[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?

[FatherofFive]

It is not simple, and there is no simple answer.

Despite what you may think, I believe that the IRA is a terrorist organization. They have been involved with the Middle East terrorists since the 60’s.

The problem is that reason will not prevail in the argument over who owns the land. “We were here first and the land is ours” and “We were here last and the land is ours” cannot be resolved in a debate. You make a reasoned argument that the tactics of the Palestinians and the IRA are the same. I agree with you. But this isn’t the issue I addressed.

Yes, the Americans have effectively subdued the Indian population. While I would gladly be governed by an Indian president if duly elected, I would not give rule back to the Indians. America also fought a very bloody Civil War to show that once joined, no state will leave the union. Is it hypocritical of me to want a nice tidy map of Ireland? Perhaps. The Brits took Ireland by force, and were thrown out of most of it by force. But my grandparents left before Irish independence. They lived under some very difficult circumstances. But I have no skin in the game.

The group that holds the land will always have a different view from those who want it. Would I send a penny to Sinn Fein to see a united Ireland? Never. I wouldn’t want the likes of a Jerry Adams in any government, and I am embarrassed that US presidents invited him to the White House. Would I support an armed action to make a nice tidy map? No. Life is too precious. Would I resist the Brits reinstituting the penal laws? Yes. Do I believe that many Irish in America have an unrealistic view of the IRA? Yes. I joined a group, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, thinking it had to do with Irish heritage and camaraderie. I resigned when they renamed the group the Bobby Sands division.

Why have I spent so much time on this thread? When I saw somebody write that the Irish have killed more in Ireland than the British, "and the British security forces have only killed a couple dozen!!" I felt obliged to voice a contrary opinion. My ancestors were subject to the penal laws.

I have enjoyed the discourse. I’d love to continue the discussion over a pint, or a nice 18-year-old Macallan. (I prefer Scotch over Irish whiskey!)