them?
Yes it is. You're ignoring the democratic will in Northern Ireland and since you've already said you supoort the right for people in occupied countries to arm themselves you are clearly happy for this to take place. I'm all for seeing a break up of the UK, I'd love to see Ireland Reunified, but I only wish to see that happen with a firm democratic mandate both from the people of Northern Ireland and from the people of Eire. Two refferendums, one for the Northern Irish to see if they accept Reunification and one for the Republic to see if they would be happy for NI to join the RoI. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Yes most of the people of the Irish Republic as well as Northern Ireland accept the existence of the Republic of Ireland. So why is this minority more important than the majoirity of those who live there? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
I do not see the logic in the people of NI separated by an artificial border to the 26 County Irish Republic voting in a different referendum. You might as well allow the nationalist people of South Armagh a referendum to vote themselves out the sectarian statelet, the British or their green jackets and helmets and guns were never wanted there anyhow. Occupation to me is troops on the streets it is not merely about a claim from Britain to the six counties of Ulster. If the British army wandered streets of Scotland I would accept resistance to them in Alba also. Ireland is an island and the stranger from across the water can never rule there peacefully. Opposition to an All Ireland referendum is clear the people of the island of Ireland outnumber the Unionists and British rule would loose such a referendum. Any argument about threats from drugdealers and MI5 agents bearing weapons and name of the crown resisting a United Ireland is weak if the British and MI5 left N of Ireland the Irish people as a whole could look after security not a problem. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
Let me correct myself about occupation even if British troops are confined to barracks and not on the streets their miltary presence in N Ireland still exists and to me is a form of occupation. Take it from me Cymro the Brit army are resented in N Ireland I worked in South Armagh late 1990s for a short period as an International Voluntary Youth Worker I met locals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
The logic being it's 2 different countries at this moment in time! Whether it was right to create NI in the first place or not, in 2008 it's here and most within it at the moment want it to be British. You have to first of all respect that democrwcy before getting anywhere with regards reuniting the island. Otherwise you will never ever ever see Ireland united again!
Indeed, Id be all for allowing the people of Fermanah and other areas bordering NI to descide on whether to move the border to allow them to join the RoI. That is after all democracy!
Thats only partial definition of 'occupation. Besides, I was in Belfat last year. Ddin't see 1 soldier on the street. The Military Operations in the province came to an end finally last year. Thanks to the changing politics of Northern Ireland! Therefore even using your narrow definition of 'occupation' because troops are no longer pounding the streets keeping the peace occupatuion is now over.
Well most in Northern Ireland want those strangers ruling over them. With the use of the ballot box I strongly believe people in time will be happy to see the status of NI change to eventually joining the RoI. What your#e advocating will never enable a peaceful Ireland.
It's two different countries at the moment. The majority of both sides want something different. It's a no brainer.
Most of Northern Ireland are proudly British but want to get on with their lives. They aren't MI5 officers, they aren't armed to the teeth, they aren't junkies or dealers. They merely find themselves supporting the Crown more that the RoI. Ignore those and Ireland as a whole will suffer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Listen, I'm not stupid. Ofcourse the British Army are resented by a huge load of people, from both sides. But wake up in 2008 will you. Most of NI regard themselves as British. That is the end of the matter where democracy is concerned. You can't ignore that at this moment in time. Makes you no better than the people who ignored the will of the majority in Ireland in the 1800's and the 1900's. You seem to assume that hanging about in South Armah in the 90's makes you know the ins and outs. Seems you have a hell of a lot more you need to learn about the place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
Sorry excuse me Cyrmro I did not merely hang about I stayed in the community during the Youth work. I have carried out International voluntary work in three area of the island of Ireland, visited most of the counties of Ireland, stayed with a family in Dublin for a number of weeks and been to Ireland numerous times until earlier this decade. I think I have got to know Ireland pretty well as someone with some Irish blood in me. You are correct however many people on both sides of the community did not like the soldiers in the north. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
People in Scotland, England, and Wales all live on one island (mostly). Should there be an all-Britain referendum on the future of the UK? What if a majority in Scotland vote for independence but a UK majority votes for retaining the UK? Should Scotland's population be bound by that?
Think very carefully before trying to gain the outcome you favour by gerrymandering the constituency. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
You got to know a bit of South Armah. So how does that enable you to tell the people of the Shankill, or East Belfast, and of the majority of the rest of Northern Ireland that you know what's best for them?
As a Community Worker I assume you'd have tried to enable community cohesion and development? Now as a part of that you empower communities to make decisions for themselves on the future of their community (I happen to work in that field right now). So how are you then able to link that with "lets have an Ireland wide referendum to descide on your future". Put it like this, if the shoe was on the other foot. Ireland was mostly run by the UK, with a small corner of it being an Irish Republic. Would you allow a Island wide referendum on the possibility of reunifing Ireland under the British Crown? What about a Great Britain wide referendum on Scottish Independence? After all, we are all 1 island! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
I was only giving my view Cyrmro the Irish people should make any constitutional decision on Ireland not me or elsewhere like England. A Great Brit referendum is not an issue, Scotland is a nation in ethnic terms. The Scottish people decide by a vote of signatures or mandate through desire for a referendum on independence. Scotland was independent before the union the one island argument is meaningless for a Welsh nationalist you have weird ideas if you think a great chunk of the overwhelming English population should determine how we govern ourselves in Scotland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Irish people would be allowed to make decisions on Ireland - the Northern Irish on Northern Ireland and the Republic people on the Republic of Ireland until the day when they decide that they want to be reunited. What you want to do is force the will of one state on the island of Ireland on to the people of another.
No more 'ethnically' a nation thatn Northern Ireland is. Many different ethnicities regard themselves as Scottish.
So why shouldn't the Northern Irish?
Erm, you've lost it here. I don't think the people of England should decide on what Scotland should do, or Wales, or Northern Ireland or anyone else. Scotlands constitutional future is a matter for Scotland and Scotloand alone. The same goes for Northern Ireland, it is in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland and them alone. It's you arguing otherwise not me! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropos |
No they should not, but what if a majority in Scotland voted to retain the UK and a majority in England voted for its dissolution? You would have to agree that in those circumstances it should also be dissolved even if the majority in Scotland opposed it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
Northern Ireland can never be a legitimate state in the eyes of Republicans. It is for the whole people of Ireland to decide on its future. We reject the unionist veto over Irish Sovereignty.
I think most republicans are astute enough to realise that we have to exhaust the democratic political route before any resumption of war can be envisaged, planned and succesfully executed. The onus is on the Brits to deliver a peaceful and negotiated withdrawal when the political road reaches the end of the line. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I never expected that it would. Thats why we have thiese things called elections though. Northern Ireland is for now a part of the UK. The only way you can change that is my ensuring a majority in Northern Ireland that would like that to be changed.
Eventually maybe. Not yest though. Firstly it's up to the people of Northern Ireland. Then you can go ahead and hold a refferendum to ensure an island wide support for the reunification.
Good for you. But you can only change it by the power of the vote, nothing else.
Oh blimey. Now I know that I'm talking with a fantasist, a 15 year old one maybe? Am I warm? Most Republicans will be senisble enough to realise that demopcracy is the ONLY way of achieving an United Ireland, and they also realise it isn't going to be easy. The democtratic process will reflect the will of the majority while enabling minorities to campaign. The onus is then on the minority to gain enough support to become a majority. So unless you're being stopped from participating in the democratic process it clearly can never reasonably be exhausted. If you are being kept out by others, then you look at going back to the Civil Rights arguments. Soething which would have achieved far more since the 60's than violence ever could! Secondly, a resumption of war by Republicans could never ever ever be successful. To claim otherwise is stupid and again, the stuff of fantasy. But, it could move things backwards if thats what you want!
No, the onus is on all key stakeholders - the British State, the Irish Republic, Republicans, Nationalists, Unionists and Loyalists as well as the likes of the USA. Looks like I may have described the Good Friday Agreement there! No withdrawl will ever take place while the majority dictate otherwise. You need to learn about securing a majority in NI before Ireland will ever reunite. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
1920, and I don't think it was remotely cynical. In fact, I think it saved the island of Ireland from the biggest war in its history.
Full-on Republicans don't recognise the 26 county state any more than they recognise the 6 counties. Their Irish Republic consists of the entire island. Indeed, many are quite unhappy when Ireland/Éire (ie, the state in the south) uses the 'Republic of Ireland' as a name. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
It was 1921 when it came into effect.  My grandfather always used to say that Northern Ireland was bought and paid for by the sacrifices made by the 36th Ulster Division at the Somme with the implication being that otherwise the powers that be in London wouldn't have given a toss what happened to the Ulster Unionists. Think there is a lot of truth to that perception. A wee reminder of how things looked to Rudyard Kipling in 1912:-
Ulster THE DARK eleventh hour Draws on and sees us sold To every evil power We fought against of old. Rebellion, rapine, hate, Oppression, wrong and greed Are loosed to rule our fate, By England’s act and deed. The Faith in which we stand, The laws we made and guard, Our honour, lives, and land Are given for reward To Murder done by night, To Treason taught by day, To folly, sloth, and spite, And we are thrust away. The blood our fathers spilt, Our love, our toils, our pains, Are counted us for guilt, And only bind our chains. Before an Empire’s eyes The traitor claims his price. What need of further lies? We are the sacrifice. We asked no more than leave To reap where we had sown, Through good and ill to cleave To our own flag and throne. Now England’s shot and steel Beneath that flag must show How loyal hearts should kneel To England’s oldest foe. We know the war prepared On every peaceful home, We know the hells declared For such as serve not Rome— The terror, threats, and dread In market, hearth, and field— We know, when all is said. We perish if we yield. Believe, we dare not boast, Believe, we do not fear We stand to pay the cost In all that men hold dear. What answer from the North? One Law, one Land, one Throne If England drive us forth We shall not fall alone! If the archduke hadn't been shot dead in Sarajevo there is a very good chance that Irish Home Rule would have happened (along with Scottish Home Rule incidentally) and it is worth remembering that the sizable portion of the British establishment who were aligned with the Liberals at the time saw no compelling need to make any special accommodation for Ulster. History could easily have gone in a very different direction. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
cymro anti agreement groups such as the IRSP recognise that military conflict is not the way forward now and they also recognise that unification wont happen solely from the military actions of a select view but by a mass movement across the island.
being anti agreement doesnt mean being pro armed conflict as you seem to be portraying. its also possible to be both pro and anti agreement yet still greatly disagree with the many and varied concessions sinn fein have made so power sharing can work. imo participation in a british administration in ireland is only any way acceptable if those involved actually move towards socialist policies (sinn fein actually do still try and maintain they are a socialist party) sadly though they have failed to do this and we will be a long time waiting on the SDLP to move in that direction as they are all about never upsetting the establishment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
aaahhhh yes kipling that forward thinking gentleman of the british establishement. care to remind us what he thought of the blacks etc? saying that though he does make exeedingly good cakes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Red Justice |
Parkhead is right and could not have put it better from the above post. It should be important for non republicans in Britain to realise that Republicans living in the island of Ireland do not want violence but feel they have been left no option in the past or even present regarding those termed "dissidents" by the media. However to wait for socialism from provos in Stormont or from the Stoop Down Low Party is to wait forever. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Armed conflict won't happen while ANY violence is used to achieve that aimes, even if it's done hand in hand with 'normal' politics. It's all well being Anti Agreement, but the one principle which suggests that violence can play some part is not going to bring about an United Ireland, appart from in the mind of a tiny number of young fantasists with seemingly little clue. And Aventinan, of course the establishement of NI by the British Government ws cynical. Do you think they'd have allowed a province of Ireland to go independent and keep the rest in the Union if the support was the other way round? Of course not, it was merely to keep a foothold on the island. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yeah, but I doubt one province wanting to secede would create such a problem as one province (yes, yes, 6 of 9 etc) who desperately didn't want to while the others did. It didn't pan out particularly well, but I imagine it could've been a hell of a lot worse if the British government of the day had not made that difficult decision. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
As I recall, he thought quite highly of them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
aye i think i was wrong originally. was it not the indians he called half man half beast or something along those lines? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
are you just not paying attention. the inla have actually been on ceasefire for quite sometime now due to the reasons i outlined previously. its also quite rich for someone to tell people who have served years in prison as political prisoners that they "dont have a clue" about the politics of ireland. several prominent republicans have came out against the good friday agreement and the way it has since evolved as a pandering process to unionism. funnily enough though we dont get to hear much from them in the british media. we also wont get to hear about the political policing deployed at the neil mcmonagle commemoration my band attended last weekend. it was sheer intimidation of those intending to march that went on. around 30 police vans, a helicopter, armed police and cameras all for a volunteer commemoration? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
No Parkie, it's clearly you not reading whats down in front of you, both written by me and even more worryingly you yourself. It's you that said:
"unification wont happen SOLELY from the military actions of a select few" not me. This clearly suggests that military actions will or can play some part in achieving this goal. Whereas history will show you clearly that is doesn't at all. Not one bit of unification was achieved through violence. It was only when the likes of the INLA and the PIRA called a ceasefire did we see these much needed developments. Any hint of violence instantly puts a strain on the process of giving power on the future of Ireland to those who live in Ireland. I'm not saying that those who spent time in jail for their actions know nothing about politics in Ireland. What I'm saying is that little fantasists like you, Iain Mhor and Red Justice making comments like you have on this thread are showing huge lack of awareness of Irish Politics. The likes of Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams and a whole load of others who now realise that success will only come about through peace not semtex clearly understand what the craic is. I personally don't see anything in the GFA that panders to Unionism more than it panders to Republicans on certain issues too. In the real grown up world, not the one of toy soliders there is this thing called compromise. It's very important to get this right in order to get where you want to get. Otherwise in simple terms things stay as they are - NI being part of the UK. Not really a option for republicans surely? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
thats a great tactic that one. we disagree with you therefore we clearly know nothing about irish politics? I think all of the posters you named have shown a substantial knowledge of the history and politics of ireland what you in fact mean is we disagree with you.
you also quote me then interpret it in your way and try to imply i dont know what i said when i know exactly what i said. the statement about the irsp believing that unification and socialism wont happen by the military actions of a sole few but my a mass movement clearly states that at this time they dont feel that a military campaign could take them any further (funnily enough i thought you agreed with that or maybe your too busy telling us all how you know better to realise that)at this time. this is why they have been on ceasefire for such a substantial period. its also very easy for you to condemn those who did join the ira etc as you are doing so with the benefit of hindsight and also the benefit of not living within a community where the brits and state were physically attacking you and colluding with loyalists to attack you. These men and women reacted to the situation at that time. And I will also state again that republicans were willing to negotiate as far back as the early 1970's but each and everytime they done so the british government acted in bad faith and saw these as opportunities to break republicanism rather than find any meaningfull solutions. your not being clever of astounding us with any great political insight when you inform us the violence from 69 onwards achieved very little, as republicans we are all very much aware of that fact but that doesnt mean we have to morally condemn those who were part of the movement or stop remembering their sacrafices. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Not at all, it's not that you disagree with me which raises questions about your graps of the subject it's daft things you say. Though this is more relevent to Iain Mhor and RedJustice than you I admit given your other posts on the issue.
No, I'd argue they are fantasits. Living behind the belief that there is something heroic about armed conflict and that it has a place in 2008. It's the 'Che Guvara Mentality' - put up a poster of him in your room, wear a t-shirt with his face on it, and not have a clue what he did.
Well you clearly didn't make yourself clear then. Why not explain it if you ment something different. I'd argue from reading:
it's pretty reasonable to see that as you basically saying that armed conflict can play a part alongside the 'proper' way of achieving what it is you want to see. Which in essence described the last 15 or so years when it comes to Northern Ireland.
No it doesn't, not at all in fact. If that his what they believe fine, I'd quite happily live with that. But, what you said does not suggest that to me at all.
No s**t sherlock. I didn't, I quite happily live in Wales. But wait a minute, neither did you! You just choose to show solidarity with them. My point is that while it's easy to say that they where essentially 'forced'' into the RA by events such as Bloody Sunday and other attorcities (as has been claimed by either Redjustice or IainMhor) it actually bares no resemblence to reality and does an injustice to the many more people who also suffered those attrocirties yet didn't go down the path of violence. That is exactly the 'Che Guvara mentality', believing something based on the romantic image as opposed to what was taking place at the time. Had most Catholic people turned to the IRA and others because of Bloody Sunday et al then we'd have probably seen a whole out war breakout in the province. That didn't happen because as a whole the PIRA and other paramilitaires didn't have the wide support they'd have needed, which given my handy hindsight has to have been a good thing for Republicanism in Northern Ireland in my opinion.
"breaking Republicans" is just a useful slogan for Unionists and the Government to throw about to save face. The truth is the British Satate would have been happy to talk to the PIRA if no one would find out about it or that they knew people would accpet it. In truth they knew as much as anyone that no way could they destroy the concept of Irish Republicanism no more than the PIRA alone could force out the British from Northern Ireland. What stopped the British Government talking to them was in short pressure from Unionists - the likes of Iain Paisley especially. Had they done this openly in the 1970's no government could have survived. Which again, given the wonderfulness of hindsight is a sad thing.
I'm not trying to be astounding on here - I do a good enough job of that just being me!  (joke) what I was saying was pointing put to fantasits on here who seemingly think that violence still has a place that no path appart from the Peace Process can achieve an United Irish Republic.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
There are four positions being put forward by Republicans in Ireland.
1. Sinn Feins embracing of the GFA and the disbandment of the largest Republican military organisation - PIRA. SF are committed to peaceful/constitutional methods, including of course power sharing with Unionists in Stormont. 2. Republican Sinn Fein with their Eire Nua programme and maintaining of the CIRA and the tactic of armed struggle, although i think its fair to say they realise that a military campaign would at the moment lack sufficient support. 3. IRSM the Republican Socialists, as PRFB correctly states, believe that there is no mood in the working class for offensive military campaigns and believe that only the active and conscious mass of the Irish working class can achieve national unity, national liberation and socialist revolution. They believe in maintaining the INLA for defensive purposes and dont rule out the use of an element of armed struggle in the Irish revolution. 4. 32CSM and their military wing- RIRA. Of the four positions, theirs is probably the most militaristic, indeed after a few years of relative inactivity, the RIRA has just declared its intention to restart war with England. There is also the Republican socialist Eirigi group of mostly ex Sinn Feiners and many non aligned independent Republicans. For the beneft of Cymro, my position is probably closest to that of the IRSM/INLA. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I cant see what possible justification there is for IRSM to keep the INLA and refuse to rule out an element of armed struggle in this idea of a revolution. It's ridicilous. Even using the excuse that in the 60's Catholics had little or no civil rights as a means of justifying IRA activities, the Northern Ireland in 2008, while still having obvious issues is nothing like Northern Ireland of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Catholics have key rights, under the voting system they aren't kept out of the political process with a huge number of Republicans and Nationalists sitting in Stormont campaigning for them.
For one thing I believe that in 2008 there is no hope in hell of any armed revolution taking place in Western if not the whole of Europe and actually succeeding to achieve anything of worth. Even a peaceful revolution like those seen in former Soviet Republics in recent years are very very unlikely to appear in the UK again. Socialism has a place I'm sure, but as a whole in Western Europe we seem to be moving more and more to the middle ground as opposed to defining ourselves as 'left' or 'right'. All the talk of an armed presence or conflict is merely a dying group of marginalists trying to flex what little muscle they have left. None of those you listed who still hint or threaten the use of violence or at least withold the right to return to violent have any support of great worth. No more support than the local gangs have in any housing estate in any innercity area in the UK or beyond. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| iainmhor |
Well the INLA are maintained for the following reasons. Defense of working class Republican areas from any actions by Loyalist murder gangs and indeed, if it ever came about, by British Crown Forces. Defending the community from criminals and anti-social elements. Defending members and infrastructure of the IRSP/M and RSYM from attack.
You could add to that operatons such as revolutionary expropriation. Of course we are in the ebb of the political tide and we have been there before. Ill remind you of the old addage that a revolutionary appears unnecessary in a time of reform and most necessary in a time of revolution. The IRA was a demilitarised and tiny organisation just prior to 1969, for example there was scarcely 3 volunteers and even less weaponry at their disposal in Derry at that time. The civil rights reforms and gains achieved didnt come about through SDLP type passivity but were wrenched out of the Ulster and British ruling class through revolutionary militancy and yes, armed struggle. Do you believe that capitalism has conquered its internal contradictions and that growth and progress can only continue ever upwards? Or do you acknowledge that it remains prone to crisis and recession which always results in the working class primarily carrying the can? The IRSM doesnt seperate the twin struggles for socialism from the task of national liberation, it actively seeks to unite both struggles, primarily by the conscious mass participation of the working class and the poor and down trodden, but it believes that no elite vacates its ruling position without recourse, in the final analysis, to armed reaction. That in the long term, is where the INLA is required. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Sorry Iain, but that has to be some of the biggest load of s***e you could have possibly come out with!
Defending Working Class Communities? The only possible thing that can realisticaly defend working class (why are they more worthy than Middle Class communities?) is a truly neutral police force responsible for defending people regardless of politics or religion. Hence why it's hugely important that the matter is devolved and republicans take part in it and not hide behind some ideological fantasy. Every economic pattern is prone to highs and lows. No way would a socialist state ever be immune to those either. Civil Rights reforms in Northern Ireland probable had more to do with a wider international movement across all corners of the globe than the violence used by the PIRA and other groups. Also the greater role in media - the damaging images of civil rights groups being shot at by British Forces etc put more pressure than a bomb going off in London or anywhere else - this merely made the UK a victim and allowed it to hide or even legitimse it's own actions in Northern Ireland. Basically no one political party or paramilitary group can claim more responsibility for these rights above more powerful external factors. It's all well using the romantic visions of defending working classes, talk of a social revolution etc. It's bollocks. Every last bit of it. If people wanted socialism on a grand scale we'd be living in it or they'd vote for it in elections. Revolution isn't going to happen while you or I am alive I can tell you that now. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
cymro i find it incredible a person who questions others grasp of the politics of ireland can so grossly misunderstand the british actions in ireland and the thinking of its governments. you should have a look at information which has since become available about the reasons behind government negotiations. they most definitely did see these times as an opportunity to break the ira.
your right though about unionist influence as at various times in british politics they have held considerable influence in certain votes and so were pandered to by the british. also just because something is very unlikely to happen doesnt mean you should stop the fight to achieve it. your right socialism in scotland and ireland is a long, long way off and may never be achieved but that wont stop me campaigning and fighting for it. even if i knew there would never be a united ireland it still wouldnt stop me as overall i believe that its right that it should happen. and the other poster is also right when he points out that things can change suddenly in politics. on your point of the PSNI i would have liked you to have witnessed the scenes at the neil mcmonagle commemoration to see how impartial this shny new police force really is. sinn fein should collectively hang their heads in shame if they think this is an acceptable police force in ireland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Not at all. It's not difficult to see that the British Government knew full well that they couldn't defeat the PIRA. Under divide the rule the only thing they could do was encourage the Northern Irish people to defeat the IRA - turn against them. The British State could make life difficult for them failry easy by using spys etc within the Republican movment. The best they would have realistically hoped for would have been to lessen the bargaining power of the PIRA and others. Obviously publicly it helped them to make claims such as defeat the PIRA etc but that was nothing more than a PR coup - spin was alive and well. They could stop individual attacks, they could take leaders out or off the street if they wanted too - do you think that had they wanted to they wouldn't have killed the likes of Adams and McGuinness? Of course they would, and within certain sectors they'd have been congratulated, but they knew this wouldn't defeat them, would merely allow another to stop up. Baically when people from the British State claimed they could defeat the PIRA they where lying.
Good for you, I'd say the same thing about Welsh Indepedence. Doesn't stop me campaigning for it either. But it doesn't need to be done while witholding the right to turn to arms if the going gets tough as Iainmhor said.
First things first. I didn't say that the PSNI where the neutral police force needed. I said a Neutral Police Force is needed. I believe that when that power is transfered to Stormont then a huge step forward in terms of neutral policing would have taken place. Secondly go to any football match on any weekend and you'll see shed loads of police officers. When it's a tense rivalry you'll get the robocops out. Now I assume given the sort of commemoration parades you describe that there would be a potential for trouble from arseholes. Therefore the Police in these situations often act heavy handedly. Not saying you where asking for what ever intimidation you got, but don't think that it's only Republican parades that get this sort of treatment. Clearly though this is not the best type of policing in terms of building much needed community relations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
why did they collude with loyalists to kill them if they didnt think they could break the ira? I will also point out that several high profile republicans HAVE been killed by british forces or loyalists with the back up of crown forces. myra drumm (my spelling of her name may be totally off) was murdered in a hospital on the falls whilst security were conveniently looking the other way. mairead farrell was systematically tracked throught spain and then killed unarmed by the SAS. stone has also claimed (ok not the most credible witness) that he carried out milltown with the help of crown forces and there is evidence to suggest something funny was going on there. you then have the case of another female republican who's name escapes me right now who was attacked at home while crown forces were actvely monitoring her house when asked why they hadnt seen the loyalists approach there answer was "we must have been looking the other way". all of these republicans were as prominent in their time as adams and mcguiness have ever been. there would also be no reason for the british to become involved in things like killing lawyers and republicans if it wasnt a genuine attempt to break the ira. who was pat finucan going to attack? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
Because simply all these 'acts' would damage the Republican movement. They made life more difficult for them. I'd argue that there is a high probability (though clearly can't prove it) that some or many of these actions involving the security forces would have been given 'low(er) level' agreement and not reflective of the belief that the PIRA could be defeated. Anyone who did believe that would quickly have learnt otherwise. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||