Sinn Fein British agent shot dead

BBC News ^ | 4 April 2006

[Irish_Thatcherite]

In fact, the IRA have killed far more Northern Irish Catholics than the security forces!

I forgot to mention that bit!! Thanks.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

I suppose you want to give America back to the Indians??

[Irish_Thatcherite]

And I suppose you believe America belongs to the Indians?

[Irish_Thatcherite]

I am for a free Ireland and I support no terrorist,so watch your mouth............

So why are you supporting the IRA?

This ridiculous - you are acting as a spokesman for Ireland, even though you weren't born or bred here.

Don't you find it strange that I - a man who was born, bred, and still living in Ireland is an opponent of the IRA????

[slane]

Thanks for your service both in NI and Iraq. The parallels between the two situations are remarkable - terrorists hiding amongst the civilian population and using all the dirty tactics imaginable with no regard for loss of civilian life whilst the army has to 'play by the rules'. Are you at liberty to say where in NI you were stationed?

[wardaddy]

Hear Hear!

[FatherofFive]

The Brits gave India back to the Indians. They gave Australia back to the Australians. They gave Canada back to the Canadians. They gave their African colonies back to the Africans.

They should simply give Ireland back to the Irish, and Scotland back to the Scots.

Actually, they should take back the African colonies. The Africans haven't demonstrated the ability to run their continent or a country. The world is much better with Americans in charge of America instead of the Indians. Africa would be much better if it were run by the British.

There is no inherent advantage of the British running Ireland.

[Brit_Guy]

"The Brits gave India back to the Indians."

Great example that bears some thought. You had a mass of ethnic groups which the British Raj had held together (through means fair and foul). When we went the first thing the population did was split off Goa which wanted to remain Chritian, and then there was one of the largest population moves in history when a massive chunk of the Muslim population decided to had to a Northern enclave and start a country called Pakistan. Non mulsims in what is now Pakistan made the journey south the other way to live in the new smaller India. Most folk seem to think the Status Quo reasonable (even if their are no fans of Pakistan here!)
How is that different to when Ireland was made independent but Ulster did not want to belong to the republic. Lots of Prod's moved North, lots of Catholics mooved south. Ulster did not want independence like say, Pakistan, it WANTED to remain part of the UK. The division frankly prevented ethnic cleansing of the whole island.

The problem I find with these discussion is thaat some "Irish-Americans" read propoganda from Sien Fein and feel that because their great-great-great grandparents left the mess for America they should toe the Sien Fein nonsense to somehow affirm their roots. The warm glow they get when they stick their dollar bills in the Noraid jar while supping imported guiness and listening to an irish piper in a pseudo irish bar seems to help cement some identity. You see lots of this in places like Boston and New York. The problem is, for too long, that dollar in the Noraid jar paid for bullets into folks kneecaps or worse. The lack of knowledge is depressing. You can't get past the potatoe famine in the discussion as if this somehow legitimises late 20th centry bombs in shopping malls and random murders.

All four of my grandparents were Irish, which probably makes me more Irish then most 'Irish Americans'. Fortunatley, I was able to actually meet and talk to this part of my ancestory and gain a fair perspective (my mothers side catholic, my fathers side protestant). Both sets had horrific experiences in the 1920s which forced them to the mainland (it's fair to say they didn't like each other and didn't approve of the wedding!). Northern Ireland is a free country. When the catholic population finally overtakes the protestant population, which due to protestants having far few children will almost certainly happen in our lifetime, perhaps then they will unite. But they can do so democratically - no bombs needed.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Well said!! :)

[FatherofFive]

How is that different to when Ireland was made independent but Ulster did not want to belong to the republic.

Well, it’s different in that after Cromwell took over Ireland, he killed two thirds of the Irish. The population of native Irish dropped from 1.5 million to 500,000. He transplanted Scots and other Brits to Ulster. Surprise! They later voted to stay with Britain.

It was ethnic cleansing. Genocide.

[Brit_Guy]

You've moved back from the Potatoe Famine, to Cromwell now?

What happened then, happened then. What happens now is about people who have lived in their homes for generations and who CANNOT be held respobsible for their Ancestors any more than you or I.

How about I tell you to get the heck out of America or forfeit all your rights of democratic input because your ancestors treated the native americans roughly to build the current status quo. On that basis what legitimacy does the US government have? After all it just pulled in immigrants from everywhere, ethnically cleansed the native American lands through a combination of unintentional spread of disease and intentional land grabs and forced relocation. Why don't you get the heck out of America and make the Natives free.

If that argument sounds stupid to you, that is exactly what you seem to be arguing re Ulstermen. (though you are now going even further back in history).

GET THE NORMANS OUT OF BRITAIN. MAKE THE SAXONS FREE!

[FatherofFive]

History is history.

I was simply pointing out that your example of India did not quite match Ireland.

The challenge is when two groups of people claim the same land. The Jews clearly lived in what is now Israel many years ago. They want it back. The Brits living in Ulster have indeed been living there for hundreds of years. But please don’t deny history and say that England did not occupy Irish land and drive out the Irish, confiscate lands and pass repressive laws.

Any Indian in the US can own land, become a citizen, vote or continue to live on a reservation. Or open a casino. Or live the life of an alcoholic. Far more freedoms than the Irish Catholics in Ulster, that led to the development of the modern IRA.

I don’t support the modern IRA. I don’t propose that anyone in the northern provinces have any land or property taken from them. When I say I want the Brits out of Ireland, I mean the government. Ireland should be Ireland. I do believe this will happen over time. The birth rates of the Irish and Catholics will overtake that of the Brits and the protestants. (Although the Irish economy of Ireland is actually attracting labor from the North, this may slow the birth rates.) I believe reunification will happen. Probably not in my lifetime.

My original post that started this string was my response to a statement that the Brits killed fewer Irish than the IRA. I took a longer term view to the arithmetic.

[Brit_Guy]

"The challenge is when two groups of people claim the same land. The Jews clearly lived in what is now Israel many years ago. They want it back."

Bay jaysus. I have no idea how bringing Israel into the question is supposed to support your point. By your logic and exoressed empathy for the Irish Catholic experience over time you cannot be anything other than a Palestinian sympathiser without looking like an hypocryte. (The IRA have always been bosom buddies with the Palestinians for just that reason).

"Any Indian in the US can own land, become a citizen, vote or continue to live on a reservation. Or open a casino. Or live the life of an alcoholic. Far more freedoms than the Irish Catholics in Ulster, that led to the development of the modern IRA."

When you say the 'modern IRA' are you talking about the 1920 version or the 'Provisional IRA' of messrs Adams and McGuniness. If the latter then I think you have a reality gap in your understanding of what life in Northern Ireland is like. I suggest you visit. It's great! And hey - the catholics vote, own houses, buy land, start businesses, and all the other things free people do. Both the UK and the Irish Republic are members of the EU so, for better or worse, we both even share the same supreme judicial arbitrator now.

"I say I want the Brits out of Ireland, I mean the government."

You mean you want to take a province of people who have democratically expressed their wish to reamain a part of the UK - the nation they have been a part of their entire lifetimes and for generations before that?

Again - like me saying I want the US out of California. It belongs to Mexico. It's chucklesome.

"But please don’t deny history and say that England did not occupy Irish land and drive out the Irish, confiscate lands and pass repressive laws."

Have you heard me say anything other than there are episodes in history that don't paint the UK in a good light? Like I say - my grandparents were driven from their homes by the troubles. That's how I ended in GB!

"The birth rates of the Irish and Catholics will overtake that of the Brits and the protestants. (Although the Irish economy of Ireland is actually attracting labor from the North, this may slow the birth rates.) I believe reunification will happen. Probably not in my lifetime."

I only differ from your view in one respect on that point. I DO think it will happen in our lifetime.


"My original post that started this string was my response to a statement that the Brits killed fewer Irish than the IRA. I took a longer term view to the arithmetic"

Which kind of winds up people who have lived with death close to us from the troubles IN LIVING MEMORY. Going back to the potatoe famine to find some moral equivalence to the pain of widows and children whose grandparents weren't even on the planet at the time just sounds lame.

[FatherofFive]

I have no idea how bringing Israel into the question is supposed to support your point.

The Jews were there first. It was their homeland. Jordan was created as a homeland for the Palestinians. Yet they fight over the same piece of land. Each claiming it as their own. It is you my friend, who takes the Palestinian position in this debate. The Palestinians want to occupy the traditional Jewish homeland. The British in northern Ireland occupy the traditional Irish homeland. Two different peoples, different religions, fighting for generations over the same piece of land. How can you not see the similarity?

Imagine this scenario. Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler and Stalin became friends, and partitioned Europe. America never enters World War II. England is conquered by the Germans. Does it end there? After one generation of German rule, does England ceased to exist? Would you not fight to get back your homeland? Would you not want your son, your grandson and your great-grandson and their sons to continue the fight? Brian Boru was born a generation after the Vikings first established colonies in Ireland. It took 85 years to drive the Vikings from Ireland.

The Normans first arrived in Ireland around 1167. It took close to 800 years for the Irish to regain their freedom and their lands from the British.

[Brit_Guy]

"The Jews were there first." "is you my friend, who takes the Palestinian position in this debate"

I have still not stopped laughing at this.....

"I take the Palestinian position". Your talking to someone who is non-jewish but lived on kibbutz on the Lebanon border in 1992-94 who sat with Katysha missles raining in my direction as gifts of Hezbollah and you think I take the Palestinian position. Really, you stitch me up.

"British in northern Ireland occupy the traditional Irish homeland. Two different peoples, different religions, fighting for generations over the same piece of land. How can you not see the similarity?"

Because 'Two different peoples' is a lie. We are all celtic. Most 'English' who went to Ireland were celts who had been over-lorded by Normans and did their bidding (and had probably originaiated from Ireland in the first palce anyway.) Two different religions is sadly the real divider.

You then pose a genuinely intersting question about whether had the Nazi's conquored Britain nin WW2, would I fight against them generations on.

If they were still Nazi's then the answer is yes. But we are not talking about Nazi's in Ireland. Since at least the 1960s (ie. for the last Half a Century ago) Northern Ireland has been a democratic modern state where all men (and women) have the vote, where the rule of law is paramount, where the separation of powers is in evidence, where there is a free press and the right to free expression, where there was a (overly) generous welfare state that did not discriminate giving free healthcare, education and housing to all without predjudice. And yet some Marxists romantics who were still upset about a potatoe famine over a century and half before still thought it was fair game to murder people randomly to right a historical wrong. And for some reason I will never fathom some stupid Americans decided to pay for their bullets, and good free democratic Englishmen and Irishmen have died in their hundreds as a result.

If there could be even one good thing that came from 9/11 - and given the scale of that tradgedy you would hope there would be something small to clutch at - it was that most decent Americans woke up to what expressing political difference through terrorist means really means to the population on the recieving end. If I was to look you in the eye and say how awful the cruscades were for those poor Muslims in the middle ages and that this historical fact went any way to justifying knocking the twin towers out would you give me the time of day? No! Of course you wouldn't. You don't punish the child for the sins of the father. There is so much injustice in history you can do nothing but judge man on the here and now lest we would be caught in nothing but constant warfare. You may dream of a united Ireland - I am sure it will come - but please never ever be an apologist for the republic barbarism of the last 40 years. It demeans you.

[FatherofFive]

In the simplest of terms, here’s how I think of the two positions:

Irish position – We were here first, the land is ours.

Israeli position – We were here first, the land is ours.

British position – We were here last, the land is ours.

Palestinian position - We were here last, the land is ours.

I’m glad I’m able to give you a chuckle, but I still don’t see how you cannot see the similarity of the situation.

[Brit_Guy]

"In the simplest of terms, here’s how I think"

Oh, you didn't have to put it into one liners. I have long since realised you think 'in the simplest of terms'. The trouble is too many far away do just that and it has brought horrible death to the shores of this side of the pond.

Native American position - we were here first the land is ours.

Imigrant American Position - we were here last the land is ours.

So you would think just a native american uprising or the handback of power to them and you would live under their juristiction? In the simplest of terms.

[FatherofFive]

Your lack of a response to a direct question is clear. Your position is that of the Palestinians, in simple terms.

[restornu]

That is one scray harden face

[Brit_Guy]

"Your lack of a response to a direct question is clear."

I've asked you loads of direct questions which are never answered and have only got stuff about how its all down to Henry VIII and the Spud famine. My last post #177 ends with a direct question that YOU avoid. Your previous post #176 does not have a direct question or any question! Anywhere. I've read and read read it. Where is the question?

Perhaps, your idea of a direct question is your sly musing at the end that you can't see why I cannot accept that your (very) simple summary of history means that the Israeli's and 'Irish' are to be supported and the Northern Irish Protestant's and Palestinians should be equated. If that was the direct question then I will answer: I just don't accept your analysis - your simplicity is just not valid or meaningful (see my response question in #177 to see why!) - to me:

Irish-American (Catholic) position – The whole Ireland of Ireland would look like a tidy state on a map. Having watched the movie Braveheart we know the Brits were nasty to all Celtic peoples. Let's right the crimes of hundreds of years ago! Never mind that the majority of the general population of Ulster has never wanted to be part of the Irish state, for neatness on the map they should unite it. It would make the Paddy's day parades more fun.


Most actual Irish peoples position: Stop the killing. It is the year 2006 both Eire and the UK are mature democratic states and both members of the European Union. We have full freedom of passage between the states, nigh on completely integrated trade relations, and fair judicial systems. Can we get the idiots who are harking back to history out of the way and just leave it to self determination of those who are here now however they wound up here through a democratic process that isn't influenced by the gun.

British position – Ulster wants to remain part of the UK. It's citizens are our citizens so we will respect that desire to fall under our sovereignty and support their rights. We will particularly strive to protect our citizens from people whose idea of justice and policing is firing bullets into peoples kneecaps. We have and will continue to facilitate dialogue on all sides - even if it means sitting down with terrorist monsters.

IRA position (no longer explicit but still there): My daddy's daddy daddy lived under tyranny of the Brits. I want to set up a Marxist catholic state and drive the Irish Protestants out. We lived here. We still live here. But we don't recognise UK sovereignty. We want that not to exist. We will use terrorist means to make that so.


Palestinian position - We lived here. We still live here. But we don't recognise Israel. We want them not to exist. We will use terrorist means to make that so.

Israeli position – We faced genocide. We survived. Never again. We're here in Israel and are a legitimate state as recognised by just about the whole world bar the Arabs. We are a sovereign nation. We have democratic process. We will not tolerate those who threaten our existence and fail to recognise our legitimacy especially those who use the tactics of terror.


"Your position is that of the Palestinians, in simple terms"

There are two positions that are similar above. Palestinians and the IRA that's why they are such good friends.

Now - are you going to answer the direct question in #177 that shows why your simple view of history is invalid as an 'argument'? I repeat:

Native American position - we were here first the land is ours.

Immigrant American Position - we were here last the land is ours.

Do you think that given the above 'simple view' you would support a hypothetical native American uprising or the handback of power to them and you would live under their jurisdiction without any reference to you under a democratic process?