BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 10 - 01:05 PM

Jim, you gave your family's experience as an example of the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties.
But families on both sides were burned out of their homes.
Deny it?

I do not accept that discussion of Saville makes it essential for you to dredge up all the ancient history yet again.
If you must, start a thread and I will accomodate you.

I am not supporting any regime! You have made that up.

Now, I am surely not alone in wanting your 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 - 03:00 PM

"But families on both sides were burned out of their homes."
As I asked - examples please.
Protestant families were treated with respect in the new Republic - if you know otherwise, please say where and when.
"Hypothetically, if the people of the Republic wanted NI, but NI people did not want the Republic, who should prevail?"
You have my answer in my 05:10 AM posting - if you have any additional information, please produce it.
"you gave your family's experience as an example of the persistent use of force by both the Unionists and the Brits to maintain the six counties."
No I didn't - I gave them as an example of use of force by loyalist mobs against a Catholic family. I have persistantly given other examples of systematic persecution of Catholics as a whole by both Unionists and their 'keepers of the peace'. Either you are again deliberately distorting what I have said, or you are very obuse.
I'm sure if you waffle on long enough the 5th Cavalry will come galloping over the hill, but until that time you appear to be on your own.
Please stop digging; this is getting rather embarrassing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:48 AM

Jim, you are being dishonest.
In answer to Teribus, "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"

You gave your family's experience as an example.
It is another of your rubbish examples because it happened to Protestant families too.
If you did not know that both sides suffered as the housing estates became segregated, that is a serious failing that weakens your credibility.

Now, I am surely not alone in wanting your position clarified, and your 05.10 AM post yesterday gives no clue, so I must ask you again, please, 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: 03 Jul 10 - 05:35 AM

Yes Allan, but he is only pretending to believe that we have switched to discussing the Republic.
He knows that we are talking about Protestant and Catholic families burned out of their homes on the estates of NI.
No wonder he is embarrassed.
He can not answer the questions put to him so he has to make up ones he thinks he can answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:28 AM

"No wonder he is embarrassed."
I am embarrased because you are making a fool of youself publicly by insisting on something and consistently refusing to produce proof - I want no part in that (though you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it without my help).
Where are your examples of Protestants being abused in the Republic as Catholics were up north?
The abuse towards Catholics is well documented - the six county state was set up to deliberately eclude them, the anti- Catholic rioting, the baton charges of the Civil Rights marches - if you ay thios was equally done to the Protestants in the Republic WHERE AND WHEN - you must have some examples to back up your continual statements - arson attacks, stoning, driving out of Protestant families or refugees fleeing - where?
"......switched to discussing the Republic."
If you think wwe can discuss Bloody Sundaty without discussing its causes, you're even thicker than you I take you to be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:10 PM

"Protestant families were also burned out in the North, OR DO YOU DENY THAT?"
I really can't believe this idiocy - please get help.
NO PROTESTANTS WERE BURNED OUT BY CATHOLICS FOLLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REPUBLIC; BY BRITISH SOLDIERS, FELLOW PROTESTANTS, LITTLE GREEN MEN WITH RAY GUNS - IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY - PRODUCE IT.
This is an account of the 1935 anti-Catholic riots from
'The Troubles' - a book of essays by different writers produced for Thames Television to coincide with their series of the same name in 1980.
There had been major riots three years earlier in 1932 and such riots were a regular feature of life for Catholics in the six counties right though to the 1960s
This will be my last posting on the subject of anti-Catholic rioting.
A rather tired Jim Carroll.

1935 RIOTS
Despite the display of solidarity between Protestant and Catholic workers during the hard times of unemployment and the hunger marches of 1932, religious tension still existed in the community. The scarcity of jobs and consistently high levels of unemployment made for severe frictions in Northern Ireland society. For the Unionist party leadership it was vital to keep the loyalty of the Protestant working classes, and Orange speeches fanned sectarian flames. Protestant employers were exhorted to take on only Protestant workers. In July 1933 the Fermanagh Times reported a speech by Basil Brooke, later to become Prime Minister in Northern Ireland, appealing to Loyalists 'wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies In the Londonderry Sentinel in March 1934 he said:
I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, 99% of whom are disloyal . . . If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.
The Ulster Protestant League was formed in 1931 with one of its objectives being 'to safeguard the employment of Protestants.' It was a sectarian organisation whose virulently anti-Catholic platform frequently led to violence. In November 1933, a Catholic publican was shot dead in York Street, Belfast, the first sectarian murder since 1922. Sectarian disputes escalated through 1934 to a crescendo in the summer of 1935. A big Ulster Protestant League rally on 18 June was followed by two weeks of disorders, and led the Minister of Home Affairs to ban all parades in the city. But this would have prohibited the annual Orange parades, and the outraged Orange Order put pressure on the Government to relent. They gave in, the ban was lifted, and the parades went ahead.
Predictably, bloody scenes ensued. Shooting began in the York Street area. The Catholics, claimed that the Orangemen broke out of the march and attacked Catholic homes. The Orangemen claimed that Catholics fired into the parade. Who fired the first shots is impossible to determine now, but Belfast was in an uproar, and within days serious rioting had spread from York Street and had broken out all over the city, in the Short Strand, in Sandy Row and Peter's Mill. Catholics in the shipyards were expelled from their jobs, and Catholic girls were expelled from the York Street and Crumlin Road linen mills.
The RUC could not control the situation, and British troops were called in to try to restore order. They erected metal barricades as a sort of peace line along the ends of the Catholic streets around York Street, as they were to do in 1969. Whilst trying to control a Loyalist crowd in the Docks, they shot and killed two Protestants.
The fighting continued for three weeks, although some of the barricades were not taken down for months. Eleven people were killed and nearly 600 injured. There were 133 cases of arson and 367 of malicious damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 01:17 PM

Jim , I am not talking about the Republic and never was.
I don't know why you keep on about all those riots, or why you even started.

I know of course that Catholic families were burned from their homes IN THE NORTH.

I am just pointing out that Protestant families IN THE NORTH suffered in the same way when the housing estates IN THE NORTH became segrated in the 70s and into the 80s.

I am sure you will not deny that I have stated a well known fact.

If that is cleared up, I must ask you again, please, 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: 03 Jul 10 - 02:14 PM

Keith,
My apologies for the outburst.
I have no intention of allowing you to drive me off this thread as have another poster on the Israeli atrocity one.
I will continue to post hereas the subject interests me greatly, but not to anything you have to say. To be honest, I don't even know if you are a troll not bright enough to post anonymously.
I am really not qualified to cope with somebody with your problems. Good luck.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:17 PM

We've had some trouble with impersonation in this thread, so I have deleted a number of Guest messages. From this point, no other Guest messages will be allowed. You must be logged in if you wish to post.
thank you.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:35 AM

Joe and All;
I hope that nobody here takes my suggestion that Keith is a troll seriously; it was written in a moment of utter frustratiion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 05:47 AM

Sorry Joe. I was away from home.
Jim, you clearly have a problem conceding that both Catholic and Protestant families were burned out of their homes as yours was.
I do not understand your problem, and I expect others are puzzled too.
Obviously no point pursueing it further, but why enter into debate if you have no go areas?

You also clearly do not want to answer the "who should prevail?" question.
It is not a trick question.
My answer would be, the people of NI should have the final say and that rights of minorities should continue to be respected.

Again, if you can not or will not give an opinion on a basic question like that, what are you doing in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 06:31 AM

Jim, you kept complaining that I would not discuss the partition of Ireland and such on this thread.
Your mindset, that says nothing new can be achieved in NI withould raking over centuries of disputed history, has been the cause of the painful and slow progress there.

Before you accuse me again of avoiding the subject, this takes you to a place where you and I discussed just that.
thread.cfm?threadid=41161#2086681

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:50 AM

Foolish Guest, you will be deleted.
Do you not see the irony in your complaining of a supposed impersonation, when you are impersonating someone else?

On the old thread Jim answered the question,
"You would deny the people of the North the right to choose their government?"
Yes, just as I would deny the people of Birmingham to choose "their" government

I described his attitude as cruel and undemocratic.
(I had not seen him posturing as an anti fascist then.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

The thing is, when you have political engineering to ensure a particular electoral result, that distorts everything. Gerrymandering is just one aspect of it.

So for example in South Africa there was the attempted camouflage of declaring that black people were citizens of artificial Bantustans, and not of South Africa, and accordingly that denying them a vote was perfectly compatible with claiming that South Africa was a democracy.

Or in Israel you have a situation where most of the native population were ethnically cleansed, forced to leave and denied their right to return, and therefore excluded from any elections in the place they came from, ensuring a permanent majority for the people who had replaced them.

In Northern Ireland the trick was to draw the borders of the territory in such a way as to include large areas with majorities who did not wish to be included but in such a way that they could always be outvoted in the territory as a whole.

We can't re-run history to undue that kind of thing, but it is important to recognize that simple head-counting is not the whole story, and is not the only factor in determining whether a regime is "democratic". And of course that recognition is reflected in the complexities of the political settlement that followed the Good Friday Agreement, designed to ensure "power-sharing".
.............

As for Teribus's indignant response to a previous post, my point is that Bloody Sunday, combined with its cover-up played a fatal role in bringing about the escalation and continuation of the conflict. It turned the Provos from a fringe group on the edge of a Civil Rights movement into something far more central and far more deadly, with mass support. In the old saying, it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:14 AM

McGrath, I challenge your version of the "trick" of drawing the borders.
However it was done there would have been trouble.
I would say they were drawn to include as many as practically possible who wanted inclusion, and vice versa.
It was a pragmatic attempt to please most of the people most of the time, and that is all polticians can ever hope to achieve.
The history is fiercely contested and disputed.
Any attempt now to right disputed historical wrongs is doomed to failure.
What you and Jim must try to do is accept that we are where we are, and aim to please most of today's people most of the time.

(You also stated as if it were undisputed fact a highly contentious and one sided version of Israel's history. Why do you do that?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:34 AM

"What you and Jim must try to do is accept that we are where we are,"
No - what we must try and find out why we are where we are to see ascertain that Bloody Sunday doesn't happen again.
Saville said what needed to be said about the actual events - British soldiers shot down thirteen unarmed demonstrators, just as their predecessors did similarly in the previous Bloody Sunday. It then went on to cover up the reasons for the massacre for thirty eight years.
Unless we take these events in their full context and try to understand why they happened there is a possibility that they will continue to happen.
Some of us have attempted to put these events in their historical context; you have consistently tried to police this thread in order that we don't do so. You are not an adjudicator on this forum; please stop attempting to adjudicate. And please do not continue to distort what I have to say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:43 AM

Jim ,I do not distort what you say, I quote it.
Your obsession with your version of history condemns you and your ilk to repeat it.
Saville was able to investigate the events of Bloody Sunday without raking over what previous generations might or might not have done.
You and your ilk have been left behind by the modern people of Ireland, and thank God for that.
I can not prevent you indulging your fetish for refighting ancient battles in this thread, but I can and do refuse to join in with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:01 AM

Jim, as you have reopened communication with me, I think you will find this piece from New Statesman of interest.
. I remember as a teenager watching the burning houses further down towards the centre of Belfast, in one of those streets that led from the Shankill to an area that I knew less well. Burning out, they called it. "We're burning them out," they would say. We burnt out their lot; they burnt out ours. Families left the area where they had lived for generations. They moved house by house. There were no wagon trains like in Kosovo, just individual families getting out when they had to, with whatever they could gather around them.

The Catholics at the bottom of Ligoniel Road moved to the top of the road, the Protestants at the top moved to the bottom. It was a distance of about 400 yards, but this was all that was required to feel safe, to be with your own kind.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200005220026

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:26 AM

"Jim ,I do not distort what you say, I quote it."
You have persistantly distorted my position and have painted yourself into a corner in your efforts, so much so that you have tried strenuously to steer the discussion away from areas on which you have no knowledge.
You not only refuse to debate 'my version' of history but you have done your best to prevent me from discussing it.
"Saville was able to investigate....,"
Saville dealt with and reported on the events of the day and their cover-up - he did not attempt to put them in context of the political situation existing in the six counties, then or now, nor did he suggest how the position might be rectified and the events not repeated - it wasn't his brief.
Bloody Sunday happened because Ireland was partitioned in 1922 in favour of a Unionist majority, which led to nearly half a century of sectarian conflict culminating in open warfare in the seventies - Bloody Sunday was only one, albeit a significent incident in that warfare. The situation created in 1922 has not altered significantly enough to guarantee that it will not be repeated.
I have made my suggestions of why the massacre happened and how things might proceed - now let's hear yours.
Please do not continue to lie about my opinions and do not tell me or anybody omn this thread what we should or should not be discussing - you have monoplised and distorted one thread; don't do the same with this one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:04 AM

Jim lad,
Fascist that you are, you want to force me to discuss history on this thread.
BUT YOU CAN'T!
No wonder you get all bitter and twisted.

If I am steering away from areas on which I have no knowledge, how is it that I have managed to discuss those exact areas, at great length, so many times before?
(You could always open or reopen a thread.)

I have not knowingly distorted what you say.
Give an example if you say I have.
One problem is that you are deliberately vague in your statements.
You say, X or Y should "have a say" in the governance of NI.
Does that mean a vote, a veto, or just a post on Mudcat?
Who knows?
Not you, or you would have clarified.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:55 AM

You again!
I did not attempt to deceive anyone, but you are blatantly claiming to be Allan C!
You are a liar and a hypocrite.
Be gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:57 AM

Keith - you appears to have reverted once again to infantile name-calling in place of argument and continue to attempt to dominate this thread with your idiocy.
For the record, my newspaper carries a front page photograph of the Orange march to Drumcree, having been refused permission to triumphally parade down the Catholic Garvaghy Road.
These are two of the articles carried in the inner pages - peace at last!!!
Jim Carroll

SIX OFFICERS INJURED IN ORGANISED BELFAST RIOTS
Six police officers have been injured in a second night of orches¬trated rioting in Belfast, the PSNI has said.
Nine police vehicles were dam¬aged as officers came under attack from stones, fireworks, petrol bombs, paint, masonry and, on one occasion, an axe.
Trouble flared in the Broadway area at a major junction between the Ml motorway and the West-link. About 100, rioters began attacking police, who responded with plastic bullets. The police ombudsman is investigating the firing of the rounds. The trouble eased at about 3am yesterday.
Some gas cylinders were thrown into the road at the Broadway roundabout, and a car was set alight. A fast food outlet was broken into and substantial damage caused. Two cash tills were later recovered.
A senior police officer said it was believed the trouble was preplanned, but added it was difficult to say by whom. The PSNI has appealed for more information, especially regarding the possibility that the rioters came into the area from elsewhere to target police.
"The violence that we saw last night was orchestrated," Chief Insp Emma Mooney said.
Police searches in the area before trouble began for a second night uncovered bottles, masonry , and other items which could be used in riot situations, she added.
Rioting had flared on Friday night in the same locality when four police vehicles were attacked.
The injured officers suffered head and upper body wounds. None are said to have life-threatening injuries.

POLICE PREVENT ORANGEMEN PARADING ON GARVAGHY ROAD
DAN KEENAN (Northern News Editor in Drumcree)
Portadown Orangemen have been prevented by police from marching along the nation¬alist Garvaghy Road in Portadown, Co Armagh for a 12th consecutive year.
Members of the local lodge made their way to Drumcree parish church outside the town for their annual Somme commemoration service. But they were prevented returning through the nationalist area on foot of a Parades Commission determination.
District secretary Nigel Dawson called on a small group of police officers, led by chief inspector Ken Mawhinney, to remove the light barrier blocking Drumcree Road, but this was refused.
Orangemen dispersed peacefully a short time later after a defiant speech by district master Darryl Hewitt in which he called for the disbandment of the Parades Commission. He also denounced the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and accused the police of enforcing one rule for them and another for unionists in Co Armagh.
He told members of Portadown lodge that senior Orangemen were "putting in a lot of time and effort seeking a resolution to the impasse".
"We will not be walking away from this place and I can assure you that we will continue to work hard to achieve what we desire." He said marchers attempted to complete their original banned parade "each and every Sunday... And there is still a presence on the hill every night".
"One must ask the question, 'Why are we still here this year?' After all the chair of the Parades Commission [Rena Shepherd] stood at this place last Drumcree Sunday and stated that she would have the situation resolved by December." He claimed Orangemen had met Ms Shepherd on at least three occasions since last year and claimed they had been told the commission was not prepared to initiate any sanctions against the nationalist residents.
Mr Hewitt added: "The sooner the Parades Commission is dis¬solved the better - tomorrow would do." He said it would be "interesting to see what comes of the new arrangements for parading in Northern Ireland". These were promised as part of the deal to secure the devolution of policing and justice powers to Stormont concluded at Hillsborough in February.
"When the new body comes into being you can be sure that the first issue to be dealt with is our parade from this place back to Carleton Street." Turning to the police, Mr Hewitt asked why no nationalist had been threatened with arrest "regarding illegal parades that take place around Northern Ireland".
"It seems to be that there is one law for the nationalist-republican community and another for the unionist community," he alleged.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:31 AM

And your point is...?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:47 AM

My point is - contrary to your early statement.
"Peace has come about Jim." - it hasn't, and until the political problems created by the sectarian division of Ireland are solved, it won't.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

And you are sure there would be less trouble if people followed your advice and tried to reconcile every advance with a contentious and bitterly disputed history?
I think you are a fool, and a dangerous one.
We are lucky you are almost the last of your kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:23 AM

And once again you avoid the issue with invective.
I ask again, and will do until you answer - What's your solution?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:46 AM

PS Where is my 'contentiously' history 'bitterly disputed' - certainly not here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:26 AM

Jim, that you do not recognise that the history is "contentious and bitterly disputed" shows how blinkered you are.
You think your version is the only one.

I keep telling you what my solution is. Let the people who have to live in NI decide its future.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:27 AM

I would say they were drawn to include as many as practically possible who wanted inclusion, and vice versa.

Remove that "vice versa" and I'd agree with you there, Keith. But not with it included.

As for my summary of one aspect of Israeli history, I don't think it is now seriously open to doubt that ethnic cleansing on a massive scale was carried out in 1948. And there is obviously nothing in the least controversial in the assertion that the refugee population have not and are not allowed to return, and that the reason for this, as repeatedly stated by Israel, is that it would undo the politico-ethnic status quo.

My point in raising it is that I believe it is important to recognize that the Northern Ireland situation is not in principle unique, it is one example of the process in which the forms of democracy have been distorted in order to achieve ethnically motivated ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:59 AM

"contentious and bitterly disputed"
The historical facts I have presented are well documented and not disputed; it is the present state of affairs that are being battled over.
"Let the people who have to live in NI decide its future."
As I said, maintain the status quo - two examples of which you have in the press cuttings I posted.
At present there are riots on the Belfast Streets and the potential for further and greater violence as the marching season gets underweigh,
You have written off the right of British people as a whole having a say in military involvement in the situation, defering that right to an aggressive and potentially violent sectarian minority of the UK.
Despite the clear wishes of the majority of British people (yourself included), the government is committed to military intervention in the six counties - where is the democracy in that and how does leaving things as they are solve the situation one way or the other?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:12 AM

If those historical facts are undisputed, why are people disputing them?

The people deciding for themselves has not perpetuated the status quo.
It has put Sinn Fein officials in offices of state, and brought about weapons decommisioning by all the main paramilitary groups.
Only a few history obsessed loonies are still running around with guns and bombs.

The British Government is not committed to military intervention, and there is no military intervention.

For someone who is not interested in borders, you have shown a huge and emotional yearning for a United Ireland.
It is not my fault that it is not wanted in Ireland.
I wish it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:28 AM

And Jim, there would still be a marching season with or without the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:55 AM

Once again you dodge your suggestion that the British people as a whole should have no say in armed intervention and the continuance of the six counties in the Union.
"you have shown a huge and emotional yearning for a United Ireland."
and once again to continue to distort my view on a United Ireland - "....there would still be a marching season with or without the border. "
There would, and no harm in that - but it would no longer be the 'beating of the bounds' truimphal and intimidating demonstration of superiority that it is now.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 11:19 AM

Jim, the marching season would be exactly the same.
Why would they march any differently?
I am not dodging anything. That stuff of yours about the British people "having a say" in miltary intervention is just not worthy of a reply.
The days of military intervention in NI are long over.
Through our elected representatives we do "have a say" in military interventions.
You just cling to this bit of nonsense because the British are the only ones who still want a United Ireland.
That is why you want Britain to "have a say"
It is laughable.

I do not distort you view on a United Ireland.
I just point out that you have been here arguing for it for days now.
Sadly for you, the Irish people have moved on from that.
You are just an anachronism.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 01:27 PM

The assumption that people voting for the Good Friday Agreement were saying that they did not wish to see a United Ireland is an assumption too far. For most, I would suggest that, it was seen as a more realistic way of seeking to achieve that goal in time, as well as a way of winding down the cycle of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:54 PM

Not an issue for me McGrath.
The people of the Republic voted, with a large majority, that the people of NI should choose to be part of UK or part of Republic.
They agree with me, not Jim.
Jim alone feels that the people of mainland Britain should "have a say."
Jim alone knows what that even means.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:06 PM

It's not that unreasonable to suggest that the consent of both partners in a union is necessary for that union to be viable. That's how it works when it comes to marriage after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:16 PM

"Through our elected representatives we do "have a say" in military interventions."
So - as I asked once before and got no reply - everybody who voted for a Blair Government voted for the invasion of Iraq did they?
It is pretty well an established fact the the British population would vote tomorrow for the removal of the six counties from the Union. You still haven't told us why the sectarian unionists in the North should have a greater say in the matter over the general population of Britain.
"I do not distort you view on a United Ireland."
Yes you do - I have persistently said that a United Ireland is one way to end the conflict in the North, whatever I may feel personally about it.
"Jim alone feels that the people of mainland Britain should "have a say."
And you alone feel that they shopuld not have a say, but just provide the cannon-fodder and the money for the conflicts.
If you hold so much store in the way the people of The Republic voted, why can't the British people be treated to the same opportunity to vote on the issue? I think you said earlier that the people of the Republic and Britain cannot be trusted with the vote because it would not produce the required result - is that right?
I live in the Republic and spend a great deal of time travelling round the whole of Ireland and know that the people I meet, here and elsewhere, do not necessary want a partitioned Ireland; they want the troubles to go away. A decision taken on that basis is no foundation to build a stable society - as has been proved over and over again.
Once again - If you are going to leave the situation as it is WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT AND MOUNTING VIOLENCE AND UNREST?
"The days of military intervention in NI are long over."
On what grounds do you make this astounding statement; the days of a permanent British presence has been put on hold but, like the threat of invasion at the time of the treaty, military intervention remains as a constant threat.
"You are just an anachronism"
You appear to be incapable of making a contribution to this discussion without peppering it with invective and personal abuse. I belive you to be one of the most unpleasantly insecure people I have ever debated with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 02:14 AM

You seem to be suggesting that Britain should abandon its representational democracy.
That takes thread drift to new, stratospheric levels.
If that is not what you mean, stop being a twat and tell us how you envision Britain "having a say."
My position is clear. The people of NI should make the decision.
Not the Republic, though they agree with me anyway.
And not Britain. The British do want rid of NI, but if asked I am certain I would be found to be typical in wanting NI to decide about NI.
As with Falklanders and Gibraltarians.
There was negligable support for troops out even at the height of the Troubles.

And now your big question!
"If you are going to leave the situation as it is WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PRESENT AND MOUNTING VIOLENCE AND UNREST? "

The violence of the Troubles is over.
PSNI are dealing adequately with dissident Republicans. The army is not wanted or needed.
Sectarian tension is a fact of life. We have it in Glasgow too.
Changing the border would not make it better and probably make it worse.
You invite personal abuse because you never let on what you actually mean or want.
This sterile debate should have been wound up days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:28 AM

I repeat - did those who voted for Blair vote for the Iraqi war? Representation democracy does not mean the continuation of a political situation that has created strife for nearly nine decades and has led to a permanent state of conflict as well as a racist animosity towards Irish people totally unprecedented in my experience.
How do you go about letting the people decide - by open debate between all groups leading to referendum - how else? Certainly not by political pressure by one aggressive and influential minority. It is you who has insisted that the wishes of that tiny vociferous minority should be pandered to despite the wishes of the rest of the British population, so why should the opinions of the people as a whole not be sought and acted upon - that would be the democratic way out of the present problem?
"PSNI are dealing adequately with dissident Republicans."
No they are not - the threat and the fact of terrorist violence remains - want a list?
"Sectarian tension is a fact of life. We have it in Glasgow too."
Sectarian violence in Glasgow, nor in my native Liverpool where the same situation exists, has not led to sectarian discrimination and exclusion of a specific group, long-term rioting, massacres, open warfare, terrorism and partitioning as it has in the six counties.
"Changing the border ....."
The border was created as a temporary measure; it was put in place under the threat of military invasion and was held there only by the aggressive behaviour of the Unionist activists - it is long past its sell-by date, if it was ever a suitable option in the first place.
"The violence of the Troubles is over."
Then what is the rioting taking place in Belfast and the annual stand-offs at Drumcree and all the other flashpoints throughout the marching season all about?
When Mrs Robinson, the wife of the Unionist leader decided to go walkabout the power-sharing talks were in risk of collapsing, which could well have plunged us into an even bloodier set of 'Troubles' - no country can tolerate that sort of risk hanging over it - it is a recipe for disaster.
"You invite personal abuse...."
I have offered a personal opinion on the incident, its causes and possible cures. You have reacted with personal abuse throughout in a manner I have never come across before, not here - not anywhere.
I have been through this thread several times and I can not find one single original suggestion from you, one piece of personal reasearch, one glimmer of knowledge, one single indication that you know anything about Ireland. You have based your whole approach on picking up on the input of others. You have attempted to bully and manipulate the thread away from areas you don't begin to understand with claims of 'ancient history' and 'dead people'. When your friend Terribus shambled off into the sunset you fell flat on your arse as if somebody had pulled your chair from under you. You have relied totally on drawing on the contributions of others to dominate this thread and when they have not coincided with your own opinions you have tried to shout them down.
It is little wonder that you think "This sterile debate should have been wound up days ago" - you are totally out of your depth.
A quick glance down the 'Israeli atrocity' thread appears to indicate that this is your general approach to debate as you have appeared to have done the same to a lesser extent there.
If offering a contrary opinion to your own 'invites abuse' and results in the vitriolic bile that you have displayed here (want a list? We could start with "stop being a twat") then perhaps you should consider a a more soothing pastime - macrame maybe!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:45 AM

OK Jim.
Delete "stop being a twat" and insert "start being sensible"
Delete " you are an anachronism" and insert " your views are anachronistic."
Start a new thread about forms of democracy.
So Britain having a say means a referendum.
And how would British votes be weighed against NI votes?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:01 AM

Jim, I think we can stop here.
You have said what you think should happen.
I think that would be a backward step and unworkable anyway.
I have said what I think should happen.
There is no outcry that PSNI are overwhelmed by the antics of RIRA CIRA etc., except you obviously.
No one wants or needs the army back, except you obviously.
I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 09:34 AM

"Delete "stop being a twat" and insert "start being sensible""
I've become rather tired with your antics at spoiling threads so I'm going to gather together very bit of invective and abuse you have hurled during this debate so that we can view it in all its glory.
Once again you answer none of the points I've made exept to distort my views.
As I said - you live off the thoughts of others because you have none of your own.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:11 AM

My thoughts on this are simple and need no explanation.
Let the people of NI decide for themselves.
And the Dublin government agrees with me.
And the people of the Republic overwhelmingly agree with me.
And the British government agrees with me.

Jim Carrol says there should be a referendum held in mainland Britain.
He is on his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 11:31 AM

I am a fairly typical Brit, and I read the popular press most days.
I am quite cetain that, if asked, mainland Britain would also vote that NI should decide their own future.

YOU Jim have hijacked this thread.
We should have been discussing Bloody Sunday and the report, but you INSISTED on going down this dead end.

I should have refused to join in on this as well.
Sorry everyone.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:40 PM

"We should have been discussing Bloody Sunday"
We are discussing the causes of Bloody Sunday - you are displaying your ill mannered loutishness.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: ollaimh
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:48 PM

i find myself agreeing with carrol. richard brydges again showshis bigotry racismand fascism. what can you say.

there was little credibleevidence of anyone firing anything at the british army. that is the last ditch face saving and if savile had wanted peace and healing he shouldhave said so, but the brityish imperial racism dies hard. i have repeatedly seen peoe post racist remarks . only against gaels is it still apparantly acveptable to a lot of brits.

the real story s that the british army, police prosecutors and political people to the highest level participate in perjury for 38 years. the lot should be thrown in jail. never wil be as the establishment rarely disciplines its own.

the paras fired because ythey were predominately racists and thought any irish man protesting should die. plain and simple.

wnat really bothers me is the repeated racist remarks on mud cat. do people have any decency?   i've seen people equate the protests against the blody sunday cover up with the pira--the assumption that all who are opposed to british army murder must be pira is pure racism. again i recently saw someidiot excusing the ethnic cleansing of the acadiens of canada because they had abused the natives. not true , natives got on well with acadiens. it was the english settlers that took their adn and stole their chldren to die at a fifty percent rate in their church/government schols. but any excuse makes the worst behavior ok.

the british enpire ethnically cleansed many places. som acknoldgement of tyhat would be nice. therte are few vengefu peole, but lorts of racists brits continuing the justifications.

the saville report has alsopartially continued the justificatins. there was little credible evidence of any firing but by the british army . therte was mch evidence of the planting of weapons, and perjury and shipping the soldiers who refused to lie out to honh kong and the wiggery report refused tyo interview them.

time to stop the weasle words. it was a great injustice . britian hads always governed ireland as a colony andwith violence first. time to actually jail the perpertrastorts. if thats done the next time they will think.

butn whatb really bothers me is the blame the victum mentality of british medcatters i am encountering regularily. take some responsibility. grow up. no ne but your own believe you anyway

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:08 PM

If Scotland wants independence then Scotland holds a referendum - under the rules in the UK, England has no say in that referendum, and there are very good reasons for that all connected with guaranteeing the rights of a minority.

In the treaty that created the Irish Free State, Ireland was United for as long as it took Northern Ireland to exercise its right to opt out of the arrangement. Therefore Northern Ireland and the Republic had been "independent" from Great Britain for about the same length of time albeit that Northern Ireland through choice is a self-governing autonomous part of the United Kingdom, and as with Scotland, neither Scotland, England or Wales has any right in the political determination of its status, so no, the people of Great Britain should not have a say in whether or not Northern ireland remains in the United Kingdom.

Jim still wittering on about the ludicrous threat of invasion, as I said hardly credible if Britain was trying to get shot of Ireland at the time. The partition was agreed to for one reason and one reason only and it was a very pragmatic one - The Irish Free State nearly collapsed fighting its own civil war against a few thousand members of the IRA. How on earth would they, the fledgling Irish State have coped fighting against 500,000 Ulstermen hell bent on wrecking the nation. Answer to that was they would not have been able to cope and everybody knew it.

What the people voted for with the referenda both North and South of the border Kevin was that it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide how they are ruled and who rules them. If the people of Northern ireland hold a referendum and vote for Union with the republic of Ireland, then the people of the Republic then hold a referendum to agree to Union or not.

I will ask my question of Jim again if the North wants Union and the South does not will you accept that decision?

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM

Jim and Ollaimh,
Saville found no evidence at all of premeditation.
Saville found clear evidence that IRA shot first, but that the soldiers who fired were not aware of those shots.

Ollaimh, please give examples of racism against Gaels here, because I have never seen any.

Subject: RE: BS: Bloody Sunday Report - AT LAST
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM

Whether Northern Ireland should at this time be part of a United Ireland is one question, and it was one which was put to the people of Ireland in a referendum.

But whether it should be part of the United Kingdom is another question entirely - and it one which has never been put to the people of Britain.

That may be a good thing, since the likely result of a resounding "No" vote, which I would expect such a referendum to produce would probably be a pretty unpleasant Orange Free Statelet, and a renewed conflict which would very likely be even nastier than the last one.