[Negaduck]

(Original post by Dubliner)
Next up. Paisley has an audience with the Pope.

Haha, Paisley is hilarious, but not in a good way.

In my opinon, it's making a big deal out of things like this that is making us look like we are going nowhere.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by IRSP044)
The majority of people in the partitioned 6 counties voting yes would be because of the thousands of Scots and English sent over to here to "rule" us. Their ancestors now have a strong unionist tradition just as the Brits planned. This makes the majority vote illigitimate.

I thought your whole struggle was about human rights? Yet now you are saying that heritage makes someones political opinion worthless?

[IRSP044]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
I thought your whole struggle was about human rights? Yet now you are saying that heritage makes someones political opinion worthless?

Wa? Its like debating with ****ing 2 year olds.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by IRSP044)
Wa? Its like debating with ****ing 2 year olds.

You basically said that the opinions of the people of NI are irrelevant because of their heritage.

[James82]

(Original post by IRSP044)
The majority of people in the partitioned 6 counties voting yes would be because of the thousands of Scots and English sent over to here to "rule" us. Their ancestors now have a strong unionist tradition just as the Brits planned. This makes the majority vote illigitimate.

Seeing as recent polls show that it's now only a minority of catholics who want to leave the union, you could hold a referendum excluding all the 'illegitimate' inhabitants and the voters would still vote to remain part of the union.

But, you also have to remember that many of the protestants are descendants of protestants created out of the reformation and not the later mass settlement of Ireland by the English, would they be 'illegitimate' or would they also have the right to vote? Seeing as the reformation was almost 500 years ago and the major English settlement of Ireland started almost 400 years ago I'm sure it's pretty hard to distinguish between the 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' voters if you were to hold a referendum.

What about apostates, would they be allowed to vote? I just have no idea how you would split the voters into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate'. The history of Ireland and Northern Ireland is a long and complicated one, Catholicism and Republicanism are certainly not synonymous, and neither is Protestantism and Unionism. People across all faiths and political spectrums have become so intertwined over the preceding 500 years that I don't think you could possibly divide the people into those who are 'legitimate' and those who are 'illegitimate', so the only fair way is to ask everbody.

[James82]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The guy is a terrorist, no respect for him whatsoever.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, I guess it depends whether you agree with a terrorist's cause as to whether you have respect for them.

[Psyk]

(Original post by ALazyThracian)
So yes the north have a right to be a part of the U.K but if this choice was given when the south was given back i believe people would have voted for a united Ireland.

What do you mean? Northern Ireland did get a vote to leave the UK as the same time as Southern Ireland did. But Northern Ireland's borders were drawn so that was unlikely to happen.

[L i b]

(Original post by IRSP044)
What/who have we betrayed? Who/what have we committed treason against?>

I've already told you: the law.

(Original post by IRSP044)
That so called public opinion doesn't include 26 of Ireland's 32 counties.

Ireland is not a political unit and hasn't been since 1801. In a democracy, the views of other polities are irrelevant.

(Original post by James82)
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, I guess it depends whether you agree with a terrorist's cause as to whether you have respect for them.

Not the case. I approved of what is generally seen as Nelson Mandela's main cause - the enfranchisement of people of all races in South Africa. I do not support armed uprisings accomplish that.

Modern history is littered with examples of where people have, quietly and with dignity, aired their grievances and had redress. Where you start fighting, you simply leave even deeper scars. Whilst South Africa today is constitutionally democratic for all, it is in many ways as divided a society as it was during apartheid.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by L i b)
Not the case. I approved of what is generally seen as Nelson Mandela's main cause - the enfranchisement of people of all races in South Africa. I do not support armed uprisings accomplish that.

Modern history is littered with examples of where people have, quietly and with dignity, aired their grievances and had redress. Where you start fighting, you simply leave even deeper scars.

Out of interest, do you support the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?

[CRHarrison]

(Original post by IRSP044)
Wa? Its like debating with ****ing 2 year olds.

Your missing the point of this completely, and maybe if you didn't have you head stuck so far up your backside you could whistle Dixie out of your ears, you'd see that this isn't the 1970s any more, it's the 21st century and the vast majority people do not want the Troubles back. They want peace, and have accepted that the best justice is to grow some balls and put their pride and hurt aside. Baying for punishment won't bring the victims, the innocent or the heroes of either side back, and will only continue keep the nation divided. If we can do everything we can to prevent the next generations of Northern Ireland from adopting the hate and anger that sustained the tit-for-tat violence for so long then we must, even if it means shaking hands with the 'enemy'. These are two leaders, who may well have been involved with the horrors perpetrated by both sides, who have both been hurt by the violence, putting all their feelings away for a greater cause.

Considering that an IRA bomb could very well have killed my parents had they not dropped into a pub for a drink, two peaceful and harmless people out enjoying a night at the theatre, I could very well consider the IRA and Republicans to be undeserving of sympathy or mercy. Yet I decide to be mature about it and accept that my own people are not free of blood on their hands because that is the reality of war, and the best thing now is to swallow our past pride, anger and hurt, settle our differences and work together for a better future, whether that includes Northern Ireland remaining in the Union or not. All we ask is that you do the same.

[James82]

(Original post by L i b)
Not the case. I approved of what is generally seen as Nelson Mandela's main cause - the enfranchisement of people of all races in South Africa. I do not support armed uprisings accomplish that.

It was Mandela who started the military wing of the ANC which carried out bombings killing hundreds of innocent people and indiscriminately mining roads killing mainly his own people because they were on foot and didn't have a vehicle to protect them. They set up torture camps and carried out retaliatory executions, camps which carried on running after Mandela's release and the end of apartheid.

It is the victors who write history, so long as you end up on the winning side anything which might be considered terrorism can be rewritten as part of a struggle for a just and worthy cause with the terrorists turned into heroes.

EDIT: Also, I am curious why you approve of Mandela's terrorist tactics, but not of armed uprisings? Mandela's tactics were indiscriminate, they killed more black people than they did white. I would consider an armed uprising far more acceptable and a more powerful demonstration of the people's will than a cowardly terrorism campaign.

[thunder_chunky]

The guy is scum but hey ho, what can you do..

[xiyangliu]

What ???


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[nmccann]

She could of done a suarez!

[flugelr]

(Original post by nmccann)
I only mentioned that at the start in order to pretty a potentially petty argument ensuing , I never said anyone was being racist or sectarian. Its a dubious statement to say the military weren't actively targeting civilians. They colluded with loyalist paramilitaries, who murdered civilians.

I think that the big difference is the fact that the PIRA was focused on targeting civilians whereas the military wasn't. Sure, individuals within the military were working with - and indeed were probably members of - various paramilitaries, but attacking civilians wasn't the aim of the military overall.

(Original post by Fusion)
Belfast was the most violent city in Europe in the 1970's now it's one of the safest. This is due in part to bringing the republicans into decision making. Blair/New Labour deserve a lot of credit for this.

I wouldn't say so. Blair was just elected at the right time. The PIRA/SF had been in talking with the UK Government for about 10 years on and off. Blair was just lucky enough to be heading the government that finished the deal.

[nmccann]

(Original post by flugelr)
I think that the big difference is the fact that the PIRA was focused on targeting civilians whereas the military wasn't. Sure, individuals within the military were working with - and indeed were probably members of - various paramilitaries, but attacking civilians wasn't the aim of the military overall.

Allow me to correct that with statistics. From 1969-1997

From Wikipedia , and you can check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...9%E2%80%931997

PIRA had 293 members dead and over 10,000 members imprisoned at different times
British Army had 655 killed by PIRA
RUC: 272 killed by PIRA

PIRA had killed 621-644 civilians
British Army had killed 188.

It cannot be denied that yes too many civilians were killed, but to state that the PIRA was primarily targeting civilians is false because the majority of their attacks were on security forces. You fail to recall that alot of tit for tat retaliation attacks resulted in deaths of civilians as Loyalist Paramilitaries were murdering innocent Catholics.

[flugelr]

(Original post by nmccann)
It cannot be denied that yes too many civilians were killed, but to state that the PIRA was primarily targeting civilians is false because the majority of their attacks were on security forces. You fail to recall that alot of tit for tat retaliation attacks resulted in deaths of civilians as Loyalist Paramilitaries were murdering innocent Catholics.

Yes, the PIRA often targeted security forces but - crucially - they didn't care if they caught civilians in the cross-fire. On the other hand, when British officers were planning operations they did as much as possible during the planning stage to eliminate any risk to civilians.

Also, lets be honest, a heck of a lot of PIRA attacks had nothing to what-so-ever to do with the security forces. Look at Bloody Friday or the Warrington Bombings. As far as I'm aware, Argos isn't really a valid military target.

[nmccann]

(Original post by flugelr)
Yes, the PIRA often targeted security forces but - crucially - they didn't care if they caught civilians in the cross-fire. On the other hand, when British officers were planning operations they did as much as possible during the planning stage to eliminate any risk to civilians.

Also, lets be honest, a heck of a lot of PIRA attacks had nothing to what-so-ever to do with the security forces. Look at Bloody Friday or the Warrington Bombings. As far as I'm aware, Argos isn't really a valid military target.

Just because the British Army planned otherwise does not rectify their actions. Murder is Murder. In fact its pretty harrowing the thought of paying tax to a government who ends up murdering its own citizens.

As despicable as the Warrington Bombing was, it was not intended to kill civilians. Its intention was to create economic damage, and also to show that in order for the British Government to seriously consider the aims of the PIRA, then the war must be brought to their own doorstep. It seemed it wasa alright for fighting to continue in NI, aslong as it wasnt on the mainland.

Somemight consider the IRA, UVF AND UDA all terrorists, but when the British Security collude with terrorists like the UVF and UDA, then what does that make them?

[Foo.mp3]

I'm not as familiar with the history of the troubles as perhaps I should be (but it's fair to say a lot more familiar with it than most of my counterparts in mainland Britain). For reference I am of mixed heritage, my mum hails from a Catholic (Irish-English) background and my old man from Scottish-English/protestantism

My own view is that the crown should've conducted itself better in Ireland to begin with, then Ireland might perhaps have remained within the UK, for a while longer at least; being as we didn't and we faced a very determined separatist movement and had to grant independence to the Republic of Ireland, we should then have released Northern Ireland too, in time, to the care of the Republic - post WWII would've been an opportune moment. They're not savages and I don't think the Protestant community would've suffered too much/as much as they ended up suffering had we taken this tack

That said, I'm not keen on terrorists, particularly those who take up arms when the alternative is hardly extremely brutal oppression! I think politicians should get involved with the peace process but I'm not keen on royalty shaking hands with a former terrorist commander, and can't believe that the Duke was talked into it after what the bastards did to Lord Mountbatten and his family

[flugelr]

(Original post by nmccann)
Just because the British Army planned otherwise does not rectify their actions. Murder is Murder. In fact its pretty harrowing the thought of paying tax to a government who ends up murdering its own citizens.

Actually, I'd suggest that there is a huge difference between premeditated murder and "heat-of-the-moment" murder.

(Original post by nmccann)
As despicable as the Warrington Bombing was, it was not intended to kill civilians. Its intention was to create economic damage, and also to show that in order for the British Government to seriously consider the aims of the PIRA, then the war must be brought to their own doorstep. It seemed it wasa alright for fighting to continue in NI, aslong as it wasnt on the mainland.

Pull the other one. Sure, Warrington is the economic powerhouse of the UK, I won't dispute that (), but when you plant bombs on a busy high street and time them to go off midday on a Saturday then you are undeniably targeting civilians. I don't believe the PIRA thought that blowing up a McDonald's would bring down the UK.

(Original post by nmccann)
Somemight consider the IRA, UVF AND UDA all terrorists, but when the British Security collude with terrorists like the UVF and UDA, then what does that make them?

As I said before, the PIRA were based on a campaign of terrorism. The British military was not.

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
My own view is that the crown should've conducted itself better in Ireland to begin with, then Ireland might perhaps have remained within the UK, for a while longer at least; being as we didn't and we faced a very determined separatist movement and had to grant independence to the Republic of Ireland

I'd agree with this.

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
we should then have released Northern Ireland too, in time, to the care of the Republic - post WWII would've been an opportune moment. They're not savages and I don't think the Protestant community would've suffered too much/as much as they ended up suffering had we taken this tack

The issue is that there were problems. Lots of Protestants - particularly ones who'd served in the British Army in WW1 - found themselves subject to descrimination. During and immediately after the Irish War of Independence there were rumours that parts of the IRA conducted a campaign of 'ethnic cleansing' against Protestants. Whether these killings happened or not doesn't matter, what matters is that many Protestant (or indeed Catholic unionist) families found themselves descriminated against and were scared that their lives were in danger.