Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ramshock, May 4, 2012.
You're right, I apologise. Thread should stay on sands.
Same shit, different thread
Interesting topic that should have its own thread which may or may not already exist.
That's why they aren't independent.
The irish were defending themselves with what ever means and the british were invaders. Let's face it..if not for the ira and its ilk ireland would still be under british rule. Majority of the people outside the uk are sympathetic to the ira and its cause.
UK should have been respectable, peaceful and democratic and gotten there ass out of ireland in the first place.
so much wrong with this post,absolutely fecking clueless.
RIP to the innocents that have lost their lives on both sides.
It was a very blunt way of summing up the situation. But he was correct, if a tad unrealistic.
Excellent post Wibble. My thoughts exactly
how naive can you possibly be?
I'm just putting it down to a common trait of the internet faux-feminist.
I'm just struggling to remember the results of the democratic vote that ok'd the invasion of Iraq. You know the one presided over in the states by their democratically elected president.
Memories are short.
Those capable of thinking in more that just black and white can look at someone like Sands and admire him for believing in something, standing up it, and ultimately laying down his life for it. They can do that without praising or agreeing with every action of the IRA.
Northern Ireland isn't independent either, which is what we were discussing. Scotland could plausibly be independent sooner, and without the unnecessary loss of so many lives.
This went well. Good man Rams and your big old spoon....
...Because the two situations are directly comparable?
Celtic area with its own sense of national identity where a minority want to secede from the United Kingdom?
The situations aren't even close to being comparable Mike. There's so much more to it than that in the North, which you're either purposely ignoring or are blissfully ignorant of.
Exactly how I feel about it.
Exactly. Comparing Scotland to Northern Ireland is ridiculous.
Obviously the situations aren't identical (when are they ever?), but there are enough similarities to look at the different strategies towards gaining independence. I prefer nationalist movements that try to win an argument rather than a war (not that I personally think it a good idea for any of the home nations to leave the UK).
The two cases are more comparable than the case of Northern Ireland to apartheid-era South Africa. The idea that the IRA can be thought of in the same light as the ANC is laughable.
I didn't say it should be compared to South Africa.
The bottom line is the GF agreement of 98 was effectively the Sunningdale agreement.
Why didnt Sunningdale work? Unionists didnt want to give up their privileged position in society.
People underestimate the sheer blind hatred Unionist had for nationalists for many years and vise versa(but it was up to unionists to reach out to nationalists as they had the power to change the situation for the better). They simply didn't want to share power. Then they wonder why so many young men in ghettos take up arms? If you refuse to share power and discriminate against a large part of the population you cant expect anything good. Majority rule can never work in such a situation.
How can you tell young people in gettos that the SDLP way is the right way when they wont even share power with you? I am not a supporter of the IRA but in the end their way got results the SDLP could never dream of.
Also I suspect a big part of Power sharing for the unionist size was simple the fact the nationalist population was rising rapidly. Sure that doesnt guarantee a united Ireland but its almost certain that within another 10 years SDLP/SF vote will be level with the unionist vote. Therefore the old majority rule idea had to be abandoned.
I'm no supporter of the IRA, but I do admire Bobby Sands for starving himself to death over a principle.
Tries to make out hes some hard man despite spending his life vegetating in front of a screen, the sad feck.
The worst thing that ever happened in Northern Ireland is the IRA polluting the Civil rights movement.
With the support of influential and moderate Protestants, Catholics may have arrived at Civil rights much quicker. The IRA essentially severed that support, setting the country into a spiral of doom.
The IRA were able to use Civil rights as a vehicle for their own aims, which most people didn't have an appetite for at the time. They engineered sympathy and support from there, aided by a belligerent British presence who were quite happy to play into their hands.
I know you probably didn't mean it that literally, but....
But the idea that moderate protestants would've achieved anything in the face of 70s Paisleyism is revisionism at its finest.
I'm not faux.
That's exactly what I've been arguing.
Other point I was making I didn't put very well, rednev explained it better on the first page of this thread.
For the record; I don't agree with anyone killing anyone. I think it's futile and leads to a cycle that perpetuates itself without coming to conclusion. The people who suffered the most are buried in graves all across the north while the bearded one and marty trot off to meet British 'dignitaries' and talk endlessly about how they're peacemakers. Martin Mcguinness has multiple holiday homes and businesses in Bundoran, Peter Robinson has investments all over the place and those at the top, on both sides, have profitted from the suffering of those around them. Stormont is a farce where they were recently debating whether or not to have a tricolour flown over the top of the place; as that is the most important thing going on, obviously.
I'm actually going to leave this thread now. A quote that sums the whole thing up well is; "Everything was lost and nothings won".
The 60's and 70's were a time of change worldwide, especially in terms of civil rights.
It's very difficult to envisage a situation where Catholics wouldn't have got civil rights.
It could have been achieved peacefully, just like so many other civil rights movements around the world at that time.
The IRA high-jacked it as a vehicle for republicanism and set Northern Ireland on a course for doom.
Before that, the IRA were a parochial sideshow with little support, not much different to what they are now.
Bit a of a weird thread from the beginning this. Why start a thread for the 31st anniversary? strange.
Went as expected. Except for people comparing it to Scotland. History gets easier to understand the further back you go. Bobby Sands was found in possession of a handgun. He believed he was part of a struggle for civil rights and independence. And put his life down for what he believed in. For me he was a brave and dignified man. That is not support for terrorism and the killing of innocent people. There were many threads to what was wrong with occupation, some of which was morally reprehensible, and there were many responses to try and deal with this, some of which were morally reprehensible. To alter reality to make one side all good and the other all bad is nonsense and wasting time on a topic that has wasted far too much already. I can understand the bias of those directly caught up in it, but some of you are clearly taking sides despite knowing feck all. As usual.
Probably true, but could be said of every unjust situation ever. And hard to adhere to when it's your own rights or your childrens you have to sit around and wait on. The rest of your post is silly. Sinn Fein are to this day community based. Again read their genesis. Not saying they didn't have a miltant wing which contained some murdering bastards, but to say the people and their rights were an afterthought means that you know nothing about how they were formed and the whole history of struggle in Ireland.
Just look at how long the South African apartheid system took to fall. A system that had sanctions and worldwide popular outrage going against it. Then look at N. Ireland, a similar system funded and backed militarily by one of the world's great economic and military powers.
Yes, catholics would've got civil rights. The question is 'when'?
Don't mind him. Considering when the 'fight' for catholic rights on the island started, I'd wager even more than the hundreds of years it did take. The issue was around a while and the 70's wasn't the end of global inequality the way he suggets it was.
But all of this is off topic - if people really want to start a debate in a thread of this nature, it'd be nice if they cared enough to be armed with more than flakey presumptions. If you can't dissect what happened and instead see it as as black and white then best leave the thread alone.
Do you have trouble telling people apart? After all most have more than three superficial things in common
The CIA and MI6 files would disagree. But comparing South Africa or Scotland is silly and unnecessary as both were completely different.
There was good and bad on both sides in the whole thing. For christs sake, one's side in the struggle was whimsical, along the lines of the religion and or address of one's parents. Yet they are the lines that still define sides in this this argument.
History handed us a mess and most of us have no idea what it was like to live there or what we would have done. There were long running civil rights and discrimination issues as well as long running political issues.
That bloody period is over now and people feel Bobby was an ok bloke. I think they should be allowed think that and not have everthing that was ever done in the name of Irish independence put upon him. In any history like this, all sorts are coralled together. I'm sure there is a line across which I'd fight for my parents or children.
I suggest you have a look at the documentary 'Taxi to the Dark Side' that takes an in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. It focuses on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed in 2002. I just felt a bit of realistic perspective on this would guide the argument in the right direction. All is not rosey in war sadly.
You don't have to investigate too deeply Kinky. Most genocides were committed by armies. But that's OK, MG will stand over a genocide as long as they are in uniform with the crown on. Even here, we had no army, almost all the Irish deaths were civilian deaths. That is not to say the IRA campaign on mainland Britain was cowardly, disgusting and shameful, which it was, like most of the Britsh occupation on this island. For people to rationalise one sort of barbarism and denounce another is ridiculous. It's insulting hairsplitting. The phraseology we have was put there by those in power, not those who are right. It's all wrong.
good post moses. No rights or wrongs with regards to the 'Irish problem'.
Just a long history of tragedy.
Separate names with a comma.