SF now the largest political party in the north.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If we agree that Mandela is not a terrorist then how is it hypocritical of me to suggest that no terrorist should be in power ? Sure some people will say he was a terrorist but some people say Brian Cowen is a traitor.

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So it's irrelevant who you think should be in power and who shouldn't. The fact of the matter is Mandela was called a terrorist by the same right-wing media outlets that would label McGuinness a terrorist. They both engaged in the exact same activities. One was oppressed for their colour, the other was oppressed for their political beliefs. Being oppressed for either is fundamentally wrong.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As i've said in my last post, which you ignored one can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of people living in the Falls Road/Shankill Road ones address but one cannot change ones skin colour. That is why I consider your comparison sinister.

I haven't ignored it. It wasn't even worth discussing, as it's an absurd point. You are suggesting that someone should have to change their political beliefs, as a means of convenience. That's fascism. It's moot whether or not someone can change their skin colour. The main point is that people are oppressed for something which is core to them.

DoireNod

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know what you are trying to say. And I believe that I have covered that above but I'm quoting this passage purely for the last sentence. I just want to be sure to put that to bed.

Of course there is a hierarchy of discrimination. The Holocaust was discrimination but on a much worse scale then what we saw in NI or South Africa.

This is your problem then. Severity of discrimination may vary from place to place, but there is no hierarchy of discrimination. The fact remains that Blacks in SA were treated similarly to how Irish Catholics were in the Orange state. As such, there is solidarity.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So it's irrelevant who you think should be in power and who shouldn't. The fact of the matter is Mandela was called a terrorist by the same right-wing media outlets that would label McGuinness a terrorist. They both engaged in the exact same activities. One was oppressed for their colour, the other was oppressed for their political beliefs. Being oppressed for either is fundamentally wrong.

That is a nonsensical statment that I should call Mandela a terrororist because "some right wing media outlets" label him so.

Nevertheless being opressed for political belifes is not the same thing as being opressed by colour. Granted being opressed in any sense is wrong but as I've said before one can change ones political belifes, one cannot change ones colour.

dlofnep wrote: »

I haven't ignored it. It wasn't even worth discussing, as it's an absurd point.

Newsflash, that is ignoring.

dlofnep wrote: »

You are suggesting that someone should have to change their political beliefs, as a means of convenience. That's fascism. It's moot whether or not someone can change their skin colour. The main point is that people are oppressed for something which is core to them.

Here is a quote from wikipedia on what facists believe:

wikipedia wrote:

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong

Sound anything like nationalists in the North ?

Iwasfrozen

DoireNod wrote: »

This is your problem then.

What is my problem ?

DoireNod wrote: »

Severity of discrimination may vary from place to place, but there is no hierarchy of discrimination. The fact remains that Blacks in SA were treated similarly to how Irish Catholics were in the Orange state. As such, there is solidarity.

Yes there is, you've said it yourself the severity of discrimination varies from place to place. The more severe the discrimination the worse it is.

DoireNod

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes there is, you've said it yourself the severity of discrimination varies from place to place. The more severe the discrimination the worse it is.

The difference is, I don't consider the discrimination in the North to be any less wrong than other more severe cases of discrimination, which you appear to be saying when you claim that there exists a hierarchy of discrimination.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That is a nonsensical statment that I should call Mandela a terrororist because "some right wing media outlets" label him so.

Define terrorism.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nevertheless being opressed for political belifes is not the same thing as being opressed by colour. Granted being opressed in any sense is wrong but as I've said before one can change ones political belifes, one cannot change ones colour.

It's the exact same thing. It's irrelevant why someone is being oppressed - the same outcome exists. Your suggestion that they could/should have just casually changed their political affiliation is asinine.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Newsflash, that is ignoring.

Actually, it isn't. I acknowledged your point (not ignored your point), but felt it was so absurd, that it didn't warrant a response.

Winty

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

snow ghost

Winty wrote: »

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

Well they did say they wanted to take the gun out of Irish politics.

dlofnep

Winty wrote: »

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.

Not really - Banning the hunting of animals for fun has no correlation to using physical force resistance against a Government that upheld gerrymandered votes, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, and protected (and rewarded) soldiers who murdered civilians.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Northern Ireland is divided purely on Sectarian/Cultural grounds unlike in South Africa. People can change their political/religious belifes and in the case of those living in Falls Road/Shankill Road change address. One cannot however change their race.

Your comparison of Catholics in NI to black people in South Africa is not only incorrect, it is damm right sinister.

It is really not that simple. When you say Roman Catholics in the north you're really refering to people of native Irish decent. When you refer to Protestants you're refering to people of ulster plantation decent.

Catholic and Protestant are simply markers for ethnicity required because its difficult to tell native/planter decendents apart on looks alone.

So same race but slightly different ethnicity. My opinion is it was a lot closer to a racial conflict than a sectarian one. In most conflicts that's the case, look at Iraq - Sunni/Shia violence described as sectarian violence but its really down to ancestry. On the surface the conflict between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria might be a "proper" sectarian conflict but it really wouldn't surprise me if ethnicity is the real issue

So the comparisons with South Africa stand, and I don't know what you mean by describing them as sinister.

Winty

dlofnep wrote: »

Not really - Banning the hunting of animals for fun has no correlation to using physical force resistance against a Government that upheld gerrymandered votes, Blaaaa Blaaaa Blaaa

Ya your right, we needed to stop all them people in Enniskillen and Omagh from all that bad stuff they did

Bottle_of_Smoke

On the whole "terrorist" issue. That's a word that basically has no meaning these days. Both ANC/IRA used terror as a tactic, so by the proper definition yes Mandela/McGuinness were terrorists.

snow ghost

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Care to cite me the skin colour bars in the penal laws?

This was your original comment, you made no mention to skin colour, so why bring it up now instead of responding to the response I gave you:

“There were no entitlements or curbs on personal freedom based on race in Ireland ever.”

Discrimination and racism is not only a skin colour issue, years ago when scientists believed in different races some people in power viewed the Irish as basically a white simian sub-species.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Grow up, people. You didn't live through Apartheid. It's not the West Bank either. Your constant attempts to equate the chequered and in many cases monstrous history of your movement with the likes of Mandela is beyond risible. It's contemptible.

I’m neither a republican nor a SF supporter, as an objective observer - like much of the World - I can indeed equate apartheid in South Africa with what has happened in Ireland and see siilarities. And as I pointed out earlier - but you have conveniently not addressed - so have members of the ANC and Mandela (see qoutes below, again), so could you kindly explain how the ANC and Mandella are indulging in MOPERY?
　
"Kathrada [ANC Hunger striker at the ceremony] added that the hunger strike by IRA political prisoners was an inspiration for prisoners on Robben Island which made them feel more determined to win their struggle."

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.ph...3926876I650891
　
Nelson Mandella: “… We recognise in the possibility you have thus given us the reaffirmation by the Members of this House and the great Irish people whom you represent, of your complete rejection of the apartheid crime against humanity, your support for our endeavours to transform South Africa into a united, democratic, non-racial and nonsexist country, your love and respect for our movement and the millions of people it represents. We know that the joy with which you have received us and the respect for our dignity you have demonstrated, come almost as second nature to a people who were themselves victims of colonial rule for centuries.

We know that your desire that the disenfranchised of our country should be heard in this House and throughout Ireland derives from your determination, born of your experience, that our people should, like yourselves, be free to govern themselves and to determine their destiny. The warm feeling that envelops us as we stand here is therefore but the affinity which belongs to peoples who have suffered in common and who are tied together by unbreakable bonds of friendship and solidarity.

The very fact that there is today an independent Irish State, however long it took to realise the noble goals of the Irish people by bringing it into being, confirms that we too shall become a free people; we too shall have a country which will, as the great Irish patriots said in the proclamation of 1916, cherish all the children of the nation equally."

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28

owenc

Winty wrote: »

Having Sinn Fein as the largest party in the North is bad for people who support country sports.

First this group of ex-IRA killers from the inner city want to ban blood sports, next on the hit list is all shooting and hunting.

Its funny that people you used the Gun to gain power want to ban it.


http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln090304.htm

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them... That's the exact same thing that my dad said

snow ghost

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

On the whole "terrorist" issue. That's a word that basically has no meaning these days. Both ANC/IRA used terror as a tactic, so by the proper definition yes Mandela/McGuinness were terrorists.

Most nation's armies use terror as a tactic - e.g. the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima, the Carpet bombing of Dresden in WWII. Both designed to terrorise the enemy into submssion. The US airforce general in WWII stated that their carpet bombing strategy in Germany and Japan was designed for this purpose and he admitted that if they had lost WWII he and the British airforce general would have been tried for war crimes. That's the cruel and horrible reality of war and conflict.

The word terrorist tends to be have a semantic meaning these day to suit the beliefs of whoever is using it.

Durng the ANC's campaign many people did deem him a terrorist, in retrospect many now see he was fighting a just war.

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them

No, they should be voting for whomever they feel serves their interests best. In this case, it's Sinn Féin. That's democracy, and you don't get to dictate who people should and shouldn't vote for.

Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

Winty

dlofnep wrote: »

n't vote for. Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

karma_

owenc wrote: »

Totally agree with you they are a bad lot and people should be voting sdlp not them... That's the exact same thing that my dad said

You can't 'tell' people who or who they can't vote for, that's the polar opposite of democracy and a fairly idiotic thing to say.

DoireNod

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to elaborate upon that rather bold statement?

*Assuming you mean Ulster Unionists in the broad sense.

karma_

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

the UUP don't have a single seat and the SDLP is losing it's voter base year on year. Yes, in an ideal world the UUP and SDLP would be the 2 main parties but we have to accept that the DUP and SF are now the most supported parties in the North and get over it.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they should be voting for whomever they feel serves their interests best. In this case, it's Sinn Féin. That's democracy, and you don't get to dictate who people should and shouldn't vote for.

Out of curiosity - which unionist party do you suggest unionists might vote for?

Ulster unionists my dad voted for them... They are the only sensible ones I feel the dup are bigoted.. I hate them there's just something about that boy Robinson that I hate... I feel that the dup and sf are just having a competition to see who gets highest as anyone i've asked says oh im Protestant i'm catholic.. they don't actually have a reason... People need to get over it!! Maybe bringing conservatives and other uk parties will stop that..

Winty

karma_ wrote: »

in an ideal world the UUP and SDLP would be the 2 main parties .

A man must live in hope that others will follow

snow ghost

Taking the history of the troubles and the United Ireland versus UK iissue out of the equation, if I lived in the North I'd want to have the likes of Martin McGuinness or Paisley Jnr representing me - they will get more from London for the North than all of the SDLP or UUP could ever. The government don't relish having to deal with them - they are good at what they do.

All Durkan used to do was cry that the British and Irish governments didn't listen to him - that says it all.

karma_

owenc wrote: »

Ulster unionists my dad voted for them... They are the only sensible ones I feel the dup are bigoted.. I hate them there's just something about that boy Robinson that I hate

In fairness to the DUP, I do feel they have somewhat mellowed over the years. It's teh TUV who are the danger, hopefully they will not garner any popular support.

Winty

DoireNod wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to elaborate upon that rather bold statement?

*Assuming you mean Ulster Unionists in the broad sense.

What is bold about supporting SDLP and UUP, they dont have blood on their hands so they are the best hope the lead both communities.

Bottle_of_Smoke

snow ghost wrote: »

Most nation's armies use terror as a tactic - e.g. the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima, the Carpet bombing of Dresden in WWII. Both designed to terrorise the enemy into submssion. The US airforce general in WWII stated that their carpet bombing strategy in Germany and Japan was designed for this purpose and he admitted that if they had lost WWII he and the British airforce general would have been tried for war crimes. That's the cruel and horrible reality of war and conflict.

The word terrorist tends to be have a semantic meaning these day to suit the beliefs of whoever is using it.

Durng the ANC's campaign many people did deem him a terrorist, in retrospect many now see he was fighting a just war.

I see what you're saying, its difficult to seperate it from any war really. I use it for mostly for guerilla warfare and my use of the term has no bearing on whether I feel the war is just or not.

Like say the IRA attack on Bishopsgate and the July 05 attacks on the london underground were both in my opinion acts of terrorism, though I'd condemn the latter a lot more than the former.

dlofnep

Winty wrote: »

The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists are the only hope for long term peace and jobs for the future

You're joking, right?

The UUP didn't get a single seat in the elections. They are counter-productive to peace, and are irrelevant at present. The SDLP will be soon joining them as they continue to slip.

snow ghost

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I see what you're saying, its difficult to seperate it from any war really. I use it for mostly for guerilla warfare and my use of the term has no bearing on whether I feel the war is just or not.

Like say the IRA attack on Bishopsgate and the July 05 attacks on the london underground were both in my opinion acts of terrorism, though I'd condemn the latter a lot more than the former.

I see your pont Bottle of Smoke, personally I usually define it the following way:

If there is an armed conflct in a country over legitimate grievances then I'd usually term the unconventional combatants 'guerillas', e.g. the ANC.

If there are a group of unconventional combatants with no legitimate or dubious grievances outside a specified territory or their indigenous homeland I usually define them as terrorists. e.g. Those involved in 9/11

The former is based on a right to equality and self-determination. The latter is based on hatred.

owenc

dlofnep wrote: »

You're joking, right?

The UUP didn't get a single seat in the elections. They are counter-productive to peace, and are irrelevant at present. The SDLP will be soon joining them as they continue to slip.

That's because the people of northern Ireland are just voting over religion!!! They need new parties or bring in uk parties and dump them ones to stop that whole religion **** I mean for god sake get over it!!!

dlofnep

owenc wrote: »

That's because the people of northern Ireland are just voting over religion!!! They need new parties or bring in uk parties and dump them ones to stop that whole religion **** I mean for god sake get over it!!!

Your ignorance is astounding. You lack any understanding of democracy, and any understanding of the political differences in the north (and I assure you, religion has nothing to do with it).