Historic Return for NI assembly

[Solaris]

You said "terrorism is not inherently bad nor good", yet you whine about "oppression" in Iraq that doesn't exist.
It's total hypocritical bullshit that doesn't even make sense, there's absolutely nothing to debate. And terrorism involves the killing of innocents, so yes, you are advocating the slaughter of innocents.
With you it has nothing to do with right or wrong, you will go to extreme lengths to justify some things and also to extreme lengths to condemn others, contradicting yourself in the process. It all depends on whether it suits your agenda or not.

Terrorism does not entail the killing of civilians, not necessarily.
Iraq has **** all to do with this, neither does my 'agenda'.

 

[repiV]

Terrorism does not entail the killing of civilians, not necessarily.
Iraq has **** all to do with this, neither does my 'agenda'.

So the dictionary is lying, I suppose. It's a conspiracy among the corporate elite to conceal the true nobility of terrorism.

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


Iraq has everything to do with it - it's proof that your opinions and morals are completely inconsistent, and therefore have no weight under any circumstance.
Although the Falklands is perhaps even more useful to illustrate the point...here is a case of real oppression instead of the fantasy oppression you dream up in Iraq, and you actually support the oppressors and give no consideration to the islanders' self-determination at all!
You're a complete and utter hypocrite, and nobody takes you seriously not because of your left-wing extremist bullshit but because you contradict your own moral code all the bloody time, whilst also attaching such importance to moral issues.

 

[NeptuneUK]

So the dictionary is lying, I suppose. It's a conspiracy among the corporate elite to conceal the true nobility of terrorism.

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear


Iraq has everything to do with it - it's proof that your opinions and morals are completely inconsistent, and therefore have no weight under any circumstance.
Although the Falklands is perhaps even more useful to illustrate the point...here is a case of real oppression instead of the fantasy oppression you dream up in Iraq, and you actually support the oppressors and give no consideration to the islanders' self-determination at all!
You're a complete and utter hypocrite, and nobody takes you seriously not because of your left-wing extremist bullshit but because you contradict your own moral code all the bloody time, whilst also attaching such importance to moral issues.

Solaris could be a PM to make Blair proud.

 

[repiV]

Solaris could be a PM to make Blair proud.

He'd be more of a David Cameron I think.
Then again, David Cameron would make Blair proud so your point is taken.

 

[Solaris]

So the dictionary is lying, I suppose. It's a conspiracy among the corporate elite to conceal the true nobility of terrorism.

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Most online dictionaries don't include the civilian bit. 'The use of violence for political goals' is the definition I'm using.

 

[repiV]

Most online dictionaries don't include the civilian bit. 'The use of violence for political goals' is the definition I'm using.

'The use of violence for political goals' is a bullshit definition of terrorism. That would make every war in history an act of terrorism and every military force in the world a terrorist organisation.

 

[Solaris]

'The use of violence for political goals' is a bullshit definition of terrorism. That would make every war in history an act of terrorism and every military force in the world a terrorist organisation.

Funny that it's pretty much word for word the collins dictionary definition too.

But I couldn't give a **** for semantics.

 

[repiV]

Funny that it's pretty much word for word the collins dictionary definition too.

But I couldn't give a **** for semantics.

Well, in the spirit of not giving a **** for semantics, this ludicrous tangent of defining every military in the world as a terrorist group doesn't detract from your total hypocrisy.

 

[Solaris]

Well, in the spirit of not giving a **** for semantics, this ludicrous tangent of defining every military in the world as a terrorist group doesn't detract from your total hypocrisy.

Again,
I could not give a shit how you define them and it's the collins dictionary who use it too.
Where, may I ask did you get your definition?

 

[repiV]

Again,
I could not give a shit how you define them and it's the collins dictionary who use it too.

I thought you didn't give a **** for semantics, so why are you revisiting the topic?

Personally, I don't give a shit what you think the collins dictionary says, the definition you have given is clearly entirely incorrect. "Oh but the collins dictionary says so!!!1111" doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Where, may I ask did you get your definition?

dictionary.com

 

[Solaris]

Personally, I don't give a shit what you think the collins dictionary says, the definition you have given is clearly entirely incorrect. "Oh but the collins dictionary says so!!!1111" doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Amusing, my very definition appeared on the site you linked to.

In fact, out of all the definitions dictionary.com gives, most of them do not mention civilians.

You do not have to target civilians to be a terrorist.

 

[repiV]

Amusing, my very definition appeared on the site you linked to.

In fact, out of all the definitions dictionary.com gives, most of them do not mention civilians.

You do not have to target civilians to be a terrorist.

There is not a single definition there which resembles "the use of violence for political purposes". I suggest you get your reading glasses out, for you are clearly in need of them.

 

[Solaris]

There is not a single definition there which resembles "the use of violence for political purposes". I suggest you get your reading glasses out, for you are clearly in need of them.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion


the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

 

[repiV]

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

The main point here is that violence/threat of violence must be used to intimidate or coerce. The political purposes are entirely secondary.

the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

Note that the violence/threat must be unlawful, and specifies that it is generally against the state or the public (civilians, in either case).

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Again, intimidation, fear and coercion must come into play - and generally the use of force is unlawful.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

If you really think that the phrase "the use of violence for political purposes" adequately describes terrorism, you're a lot less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
The key is in the word "terror". Totally bleeding obvious, or at least it was before they dumbed down the edumucation system...
What's also totally bleeding obvious, that if "the use of violence for political purposes" defines terrorism, then fighting Germany in WW2 was terrorism, and David Cameron punching Gordon Brown in order to make him look weak would also be terrorism.
Complete bullshit, I'm sure you'll agree, and if you don't concede that your definition and/or interpretation of the dictionary definition is wrong, then I would suggest you go for Alastair Campbell's job when you're older. It would fit you like a glove.

 

[Solaris]

If you really think that the phrase "the use of violence for political purposes" adequately describes terrorism, you're a lot less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
The key is in the word "terror". Totally bleeding obvious, or at least it was before they dumbed down the edumucation system...
What's also totally bleeding obvious, that if "the use of violence for political purposes" defines terrorism, then fighting Germany in WW2 was terrorism, and David Cameron punching Gordon Brown in order to make him look weak would also be terrorism.
Complete bullshit, I'm sure you'll agree, and if you don't concede that your definition and/or interpretation of the dictionary definition is wrong, then I would suggest you go for Alastair Campbell's job when you're older. It would fit you like a glove.

Again, that is what the collins dictionary in my house says. Sorry for being an idiot for listening to the dictionary rather than you?

 

[repiV]

Again, that is what the collins dictionary in my house says. Sorry for being an idiot for listening to the dictionary rather than you?

Stop! Stop with the spin! It's doing my ****ing head in.

You quoted a number of definitions from dictionary.com and attempted to demonstrate that those definitions had the same meaning as "the use of violence for political purposes".
You are wrong.
You also claimed that one of those definitions is identical to the one in your Collins dictionary, therefore your Collins dictionary does not say "the use of violence for political purposes" - it says the same as one of the above quotes, which has an entirely different meaning.
So you are also a liar.

 

[Solaris]

Stop! Stop with the spin! It's doing my ****ing head in.

You quoted a number of definitions from dictionary.com and attempted to demonstrate that those definitions had the same meaning as "the use of violence for political purposes".
You are wrong.
You also claimed that one of those definitions is identical to the one in your Collins dictionary, therefore your Collins dictionary does not say "the use of violence for political purposes" - it says the same as one of the above quotes, which has an entirely different meaning.
So you are also a liar.

I was enjoying this thread till you came along, it really does not matter what we think terrorism means, my collins dictionary says this Terrorism The use of violence for political aims, I'll take a photo of it if you really care that much. But again, it doesn't matter, its not important

 

[repiV]

I was enjoying this thread till you came along,

And now you're not enjoying it because I'm jumping on your usual morally confused bullshit where you selectively justify terrible things and exaggerate other not so bad things into being far worse than they really are, depending on your agenda?
Unfortunately, unlike in your communist utopia, nothing in life is free - say stupid, morally repulsive and alarming shit and suffer the consequences.

it really does not matter what we think terrorism means, my collins dictionary says this Terrorism The use of violence for political aims, I'll take a photo of it if you really care that much. But again, it doesn't matter, its not important

So then why did you say this?

Amusing, my very definition appeared on the site you linked to.

You're a liar, in either case, because no such definition is on dictionary.com.
And even if your Collins dictionary does say, word for word, "the use of violence for political aims", it's clearly a bullshit definition that is so vague and wooly it is virtually meaningless. You only need to engage your brain to realise that.

Most amusing of all is that when I swept the definition aspect aside because you thought, rightly so, that we were getting hung up on semantics, what did you do? Reignite the semantics aspect of things!

As an afterthought, for someone so politically minded, if you base your entire perception of everything you stand for based on the technical aspect of what some stupid Collins dictionary in your house says and not on what your brain tells you, then it suggests you're WAY the hell out of your intellectual depth.

 

[Solaris]

And now you're not enjoying it because I'm jumping on your usual morally confused bullshit where you selectively justify terrible things and exaggerate other not so bad things into being far worse than they really are, depending on your agenda?
Unfortunately, unlike in your communist utopia, nothing in life is free - say stupid, morally repulsive and alarming shit and suffer the consequences.



So then why did you say this?



You're a liar, in either case, because no such definition is on dictionary.com.
And even if your Collins dictionary does say, word for word, "the use of violence for political aims", it's clearly a bullshit definition that is so vague and wooly it is virtually meaningless. You only need to engage your brain to realise that.

Most amusing of all is that when I swept the definition aspect aside because you thought, rightly so, that we were getting hung up on semantics, what did you do? Reignite the semantics aspect of things!

As an afterthought, for someone so politically minded, if you base your entire perception of everything you stand for based on the technical aspect of what some stupid Collins dictionary in your house says and not on what your brain tells you, then it suggests you're WAY the hell out of your intellectual depth.

I cannot be bothered arguing why I think my definition is inherent in the definitions on that site because it is pointless. You win! Congratulations! Whatever you say terrorism means is what it means! Enjoy your new found powers!

 

[repiV]

I cannot be bothered arguing why I think my definition is inherent in the definitions on that site because it is pointless. You win! Congratulations! Whatever you say terrorism means is what it means! Enjoy your new found powers!

Your definition cannot possibly be inherent in the definitions on the site - it is the other way around. Terrorism is much more specific than what you are claiming.
If we've got to this stage and you still can't see what anyone with half a brain and fluency in the English language should be able to understand, it's a pretty hollow victory. Although giving it to me certainly distracts from the much greater issue of your hypocrisy...bait and switch...

 

[NeptuneUK]

Thank god for the end of the ****ing retarded debate on semantics.
Solaris has left his blight on this thread.

 

[Sulkdodds]

To hell with the Collins bleeding dictionary.

Terrorism.

I am right and dictionaries are wrong LOLOLOL

 

[ríomhaire]

Stop debating ****ing dictionaries.

 

[Gray Fox]

Being a terrorist usually has more to do with being called one then strict definitions.

Though the IRA situation is a good example why each terrorist group should be judged on it's own merit, and a no negotiation policy is not always smart.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Being a terrorist usually has more to do with being called one then strict definitions.

Though the IRA situation is a good example why each terrorist group should be judged on it's own merit, and a no negotiation policy is not always smart.

I disagree, the no negotiation policy makes sense.
Terrorists typically use political influence as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts. If they are told that there will be no political negotiations on their behalf taking place... then they have no excuse to blow people up because it won't make any difference, they are just being bastards. Kapeesh?

 

[Gray Fox]

I disagree, the no negotiation policy makes sense.
Terrorists typically use political influence as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts. If they are told that there will be no political negotiations on their behalf taking place... then they have no excuse to blow people up because it won't make any difference, they are just being bastards. Kapeesh?

Clearly that is not true in practice since terrorism is still here and regularly being perpetrated against countries with such a policy.
While at the same time UK's stance of long negotiations has brought a long sought after peace between two groups.

The reason for that, as I see it is because, while the methods terrorist organizations may use may be cruel, their goals might be reasonable and in harmony with what the government wants or eventually comes to want.
Also the foundation and support for most terrorist organization comes from a genuine social inequity, discrimination and or suppression. People certainly do not take the decision to bomb and commit suicide lightheartedly.

Furthermore most of the time terrorist organization have the political or moral support of a lot of people who would not go as far as the organization themselves, and by sidestepping the organization and not negotiating with it, it may be impossible to get trough that particular population.

Something else to think about is the fact that even if we go by the strictest definitions of terrorism, a lot of western governments would fall in to that category. Which is basically another way of saying one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Because this majority who are mainly protestant have over the last 70years oppressed the catholic, republican, minority. They have denied catholics the vote, housing, civil rights.

That's not entirely true. While there was certainly a sectarian bias in the running of N. Ireland. Voting was only allowed for those who owned property, therefore working class protestants nor catholics could vote, and wealthy protestant landowners got more then 1 vote. Housing was generaly allocated to protestants over catholics, it was rather blatant sectarianism. Gerrymandering was also a blatant case of sectarianism.

The state has regularly conspired with loyalist terror mobs to murder catholics, the police a protestant organisation has helped them with this and has helped make lives for catholics a living hell. They do not have the right to do this, irrelevant if they are the majority.

I've never heard of state sponsered killings, but there was state sponsered brutality against catholics (and liberal protestants) on civil rights marches, generally why the B specials existed. Ironicaly the British army went into N.Ireland to 'maintain order' after the power of the RUC had been curtailed and the B specials disbanded, as Downing street saw they were out of control.

The NI is built on sectarianism, this is the only way it could survive as a British state. Britian have absolutely no right in Ireland or to do this to the Irish people.

The Irish Republican Army and similar republican organisations want the creation of a 32 county Ireland, this would encompass all of the Island of Ireland. An Ireland free from British interference and occupation.

Northern Ireland wasn't built on sectarianism, it is a product of it. prodestants and catholics have been kicking the shit out of eachother in Ireland for the last 800 years. Sectarianism is unfortunalty deeply rooted in N.Ireland. It was created to stop a civil war occuring in the 20's.

Also implying that the PIRA is there to 'protect' catholics is deeply offensive to the vast majortiy of N.Irish catholics. Which I may add is just as offensive to protestants to imply the UDA 'protect' them.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The vast majority of people on the Island of Ireland want independence from the UK.

The Majority of people on the Ireland of Ireland would like to see a full 32county Ireland, Britain currently holds onto 4counties (Northern Ireland)which, becuase of partition is sectarian to the bone.

Firstly most southerners don't want Northern Ireland, while the majoriy of the N.Irish populace don't want to join the Republic. An avid republican as yourself should know that NI is 6 counties.

I respect those who fought for a 32 county Ireland, it was groups such as the IRA that brought the peace process into gear. Now a united Ireland can be achieved through political means and armed struggle is no longer necessary.

WTF, without the PIRA there would have been no troubles, for a peace process to be necessary. If you really think a 3,500 thousand men, women and children dead for nothing is admirable, then you are a seriously sick individual. The PIRA achieved nothing other then cement british interest in NI. Like the falklands, the british governmanet had little interest in NI, now however a united is next to impossible.

 

[15357]

To hell with the Collins bleeding dictionary.

Terrorism.

I am right and dictionaries are wrong LOLOLOL

;(


I still say V is a terrorist, hellbent on destruction of order.



Anyway, lol @ this thread.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I've got a new way of deciding my stance on a political issue:
The correct stance is the opposite of whatever Solaris believes.

Thank God for Half Life 2 . net.

 

[Solaris]

That's not entirely true. While there was certainly a sectarian bias in the running of N. Ireland. Voting was only allowed for those who owned property, therefore working class protestants nor catholics could vote, and wealthy protestant landowners got more then 1 vote. Housing was generaly allocated to protestants over catholics, it was rather blatant sectarianism. Gerrymandering was also a blatant case of sectarianism.

I did actually explain that in the bit you didn't quote.

I've never heard of state sponsered killings, but there was state sponsered brutality against catholics (and liberal protestants) on civil rights marches, generally why the B specials existed. Ironicaly the British army went into N.Ireland to 'maintain order' after the power of the RUC had been curtailed and the B specials disbanded, as Downing street saw they were out of control.

It's well documented the Army intelligence fed information to loyalist mobs to commit killings and such I can elaborate on this point if need be.

Northern Ireland wasn't built on sectarianism, it is a product of it. prodestants and catholics have been kicking the shit out of eachother in Ireland for the last 800 years. Sectarianism is unfortunalty deeply rooted in N.Ireland. It was created to stop a civil war occuring in the 20's.

Yes it was. Without the protestant majority in the north Britain would never have been able to hold onto it. The state was founded on it, with catholics being sub-citizens right from the start with the state conspiring against them.

Also implying that the PIRA is there to 'protect' catholics is deeply offensive to the vast majortiy of N.Irish catholics. Which I may add is just as offensive to protestants to imply the UDA 'protect' them.

The PIRA was there to protect anybody who was being oppressed by the occupying British army and the illegitimate state it supported. The fact is, if groups like the IRA didn't exist, catholics would remain sub-citizens, the IRA forced the issues out onto the world stage and got the peace process running, Britian would never consider negotiations with republicans if they didn't have the will and ability to wage war within NI.

Firstly most southerners don't want Northern Ireland, while the majoriy of the N.Irish populace don't want to join the Republic. An avid republican as yourself should know that NI is 6 counties.

Poll please, I don't believe that.
And even if that is true, as James Connolly said:

Believing that the British Government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland, and never can have any right in Ireland, the presence, in any one generation of Irishmen, of even a respectable minority, ready to die to affirm that truth, makes that Government for ever a usurpation and a crime against human progress.

 

[Mr Stabby]

It's well documented the Army intelligence fed information to loyalist mobs to commit killings and such I can elaborate on this point if need be.

Never happened in the Northern Irish state 1921-1968, the british involvement 1969-1994 is a different matter.

Yes it was. Without the protestant majority in the north Britain would never have been able to hold onto it. The state was founded on it, with catholics being sub-citizens right from the start with the state conspiring against them.

Wrong, bare in mind when N.Ireland was created Brtian owned a quarter of the world. It was created to prevent a civil war (which they mnost definaltey would have been). Sectarian discrimination towards catholics started hundreds of years previous to N. Irelands existence.

The PIRA was there to protect anybody who was being oppressed by the occupying British army and the illegitimate state it supported. The fact is, if groups like the IRA didn't exist, catholics would remain sub-citizens, the IRA forced the issues out onto the world stage and got the peace process running, Britian would never consider negotiations with republicans if they didn't have the will and ability to wage war within NI.

Thats nonsense. Never heard of NICRA, Sunningdale People's democracy, Terence O'Neill's reforms.

Had the IRA not emerged, right-wing unionist wouldn't have been able to bring down the sunningdale executive through IRA fear mongering. Basically Ian Paisley built his career off the IRA.

Poll please, I don't believe that.
And even if that is true, as James Connolly said:

I can't find it online but it's definatley true.

What James Connolly said is irrelvent. the democratic majority want to remain part of the UK. Regardless of how or why N.Ireland was created, it exists, and only the people that live in Northern Ireland should decide northern Ireland's future.

 

[Solaris]

Never happened in the Northern Irish state 1921-1968, the british involvement 1969-1994 is a different matter.

Thats what I'm talking about.

Wrong, bare in mind when N.Ireland was created Brtian owned a quarter of the world. It was created to prevent a civil war (which they mnost definaltey would have been). Sectarian discrimination towards catholics started hundreds of years previous to N. Irelands existence.

When Britian owned all of Ireland.

Thats nonsense. Never heard of NICRA, Sunningdale People's democracy, Terence O'Neill's reforms.

Yes, such groups never made the issues priorities in the British government because they didn't fight for what they wanted. While the NICRA was admirable, I far more admire the IRA's actions in the creation of free derry.

Had the IRA not emerged, right-wing unionist wouldn't have been able to bring down the sunningdale executive through IRA fear mongering. Basically Ian Paisley built his career off the IRA.

Probably, but sectarianism would have still have ran rife in the region.

I can't find it online but it's definatley true.

Nowhere near true:

"A 1999 survey found 86% of Irish voters still wanted to unite the island - despite a massive "Yes" vote in the May 1998 referendum approving the Good Friday agreement, which required the republic to renounce its constitutional claim on the north."Source

What James Connolly said is irrelvent. the democratic majority want to remain part of the UK. Regardless of how or why N.Ireland was created, it exists, and only the people that live in Northern Ireland should decide northern Ireland's future.

No they shouldn't, it is part of Ireland and the Irish people should decide it's future.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Thats what I'm talking about.

British involvement is not relevant to NI civil rights, Northern Ireland was self governing, before the troubles.

When Britian owned all of Ireland.

Irrelevant

Yes, such groups never made the issues priorities in the British government because they didn't fight for what they wanted. While the NICRA was admirable, I far more admire the IRA's actions in the creation of free derry.

Cviil rights reforms started in 1968, they achieved their aim, the provos achieved none of their aims (except killing people).

Probably, but sectarianism would have still have ran rife in the region.

sectarianism is from very vocal minorities on both sides, they need popular backing to do anything, the PIRA was vanguard unionism/Paisley's election ticket.

Nowhere near true:

"A 1999 survey found 86% of Irish voters still wanted to unite the island - despite a massive "Yes" vote in the May 1998 referendum approving the Good Friday agreement, which required the republic to renounce its constitutional claim on the north."Source

No where does that state they would be willing to overlook the wishes of the north's democratic majority.

No they shouldn't, it is part of Ireland and the Irish people should decide it's future.

That's not democratic, if Cornwall wished to leave the UK, would it be up to the Cornish or all the English?

 

[Solaris]

British involvement is not relevant to NI civil rights, Northern Ireland was self governing, before the troubles.

Of course it is related! The NI state could not have existed without British involvement, it was propped up by the British government. The loyalist majority of Northern Ireland kept catholics in there place, because northern Ireland is so sectarian, sectarianism will always exist inside of it as long as we allow it to remain a state on its own.

Irrelevant

Not at all, again the British perpetuated anti-catholic discrimination because catholics were largely Irish nationalists.

Cviil rights reforms started in 1968, they achieved their aim, the provos achieved none of their aims (except killing people).

I disagree, they forced the brutality of the British occupation onto the world stage, they made everyone aware of what Britain was doing and then when the time was right they went into politics. They have achieved creating a voice for the republican peoples of Northern Ireland backed up by the threat of violence if the British government deny them political power like they have in the past.

sectarianism is from very vocal minorities on both sides, they need popular backing to do anything, the PIRA was vanguard unionism/Paisley's election ticket.

I agree.

No where does that state they would be willing to overlook the wishes of the north's democratic majority.

Thats NOT what you said, nice attempt to backtrack. And I assume they do, in the context of a democratic decision of Irish men, not just those in the North.

That's not democratic, if Cornwall wished to leave the UK, would it be up to the Cornish or all the English?

It's too small to be a functioning separate state and so should be up to the English people to decide.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Of course it is related! The NI state could not have existed without British involvement, it was propped up by the British government. The loyalist majority of Northern Ireland kept catholics in there place, because northern Ireland is so sectarian, sectarianism will always exist inside of it as long as we allow it to remain a state on its own.

Not at all, again the British perpetuated anti-catholic discrimination because catholics were largely Irish nationalists.

Wrong, NI was autonomous the british were never involved in NI from 1921 until 1969. Sectarianism today is effectively gone except for a few trouble spots full of chavs. I suggest you learn Northern Irish history better.

I disagree, they forced the brutality of the British occupation onto the world stage, they made everyone aware of what Britain was doing and then when the time was right they went into politics. They have achieved creating a voice for the republican peoples of Northern Ireland backed up by the threat of violence if the British government deny them political power like they have in the past.

Britsh occupation? British soldiers were sent into NI as it became apperant that the RUC was sectarian and incapable of maintaining law and order properly. Before internment most catholics welcomed the british army, as they kept the peace impartially. They only stayed becuase the PIRA had emerged. Events like bloody sunday highlighted themselves, the IRA did nothing of benefit to catholics in NI. They infact made things worse, as they deepened they sectarian divide, led to the creation of the UDA, and IRA car bombs were not exclusive to protestants areas.

Thats NOT what you said, nice attempt to backtrack. And I assume they do, in the context of a democratic decision of Irish men, not just those in the North.

I did say that, nice attempt to backtrack...

It's too small to be a functioning separate state and so should be up to the English people to decide.

That's a stupid argument

 

[Solaris]

Wrong, NI was autonomous the british were never involved in NI from 1921 until 1969. Sectarianism today is effectively gone except for a few trouble spots full of chavs. I suggest you learn Northern Irish history better.

It was 'protected by Britian'. Had the Irish republic invaded Britain would have attacked it.

Britsh occupation? British soldiers were sent into NI as it became apperant that the RUC was sectarian and incapable of maintaining law and order properly. Before internment most catholics welcomed the british army, as they kept the peace impartially. They only stayed becuase the PIRA had emerged. Events like bloody sunday highlighted themselves, the IRA did nothing of benefit to catholics in NI. They infact made things worse, as they deepened they sectarian divide, led to the creation of the UDA, and IRA car bombs were not exclusive to protestants areas.

Loyalist mobs had always existed. Catholics lived in poverty and lived under loyalist terror, they got no support from the police or the army from this, both actively colluded with these groups. The IRA forced the British government to debate the legitimacy of what they were doing.

I did say that, nice attempt to backtrack...

No, you clearly didn't.

 

[Mr Stabby]

It was 'protected by Britian'. Had the Irish republic invaded Britain would have attacked it.

NI was still autonomous, defence has nothing to do with domestic policy

Loyalist mobs had always existed. Catholics lived in poverty and lived under loyalist terror, they got no support from the police or the army from this, both actively colluded with these groups. The IRA forced the British government to debate the legitimacy of what they were doing.

Not true, loyalist mobs existed in the early 20's and late 60's and sporadically at those times, neither were they ever big enough to threaten the entire NI catholic population. Irish protestants aren't as bad as you think. The police and army did support catholics most of the time, but on a number of occasions the RUC turned a blind eye to loyalist mobs, and the B special reservists were quickly disbanded when it was reliazed how sectarian they were. The British government say they were entirely right in how the IRA were dealt with, and that the British army won.

No, you clearly didn't.

I clearly did

Firstly most southerners don't want Northern Ireland, while the majoriy of the N.Irish populace don't want to join the Republic. An avid republican as yourself should know that NI is 6 counties.

 

[Solaris]

NI was still autonomous, defence has nothing to do with domestic policy

It does, because they created the state so they are responsible for what it did.

Not true, loyalist mobs existed in the early 20's and late 60's and sporadically at those times, neither were they ever big enough to threaten the entire NI catholic population. Irish protestants aren't as bad as you think. The police and army did support catholics most of the time, but on a number of occasions the RUC turned a blind eye to loyalist mobs, and the B special reservists were quickly disbanded when it was reliazed how sectarian they were. The British government say they were entirely right in how the IRA were dealt with, and that the British army won.

Perhaps they did win, but the fight is not other, it's moved to the political arena.

I clearly did

Ah, I thought you were making two claims, not a condition of the first.

 

[Mr Stabby]

It does, because they created the state so they are responsible for what it did.

The British did put pressure on the NI government to reform, when it failed to do so, the british intervened and dissolved Stormount. The PIRA ironically only became active when the British government involved itself in NI affairs to sort out the sectarianism.

Perhaps they did win, but the fight is not other, it's moved to the political arena.

There was never any justification for any of the violence, it should have been political from the start (which was certainly possible atleast as early as 1973), the SDLP are a nationalist party which seek a united Ireland, through exclusively peaceful and democractic means since the 60's, the issue hasn't gone political it always has been.