BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 05:36 AM

Neil, I don't think anyone would think that was him not me, would they?
No deception intended.
And the words I gave him were the truth, weren't they?

And I must ask, "Neil", who the f**k are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 06:25 AM

"By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?"
No it hasn't - It is still an aim of all the major parties in Ireland.
"Have the people of Ireland clearly stated their opinion that violence has no place in Irish politics?"
Yes they have - have the culprits of the Bloody Sunday massacre stated the same - if so, why did it take nearly forty years to put their hands up to the crime?
"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?"
Some have, some haven't. Those who have are prepared to let give the political process a chance. That process is so fragile at present that it only takes one minister's wife misbehaving herself to bring the whole thing crashing to the ground.
The present peace process has led to power sharing, the removal of British troops from Ireland and the dismantling of the border as such - which is regarded by those involved as a step towards re-unification. What will happen if there is no more progress remains to be seen.
"Oh Jim the "Black and Tans" were not formed to terrorise"
Yes they were - at least, that's how the history bools tell it - even those vaguely in support of the British line - try Beresford-Ellis, or Tim Pat Coogan.
The thuggish behaviour of the Tans and the Auxiliaries is well enough documented to be beyond dispute - the burning of Cork City, the massacre of football supporters at Croke Park.... They were Neanderthal thugs sent to subdue.
"For the last 9 days you have been posting about why we should not."
I ask again - where have I once suggested that the views of the Protestant majority should not be considered? So far you have not provided one example.
I simply say that the partition of Ireland is the main/only cause of the internicene violence there, as it has been where any country has been partitioned.
Whatever you and I may think, the retention of six counties by a foreign nation will continue to be a running sore while it persists - that is how national identity works, and the nonsensical idea that Britain would tolerate the ownership of one square foot of their territory, especially on their mainland, is just that - nonsense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 06:47 AM

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year.(2010)

He probably wont try it now, but if he did and won, by 1%, Scotland would be independent.

That makes nonsense of your statement, "and the nonsensical idea that Britain would tolerate the ownership of one square foot of their territory, especially on their mainland, is just that - nonsense"

You previously said, "asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."
I took that to mean that they should not decide.
You can see why.
Glad you have been in agreement with me all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:19 AM

Keith
There are those who claim Scotland to be a seperate counrties - you were claiming your nonsense for the Southern Counties of England.
No - I can't see why at all and I am not with you.
I stated that peace will not come about while six counties remain in foreign hands - that remains my position (is it yours?)
Terribus
"Beresford Ellis"
My apologies - I meant Ricard Bennett
See below - from a fairly impeccible source
Jim Carroll
Although they were only a small proportion of British forces in Ireland, they were the toughest, the wildest, and the most feared. They knew noth¬ing and they cared nothing about Ireland. They were sent there in March of 1920 by Llovd George's Coalition Cabinet to make it "a hell for rebels to live in." They could arrest and imprison anyone at any time. They murdered civilians. They wore a strange mixture of dark green tunics, khaki trousers, black belts, and odd headgear, including civilian felt hats. The Irish named them after a famous pack of wild dogs in Co. Limerick—The Black and Tans.
The Black and Tans murdered innocent people, burned and looted all over the south and west of Ireland. By July of 1921 they had accom¬plished their mission so spectacularly well that they united not only Irish but British public opinion against the government; undermined Lloyd George's Coalition; and dealt the Liberal Party a blow from which it was never to recover. Richard Bennett's book is an accurate account of an ugly and harrowing period in Anglo-Irish history—a period that the English have struggled to forget and the Irish cannot help but remember.

Richard Bennett was a Lt.-Col. in the Army Bureau of Current Affairs at the War Office. He was editor of Lilliput for four years, edited the Bedside Lilliput, and has written two novels.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:42 AM

It is very hard to follow your logic Jim.
It is as if you know little and post without thinking what you are saying.

YOU, "I stated that peace will not come about while six counties remain in foreign hands - that remains my position.."

Peace has come about Jim.

YOU, ""asking a gerrrymandered population to decide the future is going to solve nothing."

But, you also say that they should decide!!
So you don't want it solved???

Then you talk about one square foot of British territory, especially the mainland, BUT NOT SCOTLAND!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 07:56 AM

"Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year.(2010) He probably wont try it now, but if he did and won, by 1%, Scotland would be independent."

In reality the SNP administration is a minority administration and as the Unionist parties as a whole have a majority of seats (the Greens and Scottish Socialist Party also favour independence)then in this parliament the Nats have no chance of bringing forward a referendum unless they can bring one of the three main unionist parties on board.

Labour had previously suggested that because the constitution wasn't devolved that Westminster could block any referendum. That has now been abandoned as they seemed to concede that referendums are just consultative and that a devolved government can indeed consult the people. The SNP's position is that Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty does not over-ride the sovereignty of the Scottish people - and this has by precedent already been suggested in a previous Scottish Court ruling. Hence the Nats would claim that a YES vote by whatever margin in a consultative referendum (a result which would be by no means certain) would give them the mandate to negotiate independence from the UK. The unionist parties don't seem to be denying this! Their plan seems to simply be avoid any referendum. The issue isn't really debated as unionist strategy seems to be just regard it as an irrelevant sideshow.

However you are right in that despite the political manoueverings there is no suggestion from anyone anywhere that the British state would try to keep Scotland within the union by force. For a start the British people would never countenance that. The idea that the UK wants to cling on to every bit of territory is nonsense. I think a UK government would run a vigorous political campaign to keep the union of Great Britain intact - but would run no similar campaign as far as the union of Great Britain with Northern Ireland goes. Indeed the British state and the British people as a whole would probably be delighted and more than a tad relieved should the people of Northern Ireland decide to join a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:09 AM

"Mick, it may be just a matter of time. The Unionist emigration and higher Nationalist birth rate will change the majority."

Mind which religion is in the majority won't necessarily change the voting balance from NO for a United Ireland to a YES. As far as I understand it the Protestant population are much more uniform in their NO stance than the Catholic population is in their YES stance. Hence it is prefectly possible to have a majority Catholic population but still lose a united Ireland referendum - just as it is possible and probably preferable that there could be a swing of opinion and softening of a Unionist stance that there could be a YES vote with the current Protestant majority. Surely the longer they work together and the further away the Troubles become then stances may get more in line. I suspect the Republic itself would much rather have a fair proportion of the Protestants voting for or at least accepting a UI rather than have 49.9% of the Northern Irish brought into a UI kicking and screaming!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:41 AM

"Peace has come about Jim."

hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 04:50 PM

"By the will of the people has the Republic's constitutional claim on the North been abandoned?"
No it hasn't - It is still an aim of all the major parties in Ireland.

Please provide a source that shows clearly the clause in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland that lays claim on the six counties that form the Northern Ireland. You will not be able to do that because that claim has been dropped from the Constitution, correct me if I am wrong but doesn't it take a referendum to change the Constitution? The change came about because the majority of the people of the island of Ireland voted that only the people of Northern ireland had a say in how they were governed and by whom they were governed.

Whether a United Ireland is still an aim of any political party in Ireland is irrelevant, that is merely a political ambition.

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

Good pleased to see that we have put that one to bed, so no Republican or Nationalist Terrorist Group can ever claim they have any mandate whatsoever from the people of Ireland for blowing up innocent civilians in order to bring about a United Ireland.

"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?"
Some have, some haven't. Those who have are prepared to let give the political process a chance.

Not quite as simple as some have, some haven't, was it Jim. Described more accurately it would be put in the following terms:

The vast majority have, a tiny minority haven't.

As Big Mick says - Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 10 - 08:25 PM

Posted this before but it appears to have gone awol – wonder why? Try again
Keith:
"It is as if you know little and post without thinking what you are saying."
I'll try to avoid the tone of arrogant self-importance you have adopted here – apart from saying you often give the impression of having picked what little knowledge about Ireland from listening to Bernard Manning – there, that's off my chest.
My understanding of Irish politics comes diectly from family experience – a major part of most of my life, which fed an interest to know more – doesn't make me right by any means, but I have given some thought to it.
I have set my opinion as clear as I can, giving the facts as I know them; the undemocratic way partition was arrived at, the threat of invasion if the treaty had not been signed, the unequal situation between Catholic and Protestant situations, the violence against the Catholic minority, the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties……. You have chosen to ignore all, so I can only assume that you accept what I have said and find it acceptable.
You have persisted with you mantra – "have to go with the wishes of the Protestant majority" – so let's play it your way.
WHY?
It is a truism that political change is usually brought about by a handful of zealots pursuing their dreams, ideals, interests, whatever; so what have we got in N.I. A group of bowler-hatted, besashed fanatics making the running over the last 80 years – turn your telly on and you'll see them marching to Drumcree and down the Garvaghy Road if they get permission – a minority within a diminishing majority, within a huge majority (Ireland as a whole).
Any conceding to a foreign power of (using my earlier example) say the six Southern Counties of England would have to be with the agreement of Britain as a whole (despite your earlier claim of it being otherwise). You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement – the invitation is still open. The loss of territory to a foreign power carries with it serious implications: cultural, political, economic, security.... (this latter applies particularly to Ireland in the light of the Monoghan and Dublin bombings carried out by Loyalist terrorists almost certainly with the collusion of the British Security Forces – have you come across the Stevens report and its fate?). It seems to me that any decision to relinquish six counties to a foreign power has to be that of the country as a whole rathere than a group of self-interested and carefully selected fanatics.
So for the future well being of Ireland and the Irish as a whole, any such decision has to be that of all the people of Ireland and only after exhaustive debate, and agreement – this has yet to happen.
The ironic aspect to partition is that it was intended to be only a temporary measure, both by the British and the Irish Free State (want me to quote Lloyd George and Churchill on the matter?)
A bit nearer to home for you.
Don't the British people have a say in all this?
It is more or less accepted by all sides that if the British people were given a referendum on the after they would happily vote Northern Ireland out of the Union tomorrow. I seem to remember this is your stance ("Be glad to see the back of you", I think was how you summed it up – whoever 'you' is).
We used to attend the Forkhill Singing Weekend in South Armagh and often crossed the border to Dundalk at night for a meal by one of the 'unapproved' roads (without an established checkpoint).
On several occasions we would be stopped by a platoon of British soldiers, made up of young men, little more than children, all clutching powerful weapons in trembling hands; scared shitless of the situation they found themselves in.
We couldn't work out why most of them had Liverpool, or Newcastle, or Lowland Scots accents until we visited Lockerbie and saw on a beer-mat 'OUT OF WORK - JOIN THE ARMY AND LEARN A TRADE'.
They were young working-class lads from high unemployment areas, sent to fight, and possibly die for a Partitioned Ireland.
I come from such an area (Liverpool) and if any of my family were put in such a position I would want a say in why they were being asked to put their life on the line; wouldn't you, or have you got your nose stuck so far up the arse of the establishment that it doesn't matter to you?
So what have we got?
A decision to partition Ireland arrived at undemocratically though a manipulated border on behalf of Unionist fanatics who declared from the outset that they had no intention of considering the aspirations or well-being of one third of the population.
Over half a century of violence against that Catholic minority, supported by force of arms, with the ready assistance of various British Governments.
A prevailing state of insecurity where violence could break out at any time.
All on the behalf of the same type of fanatics who persecuted and terrorised the schoolchildren at Holy Cross in the Ardoyne area of Belfast - because they were the wrong religion.
And that's how it stands at present.
So - my logic?
My logic tells me that the situation of a partitioned country is bound to generate violence and conflict and the only way to rectify the situation is by an agreement reached together by all parties - the six counties, the Republic and Britain, and the unification of Ireland, as was originally intended.
"Peace has come about Jim."
My arse it has.
The Irish people are battle-weary at the present time; this may remain the case throughout this present generation, but future Irish men and women are bound to pick up the flag - they always have.
What's your solution - the maintaining the status quo - tell me if I've got that right?
"Please provide a source that shows clearly the clause...."
I said that the unification of Ireland remains an aim of all the major parties - I thought this to be the case, but to be doubly sure, I Wikied it - and sure enough....
"Good pleased to see that we have put that one to bed"
You've conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. I also said earlier that the Irish attitude to the six counties waxes and wanes. The Irish question has been with us for a long time and it hasn't yet gone away, nor will it while six counties are under the control of a foreign power.
"Live with it."
Or die with it - as the case may be!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 01:55 AM

I do not know why you think army recruitment and your adventures on the border have any relevance.
Why will you NEVER stay on subject.
I will respond to parts of your ramblings.

"You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement – the invitation is still open"

The Confederacy wanted to be separate from the Union.
They were made to rejoin by force in a terrible war that killed more Americans than all its other wars put together.
And you think that a good analogy for what should be done to the 6 counties.
Fascist bully boy is quite restrained I think.

Scotland is mainland Britain, has been part of UK for centuries, but is free to leave any time it wants to.
Cornwall is Southern England. It only has a tiny Nationalist movement, but if that changed it could expect the same treatment.

You are now advocating that British people should decide Ulster's future! If I advocated that there would be howls of Empire Loyalist from you!

The 6 Counties have been under British rule for centuries. Never under Dublin rule. They know much more about their history than you or me, and overwhelmingly still want to stay British.
You and I might not like that, but I would let them choose their own future.
And you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:34 AM

"Why will you NEVER stay on subject."
We are discussing a single issue in a centuries old war and young British soldiers, whether they are patrolling the border or shooting down unarmed civilians is very much a part of this subject.
"The Confederacy wanted to be separate from the Union...."
So you're a Confederate as well as a Thatcherite and you do believe the Union to have been a fascist organisation - now there's a thing!!! How about The Klan - was that an acceptable expression of the people's will?
"...but if that changed it could expect the same treatment."
Are you suggesting that the people of Britain as a whole would have no say in the matter if Cornwall decided to become part of another country?
"You are now advocating that British people should decide Ulster's future"
No - Britain is already deciding Ulster's future, and has done so for 80 odd years; I am suggesting that all involved, North East Ireland, The Republic and Britain should have a voice in what is culturaly, geographically and historically part of Ireland - or don't you agree with that? Shouldn't British people have an active say in where their children are sent to risk their lives, and maybe die? By the way, there are three counties in Ulster that are part of The Republic, so it can't legitimately aspire to that name.
"The 6 Counties have been under British rule for centuries."
As was the whole of Ireland, the partitioning is 80 plus years old. The conflict here is indicative of the fact that this has been and continues to be a constant source of unrest which needs to be remedied - it simply hasn't worked in the past and is not likely to in the future.
You're really not very good at this, are you? You really could have circumvented all this by saying that you wish to keep things as they are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:52 AM

But I don't wish to keep things as they are!
Britain wants rid.

BUT, we respect the right of the people themselves to choose.

Now YOU tell us who YOU think should decide their future for them, and how would YOU make them accept it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 05:02 AM

And Jim, YOU chose the analogy of how the Union dealt with the Confederacy to explain how you thought the 6 Counties should be dealt with.
Wage war however costly until they collapse and give in.
You bullying fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:03 AM

"YOU chose the analogy of how the Union dealt with the Confederacy to explain how you thought the 6 Counties should be dealt with."
Where did I suggest that?
"BUT, we respect the right of the people themselves to choose."
But not the British people?
"Now YOU tell us who YOU think should decide their future for them,"
Just said it, but one more time - everybody involved, the six counties, the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:08 AM

"the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money."
To add - it doesn't get more democratic than that - who do you think should decide what role the British and the Republic should play?
"You bullying fascist."
Sticks and stones... if you wish to return to the schoolyard.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:38 AM

I am now clear who you think should decide the future of the 6 counties.
"Just said it, but one more time - everybody involved, the six counties, the Republic and the British who provide the canon fodder and the money.
Jim Carroll"

The Republic can outvote the 6 counties on its own, and Britain could do it many times over.

And if the people of the 6 counties did not want what Britain and the Republic demand of them, what would YOU want done to them?

By the analogy you gave, they should be physically battered into submission, like the Confederacy.
That is fascist bullying Jim.
It is not just name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 07:45 AM

You have not answered one single point I have raised; you are reduced to distorting what I have sid, outright lying and infantile name-calling.
I think you are out of ammunition - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:00 AM

I thought I had answered your points.
I will answer anything you put up, but no long, rambling posts please.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:11 AM

Been lurking here for quite a while and I have to say that Jim does seem to want it both ways - one the one hand complaining bitterly (and rightly, IMHO) about British involvement in the affairs of the Irish people, but on the other wanting the British to vote on their destiny.

Seems only right and fair that that decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland.

Unless, of course, you want the British involved in the vote because you know that the majority of us on the mainland would support a united Ireland, so the Republican vote would be hugely reinforced and the (albeit slight) possibility of the 6 counties remaining 'British' would be removed?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:30 AM

Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?
Has Jim completely lost it this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

"the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?"

It could be argued that if NI is to remain British, then the British people have a right to democratically decide that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:59 AM

It could be argued.
Do you, Crow Sister?
Does anyone????

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 08:59 AM

"Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?
Has Jim completely lost it this time?"

There could be a twisted method in the madness! There have been polls showing that far more Britons (who show any preference) favour a united Ireland over Northern Ireland being part of the UK - whereas there was a recent poll in Northern Ireland showing support for a UI at only around 36% or so. Hence if the British voted in a referendum they could well vote for a united Ireland whereas the people of Northern Ireland probably wouldn't. Though of course that would amount to kicking the people of Northern Ireland out of the UK against their will and I imagine when it is put that way there would be little support for that amongst the British!

Of course you are right only people living in Scotland voted for Scottish devolution etc etc. So the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to state whether they wish to remain within the union or not and not have their voices swamped by the far more numerous English and Scots most of whom don't have much of a clue about NI and many of whom don't care about NI. The British accept that principle, and 90% and more of those in the Republic accepted that as did an estimated 90% plus of Catholics in the north of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:22 AM

"Does anyone????"

For the record, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter myself. But that doesn't make it a perspective worth any less worth discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

So far we only have Jim to discuss it with.
I think it will be a long wait for anyone else!

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

Backwoodsman;
My argument is that the British people should have a say in their own involvement in the six counties - where is that a contradiction with anything else I've said?
Keith has said that can't happen with either Britain or the Republic because "The Republic can outvote the 6 counties on its own, and Britain could do it many times over."
So neither have a say on the question because it would not produce the resuly required - is that right?
"Seems only right and fair that that decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland."
Absolutely - this is what I have been saying all along.
Keith
"By the analogy you gave, they should be physically battered into submission, like the Confederacy."
Try again - where did I say this. I gave the American Civil War as an example of a nation's reaction to the cessation by a number of States - nothing more. You appear to believe it was fascist for the Union to resist that cessation - is that right?
"Does anyone else in the whole world believe that the people of mainland Britain should be allowed to vote for the next government of NI?"
And once more - where have I suggested this? I say that if the British people are expected to police the six counties, they should have a say in THEIR OWN INVOLVEMENT - to suggest I have said otherwise is a gross distortion. Straight question - should the British people have the right to a say in whether British troops are sent to Ireland or not?
"what would YOU want done to them?"
Not my decision to make TBTG - but as I see it several things can happen.
The partitioned state could fall and become part of the Republic; not the end of the world. To prevent it from doing so artificially by force of arms would achieve nothing and lead to further periods of armed conflict.
On the other hand, the six counties could decide to go it alone, but in order to do so it would have to take the Catholic minority on as full partners, which has not happened to date.
The alternative to both of these is that the killing will continue as it has for centuries.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 09:46 AM

Let me answer your points Jim.

"So neither (Republic or Britain) have a say on the question because it would not produce the resuly required - is that right?

YES! RIGHT! The "required" result is the one wanted by the people of NI themselves, not imposed by outsiders.

"...decision should rest solely with the people of the island of Ireland."
Absolutely - this is what I have been saying all along."

No, you have just added mainland voters too!

The US Civil War. YOU gave it as an analogy of how NI should be dealt with, and only today demanded I should respond to it.

"Straight question - should the British people have the right to a say in whether British troops are sent to Ireland or not?"

The British people, through their elected government, DO decide where troops are sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 10:27 AM

"The "required" result is the one wanted by the people of NI themselves, not imposed by outsiders."
So the people of the six counties decide when where and if British are deployed and the residents of the British mainland have no say in the matter - is that right?
"No, you have just added mainland voters too!"
No I haven't - you are distorting what I have said again. I said the future of the six counties should rest with the people of the whole of Ireland.
I added that the people of mainland Britain should have a say in whether British troops should be deployed there.
"The US Civil War."
This is exactly what I said - I at no time have advocated a Civil War to decide matters.
"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?"
I still haven't had a reply on whether you believe the opposition to cessation was an act of fascism - reply please.
"The British people, through their elected government, DO decide where troops are sent."
So when we elected the Blair Government we voted to send troops to Iraq - is that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 10:41 AM

Glad we agree Jim. I believe this dreadful situation that's haunted the Irish people for so long is too important to leave their fate in the hands of an overwhelming number of mainland voters who have no allegiance to the island, and no investment in the fate of its people.

I cannot believe it's right for anyone other than the whole community of the island of Ireland to take part in determining their future - their land, their decision alone. Anything else would be like inviting the population of Normandy to vote on the future of the United Kingdom, simply because a long time ago we had the same king.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 11:46 AM

I was not distorting what you said about mainland voting on NI.
Backwoodsman, Allan C., and Crow Sister also took that meaning.
You have not explained what say you now think mainlanders should have. Troop deployment is obviously under British government control.

The Union forced the Confederacy back in.
If Britain did that to Scotland, or Ireland to the 6 Counties, I would say that was fascism by the mores of today.
You think it quite acceptable for the 6 counties to be forcibly subsumed.
I say that is fascist bullying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 12:16 PM

"I say that is fascist bullying."
I'm sure our American friends will be delighted to hear that their country came about through an act of fascism.
And where does slavery - one of the main bones of contention - fit in to all this?
"If Britain did that to Scotland".
Scotland (and Wales) are sepatate countries and have a right to self determination should they wish it. The Cessationist states were part of the country of America.
"You think it quite acceptable for the 6 counties to be forcibly subsumed."
No I don't, and have never said so; on the contrary, I have persistently pointed out that the partitioning of Ireland came about through force and coercion. I say that the decision should be made by the whole of Ireland - that is democracy.
"You have not explained what say you now think mainlanders should have"
Mainland Britain should have no say whatever in the governance of Ireland - the fact that it has had the controlling say for as long as it has had has led to centuries of bloodshed.
"I was not distorting what you said about mainland voting on NI."
Then please point out my relevant posting; if anything I have written has caused confusion, I apologise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM

I would so like to argue you down on your version of the partition, but those people are dead and irrelevant to this discussion.
We have to start from where we are.

American people who know their history would not make the mistake of the Civil War again.
But you approve anyway.
You now say you would not use force to make NI accept Dublin rule, but how else would you.
Many predict a new armed struggle.

This is all hyporthetical because, as has been said, no one except mainland Britain would vote for a united Ireland.
The argument is sterile and pointless, but the principle is important.
I say the people of NI should choose for themselves in the full knowledge of their history.
No one else has the right to deny them that, and impose outsiders' demands and an alien regime on them against their will.
Not Britain and not the Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:36 PM

You bizarrely described my American Civil War analogy as an example of my being a 'fascist bullyboy', then ignored my invitation to qualify your statement - the invitation is still open. - Jim Carroll

When the thirteen colonies became the first thirteen States of the United States of America I believe that it was written into the Constitution of each individual State that they were free at anytime to secede from that Union. The Northern States by forcing the Southern States to remain in the Union was therefore acting against the wishes of the people of the Southern States and against the Constitutions of those States, plain coercion in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 04:49 PM

The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland:

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Explanatory Notes on Article 2
As amended, Article 2 provides that everyone born on the island of Ireland has the right to be a part of the Irish nation. The intention is partly to allow the people of Northern Ireland, if they wish, to feel included in the 'nation' without making what might be perceived as an extraterritorial claim. This is a reflection of the provision in the Belfast Agreement recognising the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

The new wording of Article 2 also had the legal effect of granting to everyone born on the island the right to Irish Citizenship. However this right has since been qualified by the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Adopted in 2004, this amendment did not alter the wording of Articles 2 and 3 but nonetheless limited the constitutional right to citizenship to those born on the island to at least one Irish parent. Article 2 further recognises the "special affinity" between the people of Ireland and the Irish diaspora.

Explanatory Notes on Article 3
As amended, Article 3, Section 1 expresses the "firm will" of the Irish nation to create a united Irish people, though not, explicitly, a united country. It stresses, however, that a united Ireland should respect the distinct cultural identity of Unionists and that it should only come about with the separate "democratically expressed" consent of the peoples of both parts of the island. This provision was intended to diminish the concerns of Unionists, that their rights would be ignored in a united Ireland, should that happen. Under the Good Friday Agreement the people of Northern Ireland's "democratically expressed" consent must be secured in a referendum. Interestingly for a provision that speaks of the "Irish Nation"'s desire for unity, it adds an additional legal requirement for a referendum to be held not only in Northern Ireland but also in Ireland before a united Ireland could be brought about. Section 2 allows Ireland to participate in the cross-border 'implementation' bodies established under the Agreement.

Okay Jim what's your beef? Unification of Ireland requires separate referenda to be held in both Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Now that seems to me to imply that the whole of the population of Ireland have a say. What would you do if the North said YES but the Republic said NO? Would you abide by that decision?

I said that the unification of Ireland remains an aim of all the major parties - I thought this to be the case, but to be doubly sure, I Wikied it - and sure enough....

As I said before the aims and aspirations of political parties are irrelevant, it is the expressed will of the people that counts, and the fact remains that the Republic of Ireland's Constitutional claim on the North has been dropped from the Constitution that existed from 1937 to 1999.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 10 - 05:11 PM

So Jim, it looks like your plan of unity imposed on NI by outside votes has already been rejected.
It would have been a nasty, illiberal and unjust coup anyway.
Fascist really.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 05:49 AM

"Fascist really. "
Can we stop this infantile name calling.
If it is 'fascist' to suggest that Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces, it is equally 'fascist' to suggest that the British people should have no say in a continued military presence in Ireland.
Your constant mindless throwing out of the term 'fascist' not only shown a gross ignorance of the term on your part, but it is a deep insult to the real victims of fascism,
I realise that this goes against your redneck, 'good ol' boy' nature, but please make an effort to grow up.
More later,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 07:31 AM

However you dress it up, to suggest that the people of the 6 counties be made, by force, to submit to an unwanted regime, to satisfy the wants of that regime, fits my definition of fascist.

And that was what you were suggesting.
Or have you done another couple of backflips?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM

I have set my opinion as clear as I can, giving the facts as I know them; - Jim Carroll

Okay then let us examine those facts as you understand them.

1) the undemocratic way partition was arrived at,

Was the Irish Free State founded democratically? No it was not but we will let that pass, it falls into your apparent fervent belief in one law for the goose another for the gander. The process that established the two political entities of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland was consultative and the border was established by agreement of all three Governments involved.

2) the threat of invasion if the treaty had not been signed,

What threat of invasion? Made by whom? What was going to be invaded? The Irish Free State? That defies logic if you acknowledge that at the time the British Government were trying their best to extricate themselves from Ireland, the whole premise is ludicrous - If you don't sign this treaty granting you independence we will invade you!! FFS its preposterous what planet are you living on?.

3) the unequal situation between Catholic and Protestant situations,

Please correct me if I am wrong here Jim, but the Catholic population of Northern Ireland has grown and has grown steadily since May 1921, whereas, the Protestant population in the Irish Free State and then latterly the Irish Republic has plummeted. Religious intolerance has existed and has been pandered to and practiced on both sides of the border for generations to such an extent that it has long been considered the norm. Thankfully those days and those generations are dying out

4) the violence against the Catholic minority,

It might come as a surprise to you Jim, but the founding of the Society of United Irishmen precedes the founding of the Orange Order by some five years, the latter being established to protect Protestant landowners, farmers and tradesmen from nationalist violence. On partition the first acts of violence perpetrated in Northern Ireland were by the IRA.

5) the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties…….

Examples of the use of such force please. At the same time and reflected by an accurate timeline list attacks by initiated by nationalists. As Northern Ireland has been autonomous since December 1922, the "Brits" have had very little to do with it. In the period now referred to as "The Troubles" the "Brits" got involved in order to sort out the inequalities you speak of. Had the nationalist paramilitaries stayed out of it and left it to the civil rights movement then roughly 3500 people would have kept their lives and 36,000 people would not have been injured.

Little challenge for you Jim, give me the name of one Republican, or Nationalist volunteer who gave their life to save the life of any man, woman or child throughout the entire period. I can give you the names of quite a few members of the emergency services and security services who did just that.

You have persisted with you mantra - "have to go with the wishes of the Protestant majority" - so let's play it your way.

WHY?

Could one relevant factor possibly be because they did actually form the majority of the population perhaps? Not your form of democracy I know Jim (where the demands of a radical but highly vocal minority threatening violence to achieve their ends must always prevail) but that is the general governing principle of a democracy that the will of the majority prevails.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 12:48 PM

Still not getting time to join in the fun - so quickly.
The American Civil War - Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America; they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.
"The Northern States by forcing the Southern States to remain in the Union was therefore acting against the wishes of the people of the Southern States and against the Constitutions of those States, plain coercion in other words."
I asked where the abolition of slavery fitted into all this - I received no reply, which tells me all I want to know.   
"fits my definition of fascist."
Then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.
I repeat; "If it is 'fascist' to suggest that Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces, it is equally 'fascist' to suggest that the British people should have no say in a continued military presence in Ireland."
You appear to wish to persist in your infantile name calling - which also tells me all I want to know.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:43 PM

Psst Jim if you think that the American Civil War had anything to do with abolishing Slavery then you are as naive as they come.

Myths about US strategy/policy

The War of Independence/Revolutionary War - was about "Taxation and Representation" - Bollocks it was

The War of 1812 was about restraint of trade and impressment of sailors from American ships - Bollocks it was

The American Civil War was fought to free the slaves - like fuck it was.

Now go away and instead of reading myths go and study history and take a look at what EACH side wanted. You will find that the causes detailed above only provided convenient excuses that covered much more rapacious aims and objectives.

the partitioning of Ireland came about through force and coercion

Care to expand on that or are we still on the farcical premise that the big bad English were threatening to invade Ireland if the Irish did not accept independence from England?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 01:44 PM

"Ireland should have a say in the governence of six of it's provinces"
The Irish Republic can govern all its provinces, but not the 6 counties of NI, unless the people of those 6 counties want it.

You are obfuscating by using the phrase "have a say"
That is what you said mainland Britain should have, but you then said a say did not mean a vote??!!
And you apologised for the confusion it caused.
And now you are doing it again.

So we have a rough idea of your position, do you believe that, if the Republic wanted NI but NI did not want to join the Republic, their wishes should be trumped by those of the Republic?

Please do not answer with refernce to Cromwell, Easter rising, etc.,etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 03:11 PM

But there has still been no apology for the closing of ranks to protect the guilty, and for the cover-up. Those were the things that probably caused the worst damage, and led to the most deaths down the years. And those are the things that still continue to shape the way killings by agents of the state are dealt with.

Not just in the UK, of course, but if this pattern is ever going to change, this is as good a place to start as any.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 10 - 06:37 PM

Those were the things that probably caused the worst damage, and led to the most deaths down the years.

Kevin you have got to be fuckin' kidding haven't you. You have got to be having a joke here.

"Led to the most deaths down the years!!!"

Lies, cover ups. You can pin it all down to to one Sunday afternoon where 14 people died??? Are you joking!!! What about the 87 murders that McGuinness had a hand in? Don't they count??

"The PIRA never deliberately targeted any civilians" do you remember that statement? Tell me, no tell us all whether or not that was a deliberate lie. Don't bother Kevin it was a fucking lie and the PIRA were forced, repeat forced into owning up to it.

3500+ died Kevin most at the hands of Nationalist/Republican groups, people they said they were "protecting" 36,000 were maimed and injured, they were being protected too.

Want to count lies and the effects of the lies told Kevin???

THEN FOR FUCKS SAKE DO IT HONESTLY!! APPLY IT TO BOTH SIDES. Just for once tell yourself the truth.

I will pose you the same question that I posed Jim Carroll:

Give me the name of one member of any paramilitary group nationalist or loyalist who gave their lives to save the life of any innocent civilian man, woman or child between 1968 and 1999.

I CHALLENGE YOU THERE ARE NONE. And you have got the affrontery and the gall to lay the blame of loss of life in Northern Ireland at the door of the British Government and the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:55 AM

"Was the Irish Free State founded democratically?
The Irish State was formed though a war of independence from colonialism which lasted centuries; as were many countries; do you have problems with this or do you think they should all have stayed in the Empire?

"….was established by agreement of all three Governments involved."
It was established reluctantly, after centuries of unrest. The negotiations for a treaty followed a period of state terrorism by British troops specifically put there to create a situation where the best results could be obtained(for a British Government and an extremely belligerent Protestant minority).
The irony was that the treaty eventually signed was opposed but all but a small minority of the population of the six counties. The Catholic minority were in favour of a totally united Ireland (either immediately or eventually); around half the Protestants were totally against any part of Ireland being under British rule; the minority remaining were prepared to go along with the partitioning. As I said, the treaty was forced through and maintained by violence add threats of invasion.

"What threat of invasion?". "If you don't sign this treaty granting you independence we will invade you!! "

Exaxctly;
"The Prime Minister (Lloyd George), of course, needed more than this: all must sign; if they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. At 7:45p.m. The meeting broke up. Griffith had agreed to sign; Collins appeared to hesitate only over the Oath; Barton, who came to this meeting as a sort of host curiae, had not committed himself at all."
From - 'The Damnable Question – 126 of Anglo-Irish conflict'. George Dangerfield, 1976.

" Catholic population of Northern Ireland has grown and has grown steadily since May 1921, whereas, the Protestant population in the Irish Free State and then latterly the Irish Republic has plummeted."
There has been no evidence of persecution of non-Catholcs in the Republic, despite the Catholic Church having a strong influence (no longer the case as the church has lost its credibility following the clerical child abuse revelations).
On the other hand, there has been anti-Catholic repression and violence throughout the six counties. The stated aim of the original Home Rule Bill was to set up a Protestant State where the Catholic third of the population had no say in the governance of the state.
This has lasted throughout the state's existence and culminated in the peacefully held Civil Rights Marches in the late '60s which were responded to by baton charges by the RUC and the directing of the marchers through stone-throwing Unionist mobs – the next twenty-odd years speak for themselves.   

"Examples of the use of such force please."
You got 'em;
Members of my own family were burned out of their home in Derry by rioting Unionist mobs, forcing them to leave and flee to Dublin with their child in arms.

"Could one relevant factor possibly be because they did actually form the majority of the population perhaps?"
Even if the wishes of the majority had been met by the signing of the Treaty, which it wasn't, in a democracy it is the duty of any government to represent the interests of all sections of the population, minority or majority. This has never happened in the six counties and the question of 'power-sharing' has been brought to the conference table at gun-point and has yet to be resolved satisfactorily – not the basis for a democratic or stable state.
Anything else?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:15 AM

Jim, I am very sympathetic o the plight of your family and so many others.
Protestant families were burned out of houses in Catholic areas too, weren't they.
I will not respond to your other answers to Terribus. I think he will!

I am surely not alone in wanting you position clarified.
Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:10 AM

"Protestant families were burned out of houses in Catholic areas too",
Care to give examples? Any recent acts of violence towards any religious or cultural group are the results of decades of the situation I described above; in the Republic Catholics and Protestants have co-existed peacfully since the founding of the state - do you honestly believe the same can be said of the six counties?
"I will not respond to your other answers to Terribus. "
I didn't think for one moment you would.
You have persistently reduced your contribution to this debate to extremely unpleasant and somewhat inarticulate name-calling, replacing argument with invective.
You say you would like to challange my description on the partition (or on Irish history in general) yet you have refrained from doing so, though you have had ample opportunity.
Once again you have skipped around explaining why my suggestion that the whole of Ireland should have a say in the loss of six counties is 'fascist', yet yours that the general population of Britain should have no say in armed intervention is not.
I have no axe to grind in this argument. I am neither Catholic nor Protestant - an atheis in fact. I am an Internationalist, not a Republican - if anything, I am a humanitarian with a long-standing interest in history - Irish in particular.
I see a country torn apart by centuries of bloody conflict and would like to see it stopped once and for all.
I have offered my suggestions for a way this might - just might be achieved - you and your bombastic friend have offered none - except that things must remain the same because a group of carefully selected
'hell-fire-and-brimstone religious fanatics say it should.
If your symapthy is in any way genuine, I suggest you lay off your childish invective - it doesn't even make sense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:25 AM

I have not had ample opportunity to discuss partion with you, because you have still not opened a history thread.
This is about Saville, remember.
Not Cromwell, Easter Rising, Falklands war, Thatcher, .....

I am surely not alone in wanting you position clarified.
Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:27 AM

Jim, are you saying that Protestant families were not burned out of their homes?
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 12:45 PM

"Jim, are you saying that Protestant families were not burned out of their homes?"
I am saying that following the treaty Protestant families were treated as equals in the Republic, whereas in the six counties Catholics became an underclass and were persecuted and terrorised as I described. The behaviour towards Catholics was the root of the troubles that followed.
During the recent troubles both sides took part in the internicene warfare that took place, which was caused, as I said, by the political situation in the six counties.
Why - are you saying anything different?
If so, let's hear it - with examples of course.
"This is about Saville, remember."
Stop wriggling Keith, The causes of Bloody Sunday date much further back than the Treaty even.
I find your protestations somewhat inconsistent. The regime you are supporting here is, at this very moment, using a battle that took place in 1690 to parade their superiority in the six counties, while the one you're ating as apologist for on the Israeli atrocities thread bases their behaviour on a two thousand year old myth.
Jim Carroll