BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:44 AM

I made my attitude to nationalism, et al clear earlier on; but just in case:
"As an internationalist, I have no great interest in national boundries one way or another, but I have come to realise that others attach great importance to them and are prepared to die for them."
What we have here on this thread is a microcosm of everything that has gone wrong with Ireland.
Here we have - what are you - a bunch of Brits (maybe some Americans thrown in), the same as me, (I have Irish family connections, but I was born and spent the most of my life in Britain) deciding and pontificating on what is best for the Irish, what they want, what they need, what they have done and should do...... the Empire midset writ small!
This is exactly what has caused all the trouble down the centuries, and has led to poor governance, poverty, a lethally mismanaged famine, mass emigration, massacres, a treaty forced through under threat of invasion, the partitioning of the country on religious grounds in favour of the majority religion over the minority, culminating in 80 years of conflict; mainly bloody, the need for a permanent military presence, - and what do you come up with? - the maintaining of the status quo - brilliant!!!
I still haven't had a reply to my "if the Nazis had won the war" question, yet it remains at the heart of what is happening in Ireland today - a nation conquored, colonised, poorly governed and finally partitioned under threat.
None of this is "living in the past"; these events shaped modern Ireland as surely as The Battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar made Britain what it is today.
As with many former colonies, Britain left Ireland in a mess, it has poured in money and young lives to suppress the effects of that mess, and if the source of the problem isn't tackled, it will be your children and your children's children who are killing and dying for a partitioned Ireland in the not-to-distant future.
Peter K claims a lack of support from the Republic for what is happening in the North - not my experience, having lived here for a dozen years, but that aside. In the thirty odd years I lived in London I didn't meet many people who understood or cared very much what was happening in Ireland, until the bombs started going off in their streets, and then all they wanted was for Ireland to go away. It is to the shame of those responsible that it has taken bombs on mainland Britain to get a debate on the future of Ireland going (no, I certainly don't support violence; I abhor it and those who cause it, but that's the way it is).
The partitioning of Ireland was a political act and asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing.
There is a fragile peace here at present - so fragile that a politicians wife putting herself about very nearly brought about what had been achieved so far, crashing around our ears - that is Britain's legacy to Ireland - one to be proud of - I don't think so really - does anybody?
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 05:53 AM

"bunch of Brits (maybe some Americans thrown in), the same as me, (I have Irish family connections, but I was born and spent the most of my life in Britain) deciding and pontificating on what is best for the Irish"

No, we are pontificating that the people involved should decide for themselves.

Your WW2 question. The fight would go on as long as there was a will fight.
When a majority preferred things to remain as they are, who would have the right to deny them?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:16 AM

For balance, here are some views of the soldiers who were there.
I can not make a link that works.
Google Telegraph bloody sunday

In an extraordinary fight back against the inquiry's finding that the shooting of 14 unarmed civilians was "unjustifiable" the Paras accused Lord Saville of coming to "subjective and inaccurate conclusions".

In a letter passed to The Daily Telegraph on behalf of 35 former members of 1st Bn The Parachute Regiment present on Bloody Sunday they wanted it to be known "that we have no desire that the report's finding be now buried and forgotten".

"This is because we believe the inquiry as convened was fundamentally flawed and its conclusions based upon a subjective interpretation of only some of the evidence adduced before it."

It said Lord Saville "chose one position and cherry picked his evidence to support it" and rejected the soldier's evidence that they came under fire.

The soldiers came to the defence of their commanding officer, Lt Col Derek Wilford accusing Lord Saville of a "cynical exercise" to blame a senior rank to avoid condemning junior soldiers.

The letter also attacks Martin McGuinness saying "a more untruthful and unreliable witness would be hard to find". Mr McGuinness, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister and self-confessed Provisional IRA commander on Bloody Sunday, was accused by Lord Saville of carrying but apparently not using a Thompson machine gun on the day.

The Saville report said the men from Support Company, 1 Para, "lost their self-control" on Jan 30, 1972 and then "put forward false accounts to justify their firing" when they gave evidence.

But the report, that was released last Tuesday, "totally ignored" the evidence of soldiers who said they had come under fire, said the letter.

"Clear and consistent eye witness accounts were discounted and all these people branded as liars.

"Any purely objective assessment of all the evidence would conclude that the truth was difficult, if not impossible, to establish to the satisfaction of all."

Without the participation of the Provisional IRA in giving evidence the complete truth could never be established".

Lord Saville's failure to make any reference to the IRA's role was "not surprising" as "to do so would be to highlight to the British tax payer that the inquiry was ill conceived and incapable of establishing the facts before a single pound coin had been spent, let alone well over £200 million of them".

While it admitted "mistakes" were made on the day it asked why out of the "hundreds" of riots 1 Para had witnessed did soldiers use live rounds on Bloody Sunday?

"We submit that it was because the hostile firing by elements of the Provisional IRA triggered a sequence of events which ultimately proved tragic."

But it added: "Those who broke the law and brought disgrace fully deserve to be punished."

Lt Col Wilford was criticised by Lord Saville of disobeying orders by sending his men into the Roman Catholic Bogside area of Londonderry. But the soldiers countered that the attack on their CO was a "cynical exercise to head off the possibility of criticism that the inquiry might condemn only lowly ranking officers and men".

The men, who were not involved in the shootings, added: "The qualities Col Wilford has shown over these past years are but a few of the reasons his officers and men would have followed him anywhere".

A copy of the Bloody Sunday report has been passed to Northern Ireland's Director of Public Prosecutions.

When contacted by The Daily Telegraph Lt Col Wilford said he was under legal advice to make no comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM

"No, we are pontificating that the people involved should decide for themselves."
Which "people involved" would that be; those selected by British politicians 88 years ago, thus creating the present mess, or all the people in involved - namely the whole population of Ireland?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 07:51 AM

Peter gives evidence that the vote would be the same anyway.
I would answer, let the people who would actually have a change of government imposed on them decide if they want it, whatever may have happened 88 years ago.

You would have change of government, after 88 years, imposed on them by force?
Fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:07 PM

To lose a part of a nation to a foreign power should be the decision of the nation of a whole, not just those who have been singled out by that foreign power.
I believe there was a bit of an altercation in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century when a number of States decided to go it alone - or am I imagining it?
Was it an act of fascism on the part of the Union to impose their will on the Cessationist States?
The seizure of the six counties was an act of force; first a softening-up campaign my British military thugs (The Black and Tans and The Auxiliaries), then a threat of invasion (within 2 weeks) if the treaty was not signed - was this not fascism?
The new administration in Northern Ireland was set up to represent only two-thirds of the population, openly declaring that Ulster (sic) was to be 'A Protestant State', and keeping the Catholic third down by anti-Catholic riots (I know this to be a fact through the experiences of members of my family in Derry in the 1950s) and police brutality backed up by the constant threat of British militarty intervention - was this not fascism?
The Civil Rights protest marches at the end of the 1960s were met with police baton charges and anti-Catholc stone-throwing mobs - was this not fascism?
The Northern Ireland State was born and upheld out of State violence and threats of violence (fascism by anybody's description) and therefore cannot be said to be a democratically established entity.
Tell me none of this happened.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM

"Which "people involved" would that be; those selected by British politicians 88 years ago, thus creating the present mess, or all the people in involved - namely the whole population of Ireland?"

Hasn't there already been referendums? Both a majority in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland said that whether Northern Ireland remains within the UK or not is up to the people of Northern Ireland alone. The British people (British as in from GB rather than the UK) had no say in the matter though various polls have showed that the British people as a whole are more in favour of a united Ireland than the Irish as whole are. As to the creation of a united Ireland then I take it that is up to the Irish both north and south.

I take it that Republicans in the north aren't currently really pushing for a referendum as to whether they should leave the UK because they know they suspect they would lose any referendum. Losing any such rferendum would probably kill the debate for a generation at least. It was almost a quarter of a century before a second Scottish devolution referendum. It makes sense that after more years of power sharing and being further away from the violence then unionist opposition may well soften.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 01:57 AM

Jim, here is a closer parallel in 19th Century USA.
Parts of Mexico were made parts of USA.
The people in those states now are mostly happy with that, but if the whole of Mexico got to vote on it, there would be a few less of those united states.

Do you think that would be sensible?

You have not commented on the evidence that Ireland would not vote for unification anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 02:00 AM

And yes, there were a lot of fascist acts in those days.
No excuse for acting the fascist today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 03:51 PM

If you don't dispute my descriptions of how the six counties were decided on and their annexation was carried through, Mexico is no comparison. Force was used to create an openly declared Protestant State which marginalised and excluded the Catholic population - I take it the same didn't happen in Mexico - or did it?
Perhaps you'd like to examine the voting rights that the Catholic population had at the time of the seizure to decide whether the annexation was valid or not.
"No excuse for acting the fascist today."
We are discussing the murder of unarmed civilians and the cover up of same - last week's news, not the dim and distant past.
The murders happened nearly forty years ago - we are discusing them now because the British establishment has continued the cover-up till now.
You are still arguing for the status quo, which means the continuance of the violence - almost certainly to the next generation.
Have a good marching season.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM

Have a good marching season?
You fool!
I am nothing to do with any of that crap.
Arguing for the staus quo?
Wrong again.
Like all my countrymen, I would love to be rid of the lot of you.
Just stop voting for NI to be British and we will all be happy.

Violence against the Mexicans?
Some Irish Americans changed sides and fought for Mexico, so disgusted were they.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:33 PM

Keith, can't you see Jim's point: nobody thought of Northern Ireland as a state until a majority of the Irish people was shown to be in favour of independence. At which point a line was drawn to create a cut-off area in which Protestants were the majority. This line was also DELIBERATELY drawn to ensure that an exploitable minority- always excluded from the political top table- was included. Why? Because the Protestant majority was divided by class- Maexist class I'm talking about here- and they needed the Protestant working class to be set against the permanent minority Catholic working class to neutralise them.

If you think this is fanciful, think about James Connolly- the brilliant if flawed leader of Irish working people of any or no religion.

The last great battle of the Protestant state- we'll have words about what Protestantism meant to the Curragh mutineers later- was triggered not by nationalism but by the oppression of the deliberately- enclaved Catholics, and the vicious reaction of both the Stormont government and the (reactively embattled) Protestant working class. The British army- brought in to protect Nationalist areas (ghettos) against NI state violence (B Specials mobilised) had only a Schlieffen plan that had Us on one side, and the Rebels on the other. That's what the squaddies were told, that's what they are still saying (still uncomprehending pawns) today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 01:40 AM

I refuse to say if I see his point.
I will not have words on the Curragh mutineers either.
Not on this thread, or it will go the way of a hundred others.
Let him start a new one and I will get stuck in as usual.

This thread is about now, and about Bloody Sunday.
If someone advocated any other group having their rights quashed and an unwanted regime imposed on them by force, these same people would be howling with liberal indignation.
Because it is the majority people of NI, on go the jack boots.

Now, does anyone think the ex soldiers had a point about the reports blinkered consideration of some evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:20 AM

"I am nothing to do with any of that crap."
You may not support it Keith but it's integral to the partitioning of Ireland and the forcible way it has been kept in its place.
"I would love to be rid of the lot of you."
You sound like a flag-waving Empire Loyalist; this has been the cry of Empire down the ages - I assume you have conveniently overlooked the fact that I am a Brit bred and born.
This thread is about an incident in Irish history where, once again, the British establishment have dealt with 'the restlss natives' by brute force.
England's influence extends back over 8 centuries and is pock-marked with Bloody Sundays, this just being the latest. They have arrived at a situation where the state is so instable that it could be plunged into violence once again by incidents such as the bed-hopping antics of 'coo-coo-coo choo Mrs Robinson'.
There has been a great deal of ducking the real issues in this discussion;
Britain would be prepared to lose six counties should the occupants wish it - bollocks it would; it would fight tooth-and-nail to retain every inch of ground (from Rockall to The Falklands - look them up if you've forgotten).
The struggle for The United States was a fascist conflict (or did you just duck-and-dive around that one).
"This thread is about now, and about Bloody Sunday."
And Bloody Sunday was and remains about the governance of Ireland by force of arms - fascism (a term you were happy to raise) in anybody's book.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:26 AM

The report was intended to finally bury the events of Bloody Sunday.

Who was most likely to dig it up and parade it around for another 40 years?

A few elderly men, with no support, who used to be soldiers, or the vigorous, vociferous and well funded Nationalist organisations.
Who was it most important to appease?

Political expediency has taken precedence over truth and justice, just as in the original cover ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:32 AM

I looked up Rockall and the Falklands.
Rockall has no people at all.
The Falkland Islands has people. A fascist regime claimed the islands based on ancient history of long dead people.
The islanders wanted to remain British, and Britain fought the fascists for their right to choose.
I am surprised you chose these examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 03:41 AM

"I would love to be rid of the lot of you."...... has been the cry of Empire down the ages .

Did you mean to write that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:27 AM

"Britain would be prepared to lose six counties should the occupants wish it - bollocks it would; it would fight tooth-and-nail to retain every inch of ground ."

But it has long been agreed Jim.
51% is all you need.
Likewise Scotland.

You are completely wrong about everything.
You look foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:30 AM

"The report was intended to finally bury the events of Bloody Sunday."
Yes, indeed it was - bury and forget it, as has happened with every other atrocity Britain has been resposible for.
"I am surprised you chose these examples."
Why? - they are perfect examples of a nation that has clung on to every inch of territory at the cost of countless millions of young lives, as distinct from your somewhat inane sugestion that it would happily relinquish six English counties at the request of its occupants - I made no comment on the rights or wrongs of either case.
"Did you mean to write that Jim? "
Of course; wasn't the Empire sold to as as being for the good of those colonised - to keep "Their hands from error's chain" as the Imperial hymn succinctly puts it.
Britain's colonisation of a large portion of the world was neatly described as "The White Man's Burden" - nothing whatever to do with power and wealth, of course!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:46 AM

It is good that we agree on the main purpose of the report.

It is not my inane suggestion that Britain will leave as soon as 51% vote on it.
That is the agreed truth. It is a commitment.

No one has even broken a fingernail trying to hang on to Rockall.
That was a rubbish example.

Britain has not clung to any of its Empire. It was all given away and has become the friendly Commonwealth.
No millions of young lives squandered.
Where do you get this stuff from?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:56 AM

"Britain has not clung to any of its Empire"
It clung on to it as long as it possibly could and left many former colonies in a bloody mess.
Read the books - watch the news - it is what Bloody Sunday was all about, and unless it is treated holistically it will happen again - and again - and again........
You don't cure measles by cutting off the spots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:00 AM

We disagree on that.
Now, what did you think of the report?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:02 AM

And incidentally - while I have no argument with your description of the Argentinian Government that claimed the Falklands, our involvement had little to do with opposition to fascism - the lady who took us there being all but one herself - not to mention her friend and mentor Augusto P, a fascist dictator responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of young people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:14 AM

So, should the Falklanders have been abandoned to the mercy of Galtieri's fascist junta, or was it right to resist?

Shall we start another thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 10:36 AM

"So, should the Falklanders have been abandoned to the mercy of Galtieri's fascist junta, or was it right to resist?"
Of course not - I'm refering to the motive behind the invasion, not the side issue.
I couldn't resist winding up an obvious Thatcherite - the picture of her strutting around in her paramilitary uniform stays with me yet.
What do I think of the report - so far, so good, though a little vague as to laying the blame where it really belongs (but we've already discussed that) - let's see what happens now, shall we.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 11:21 AM

Er, the motive behind the invasion was to send back Galtieri's army.
Otherwise there would not have been an invasion, would there?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM

"Er, the motive behind the invasion was to send back Galtieri's army."
Nthing to do with an election in the offing - of course!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM

So are you saying, but for election, Falklands would have been handed over?
Or are you saying, we would have invaded because of the election, even if Galtieri was not there?

And you dare to say that I talk bollocks!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:19 PM

No, I am saying that there was a valid reason to intervene in The Falklands (not sure of the Belgrano obscenity); but the sight of a Prime Minister strutting around in paramilitary uniform had more to do with winning votes than it did winning a war - and it was a rather symolically telling image, don't you think?
Anti-fascism had nothing whatever to do with Thatcher's motives - she supported mass-murderer Augusto Pinochet to the extent of pleading for his release from house arrest and his return to Chile.
I agree with your earlier statement - lets open a thread where you can support them both - should you wish to, of course.
Juim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:43 PM

Shall we start another thread?

Obviously yes, if you want to talk about the Falklands/Malvinas.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 02:50 AM

As far as this thread goes, since Jim accepts there was a valid reason to intervene, it makes both his examples of Britain clinging to Empire rubbish.
I never saw Thatcher strutting around in paramilitary uniform. Can you find an image for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:27 AM

First - apologies for an inexcusable thread drift - my fault entirely. The only excuse I can offer is that it isn't often that I get a chance to bait a real liuve Thatcherite; nowadays they seem to keep a very low profile; it won't happen again - open a new thread.
"Britain clinging to Empire rubbish."
I think Bloody Sunday and the run up to it - plus that fact that six counties still remain under British control - is example enough of Britain clinging on to the remnants of Empire and is prepared to use force to do so.
You have - rather disgracefully, in my opinion, pushed the line that the massacre was down to a handful of soldiers; in which case, why weren't they court martialed instead of mounting an elaborate cover-up.
If this had happened, the army and the government would have been exonerated on the spot and would not have been brought to the present humiliating climb down.
You agree that it is unlikely that anybody will be tried for the events - why - are these soldiers guilty of criminal acts?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM

I think Bloody Sunday and the run up to it - plus that fact that six counties still remain under British control - is example enough of Britain clinging on to the remnants of Empire and is prepared to use force to do so.

As far as I am aware Northern Ireland has been autonomous for as long as the Republic of Ireland. It was created by the will of the majority of the population who lived there, otherwise it would never have existed. Plain truth was that one third of the population of Ireland did not want any part of a United Ireland.

The creation of the Irish Free State resulted in an extremely bloody civil war in the Republic. The numbers involved were tiny and the civil war was mercifully short, had Northern Ireland's population been forced into a United Ireland in 1921 that civil war would have destroyed the entire country. As in most things political in this world a compromise was found, as with most compromises it was not perfect and it did not please everyone.

The entire population of Ireland was consulted in the run up to acceptance of the GFA and Eire's constitutional claim on Ulster was scrapped. The entire population of Ireland voted and backed the position that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland alone to decide who governs them and how they are governed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 04:57 AM

Jim, you are so wrong in thinking that Britain wants to cling on to NI.
It is not wanted by the British people or the British government, and never has been.
It is just that governments have been reluctant to use force on the people of NI to force them out.
Obviously, you would love to get started on them.

Why are prosecutions unlikely.
I did not form my own opinion on that. I do not have the knowledge.

This is from BBC.


BBC Northern Ireland's Paul McCauley, who was the only journalist to attend every day of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry said that any prosecutions against individuals would be unlikely.

"Given the Good Friday agreement, even if a soldier were to be prosecuted as a result of this, they would not spend a day in jail.

"That is not my opinion, that is a fact"

Some legal experts, however, said wriggle room remains for prosecutions and, more likely, civil lawsuits against retired soldiers, particularly as some of the them were found to have lied to the Saville Inquiry.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the decision whether or not to prosecute the soldiers would not be straightforward.

"There needed to be sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction - not an easy test after 38 years.

"If any defendant believes that the passage of time makes a fair trial impossible, they could argue the prosecution was an abuse of process," our correspondent said.

"Any prosecutions would also need to be judged to be in the public interest."

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 10 - 05:02 AM

Jim, you said, "You have - rather disgracefully, in my opinion, pushed the line that the massacre was down to a handful of soldiers"

Again my opinion is worth little, but the report agrees with me, disgracefully or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

Keith's snide 'Fascist bully boy' reference on the Israeli atrocity thread reminded me that I hadn't responded to the 'public opinion' comments earlier.
The gerrymandered Protestant majority in the north are still in the majority, so they are certainly going to vote for the retention of the six counties. They have maintained their superiority in the north through their political dominance and through their history of intimidation and outright bullying. We are now entering into the marching season when they will be parading and posturing in their bowler hats and orange sashes and have applied to march through nationalist areas such as the Garvaghey Road following their annual intimidatory march to Drumcree. Any decision in the north has to be considered in the light of 80 years of such intimidation.
In the Republic support for the unification of Ireland waxes and wanes depending on the current situation. At the time of the hunger strikes, when this place was bedecked with black flags, or at the time of announcement of the Birmingham Six/Guilford Four et al fit-ups there would have been no doubt whatever of a clear decision to end the partition. Unification still remains an aim of all the political parties here though sometimes a 'peace at any price' feeling prevails – not the best guide to a lasting decision.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other on a united Ireland; I merely point out that while the country is divided the conflict will continue.
I.M.O a lasting peace will only be achieved by ALL the parties concerned reaching an amicable decision though open debate which takes in the interests and wishes of all the people; otherwise we can look forward to a future of Bloody Sundays. Holding up past decisions arrived as I have described, as definitive, guarantees this as a future for Ireland.
Hamas was elected democratically – I don't see Keith and his apologists throwing their support for them because of their 'chosen' status.
At the risk of being labelled a 'Fascist bully boy' I again point out that the Nazi Party was elected into power (as were the governments that took Britain into Iraq and America into Viet Nam).
It is how Governments exercise power that is the final decider on whether they are good leaders, not how they got there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 11:26 AM

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other on a united Ireland; I merely point out that while the country is divided the conflict will continue."

But again there were referendums both in the North and in the Republic and the principle that whether Northern Ireland should remain within the UK or not is down to the electorate of Northern Ireland was accepted by substantial majorities in both parts of Ireland. They are now power sharing in the North and even though extremists of both persuasions are still around the people now live in relative normality. You talk as if your position is the answer but surely this refusing to get over the past and pushing one view as the only answer is part of the problem and not any solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 12:59 PM

"But again there were referendums....."
I've described the circumstances in which those referendums were held - tell me where my accounts are not accurate.
"They are now power sharing..."
I've pointed out the fragility of the power-sharing agreement (minister's wife putting it about etc.) and I am aware that a bottle thrown in the wrong direction on one of the triumphalist Orange Lodge marches could destroy it tomorrow.
I have no answer to the present situation, I have never claimed such, but I know that maintaining the status quo (as is being argued for here), doesn't come even close.
What I am saying is that if the situation doesn't change radically we will be burying our children and grandchildren in the cause of a partitioned Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 02:59 PM

You might not like the Unionists, but they live there and are entitled to their vote.

Are you still saying a United Ireland should be imposed against the will of the majority?
It would have to be by force.
I do regard that as a fascist plan.

Hamas were elected in Gaza.
Gazans can vote for who they want.
So should the people of NI.

On the other thread you wrote,
"on the Bloody Sunday thread you have consistently excused and attempted to divert the blame from a government whose soldiers shot down innocent ....."

No evidence has ever been produced that the government or anyone else ordered or even encouraged those 4 soldiers to shoot.
I submitted factual information from the report.
You make stuff up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 03:47 PM

"I've described the circumstances in which those referendums were held - tell me where my accounts are not accurate."

The results of the said referendum in the Republic were 94.4% in favour of the agreement and ony 5.6% against. In the North it was 71.1% in favour and 28.9% against. Pretty substantial in both parts of Ireland but overwhelming in the Republic itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 04:51 PM

"Are you still saying a United Ireland should be imposed against the will of the majority?"
No, I am not, and I have never suggested such a thing -IF YOU ARE CLAIMING I AM, WHERE HAVE I MADE SUCH A SUGGESTION?
I am saying that whatever the future of the six counties it must be governed on behalf of all the people who live there, not just a dominant, self-serving majority.
The violence has come from all sides of the divide, the nationalists, the loyalst, but in particular, from the British.
Quick run-down of their track record
Easter Week 1916 The rebels had to be escorted under a protective guard to save them from the mobs of Dubliners demanding to know why they weren't fighting "with our lads in France".
Instead of sticking the leaders in Frongock with the rest of the rebels, where history would have remembered them as fanatical eccentrics, they were systematically executed, giving 'the cause' exactly what it needed - martyrs - and the most powerful symbol ever - a badly wounded Connolly strapped in a chair to enable him to face the firing squad. Result guerrilla warfare leading to an inevitable settlement.
The despatching of military thugs to soften up the population for an acceptible (to the British) treaty - result, a British-run terrorist campaign of arson, murder, torture - and the first Irish Bloody Sunday when troops fired on an unarmed football crowd, killing fourteen.
A treaty backed up by a threat of military invasion - result, civil war and a hostile division of Ireland with a government in the north committed to 'a Protestant State' leaving the Catholic third without representation, no proper voting rights, poor housing, high unemployment, anti-catholic riots and burnings which lasted into the late fifties.
Civil Rights marches baton charged by police and attacked by protestant mobs- result, a revival of the IRA as an effectively armed body, another Bloody Sunday, open wafare of the streets of Derry, Belfast and several major cities in mainland Britain - twenty-odd years of bloodletting.
Overall result, an unstable state still dominated by a beligerant, though reduced majority.
Ireland is geographically, culturally, and historically one country - the decision to partition it was a political one and it patently hasn't worked.
The only way it will work is with the goodwill and agreement of all the people of Ireland arrived at openly as a whole - it has not got that.
Unification is inevitable; the only things in question is when and the size of the body count between now and then.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:24 PM

To lose a part of a nation to a foreign power should be the decision of the nation of a whole, not just those who have been singled out by that foreign power.
(Opinion of NI people irrelevant)
I believe there was a bit of an altercation in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century when a number of States decided to go it alone - or am I imagining it?
Was it an act of fascism on the part of the Union to impose their will on the Cessationist States?
(Opinion of inhabitants irrelevant.)
The seizure of the six counties was an act of force; first a softening-up campaign my British military thugs (The Black and Tans and The Auxiliaries), then a threat of invasion (within 2 weeks) if the treaty was not signed - was this not fascism?
The new administration in Northern Ireland was set up to represent only two-thirds of the population, openly declaring that Ulster (sic) was to be 'A Protestant State', and keeping the Catholic third down by anti-Catholic riots (I know this to be a fact through the experiences of members of my family in Derry in the 1950s) and police brutality backed up by the constant threat of British militarty intervention - was this not fascism?
The Civil Rights protest marches at the end of the 1960s were met with police baton charges and anti-Catholc stone-throwing mobs - was this not fascism?
The Northern Ireland State was born and upheld out of State violence and threats of violence (fascism by anybody's description) and therefore cannot be said to be a democratically established entity.

(So their votes can be ignored and they should be forced to accept a union.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,R Feree
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM

Please read the history of Ireland from the dawn of time and draw your own conclusions.

A potted Irish History without recrimination

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:29 PM

R Free, we have had a hundred threads on that.
Now we are discussing the Saville Report.
The discussion you want can be had by starting a new thread, but you will have to become a member first.
Alternatively, as a Guest, you could reopen previous threads not closed to guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 06:36 PM

Jim, everyone who has read this thread is laughing at you for now saying you never denied the North the right to choose their future.
They will remember posts like " asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."

I do not laugh.
It is good that you have listened to reasoned debate and changed your mind.

You are no longer a fascist bully boy.
Good on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 07:46 PM

At no time have any of those quote indicated that I am suggesting ignoring the opinions of the majority in favour of a minority - the additional conclusion were all your own, not mine.
It is the duty of any elected government to represent the nation as a whole, not that section who voted for them - that is how democracy works.
I have repeated that the new Northern Ireland authority not only just represented the Protestant minortity, but declared that as its intention - a Protestant State (with a third of the population Catholic) a recipe for the violence that followed. You have failed to even deny this fact, let alone disprove it, so presumably you accept and support it. To deny any minority full representation, no matter how small, is classic fascism, be they Jewish, West Indian, Asian, Traveller, Catholic, whatever - Fascism plain and simple - the suppression of a minority by a majority. Even Thatcher had to pay lip service to representing those who opposed her, though she wasn't very convincing at it.
Are you suggesting that the establishment of the Union in the U.S. was a fascist act? - I seem to remember that it was the Confederacy that produced the Ku Klux Clan in order to continue its supremecy over the blacks.
How on earth do you reach the conclusion that the rest of your quotes are not indicative of a repressive regime (Black and Tans, threat of invasion if the treaty was not signed, the new administration reprenting only the Protestant majority, Civil Rights Marches violently crushed, continued violence (such as Bloody Sunday) by the British and by the Protestant majority) - show me where they are not - one by one would be helpful. You have not denied that any of them happened, so you presumably support them all.
As I said, I have never suggested that the rights of the majority should be ignored, though I do believe they should not exclude the opinions or the well being of the minority, as they have done over the last 80-odd years.
"Jim, everyone who has read this thread is laughing at you"
Where would this be then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 09:08 PM

Nice try, Tbus, but everyone is not laughing. You are guilty of an elementary debate tactic. That is you build a false predicate, then build a brilliant argument to support it. Jim has, IMO, pointed that out and you have obfuscated on the facts. He has also made it clear time and again that he is an internationalist, and that his interest is in simply stating his opinion. It is one I share. You may continue to argue for the legitimacy of these gerrymandered areas, but the simple fact is that the plantation policies, and subsequent playing of the orange card time and again, have created a generational schism that will only be corrected by time and politics. But I know of very few experts from either side of the debate that do not agree that it is just a matter of time now.

As to Keith's continued attempts to downplay the report and the blame it lays, I would simply say that your PM saw fit to stand up and say very directly that he apologized for these troops and there actions. End of story. Get over it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 12:56 AM

Ah Big Mick answer the following questions regarding how the people of Ireland have clearly shown their attitude to the question of Northern Ireland.

By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?

A simple YES will suffice as that is the answer to that question, a simple matter of record.

Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that violence has no place in Irish politics?

A simple YES will suffice for the answer to that question as well.

Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that it is up to the population of Northern Ireland to determine how and by whom they are governed?

A simple YES answers this question as well.

And as you put it so well I will return your sage advice - Those are the facts of the matter - Live with them.

Harking back into history is irrelevant, it is what the people who are directly affected now want that counts, otherwise Big Mick, talking of "plantation politics" one hell of a lot of people currently living in the good ol' US of A had better pack their bags or be prepared to make some mighty restitution regarding ownership of the land that they stole. "Pot"; "Kettle"; "Black" link those words in a well known phrase or saying, that would apply.

Oh Jim the "Black and Tans" were not formed to terrorise and threated the people into acceptance of any boundary. They came into being because Sinn Fein tacitily agreed with the policy of killing Government workers, Policemen and Postmen throughout Ireland. The reality of the boundary commission was that a border had to be agreed, the fledgling Irish Free State and the later Republic of Ireland could not have fought the civil war that would have resulted had the North been forced against its will into a United Ireland in 1921.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 01:23 AM

Mick, I feel the same as the PM about the action of those 4 soldiers, and the susequent cover up by army, government and IRAs.

The report holds no one else responsible for the shootings.

Jim, I wrote this,
20 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM
"We could ask the people who live in those counties."

For the last 9 days you have been posting about why we should not.
I will say no more. It is all there to be seen.

Mick, it may be just a matter of time. The Unionist emigration and higher Nationalist birth rate will change the majority.
As long as you agree with Jim and me that the people who live in the 6 counties must be allowed to choose their future.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 01:40 AM

I do not agree with much of what you all keep saying about the partition, but we should not be discussing old history here.
Open a new thread and I will explain why you have it all wrong.