Unloved unionists fear new border with Great Britain…
NOTHING could demonstrate to unionists how little London loves them than this little exchange in the Lords last night involving David Trimble and Lord West (who seemed unaware – despite having served here – that Northern Ireland is part of the UK). There seems to be considerable unionist unease about the eborders scheme, which, from a unionist perspective, will result in an electronic security ring being thrown around Great Britain, while NI is left to take its chances with the Republic. This, the argument goes, will result in people from Northern Ireland being treated like foreigners when travelling to any other part of the United Kingdom. The problem for Westminster is Ireland’s porous border, about which, apparently, nothing can be done – GB fears that illegals enter the Irish Republic easily, cross the border into Northern Ireland without hindrance, which they then use as a jumping point into Great Britain. I’ve copied the exchange below the fold.Northern Ireland: Electronic Border
3.23 pm
Lord Trimble asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the impact of the electronic border on the British Isles common travel area.
21 Nov 2007 : Column 832
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, we continue to work closely with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on operational policy and legislative issues, including the implementation of the e-borders programme, which is a key part of the Government’s plans for securing our borders.
My Lords, I wonder if the Irish Government have pointed out in their discussions with Her Majesty’s Government that British citizens make up the largest group of foreign nationals in the Irish Republic and that they, together with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Irish passport holders domiciled in Great Britain, have been accustomed to travelling back and forth between the two states without any formalities ever since the creation of a separatist Irish state. With the e-borders, there will of course be considerable inconvenience to them. Would it not be much better to take the existing informal common travel area and put it on a formal basis analogous to the Schengen agreement that applies elsewhere in Europe? This would solve the problems that arise in practice and relieve the difficulties experienced by the Home Office, which seems to be intellectually challenged by the idea of a land frontier.
My Lords, as was said before, there is a lot of dialogue between ourselves, the Border and Immigration Agency, the UK police, the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the Northern Ireland Executive on these various issues. We carry out a lot of joint operations, and we all believe that the way we are moving forward with two chunks of work—one relates to the Police and Justice Act 2006 and the other to e-borders—are good ways of covering the problems. We know both anecdotally and from taking samples that there are people who either come through the Republic of Ireland, move into Northern Ireland and then come across to the United Kingdom or vice versa. The sample evidence we have suggests that it is a considerable problem, and this way forward will resolve those issues.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the same quality of protection against external terrorism will be afforded to citizens of the United Kingdom residing in Northern Ireland as to our fellow citizens who reside in the mainland?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the quick answer is yes. We are making sure that is exactly what happens.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I return to basic Northern Ireland politics after a very statesmanlike Question from my noble friend Lord Trimble. Do Her Majesty’s Government really understand Ireland and Northern Ireland? I think not. They are expelling the people of Northern Ireland—I am one of them; I live there— geographically from the United Kingdom. They are putting an electronic boundary around England, Scotland and Wales, excluding Northern Ireland and packaging it in with the Republic of
21 Nov 2007 : Column 833
Ireland. Do Her Majesty’s Government really think that that will help political friendship and political progress between these islands given their delicate state? I would love to answer the question. I hope the Minister’s answer is the same as mine.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not agree. The Government do understand Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the status of the people there. There is no doubt whatever that, in the interests of the Republic of Ireland, the people in Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom in general, it makes sense to move down this route. On the e-borders area, for example, we have carried out a trial run called Project Semaphore, and in that very small pilot project 1,300 arrests were made for crimes including murder, rape, assault and so on. On a counterterrorist basis, it is better for the safety of all our people. I cannot accept what has just been said about our lack of understanding. There is absolutely no intention, no desire and no wish; it would be contrary to everything we believe in.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister reply specifically to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble? Would it not be more optimal to maintain the common travel area rather than hive off Great Britain from our neighbours in both Northern Ireland and the Republic? This is a complex issue. Given the mix of population between the islands, it is absurd to go down the route that the Government appear to be going down.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, we are maintaining the common travel area, which is recognised by the EU. We are applying a sensible way forward to identify the loophole that existed of people moving in through the Republic of Ireland, into Northern Ireland and then travelling across to the United Kingdom. We know, as I said, from anecdotal and sample evidence that that is a considerable number of people. Similarly, the Crown dependency routes are being maintained. So the common travel area is staying as it is.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do the Government not recognise the enormous symbolism of what they are doing with the map? What will be the security losses of including the province of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom instead of leaving it out?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there has been mention already of the common land border in Ireland. Those of us who have patrolled and walked along it know how permeable it is. That is part of the issue in terms of the ability of people arriving in the Republic of Ireland to get into Northern Ireland. Nothing that is being done makes any declaration about the status of Northern Ireland. It is for the safety of all the people of these islands that we are doing these things. There is a great deal of discussion going on. I think it is a sensible way forward.
21 Nov 2007 : Column 834
Lord Trimble: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that, when he spoke a moment ago of travelling from Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom, he demonstrated clearly his lack of understanding of the basic concept?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, it was a slip. I certainly understand it. As I said, I have served in Northern Ireland. It was rather like the slip that people make when they forget that the United Kingdom is in Europe. It is a slip that is made sometimes.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, will the Minister let me have details of how the projected security measures across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be similar or different to the projected border controls within and without the European Community?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord in writing on those details.
RepublicanStones: remember the I Ran Away slogans unionism used to taunt nationalists with regarding the ABSENCE of the IRA. and when the ira then went on to go on the offensive against crown forces, loyalism/unionism continued targeting innocent people based solely on their religion, the IRA bit their tongue, most of the time. as evidenced by the vast majority of IRA activity being directed at crown forces and anyone who administered british rule in ireland.
I Ran Away was a taunt aimed by Nationalists. Are you too young to remember?
And the fact that IRA failed to protect the nationalist community from Loyalists even at the height of their capabilities shows their cynicism – they fed off the fear and resentment that the loyalists created, while using their own energies against the state. That might be sound republicanism ideology, but it’s also cynical, bloody, and exploitative. And, as it turned out, futile, too.
Billy,
Thanks for responding. I didn’t know that.
As you say, it should not be a party political thing. Security affects us all.
the graffiti may have first appeared on a wall in ardoyne, yet appeared in many loyalist areas and was a common taunt of the RUC, and do you actually believe the ira were at the height of their capabilities in 1969, i had no idea that Qaddafi was supplying them so early !!!!!!!!
Turgon,
A dander of topic to join the rest of ye…..
…..I have lived in London for many years and take it from me there is huge lack of understanding in regards to the position of NI and even the ROI from many people here, perhaps not all people but certainly the younger generation who have grown up post ceasefires. Also the school goers here in London are often children whose parents come from abroad and are at that added disadvantage.
In fact any young people here struggle with ideas of Britishness and Englishness, (it is a fairly notable issue for Brownites, keep up) so it’s not fair to say.
Conversation today “are you from Dublin” – “no the north”,- “yeah well we are all british aren’t we” (with shrug) “did you enjoy the football?”
In truth of course it depends who you are meeting. Many do of course know too well about the Irish question—- The old joke of the two most boring words in the english language being “northern ireland” is something Unionism must always be wary of in England of course so they should thread softly into any debate on immigration.
For all NI changes in recent years it has not in my opinion had any experiences of the illegal immigration issues that could dominate the next few years at Westminster. If the economy tanks and people are calling for someone to blame Labour could drag poor auld NI out and throw it to the media dogs as a distraction headline? “We want to cut out our exposure to the west but they won’t let us”
I have some knowledge of illegal immigration in these parts and have to say that Ireland is seen by many illegals as a soft touch, if you don’t get asylum here in London then break for the Dublin Hollyhead ferry before they catch ya and they have a reputation for being easier touches in terms of claiming you are from a war torn state when you are not. Can I give any evidence of this? No, so give it the weight it deserves. It’s what interpreters tell me.
RepublicanStones,
You claim not to be a cheerleader for the IRA yet you say they were not sectarian, were defending the nationalist people, and “vast majority of IRA activity being directed at crown forces and anyone who administered british rule in ireland.”
This sounds rather like cheerleading.
Then we have this
“you seem to be unaware with the republican ideals of cherishing all children of the nation equally. again i await you to mention an event to try and rubbish this ideal”
Well let us see since you wanted examples;-
Darkley
Kingsmills
Enniskillen
Teebane
Shankill Fish shop
Le Mon
Clearly I could go on and on.
Whilst on the topic of “children of the nation” one might remind you that the same day as the Enniskillen macassre the; according to you non sectarian IRA, tried to blow up a rememberance parade in Pettigo consisting of Boys Brigade and Girls Brigade children. That shows “cherishing all the children of the nation” does not it. In fact the IRA murdered 47 children aged 16 or under. I guess since some of the children they murdered were Catholics by your account that means they “cherished” them all equally.
I think those events and that statistic pretty comprehensively rubbishes any claim to “cherish” anything other than the IRA’s own perverse and immoral record of murder and destruction.
And yes SF and the IRA proclaimed a desire to create a socialist 32 county republic, denied the legitimacy of the Republic of Ireland and claimed (as they still do, I believe) that the only legal government of the island of Ireland is the IRA army council. To me that is classical not of socialism but national socialism.
Turgon
To be fair, SF dropped the demand for a 32-county socialist republic after Tony Blair told them to.
show me where i said they were in no way sectarian. what i said was that it cannot be denied that loyalism was viciously more sectarian. and again you use the ‘aul unionist ploy of listing atrocities, well my list could go longer and back farther…. where will start, shakill butchers, miami, bombay st,sure i could go as far as the famine or the plantation or cromwell, yet i don’t engage in a ‘show me your scar’ competition. instead i illustrate the falsehoods endemic in unionism. and there is a big difference between socialism and national socialism, oh and read about the 1986 ard fheis.
“…im no cheerleader for the IRA, i am however sick of unionists who try and claim the IRA as the bogeymen and the sole reason the north descended into the mess it did.” – RepublicanStones
If PIRA didn’t decide to go on a sectarian killing spree, there would have been no more than a few dozen deaths as a result of the civil rights dispute and I dare say that we’d all be in a united Ireland by now. As things stand, thanks to mindless morons like PSF/PIRA, unity isn’t likely to be an option for a few more generations and another economic boom if ever.
“…for you to suggest that a unified ireland could possibly become a nationalist socialist state is ludricous.” – RepublicanStones
Pardon? You seem to have confused my post with another poster. I said in post No 11 / page 1: “Incidentally, Outsider: you’re closer to PSF re independence than you realise. If it was viable, PSF would support it in preference to a UI wherein their power would vanish. Like you, they put their own interests first.” That clearly means that PSF have no hope of gaining power in Ireland. Ergo, a “nationalist socialist state” as proffered by them isn’t an option. Sociopaths don’t believe in anything except self-empowerment at the expense of others, so if the socialist crap stops doing the business north of the border, they’ll drop it in favour of ‘whatever you’re having yourself.’ If supporting the monarchy and the status quo would get more votes than pretending to be republicans, then that’s where the wind will blow them. They’re just cynical opportunists.
“…you seem to be unaware with the republican ideals of cherishing all children of the nation equally.”- RepublicanStones
Which could possibly be what I meant by “equality of citizenship”? Provisionalism, however, should not be confused with Republicanism. Provisionalism believes in exploiting “all children of the nation equally.”
Belfast Gonzo,
Fair enough. They were quite fond of it whilst their mates in the IRA were murdering folk though. And do SF and the IRA now accept the legitimacy of the RoI?
I must apologise Belfast Gonzo. The thread was more interesting before I started this rather tedious debate with RepublicanStones. He did, however, ask a question of unionists and I responded. An error I will accept, one of my many both on this site and in real life. Still “I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go oer” so I had better answer his latest.
RepublicanStones,
You asked me to mention an event which rubbished the ideal that the republican movement wanted to “cherish all the children of the nation equally”, well trying to blow up children at a BB and GB parade is not really what I would regard as cherishing them. Also killing 47 “children of the nation” is not really cherishing them is it?
In terms of you saying:-
“show me where i said they were in no way sectarian. what i said was that it cannot be denied that loyalism was viciously more sectarian”
Well let us see here is a quote from a previous thread
“loyalism was sectarian in a manner republicans could never even dream of being.”
Then on this thread we have
“but its documented fact loyalism/unionism was infintely more sectarian in their actions ”
Now if the loyalists are “infintely more sectarian” than the IRA; then the IRA must be completely non sectarian since infinite means “unlimited or unmeasurable in extent” hence by your own statements the loyalists being “infinitely more sectarian” this must make the IRA non sectarian in your opinion.
“what i said was that it cannot be denied that loyalism was viciously more sectarian. and again you use the ‘aul unionist ploy of listing atrocities,”
Jesus wept: you asked him to list them… talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!
http://www.qub.ac.uk/cibr/WPpdffiles/MFWPpdf/w26_hd.pdf
Found that – interesting. And not entirely off topic.
Oh well, at leaast this issue gave another chance for the loopiness that is an independent “Ulster” to re-emerge fleetingly before being buried under the usual boulders of logic and common sense.
Still staggered at seeing in black and white the apparently genuinely held belief that independence is what most “Unionists” now want. *rubs eyes*
This thread illustrates perfectly why so many people have given up on Slugger. As it’s the absolute archetype of the groanfest virtually all now turn into. Mad assertion (HMG are going to require UK nationals to use passports to travel between GB & NI – no evidence whatsoever). Desperate, tinny Nationalist triumphalism (‘this’, whatever ‘this’ is in all and every monotonous circumstance, means the Union is doomed/over/aready a fiction from the past, & yawning etcetera). Some naked sectarianism (see all recent soccer threads, for extraordinarily tedious detail). F*cking nutso Roger Irrelevantism (see, well, pretty much see very other sodding comment on Slugger passim). Add to the fact that the site is plainly being disabled by hacking that for some weird reason Slugger management never publicly adverts to, and you can see why the attractions, even for that small minority of us with paid, let alone private-sector employment, of ‘Minesweeper’ burgeon.
I have to say I agree with the disabling (due to hacking??) but as for the other gurnz, it does beg a question – why bother?
Dubliner first off, i have you confused with nobody, i was talking to turgon, secondly well done for perpetuating the unionist myth that the provisionals just appeared out of nowghere and wen on a ‘randomn sectarian killing spree’. even though history shows otherwise. so you seem to be suggesting there was no provocation, nationalists were not under attack, and that republicans were as sectarian as their loyalist counterparts which again, history has shown to be a falsehood. and again, how am i confusing republicanism with provisionalism, the quote i used about cherishing all children of the nation was made a long long time before the provisionals arrived on the scene. so it is you who seems to be linking the
two.
turgon i never asked you to provide an event which rubbished the ideal of cherishing all children….i merely stated that no doubt you would try to rubbish it BY providing one, and you duly obliged. and again you seem to be linking the provisionals inextricably with the ideals of republicanism, as we were discussing your belief of a national socialist ireland. furthermore never once in any of my comments have i suggested that the ira were completely sectarian free, which you try to suggest i did. you then attempt to do this by going down the road of grammar and semantics to win your little point, but again as anyone who has followed the previous threads can see, i never once suggested what you would love to make other readers think i suggested. i would like an apology, however i won’t hold my breath.
“so you seem to be suggesting there was no provocation, nationalists were not under attack, and that republicans were as sectarian as their loyalist counterparts which again, history has shown to be a falsehood.”
I seem to be suggesting that you can’t run around killing people just because someone calls you a Taig or you don’t get first place on a housing list. You resolve civil disputes via politics, not guns, child.
And by the way, why do you think that nationalists were under attack from loyalists? It is because PIRA set them up to be attacked by loyalists via ‘retaliation’ for the sole purpose of creating the impression among nationalists that they needed PIRA to defend them. PIRA ensured that their own community would be murdered as a strategic means of growing their own popular support within the nationalist community. They weren’t defending you, kid: they were setting you up to be murdered.
“And by the way, why do you think that nationalists were under attack from loyalists? It is because PIRA set them up to be attacked by loyalists via ‘retaliation’ for the sole purpose of creating the impression among nationalists that they needed PIRA to defend them.”
Dublner – you are out to provoke – PIRA was not even formed when the stuff started.
are you for real dubliner????? so gusty spence and his mates were running round in 1966 shootin catholics at the behest of the IRA and not because of paisley’s firey rhetoric, sure. do you even read your history???? me thinks you would be better called, the Londoner !
I think Dubliner though may have a few points is in this thread just to get peoples hackles up as in his use politics remark I suppose he was living in the North pre ’68
Just as well he wasn’t around in 1936 Germany where would his admirable though nieve sentiment have gotten him then. So this would bring us to the question
When is violence in selfdefence acceptable ?
Look, could the Unionist trolls give it a rest for a while? Or at the very least, if you are absolutely *determined* to either wind up, or, spoof nationalists, do it with a bit of wit. I mean for pity’s sake “overhere”, I know nationalists say the funniest things, but you have to keep these things within the bounds of parodic possibility. Yes, the obscenely overwrought self-comparison of Northern nationalists’ plight to that of internal victims of Nazi Germany was spot-on as far as spoofs of that absurd, self-pitying mindset goes, pig-ignorant of every other actual historical experience as it so painfully obviously is. But surely it strays into fantasy to pretend that even a Republican would whine about ‘self defence’? I mean, come on, if they know anything, they know who’s done the murdering. So I think pretending, in your otherwise excellent Onion-style treatment of a certain sort of Republican poster on Slugger, that even a Provette would try it on with “we did it coz themmuns did it”, is you straying just a bit too far into idle fancy there old son. Otherwise, keep up the good work.
I think it is well established through Common Law that violence in self defence is acceptable when, and only when, your person is in immediate danger of harm. Or something like that.
And the degree of violence in self defence has to be commensurate with the degree of the imminent harm. You can’t shoot someone for threatening to kick your arse.
And before anyone jumps in and starts trying to compare what I have just said with acts of violence (war) between states, I do believe that the Irish war for independence was justified. The use of arms became non-justifiable, however, the day that the Dail voted to accept the treaty.
“You can’t shoot someone for threatening to kick your arse.”
Actually, I think the history here shows you can.
It would be interesting to research how much being stopped, questioned and verbally abused actually contributed to young nationalist/republican men – throughout the Troubles – deciding that they would not get mad, but get even.
And by getting even, they meant setting out to kill or actually killing those who wore the same uniform or even worked in the same area as those who did the abusing and spitting.
The loss of a sense of proportion is one of the losses we suffered here.
Thus, in 2007, a young man can be beaten to death (for something we know not what) but which those who have been both brutal and brutalised would regard as appropriate to the “crime” committed.
At the risk of addressing the thread.
“There seems to be considerable unionist unease about the eborders scheme, which, from a unionist perspective, will result in an electronic security ring being thrown around Great Britain, while NI is left to take its chances with the Republic.â€
Does this imply that the unionist community is considered to be unworthy Guardians of the Realm?
Might not a gesture on their part mend fences? A show of patriotism, like introducing bio chips and head cameras for all places of work, and of course in the schools, for example, might be just the ticket.
Perhaps then NI will be considered worthy of the protective embrace of an electronic security ring.
My apologies for allowing myself to get sidetracked.
Wilde Rover, satire tends to work best if you’re satirising something that’s actually happening. No one has supplied any evidence that the government is going to require UK nationals to use passports to travel between GB & NI because the government aren’t.
RepublicanStones: and do you actually believe the ira were at the height of their capabilities in 1969
No, I said “And the fact that IRA failed to protect the nationalist community from Loyalists even at the height of their capabilities shows their cynicism”. So by all means, pick a year to suit yourself. The IRA had its own agenda throughout the troubles. Protecting the nationalist community wasn’t on it.
[i]“And by the way, why do you think that nationalists were under attack from loyalists? It is because PIRA set them up to be attacked by loyalists via ‘retaliation’ for the sole purpose of creating the impression among nationalists that they needed PIRA to defend them.†– The Dubliner
Dublner – you are out to provoke – PIRA was not even formed when the stuff started.” – Dewi[/i]
Dewi, history doesn’t begin and end in 1966, werein all strategies and tactics of all sectarian murder gangs of the following years were set by Gusty Spence – or, indeed, by the so-called IRA’s border campaign of 50s. You’re a tad brainwashed by Provisional apologetics, aren’t you?
As Tomás Mac Giolla, the leader of the Wroker’s Party said in Dáil Éireann on 10 November, 1987, in response to PIRA’s mass-murder of protestants at Enniskillen:
“As I said last week, the Provisionals have always relied for their influence among Catholics on creating an atmosphere where they can masquerade as the defenders of the Catholic community. They are hoping, therefore, for attacks and retaliation by Protestant paramilitaries so that they can be seen to defend the Catholic community. Time after time they have gone out and engaged in vile sectarian murders knowing that they would provoke a reaction from the paramilitaries leading to more fear and more terror in Catholic areas and leading people to believe that they needed the Provos to protect them.”
It was a deliberate tactic of the Provisionals to ensure that the nationalists community would be attacked, thereby allowing them to posture as defenders of that community.
[i]“When is violence in selfdefence acceptable ?” – overehere[/i]
I suggest you make your way to an online law dictionary and familiarise yourself with the definition of self-defence. You may find to your horror that it doesn’t include random murder against individuals who are not attacking you.
“Wilde Rover, satire tends to work best if you’re satirising something that’s actually happening.â€
The satire was directed at “unionist unease,†the reaction to a perceived alienation from “the fold.â€
It’s far more interesting to cast a cold eye on that than on any of the potential variations of the tawdry machinations of the enveloping darkness.
Is satire not at its most exquisite when it is directed at all the good men, and women, who do nothing?
“You’re a tad brainwashed by Provisional apologetics, aren’t you?” – No actually Dubliner. I know you have his approach of taking things to the extreme to make a point. It is sometimes effective in producing reactions from others.
In this case, however, the statement
“And by the way, why do you think that nationalists were under attack from loyalists?”
Was in response to a discussion of the “failure” of the the IRA to protect their communities from Loyalist attack in the late sixties. These attacks could not have been provoked by PIRA as it didn’t exist.
Your hypothesis fails……and anyway what’s happened to the one-liners !!!
Dewi, did I say that PIRA existed prior to 1969 or did you invent that statement? We both know that you invented the statement.
Here is the unedited statement:
“And by the way, why do you think that nationalists were under attack from loyalists? It is because PIRA set them up to be attacked by loyalists via ‘retaliation’ for the sole purpose of creating the impression among nationalists that they needed PIRA to defend them.â€
You are attempting to claim that PIRA did not set the nationalist community up to be attacked by loyalists because loyalists attacked nationalists before PIRA existed (or rather, split from the IRA and renamed itself as Provisional IRA, with the other party to the split becoming the Official IRA). The obvious flaw in your argument is twofold: (a) you failed to show that no nationalists attacked loyalists before Gusty Spence attacked nationalists upon forming the UVF in 1966, conveniently ignoring the IRA’s murder campaign in the 50s and 60s for your express purpose; and (B), you are under the curious delusion that all actions after 1966 are recursive algorithms functioning in a computer – a loop infinitely repeated. It is irrationality bordering on insanity for you to declare that PIRA didn’t have the stated purpose because they were merely engaged in a mindless cycle of tit-for-tat violence a la recursive algorithms that was initiated by Gusty Spence.
Of course, you can’t cite a single example of a nationalist who was saved from a loyalist gunman by PIRA, can you? So your claim that PIRA were de facto defenders of the nationalist community is based on nothing more substantial that your absorption of Provisional apologetics, is it? And if it isn’t, name those whom you are convinced that PIRA saved.
Londoner, you seem to have a hatred of republicans of all hues, and your belief that republicans not only instigated the troubles but set nationalist areas up to be attacked by loyalists is frankly walter mitty-esque in the extreme. so republicans were responsible for loyalists murdering John Patrick Scullion and Peter Ward? you also seem to forget the first member of crown forces killed during the conflict was killed by loyalists, Constable Arbuckle. the first bombing campaign was carried out by the UVF against power stations etc, with the aim of implicating republicans. remember what the aim of the miami operation was before it went tits up and they decided to try and kill all the band members instead? do you know what the aim of the loyalists then was? you seem to think republicans were pulling the strings of loyalist paramilataries, which makes walter mitty seem sane !
the republican movement were in no shape to defend nationalists at the outset of the troubles, yet you still wish to portray them as the sole responsibility, thus screaming at facts, and the border campaign you refer to was an abject failure, for the same reasons as the failure of republicans to defend nationalists in the later years, because they were ill-equipped and unprepared. no doubt you are a fan of a certain Kevin Myers, another little englander, whilst conviently ignoring the fact the state you reside in was founding by people of the exact same persuasion you are so ready to condemn. but then again this you probably do with glee. but as they say, alls fine with hindsight. so you sit in your ivory tower and continue judging actions of the past by modern standards.
oh and you ask for one example (name) of a nationalist who was saved by republicans from loyalist gunmen. well brainbox the reason people dont have names of individuals who would be dead if it hadn’t been for republican defenders is precisely because they are not dead, so they’re names are not known. yet its common knowledge whole neighbourhoods were saved. you know ofcourse the story of Billy McKee, the Provisionals’ commander in Belfast, who occupied St Mathew’s Church and defended it in a five hour gun battle with the loyalists, who were attempting to kill famalies that lived in Short Strand or his actions with Joe Cahill and a number of other republicans when they occupied houses at Kashmir Street (14 AUG 1969) in an effort to fight off the RUC and loyalists. However, poorly armed, they failed to prevent Catholic Bombay Street and parts of Cupar Street and Kashmir Street being burned out. but sure you knew all this already !
“So your claim that PIRA were de facto defenders of the nationalist community”
I never claimed that – they were not. My only point was that you have bad logic. PIRA did not provoke retaliation in late sixties because they did not exist. I think that’s a fact.
Dewi the ira has existed long before the 60′s it may have had a slightly different name but it carried out the same venomous, perverse, sectarian, murderous campaigns as it does today.
RepublicanStones,
Sorry not to have engaged in this intellectually stimulating debate with you for a little while. I had the msifortune to be very busy at work today and so missed your last few missives.
I am glad to learn that you regard the IRA as having committed sectarian murders. Do these sectarian murders (do they incluse the murders of Douglas Deering, and Enniskillen by the way, just I wondered out of interest) mean that the IRA were a pack of immoral sectarian murderers or are they somehow “cancelled out” by other actions by the IRA? Which murders were a good idea or were none acceptable?
I am also interested in you trying to claim that me analysing your statement that “the IRA were infinitely less sectarian” as meaning they were not sectarian is “grammar and semantics”.
Then, I do like this quote “i never asked you to provide an event which rubbished the ideal of cherishing all children….i merely stated that no doubt you would try to rubbish it BY providing one, and you duly obliged.”
So clearly I should have understood this as not meaning that you were challenging me to provide an example.
“you seem to be unaware with the republican ideals of cherishing all children of the nation equally. again i await you to mention an event to try and rubbish this ideal, to unite catholic protestant and dissenter,”
So you now accept that the IRA did not value the “children of the nation” but instead tended to kill them? I think we can now say that any claim that the IRA “cherished the children of the nation” is well and truly rubbished.
On all these issues I clearly have made a mistake; I thought you meant what you said or maybe even said what you meant.
Maybe this little section could be applied to you RepublicanStones:
“Alice and March Hare: Quotes: Alice in Wonderland
March Hare: …Then you should say what you mean.
Alice: I do; at least – at least I mean what I say — that’s the same thing, you know.
Hatter: Not the same thing a bit! Why, you might just as well say that, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same as ‘I eat what I see’!”
Turgon I thing you would be better of applying the words of Homer Simpson to Republican Stones.
What is mind? Don’t matter, what is matte? Never mind.
And the degree of violence in self defence has to be commensurate with the degree of the imminent harm. You can’t shoot someone for threatening to kick your arse.
Posted by joeCanuck on Nov 23, 2007 @ 02:12 PM
Beiung Canadian you SHould know that Canadian law does allow you to shoot some one for threatening to kick your arse. As long as the potential victim believes himself to be in danger they can use what ever physical force they deem necesarry to stop the threat
RepublicanStones
“the republican movement were in no shape to defend nationalists at the outset of the troubles”
That’s right. The British Army did that.
“Dewi the ira has existed long before the 60’s it may have had a slightly different name but it carried out the same venomous, perverse, sectarian, murderous campaigns as it does today”
On ceasefire from about 62 I seem to recall. You are right though, as it is today.
good man headtheball, now can you please explain for those at the back of the class exactly why the British army had to defend nationalists?
oh and turgon/outsider how about i give you a little quote from a fellow colonizer which i think encapsulates perfectly the mentality of unionism…
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” – Menachem Begin, Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983
RepublicanStones
Exactly when did Begin give that speech?
Meanwhile
The Hindu Rights Action Force is to rally outside the British High Commission,Kuala Lumpur,in support of a $4 trillion lawsuit that holds the British responsible for the Indians’
economic woes in Malaysia.
RepublicanStones,
You seem very interested in unionists being colonisers and such like. This sits ill with the idea of valuing “all children of the nation”. We have already established that the IRA did not value the “children of the nation” so are unionists “children of the nation” or “colonisers”? If unionists are indeed colonisers and of course oppressors of the nationalist people (I am afraid I cannot think of any actual episodes where I have oppressed any nationalists) does that make killing them or ethnically cleansing them acceptable?
Furthermore, your interest in colonisers is odd compared to comments about uniting “Protestant Catholic and Dissenter” (by the way can you explain the difference in today’s Northern Ireland / Ireland between Protestant and Dissenter, which one am I?).
The idea of a master race is indeed pretty repugnant. However, I would suggest describing some people as “colonisers” might imply that they do not belong here and as such are “invaders” who need to be thrown out. Comments about colonisers and such is actually more akin to descriptions of a master race. It is this contradiction in some aspects of the thinking of some republicans which shows that they are indeed not socialists at all but actually national socialists as I have intimitated previously.
Turgon
Dissenters- Buddhists?
turgon provide me with evidence of ethnic cleansing?
And when people who are descended from colonizers still demand that there motherland rule part of the land they moved to, i think its a fair enough tag. don’t you? and when i speak of colonizers, i never mentioned religion, you brought that into it, not me, so your ‘point’ about how it fits with uniting catholic protestant and dissenter, is null and void. as religion cannot be used to desseminate who the colonizers are, what with many Irish ‘taking the soup’ and natural immigration. oh and i do not imply you do not belong here (siege mentality peeking out) merely the british occupation. true republicans do cherish all the children of the nation, which is why we love the tricolor so, although maybe a few more colors should be added to include the increasing multi-cultural society. you can continue being british, just like the Italian americans retain their italian identity in the states, without demanding italy rule a portion of upstate new york !
RepublicanStones
Didn’t the Gaelic speaking Scots originally come from Ireland?
Didn’t the Jews originally come from the Holy Land?
Manfrang very true,the scotti, at least thats one theory. but this does not explain our OOoolster-scots speaking brothers. for if they were descended from the scotti surely preservation of gaelic culture would be a priority, and union with England a no no. as for the jews true as well, but palestinians have also always been there as all of the 3 major religions in the region can claim ancestry with the cannanites in the region. yet the vast majority of jews in israel are of the azkhenazi tradition. and so not racially linked to the middle east, which explains why the majority of jews in israel look european/american and not like their palestinian brothers.
RepublicanStones
Not the VAST majority.There are many Jews from Egypt,Morocco,Yemen and other Arab countries who were kicked out.Many from Persia,some from India and even a few from Burma.
Many people from the Levant,including some Palestians,look a bit European.Descendants from the Franks no doubt.Arabs are not a race,just go to northern Sudan to see what I mean or even the Gulf.There you will see some very negroid looking people.