Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

It established the right to aspire to a United Ireland.
How do you 'Unite' something that hasn't been 'partitioned'?

Ask the United States of America.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

Must ignore troll.

alastair wrote: »

Run along now. You've become boring.

alastair wrote: »

Wind and baggery.

Is this necessary?

guinnessdrinker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ask the United States of America.

Or Yugoslavia.

Godge

Karl Stein wrote: »

So if the Scotland wants to leave the union and a group of (let's call them) Scotlanders concentrated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banffshire, Kincardinshire, Moray and Nairnshire decided they'd ship in 25 thousand rifles and threaten a campaign of mass terrorism against the entire population of Scotland if they didn't get to stay within the union you'd say 'well, there's nothing wrong with that'.

Up the garden with you and your mental gymnastics..

You quoted a third of a sentence and then came up with that rubbish. Mental gymnastics by taking a phrase out of context, unbelievable.

The full sentence read:

"You see, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with partition, neither is there anything intrinsically wrong with a United Ireland, not even anything wrong with the South rejoining the UK. It is the will of the people who decide these things."


You can apply the same thing to anywhere. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sub-division of any country by democratic means. Look at Italy or Spain which used to be sub-divided and are now united. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the partition of Spain so long as that is democratically supported. The fact is that the majority of the people in this island voted in the most recent referendum on the subject (Good Friday Agreement) to maintain partition. Remember we amended Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution to that effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[2] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution."

It makes very interesting reading. The reality of partition is recognised and it is accepted that it can continue for however long the people of Northern Ireland wish it to continue.

Karl Stein wrote: »

Oh and you should drop the 'IRA-surrendered-its-weapons' line - it's infantile and embarrassing besides being wrong.

Ok, the fact is the IRA surrendered their weapons to the Decommissioning Body who oversaw the destruction of those weapons. Your problem is that you equate the use of the word "surrender" with "surrendering to the British" and like many Republicans can't acknowledge that the IRA saw that the game was up, support for terrorism was dwindling and they were going nowhere. In order to deal with your sensitivities about the issue, I will use the phrase "the IRA gave up their weapons". The language is more neutral and shouldn't offend you so much.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sub-division of any country by democratic means.

I've omitted the flood of text that doesn't address my point. Partition was achieved by the threat of mass terrorism so I don't know why you're invoking democracy.

Ok, the fact is the IRA surrendered their weapons to the Decommissioning Body who oversaw the destruction of those weapons.

The IRA decommissioned its weapons on foot of a political settlement of the conflict. Honestly, you should drop this 'na na n-naa na the IRA lost the troubles' silliness.

Your problem is that you equate the use of the word "surrender" with "surrendering to the British"

I do? Cool story.

and like many Republicans can't acknowledge that the IRA saw that the game was up, support for terrorism was dwindling and they were going nowhere.

The IRA disbanded because the reasons for the conflict began to evaporate and the mad dogs of Unionism were brought to heel by the British. See: Drumcree 1998.

In order to deal with your sensitivities about the issue, I will use the phrase "the IRA gave up their weapons". The language is more neutral and shouldn't offend you so much.

The whole decommissioning thing was little but a Unionist created farce anyway. The demand for decommissioning was dropped by John Major after the docklands bomb and the PP was restarted.

Think about that. Fertilizer bombs. The PIRA's most destructive weapon was the truck bomb which caused billions of pounds worth of damage in Britain in the 1990's - you can't decommission fertilizer.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Partition was achieved by the threat of mass terrorism...

...and we all know that using violence or the threat of violence to force political change is morally wrong.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and we all know that using violence or the threat of violence to force political change is morally wrong.

Tell that to the French resistance.

oscarBravo

Karl Stein wrote: »

Tell that to the French resistance.

Sorry, I forgot. Violence is wrong, except when it's not. When it is wrong, it's OK to get all preachy about how only violence can solve the problems that violence caused.

Carry on.

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

Tell that to the French resistance.

You seem rather conflicted on this subject. Flip-flopping comes to mind.

Godge

Karl Stein wrote: »

I've omitted the flood of text that doesn't address my point. Partition was achieved by the threat of mass terrorism so I don't know why you're invoking democracy.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't matter how when or why in the past that partition was achieved. What matters is that it has been democratically accepted by the majority of people living on this island.

You and others are free to campaign peacefully to change that, but this idea that partition is wrong because of the way in which it was achieved is just arguing about history and has no bearing on what should happen today. It is about time that those who are advocating an end to partition produced an argument for a United Ireland other than partition is wrong because it is wrong. It gets you nowhere.

Karl Stein wrote: »

The IRA decommissioned its weapons on foot of a political settlement of the conflict. Honestly, you should drop this 'na na n-naa na the IRA lost the troubles' silliness. .

The IRA decommissioned its weapons. We are agreed.

Karl Stein wrote: »

The IRA disbanded because the reasons for the conflict began to evaporate and the mad dogs of Unionism were brought to heel by the British. See: Drumcree 1998.

So the mad dogs of Unionism were brought to heel by the British but the IRA never gave up their weapons. Yes, logical that.

Karl Stein wrote: »

The whole decommissioning thing was little but a Unionist created farce anyway. The demand for decommissioning was dropped by John Major after the docklands bomb and the PP was restarted. .

It happened, it was embarrassing for the IRA, again like partition, no point arguing about why or how, it just happened. The conflict is over, the IRA has no more weapons. I am happy with that, we have peace, what is wrong with that?

Karl Stein wrote: »

Think about that. Fertilizer bombs. The PIRA's most destructive weapon was the truck bomb which caused billions of pounds worth of damage in Britain in the 1990's - you can't decommission fertilizer.

We are back to the indiscriminate targetting and killing of civilians now, are we?

twowheelsgood

R P McMurphy wrote: »

When was partition democratically mandated by the people of this island?

On what basis do you assume that the people of this island were the rightful authority to be consulted? Why not the existing state (UK of GB & I) at the time? Why not mandates from the separate traditions?

Once again we see the notion that geography should decide mandates and the failure to appreciate that there is a fundamental question here, the answer to which is not self evident.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

As I have pointed out repeatedly, it doesn't matter how when or why in the past that partition was achieved.

So if the Scotland wants to leave the union and a group of (let's call them) Scotlanders concentrated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banffshire, Kincardinshire, Moray and Nairnshire decided they'd ship in 25 thousand rifles and threaten a campaign of mass terrorism against the entire population of Scotland if they didn't get to stay within the union you'd say 'well, there's nothing wrong with that'.

Up the garden with you and your mental gymnastics.

So the mad dogs of Unionism were brought to heel by the British but the IRA never gave up their weapons. Yes, logical that.

The IRA decommissioned its weapons (which itself was a farce seeing as the fertilizer bomb was their most destructive weapon) as part of a peace settlement. The mad dogs of unionism were brought to heel because the British had had enough of the north and the troubles was beginning to harm Britain. See: PIRA bombing campaign 1990's.

It happened, it was embarrassing for the IRA,

Yes, yes you're back to the 'na na n-naa na the IRA lost the troubles ha ha h-ha haa'. How puerile of you.

The conflict is over, the IRA has no more weapons. I am happy with that, we have peace, what is wrong with that?

Are you arguing with yourself now?

We are back to the indiscriminate targetting and killing of civilians now, are we?

I think your reading comprehension is letting you down. I was simply highlighting the farce of decommissioning in the context of the fertilizer bomb.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

So what? My point is that the party we are talking about are 'clinging to the past'.

So what Alatair, have you made some big discovery because the party's constitution mentions 1800.
I think the whole world knows who the dinosaurs are and have been.
I'm done with yet another of your cul-de-sac arguments.

Most people really don't care, and are focussed on what people want now.

Enough people care about what SF are about to elect them as the biggest nationalist party in NI and to continue growing the party in the south. Must worry unionists that that constitution also says 'Tiocaigh Ár La' and that they are not dealing with the rollover SDLP.

Aspirations don't generally have anything to do with rights, and I didn't see anything stopping those aspirations for years beforehand.

Well at least you won't be harrassed for it or have your door kicked down in the middle of the night etc etc...that's something I suppose.

It was only united under British rule in the first place. I'm guessing that's not what you're aiming for? My point, which I'm sure you understood, was that the issue is now entirely framed by the principle of consent - and all the historical baggage is essentially irrelevant - despite the SF obsession with it.

Always was imo, first we had to get the British to stop meddling in our affairs. They are now neutral on the issue, so we'll see when the people vote.

Yep - because everyone else moved on years ago. Someone has to be the noteworthy dead-enders I guess.

I remember a time on here when a republican would get ripped out of it for saying 'move on'. :rolleyes:

Better late than never.


Not really.


I'm sure they're not, because it's not actually the case.

You should get out more, or read some international press, all the world gets to see is Unionists throwing stones.
A 1st year public relations student would be able to tell you how damaging that is when you want something.

You've some imagination. Best of luck with that.

As I supected, you haven't read the GFA.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

So if the Scotland wants to leave the union and a group of (let's call them) Scotlanders concentrated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Banffshire, Kincardinshire, Moray and Nairnshire decided they'd ship in 25 thousand rifles and threaten a campaign of mass terrorism against the entire population of Scotland if they didn't get to stay within the union you'd say 'well, there's nothing wrong with that'.

Well let’s try applying that logic in a different situation. Suppose that 100 years ago the existing political state of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland wanted to maintain this state but a group (let’s call them Irish separatists) concentrated in the Western island of Ireland decided they’d ship in arms and actually engage in force to demand that they be allowed to leave the union you'd say 'well, how could anyone think there's nothing wrong with that'?

Karl Stein wrote: »

The IRA decommissioned its weapons (which itself was a farce seeing as the fertilizer bomb was their most destructive weapon) as part of a peace settlement

It is not a very important matter but in truth they were, in effect, compelled to. Remember their original stance of “not an once, not a bullet”? This was seen by some as unnecessary intransigence but of course it was a perfectly logic stance from their point of view. And that view was that they had not been defeated and therefore the British, nor any other outsider, had any business making demands, or even suggestions, about how and when they dismantle the arsenal that they no longer needed, it was (or should have been) a purely internal matter for the PIRA.

There final position, while I wouldn’t say it constituted a surrender, was some distance from where they started and certainly far enough away to seriously compromise their “undefeated” claim.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

There final position, while I wouldn’t say it constituted a surrender, was some distance from where they started and certainly far enough away to seriously compromise their “undefeated” claim.

When a ecretary of state admits they 'couldn't be defeated and army commanders, I think you lose that argument.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

When a ecretary of state admits they 'couldn't be defeated and army commanders, I think you lose that argument.

So explain to me why, when outsiders tried to impress upon the PIRA as to when and how they should decommission they did not take the only logic stance an army, who had come to a truce as an equal, could possible take which was to point out that it was simply none of the business of outsiders?

Of course this is exactly the position they took, initially, but eventually conceded. They did however get away with it. Most do not see the logical implications of PIRA bowing to external pressure to decommission.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So explain to me why, when outsiders tried to impress upon the PIRA as to when and how they should decommission they did not take the only logic stance an army, who had come to a truce as an equal, could possible take which was to point out that it was simply none of the business of outsiders?

Of course this is exactly the position they took, initially, but eventually conceded. They did however get away with it. Most do not see the logical implications of PIRA bowing to external pressure to decommission.

Why would an organisation, entering a peace process and wishing to build trust, hold on to their arms?

'Decommissioning was all optics anyhow, there was nothing to stop any of them re-arming themselves, if they so wished.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would an organisation, entering a peace process and wishing to build trust, hold on to their arms?

They wouldn’t. But the logistics of how and when they actually dismantled their arsenal should have been decided by them. They certainly understood this, even if you don’t. Which is why the issue dragged on for so long.

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Decommissioning was all optics anyhow, there was nothing to stop any of them re-arming themselves, if they so wished.

I think this is what saved the PIRA’s blushes. Decommissioning was essentially a symbolic move, and such was the universal eagerness to get the process the last few yards to the finish line that nobody wanted to get hung up on latent meanings in republicans decommissioning in response to pressure, and not on their own terms as they would have preferred.

(ironically, they would probably have moved much more quickly had there not been the demands).

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They wouldn’t. But the logistics of how and when they actually dismantled their arsenal should have been decided by them. They certainly understood this, even if you don’t. Which is why the issue dragged on for so long.


I think this is what saved the PIRA’s blushes. Decommissioning was essentially a symbolic move, and such was the universal eagerness to get the process the last few yards to the finish line that nobody wanted to get hung up on latent meanings in republicans decommissioning in response to pressure, and not on their own terms as they would have preferred.

(ironically, they would probably have moved much more quickly had there not been the demands).

The only important thing about decommissioning is that the British tried to get the IRA to do it before SF would be even allowed at the table. When they seen that it wasn't going to happen they quietly dropped the demand.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Suppose that 100 years ago the existing political state of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland

This is a nonsense line you're taking if not deliberately obfuscatory. Ireland was forcefully part of the UK of GB and Ireland. It wasn't mutual interest that sustained the union it was terrorism, or the threat thereof, on the part of the British.

There final position, while I wouldn’t say it constituted a surrender, was some distance from where they started and certainly far enough away to seriously compromise their “undefeated” claim.

The conflict ended with the IRA knowing it wasn't going to be able to force a withdrawal of the British and the British knowing that it was not going to force the IRA to surrender - I think that's called a stalemate. Ultimately it was a huge waste of life and caused incalculable misery to tens of thousands of people and a return to those times should be avoided at all costs.

R P McMurphy

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So explain to me why, when outsiders tried to impress upon the PIRA as to when and how they should decommission they did not take the only logic stance an army, who had come to a truce as an equal, could possible take which was to point out that it was simply none of the business of outsiders?

Of course this is exactly the position they took, initially, but eventually conceded. They did however get away with it. Most do not see the logical implications of PIRA bowing to external pressure to decommission.

Do you still see the watch towers?

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

This is a nonsense line you're taking if not deliberately obfuscatory. Ireland was forcefully part of the UK of GB and Ireland. It wasn't mutual interest that sustained the union it was terrorism, or the threat thereof, on the part of the British.

Again, the obsession with geography.
Ireland was not a homogenous entity in terms of political aspirations. There was a sizable part of Ireland that was quite content to remain part of the UK. So on what basis do you argue that when the Irish separatists were accommodated that the new state to be carved out of the UK for them should be decided by geography rather than by the aspirations of the people within the new region?

Your argument is akin to arguing that North America is one landmass so the inhabitants of this landmass as a whole is the rightful constituency to decide its fate.

twowheelsgood

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Do you still see the watch towers?

Republicans certainly put pressure on the British to speed up the demilitarisation of Northern Ireland but they did not demand that they decommission. They would have been laughed at had they done so. Theirs was a demand that the British withdraw their army to Britain.

This most certainly was not an option offered to the PIRA (relocate their arms to the South?).

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Again, the obsession with geography.

Around the world the British have paid a heavy price for taking geography that didn't belong to them.
Almost all of their colonial chickens came home to roost, and yet still they are at it, bombing and bludgeoning peoples (usually poor) into the acceptance of their gifts, whether it is wanted or not.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Around the world the British have paid a heavy price for taking geography that didn't belong to them.
Almost all of their colonial chickens came home to roost, and yet still they are at it, bombing and bludgeoning peoples (usually poor) into the acceptance of their gifts, whether it is wanted or not.

And you are pointing this out to me, why?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

And you are pointing this out to me, why?

Well you are diverting into anything you wish to talk about, I thought I'd have a go.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Again, the obsession with geography.

What are you on about? How can anyone talk about these issues without it relating back to a territory?

Ireland was not a homogenous entity in terms of political aspirations.

So? The vast majority of the people of Ireland wanted the British to go home. Even in the north those who didn't weren't spread evenly throughout the six counties. I understand you have a two colour jigsaw concept of how Ireland was partitioned but that in no way relates to actual reality.

There was a sizable part of Ireland that was quite content to remain part of the UK.

What you're about are Unionists rather than your silly two colour jigsaw concept of Ireland. Unionists were concentrated in parts of the 6 counties not uniformly throughout.

So on what basis do you argue that when the Irish separatists were accommodated that the new state to be carved out of the UK for them should be decided by geography rather than by the aspirations of the people within the new region?

Irish separatists? Lol. Honestly that sounds ridiculous. Anyway, on what basis shouldn't it have been decided in respect of the whole island?

Your argument is akin to arguing that North America is one landmass so the inhabitants of this landmass as a whole is the rightful constituency to decide its fate.

Try to stay on topic and take each argument on its merits.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well you are diverting into anything you wish to talk about, I thought I'd have a go.

Ah grand, off with you then.

All you need is a sizable cohort of diehards who will resolutely defend all the misdeeds done in the name of the British Empire project and you’ve got yourself a debate!

I’m sure some will be along soon……………… :pac:

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

misdeeds done in the name of the British Empire

You make it sound like it is all the fault of a few renegade soldiers.

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well you are diverting into anything you wish to talk about, I thought I'd have a go.

Indeed. Custard and gravy don't taste good together so cats are better than dogs and that means we shouldn't have a united Ireland including bits of Scotchland and Wales.