Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    aparthied vs ' irish catholics' not getting their way ...
    How much do you really know about "The Troubles" and the catalyst which provoked them?

    If you know enough, you would know that they were borne out of inequality, disadvantage and inequity of provision in exactly the same way as the ramifications of apartheid.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How much do you really know about "The Troubles" and the catalyst which provoked them?

    If you know enough, you would know that they were borne out of inequality, disadvantage and inequity of provision in exactly the same way as the ramifications of apartheid.
    a magnitude of difference ...

    unfortunately such self pity and lack of perception of the magnitude of a problems seems to be defining characteristic among a proportion of catholics
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    whether to sen a post some tinfpoil for his hat ( as his current tinfoil seems to be all absorbed out ) or to send in Special branch because of his swallwoing of the lies, propaganada and utter excrement spoken by 'irish republicans' and their sympathesiers
    Please...just find a place in the 'Chat' forum to spread your nonsense. UK Politics forum is dedicated to mature and considered debate between equals, not a cesspit for bigoted sentiment.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    a magnitude of difference ...

    unfortunately such self pity and lack of perception of the magnitude of a problems seems to be defining characteristic among a proportion of catholics
    Please explain this "magnitude of difference" - you have to expect to be challenged to substantiate your claims on D&D sub forums.

    You are sinking ever deeper into that cesspit of bigotry...try to drag yourself out of the mire and add something coherent and mature to the debate.

    Thank you in anticipation...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    The events on Bloody Sunday are contested. We can discuss them if you like? Why do you think no charges ever been brought against suspects in the collusion affair?



    I'm glad we agree on that. It still leaves the question ... why have no British collusion suspects been charged?
    I fully understand the dispute of bloody sunday, and i acknowledge there is a significant possibility that the british were fired upon. However what bloody sunday represents is british heavy handed reactionism in placing highly armed military personell in a civillian area opposed to them being there. There presence was one of an occupying force. That ofcourse does not justify any attack upon them but would represent a confrontational tactic which lead resulted in the deaths of 11 civillians. Though the british may not have planned to create this situation the deaths can be catergorised as nothing short of an atrocity brought on at best by british stupidity and at worst by a callous disrespect for catholic civillians lives.

    I personally believe that the reason why few have been prosecuted with regard to collusion is that firstly under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they would be immediatly released and that secondly it would not serve to meet the public interest as it would undermine the peace process. Any lack of prosecutions does not undermine the findings of a non-partisan Irish Parliamentry Committee that there was collusion.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6157379.stm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The events of Bloody Sunday are the subject of an extremely protracted enquiry by Saville. You can't discuss that which is still not in the public domain until the enquiry outcome is given. Some charges have been brought...some have been imprisoned, albeit for a very short time. Others who would have been charged inconveniently died before due process could be served.
    I have already said it will be interesting to read the findings of the Saville Inquiry (the longest and most expensive in British legal history) when it reports. But do do you think it’s OK for someone to accuse the army of committing an 'atrocity' on Bloody Sunday without waiting for these findings? The accounts of those involved can certainly be discussed. Those accounts are already in the public domain, and no member of the army who was involved was ever charged.


    See ^
    The inquiry which dealt with the collusion affair has already reported its findings. It has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against member of the army. See?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    I fully understand the dispute of bloody sunday, and i acknowledge there is a significant possibility that the british were fired upon. However what bloody sunday represents is british heavy handed reactionism in placing highly armed military personell in a civillian area opposed to them being there. There presence was one of an occupying force. That ofcourse does not justify any attack upon them but would represent a confrontational tactic which lead resulted in the deaths of 11 civillians. Though the british may not have planned to create this situation the deaths can be catergorised as nothing short of an atrocity brought on at best by british stupidity and at worst by a callous disrespect for catholic civillians lives.

    I personally believe that the reason why few have been prosecuted with regard to collusion is that firstly under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they would be immediatly released and that secondly it would not serve to meet the public interest as it would undermine the peace process. Any lack of prosecutions does not undermine the findings of a non-partisan Irish Parliamentry Committee that there was collusion.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6157379.stm
    Here we see your true colours, NI is Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    No; of course not. I'm only trying to get consistency. If you don't like Gerry Adams, you have to follow that through to its logical conclusion, which is that you can't like Nelson Mandela. If you're happy with that conclusion, fine.
    IRA targetted civillians and noncombatants (enniskillen, manchester, belfast bombings). The ANC did not.
    The existence of the SDLP backing similar objectives as Sinn Fein but rejecting voilence shows that there was an alternative to voilence to achieve their goals. The fact that the IRA did not win the war and have renounced voilence would support this. There was no alternative to Mandela.
    Just as it was not necessary to use voilent methods in the MLK stuggle for black rights in america it was not necessary to use voilence. In both cases the use of voilence by malcomn X and Sinn Fein damaged the image of moderates such as the SDLP and MLK.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    One man's scum is another's hero. Your opinion is not more credible than those of the South African nation, and subsequently, world opinion.
    South Africa is going up the ******* and Rhodesia already has, consequences and facts mean more than opinion. And I don’t think the world really cares about Gerry Adams but he isn’t the most popular man in Britain.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Renner)
    South Africa is going up the ******* consequences and facts mean more than opinion.
    Is not the most important thing that all citizens of a country have access to equal rights and equal treament regardless of ethnicity or beliefs? A country that is ruled with majority consent is a country that is ripe for anarchy.


    And I don’t think the world really cares about Gerry Adams but he isn’t the most popular man in Britain.
    Increasingly, the world is seeing Gerry Adams as a broker of peace...and in time, so will Britain if we go by their changing attitude to Nasser and other's who have striven for justice in countries formerly under the command of Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Here we see your true colours, NI is Britain.
    what? they were in a community which percieved them as an occupying force, they were not wanted.

    I dont believe it matters if northern ireland is part of the UK or the republic, since the majority would seem to want to stay part of the Uk i would support them in that. Those are my "true colours" if you must know.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    what? they were in a community which percieved them as an occupying force, they were not wanted.

    I dont believe it matters if northern ireland is part of the UK or the republic, since the majority would seem to want to stay part of the Uk i would support them in that. Those are my "true colours" if you must know.
    The community was wrong, and sorry I thought that was your personal opinion.

    (Original post by yawn)
    Is not the most important thing that all citizens of a country have access to equal rights and equal treament regardless of ethnicity or beliefs? A country that is ruled with majority consent is a country that is ripe for anarchy.
    In a modern country that has evolved over time to grant those rights, and the granting of those rights will have no negative impact on the country, then full rights are favourable. This is the situation Britain was in and granting full rights to Catholics was the right thing to do.

    The situation was the opposite in South Africa. Whatever the situation I don’t encourage the placing of tires round white’s heads and setting fire to them.

    Increasingly, the world is seeing Gerry Adams as a broker of peace...and in time, so will Britain if we go by their changing attitude to Nasser and other's who have striven for justice in countries formerly under the command of Britain
    I think in Britain, rightly or wrongly, he will always be associated with the IRA.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Is not the most important thing that all citizens of a country have access to equal rights and equal treament regardless of ethnicity or beliefs? A country that is ruled with majority consent is a country that is ripe for anarchy.




    Increasingly, the world is seeing Gerry Adams as a broker of peace...and in time, so will Britain if we go by their changing attitude to Nasser and other's who have striven for justice in countries formerly under the command of Britain.
    As the only moderate here. Gerry Adams will be remembered as he should, a sectionalist biggot who proliferated and justified a candelstine campaign of voilence that led to the death of thosands of innoncent fellow northern irish citizens, leading to a rise in reactionary unionism and deeply setting back the path to peace and moderate irish nationalism. He has chosen peace as the IRA have failed to bomb the british out and this enables him atleast some power in a devolved goverment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    What? Protestants are not going to Hell because they are saved by their ignorance...they will only go to Hell, along with others who reject God's offer of salvation and persist in evil to the end...and that would of course, include Catholics too.
    Oh bloody hell.

    Look, Protestants are not just ignorant Catholics. Shockingly enough most of them know what the RC Church is offering, and have rejected it.

    And yet Papal Infallibility was supposedly the reason that they left communion with the Apostolic See. I guess though, that seeing how their spiritual leader, ie the Archbishop of Canterbury has gone along with moral relativism, they would welcome the consistency of the Catholic Church. I know that Anne Widdecombe and Tony Blair certainly do...: )
    True. But that said, it was papal authority rather than papal infallibility that caused the split under Henry VIII. The Pope certainly didn't exercise infallibility to prevent Henry getting his annulment.

    They removed the Poll Tax following the Poll Tax riots because they saw how unpopular it was with the electors and they obviously did not want to cause a situation where a new election was demanded by popular opinion. It is a foolish government that maintains a stance against the expressed wish of the people.
    A riot is not the expressed wish of anyone other than the rioters, and even then plenty of them are just there to cause trouble.

    As I said, I can't keep up with your views because you keep changing the goalposts.
    Nope. You've said that I've made points contrary to my beliefs; I've said this is absolutely false. Please provide one example of this, or retract your statement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The community was wrong, and sorry I thought that was your personal opinion.

    .
    Im not that the community were wrong, they were oppressed, i dont believe that either the northern irish civil rights movement or the IRA for that matter would have been able to exist if there was not real oppression. The RUC were a paritisan secterian police force (15% of whom it was believed belonged to Loyalist paramilitary groups) and the Northern Irish Parliament was wieghtened in such a way it over represented the unionist vote. You were a second class citizen if you were a catholic. Their anti-british sentiment is at the least justifiable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    I fully understand the dispute of bloody sunday, and i acknowledge there is a significant possibility that the british were fired upon. However what bloody sunday represents is british heavy handed reactionism in placing highly armed military personell in a civillian area opposed to them being there. There presence was one of an occupying force. That ofcourse does not justify any attack upon them but would represent a confrontational tactic which lead resulted in the deaths of 11 civillians. Though the british may not have planned to create this situation the deaths can be catergorised as nothing short of an atrocity brought on at best by british stupidity and at worst by a callous disrespect for catholic civillians lives.
    There is a lot more to the events of Bloody Sunday than that! Including the fact that the march had been declared illegal in the face of weeks of civil unrest. How should the army have dealt with petrol and acid bombs and snipers? There are all sorts of claims and counter claims from both sides, but I know which side's accounts I find more believeable. And accusations of British stupidity and certainly British atrocities or callousness, are completely unfounded unless proven by the Saville Inquiry. That's not to say that things wouldn't have been done differently with the benefit of hindsight.

    The British presence was one of support for the civil powers, not an occupying force, and the majority of the population wanted to keep their ties with Britain.

    I personally believe that the reason why few have been prosecuted with regard to collusion is that firstly under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement they would be immediatly released and that secondly it would not serve to meet the public interest as it would undermine the peace process. Any lack of prosecutions does not undermine the findings of a non-partisan Irish Parliamentry Committee that there was collusion.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6157379.stm
    The British government and the RUC never co-operated with the Barron inquiry (on which the committee's findings were based) so the inquiry would have been incomplete. I think this inquiry would have been as politically motivated as the British inquiry, although you might be right as to the reasons for the lack of charges. We will never know for sure.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, Nelson Mandela expressly opposed separatism whilst Gerry Adams loves the idea.
    What?!?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    There is a lot more to the events of Bloody Sunday than that! Including the fact that the march had been declared illegal in the face of weeks of civil unrest. How should the army have dealt with petrol and acid bombs and snipers? There are all sorts of claims and counter claims from both sides, but I know which side's accounts I find more believeable. And accusations of British stupidity and certainly British atrocities or callousness, are completely unfounded unless proven by the Saville Inquiry. That's not to say that things wouldn't have been done differently with the benefit of hindsight.

    The British presence was one of support for the civil powers, not an occupying force, and the majority of the population wanted to keep their ties with Britain.
    I find it odd that you dispell republican versions events as "claims and counter claims" when you then go on to make the superious accusations that there "petrol and acid bombs and snipers" aimed at british forces. These are equally unproven untill THEY are proved by the Saville Inquiry. If we are to look at what might be percieved as facts then british soliders shot dead 11 civilillians, regardless of anything else this would to me indicate that it is the british forces on trail with the SI and that this is more than a lack of "hindsight".

    As for the protest being illegal, this protest organised by the non-sectarian Northern Irish Civil Rights Association was no risk to the peace and was banned by the Northern Irish Parliament which im sure you will not disagree underepresented catholic community through gerrymandering and lead by a unionist party famed for its links with anti-catholic Orange Order. It was partly because of Bloody Sunday and then after the NIP's reluctance to hand over power to westminster that lead to it being dissolved. The banning of the NICRA march was an act of sectarianism.


    (Original post by Tamora)
    The British government and the RUC never co-operated with the Barron inquiry (on which the committee's findings were based) so the inquiry would have been incomplete. I think this inquiry would have been as politically motivated as the British inquiry, although you might be right as to the reasons for the lack of charges. We will never know for sure.
    We might then consider that even the Stevens Inquiry which as a british enquiry which as you said would still be "politically motivated" towards the british concluded that "members of the RUC and Army colluded with the largest loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), to murder Catholics". It also notes that evidence was destoyed, that would have lead to prosecution, by members of the police forces. This is why catholics were perfectly justified in feeling oppressed rejecting the RUC and the british goverment is culpable for not controlling its own police force.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    IRA targetted civillians and noncombatants (enniskillen, manchester, belfast bombings). The ANC did not.
    Are you insane?

    Firstly: The ANC is a political party, not a military movement. The MK is equaivalent to the IRA; the ANC is equivalent to Sinn Fein.

    Now we've cleared that up: The MK did attack non-combatants. They bombed more indiscriminately than the IRA! They let off huge car bombs in the middle of towns, as well as bombing industrial centres and general "white" areas. You're hopelessly deluded if you think they didn't attack civilians.


    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    The existence of the SDLP backing similar objectives as Sinn Fein but rejecting voilence shows that there was an alternative to voilence to achieve their goals. The fact that the IRA did not win the war and have renounced voilence would support this. There was no alternative to Mandela.
    The IRA was fighting for the very act of political recognition for the Republican movement. The SDLP wasn't even founded until the 70's. There wasn't any kind of political option - let alone political alternatives - until the IRA campaigns were well underway.


    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    Just as it was not necessary to use voilent methods in the MLK stuggle for black rights in america it was not necessary to use voilence. In both cases the use of voilence by malcomn X and Sinn Fein damaged the image of moderates such as the SDLP and MLK.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    sp. "violence".


    That's not a valid comparison, by any means. In fact, here's a counterexample: Blacks in South Africa weren't recognised at all until the MK whipped out their armalites. It wasn't as if they could have marched around for a bit and got people's sympathy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomGeorge)
    As the only moderate here. Gerry Adams will be remembered as he should, a sectionalist biggot who proliferated and justified a candelstine campaign of voilence that led to the death of thosands of innoncent fellow northern irish citizens, leading to a rise in reactionary unionism and deeply setting back the path to peace and moderate irish nationalism. He has chosen peace as the IRA have failed to bomb the british out and this enables him atleast some power in a devolved goverment.
    Same with Mandela, I suppose?
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.