Irish Republican Information Service (no. 59)

by Phil Wed Mar 22, 2006 22:37

'RSF will oppose visit of QEII'- Ó Brádaigh in Tyrone

March 17, 2006

"Those who failed to have a loyalist march forced through the centre of Dublin at the end of February claimed a near-monopoly of suffering for themselves and ignored the sacrifices of the nationalist community over the past few decades," said Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, President of Republican Sinn Féin when he spoke at a 30th anniversary commemoration of the deaths of Fian James Francis McCaughey (13), Fian Patrick Bernard (13), Joseph Kelly (57) and Andrew Small (62) in Edendork Cemetery, Co Tyrone.

"These two young Fianna members and two civilians were among the 1,000 innocent and uninvolved nationalists who were done to death by British-backed loyalist death squads over the period. "They were killed by a UVF car-bomb outside the Hillcrest Bar, Donaghmore Road, Dungannon on St Patrick's Day, 1976.

"In the armed struggle for Irish national independence, more than 1,000 members of the British forces and over 400 Republicans were killed.

"The Sunday Business Post (published in Dublin) of September 4, 2005 stated that of the 698 members of the unionist community killed, 340 died at the hands of loyalists. It would appear that "FAIR" and "Love Ulster" should have been marching on the UDA and UVF headquarters in Belfast.

"Republican Sinn Féin had sought to give this debate a political focus by mounting a peaceful protest picket on the route of the proposed march in Dublin. It did not seek to stop it and RSF departed the scene when the march was abandoned.

"Republican Sinn Féin asked publicly if nationalist parades, of whatever ilk, would be allowed through Belfast's Royal Avenue or the centre of Portadown. The British forces would certainly block them."

RSF acted in solidarity with the beleaguered nationalists of the Garvaghy Road, of Ardoyne, the lower Ormeau Road, Dunloy and other areas who have had triumphalist loyalist marches imposed on them forcefully year after year, he continued.

In contrast the 26-County Administration and others had turned their backs on these communities by collaborating with the attempted loyalist march.

When the British government finally leaves Ireland and loyalist marches will no longer be a question of supremacy of unionists over nationalists, then all interests will be welcome and free to parade wherever they choose.

On that day in Dublin Republicans stood under a banner which quoted Wolfe Tone's immortal words: "Unite Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter ... to break the connection with England".

Among the leaflets distributed was the pamphlet "An Address to the People of Ireland" which "makes special appeal to the people of the unionist persuasion". The text asks "everybody to consider again our ÉIRE NUA programme for a four-province federal Ireland with optimum devolution of powers down to community level."

Of course, our statements, press conferences and political appeals issued since mid-December due to our awareness of the rising tide of concern and disquiet in Dublin and beyond, were ignored by the 26-County media. Only the northern press, radio and television took notice of our concerns. When the Dublin media finally reacted it was much too late. They deplored the situation which they had deliberately ignored for months. We stated that the march was ill-advised but they would not listen.

"Similarly, Republican Sinn Féin will oppose politically the proposed official visit of the Queen of England to Dublin, the first such visit since 1911 - 95 years.

"There is nothing personal in this stance. Republicans simply contest and reject the claim of the English Establishment to style her 'Queen of Northern Ireland'. That is all.

"When that claim to part of Ireland is relinquished, then the crowned head of England will be received just as any other head of state. But not until then ...

"Meanwhile, the mountain of sacrifice suffered in recent years on all sides must not be allowed to go for nothing. We must learn from it. We must not accept or join the British forces in Ireland. To do so is to invite a repetition of what has recurred down the centuries while British rule lasts."

by nooone_sopports your position Thu Mar 23, 2006 02:24

give up , noone cares, you policies don't work , they are nonsense. Maybe you are all autistic, or didn't get an education, but all your policies have been tried throughout history and failed.

Life is a one trick pony, and you are losers who have fallen on your backs. It's not happening, you cannot convince 1/2 a millions people to join you after you've tried to kill them all! If you hadn't done the terrorist thing then maybe you could convince them to join, but you did, you fucked it up , and y'eesss hav only yerselvvs to blame.

by Seamus Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:55

So no one supports a republican point of view according to the last poster (annon of course). Well please dont include me in your totalitarian view. Many people are not perticularly interested in the national question, but still have republican views and still want to see a free 32 county Eire. You dont have to be a supported of RSF to hold this view point.

Thick neo unionists like the poster never seem to understand this.

RSF are entitled to their opinion and take on the national question. But then again in our farcial "democratic" 26 county "republic" no one is allowed to dissent peacefully or otherwise, with out being demonised and silenced.

by Sharon - Individual Fri Mar 24, 2006 17:39

'Your mandate is 1000/4million
by nooone_sopports your position '

What a shame that Irish republicans have absolutely no similar instance of a low/non-existent mandate to refer to in this island's history . Tone , Emmet , and Pearse , amongst others , all went to the polls before attempting to remove the British claim of jurisdiction .
And we all know that there are more on this isle who wish to see the British continue with that claim , than don't .
Yes Sir . You're holding all the aces .

Sharon .

by seamus no you have me pegged the wrong way Mon Apr 03, 2006 17:43

The difference between a fianna fail and the average person's vision of a united ireland and the rsf is quite clear. The RSF are nazis who would happily trample all over people rights and wishes in order to impose their view of ireland.

A united ireland is sought by almost everyone in a pragmatic fashion. And pragmatism means that a united ireland is impossible : it would require forcing 1/2 a million with a different tradition into our country. This would result in either civil war , or a federal system which would nullify the effect of unifying the country. The extreme tension between both traditions in belgium reveal that forcing what looks good on a map is not good in practise.

Most people think along these lines. That is why they voted in enormous numbers to remove our claim over the 6 counties from the constitution, our set of basic beliefs.They would like a united ireland , but they would not actually like to apply the force to make it happen.I would not want a single citizen of the republic to have anything but 100% love for the country.

If we followed the rsf's policies we would be a colonising force , repeating the exact mistakes that great britain perpetrated to our republic. Democracy stops where people are inciting people to hatred, and this is the rsf's intent. after all "democracy" supported all of hitler plans. The rsf are not intitled to their view as they are wicked. They denigrate and shit all over the values of respect and self determination that my great grand uncles and aunts fought died , and are remembered for, in 1916. Fuck you for the disgraceful insult of neo unionist. Long live the republic.

by Sharon - Individual Mon Apr 03, 2006 20:12

" no you have me pegged the wrong way "
Not judging by your following comments , I have'nt !

"The difference between a fianna fail and the average person's vision of a united ireland and the rsf is quite clear. The RSF are nazis who would happily trample all over people rights and wishes in order to impose their view of ireland. "
Like Tone , Emmet and Pearse , you mean ...

"A united ireland is sought by almost everyone in a pragmatic fashion. And pragmatism means that a united ireland is impossible : it would require forcing 1/2 a million with a different tradition into our country. This would result in either civil war , or a federal system which would nullify the effect of unifying the country. The extreme tension between both traditions in belgium reveal that forcing what looks good on a map is not good in practise."
"...into our country...." ? Why - where are they now ?

"Most people think along these lines. That is why they voted in enormous numbers to remove our claim over the 6 counties from the constitution, our set of basic beliefs.They would like a united ireland , but they would not actually like to apply the force to make it happen.I would not want a single citizen of the republic to have anything but 100% love for the country. "
"enormous numbers" ? Such as ... ? And it is rather bold of you to demand that all citizens should "love their country 100 per cent " .
What gives you the 'right' to demand such a thing ?

"If we followed the rsf's policies we would be a colonising force , repeating the exact mistakes that great britain perpetrated to our republic. Democracy stops where people are inciting people to hatred, and this is the rsf's intent. after all "democracy" supported all of hitler plans. The rsf are not intitled to their view as they are wicked. They denigrate and shit all over the values of respect and self determination that my great grand uncles and aunts fought died , and are remembered for, in 1916. Fuck you for the disgraceful insult of neo unionist. Long live the republic. "
'Great Britain' perpetrated it on our ISLAND - not just the 'republic' , you oaf ! "Denigrate" - what's that ? A 'made-up' word from your own universe , perhaps ! 'Fu*k you for looking for the Republic . Long live the Republic' . What a complete 'denigrate' post you published , Sir .

Sharon .

by here is my reply sharon Tue Apr 04, 2006 13:34

a country is defined by geography. and people. Thus the ideria peninsula countains two countries , in the same way that the island of ireland countains two countries. Where there is a community of unionist one is in great britain. The flip side of this is that it is that every community in the north of ireland should have the right to choose which country it is part of. I would be very supportive of radically reshaping the borders in the short/medium term.

It would be repeating the mistake of the previous agressor great britain to force our will on the unionist community. Just as it did not work with irish people it would not would with british people in the north.

In the long term i would hope that the unionist community would see that its own interest are better served by joining the republic. I expect to happen.Thus i aspire to a united ireland.

94.4% of the irish republic removed the claim on the 6 counties and instead :"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." It would appear that i have quite a few people on my side!

The rsf have as stated above no mandate, no support , nada.

'Great Britain' perpetrated it on our ISLAND - not just the 'republic' . i am not sure how this matters ? maybe you should outline how you see a united ireland coming about ?

by Sharon - Individual Tue Apr 04, 2006 18:28

"a country is defined by geography. and people. Thus the ideria peninsula countains two countries , in the same way that the island of ireland countains two countries."
What nonsense !
Has this island always contained "two countries" , then ?
Was it never one country ?
God but you leave yourself wide open !

"Where there is a community of unionist one is in great britain. The flip side of this is that it is that every community in the north of ireland should have the right to choose which country it is part of. "
Our natural border (ie the oceans) have made that choice for us !
There are Scottish , Polish , Nigerian's etc living on this isle and doing so without any attempt to claim their part of this isle as part of their own country - by your way of thinking , they would have a legitimate claim to do so . More nonsense from you , Seamus .

"I would be very supportive of radically reshaping the borders in the short/medium term. "
Partition has not worked - what makes you think re-partition would ?
Then again , perhaps in another 84 years we could 're'-re-partition again : to , say , one housing estate , perhaps !

"It would be repeating the mistake of the previous agressor great britain to force our will on the unionist community. "
They are a minority on this isle and are in the process of being abandoned by that poisonous teat that has nurtured them until recently - when Westminster removes its jurisdictional claim , that reality will hit them .

"In the long term i would hope that the unionist community would see that its own interest are better served by joining the republic. I expect to happen.Thus i aspire to a united ireland. "
Agreed .

"94.4% of the irish republic removed the claim on the 6 counties and instead :"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." It would appear that i have quite a few people on my side! "
"94.4 per cent of the Irish Republic" , you claim ? Never happened , Seamus - only in your head , I fear ! Because that certainly never happened in this reality .

"The rsf have as stated above no mandate, no support , nada."
Have , in your opinion , RSF more support in seeking a British withdrawal than those who would desire that presence to remain ?

"'Great Britain' perpetrated it on our ISLAND - not just the 'republic' . i am not sure how this matters ? "
It 'matters' because , in a previous post , you insinuated that only "the republic" was effected by the British presence . Read back on your own post .

"maybe you should outline how you see a united ireland coming about ? "
And maybe you should refer to the RSF website : anything I would say in my reply is there .

Sharon .

by more baiting for sharon Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:57

"94.4 per cent of the Irish Republic" , you claim ? Never happened , Seamus - only in your head , I fear ! Because that certainly never happened in this reality." This is the percentage in favour of the belfast agreement, which removed the claim on the six counties. You are wrong on this point full stop.

"a country is defined by geography. and people. Thus the ideria peninsula countains two countries , in the same way that the island of ireland countains two countries."
What nonsense !
Has this island always contained "two countries" , then ?
Was it never one country ?
God but you leave yourself wide open !

No this island has not always contained two countries, 400 hundred odd years ago it contained 1. Interestingly originally the iberia peninsula contained 1 country too. Your logic would dictate the removal of the isreali state also , as it is fairly new.

Your point about polish and nigerians in ireland is most interesting. If they were able to form a coherent group, that lived seperately from us for a sufficient period of time in sufficient numbers then of course they would form a new country. If you read history you will see that is how every country started. Take yankee land. It was planted , and a lot more recently than the north. Do the 250 million people living there not have a right to self determination. What is the cut off point for you , a million , 2 ? luxembourg has at various times been run by it's neighbours. It has a population of less than 500 hundred thousand do they not constitute a seperate entity in a sea of french and german. People are entitled to form a seperate government system if they form a coherent group of people. This is why partition failed here and is failing in iraq, as the north currently does not form a coherent group. However a complete overhaul of the borders to include most nationalist communities that are contiguous with the republic would be an effective solution.

Your seem to refuse to accept the current reality of a substantial set of different people on the island who do not share you basic view of things. True they were not here before , but they are now . If you go back even further in time you will see that the island has previously been host to many small states, and kingdoms. While i aspire to a united ireland i recognise that it will never happen until such time as the unionist community ask to join. NOT forced or cajoled,or coerced but ask.There is no hurry. There is no reason to think that a unionist statelet would not thrive , smaller countries do great.

"They are a minority on this isle and are in the process of being abandoned by that poisonous teat that has nurtured them until recently - when Westminster removes its jurisdictional claim , that reality will hit them" maybe .but it not for you to decide that for them. Not unless you want civil war. It is a fundamental part of democracy that people have self determination , ie determine their own future. Try it out sometime!!!

by another sharon-baiter Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:31

"Denigrate" - what's that ? A 'made-up' word from your own universe , perhaps !"

What kind of idiot are you? Look it up before you claim it doesn't exist, cos now you just look stupid. It means to speak ill of, belittle, defame or disparage something.

"What a complete 'denigrate' post you published , Sir ."

What?

"Has this island always contained "two countries" , then ?"

Eh, when, except for under Britain's rule, did this island ever contain just one country? I suppose in 1168 it was a wonderful republic with an elected government and universal sufferage? No, medieval Ireland was divided up into many kingdoms or tuaithe, many countries if you will. And Gaeilic society was a feudal/semi-feudal (depending on your definition) nightmare. You think we were better off under the Brehon laws? Well, I for one will take the CIVILISATION which came with Britain.

And before you start screaming "UNIONIST" at me, I'm an anarchist, I have no more desire for a British Government than I do for an Irish one. I'm merely attacking your revisionist nationalist history, which bears no resemblance to reality.

by Barry Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:32

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill, the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998?

Its very clear Seamus is lying . 94.4% of the 26 county electorate could not have voted yes simply because the turn out was 54% . So Seamus is quite clearly telling lies . Full stop . The vote was against the backdrop of repeated British government threats that blood would flow on the streets of the south if they didnt drop their territorial claim ( Mo Mowlam was very careful to explain this numerous times in the run up to the vote) . Shades of " immediate and terrible war" all over again . The propaganda of fear .

The British treaty , as was predicted , is in tatters and a laughing stock , lurching from one disaster to another . The 6 cos remains a failed sectarian entity , the 26 cos remains a neo colonial entity , a puppet state with no sovereignty . National territory abandoned , resources given away to multinationals for nothing , landlordism bak in Mayo , imperialist war assistance at Shannon . So conflict is inevitable . It did not bring peace . Its incapable of bringing peace . Its failed .

by as-b Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:20

"resources given away to multinationals for nothing , landlordism bak in Mayo , imperialist war assistance at Shannon"

it's called capitalism. someday you're gonna have to stop blaming the brits for everything. get over it.

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:31

""Denigrate" - What kind of idiot are you? Look it up before you claim it doesn't exist, cos now you just look stupid. It means to speak ill of, belittle, defame or disparage something."
Give me a dictionary definition , and please state which dictionary it came from . Thanks !

"Has this island always contained "two countries" , then ?"

Eh, when, except for under Britain's rule, did this island ever contain just one country? I suppose in 1168 it was a wonderful republic with an elected government and universal sufferage? No, medieval Ireland was divided up into many kingdoms or tuaithe, many countries if you will. And Gaeilic society was a feudal/semi-feudal (depending on your definition) nightmare. You think we were better off under the Brehon laws? Well, I for one will take the CIVILISATION which came with Britain. "
One country on this isle , or 'two' as you stated ? You are now back-tracking on your previous post . But of course you have to !

" And before you start screaming "UNIONIST" at me, I'm an anarchist, I have no more desire for a British Government than I do for an Irish one. I'm merely attacking your revisionist nationalist history, which bears no resemblance to reality."
'Reality' is claiming that there are two countries in Ireland , Yes ?

"94.4 per cent of the Irish Republic" , you claim ? Never happened , Seamus - only in your head , I fear ! Because that certainly never happened in this reality." This is the percentage in favour of the belfast agreement, which removed the claim on the six counties. You are wrong on this point full stop."
How could "94.4 per cent of the republic" have voted when only 56.3 per cent turned-out to vote ? More of your 'reality' , I fear ! You clown .

"No this island has not always contained two countries, 400 hundred odd years ago it contained 1. Interestingly originally the iberia peninsula contained 1 country too. Your logic would dictate the removal of the isreali state also , as it is fairly new. "
What a weak-kneeded way to back-track on your original statement .
Accepted , anyway . Perhaps a wee bit more research before you post in future would save you time . It would certainly save me some !

"Your point about polish and nigerians in ireland is most interesting. If they were able to form a coherent group, that lived seperately from us for a sufficient period of time in sufficient numbers then of course they would form a new country. "
Unbelievable - even by your 'standards' ! For one thing - would that be acceptable to the present inhabitants of this one isle , do you think ?

"If you read history you will see that is how every country started. Take yankee land. It was planted , and a lot more recently than the north. Do the 250 million people living there not have a right to self determination. What is the cut off point for you , a million , 2 ? "
The majority would decide the 'cut-off' point . Unionists/loyalists are a minority on this isle . Do you not agree ?

"luxembourg has at various times been run by it's neighbours. It has a population of less than 500 hundred thousand do they not constitute a seperate entity in a sea of french and german. People are entitled to form a seperate government system if they form a coherent group of people. This is why partition failed here and is failing in iraq, as the north currently does not form a coherent group. However a complete overhaul of the borders to include most nationalist communities that are contiguous with the republic would be an effective solution."
'Re-partition' , you mean . All the way down to one housing estate , perhaps ! If it does'nt work the first time - well , let's just try it again , shall we !!

"Your seem to refuse to accept the current reality of a substantial set of different people on the island who do not share you basic view of things. True they were not here before , but they are now . If you go back even further in time you will see that the island has previously been host to many small states, and kingdoms. While i aspire to a united ireland i recognise that it will never happen until such time as the unionist community ask to join. NOT forced or cajoled,or coerced but ask.There is no hurry. There is no reason to think that a unionist statelet would not thrive , smaller countries do great. "
'They were not here before , but they are here now' - you defeat your own argument . Thanks again !

"They are a minority on this isle and are in the process of being abandoned by that poisonous teat that has nurtured them until recently - when Westminster removes its jurisdictional claim , that reality will hit them" maybe .but it not for you to decide that for them. Not unless you want civil war. It is a fundamental part of democracy that people have self determination , ie determine their own future. Try it out sometime!!! "
But we simply must take political direction from those 'who were not here before but are here now' ! That's democracy . You ARE a clown !

Sharon .

by Barry Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:33

The primary basis for colonialism is capitalism . I dont blame " the brits" for everything . I blame colonialism in Ireland for our conial and neo colonial capitalist system . You most likely dont even acknowledge colonialism in Ireland , nor the need for national sovereignty . You just spout off about " capitalism" with no regard to the nature of the system which accomodates it so skilfully . You will never challenge capitalism . You are no threat to it . You merely complain about it which suits it fine .

Where is your sovereignty which safeguards your resources , your means of production , your neutrality? Irish sovereignty is nothing to you . You wont find it in a trotsky book so its safe to assume you wont ever struggle for it . Which pretty much suits colonialism/capitalism .

by another sharon-baiter - as-b Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:01

"You are now back-tracking on your previous post"

Notice my name? It's "ANOTHER sharon-baiter". Which means I'm a different person. That was my first comment. How can I back-track when I haven't said anything? Even if you were to ignore the name, from the content it's clear you are arguing with more than one person, who are all making different arguments. Idiot.

"Give me a dictionary definition , and please state which dictionary it came from ."

What am I, your teacher? There's this thing called the internet, Sharon. You can look up all manner of wonderful things on it. Still, I guess they didn't have that in 1168. It's probably a Brit invention to control our thoughts, right? Anyway, here: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=denigrate&gwp=13

"One country on this isle , or 'two' as you stated ?"

That doesn't address my point. In fact, it's not even a coherent question. You just claim I'm contradicting myself, even though I hadn't said anything else. You nationalists really are an intellectually challenged bunch

"'Reality' is claiming that there are two countries in Ireland , Yes ?"

Eh, yes. What the hell is your definition of a country? Northern Ireland is ruled by a different government, it has different laws, therefore IT'S A DIFFERENT F#*KING COUNTRY!!!

barry: "The primary basis for colonialism is capitalism"

No, that was the first phase of capitalism. Then came nationalism and national liberation struggles. We are now leaving that phase and entering a third, what Hardt and Negri, for example, have called 'Empire'. Nationalism will never damage capitalism, it is not a threat to it. The nation-state serves the interest of capital. Hence, "resources given away to multinationals for nothing , landlordism bak in Mayo , imperialist war assistance at Shannon" Can you give me an example of a nationalist struggle ever damaging capitalism?

I said I was an anarchist, and you think insulting Trotsky will annoy me. Ha! Why don't you try and learn something today?

by as-b Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:17

Also, that's backwards. At one time the primary basis for capitalism was colonialism and imperialism. But that was a long time ago. Then came this thing called Modernism. Which is the period you and your ilk are stuck in, while the rest us moved on long ago.

"Where is your sovereignty which safeguards your resources , your means of production , your neutrality?"

You really are a confused fellow. You see, the Republic of Ireland achieved independance from Britain. It is now a sovereign nation. And yet our resources are not protected! Gasp! And our means of production remain in the hands of capitalists! Heave! Our airports facilitate war-planes!!! How can this be?!!

Because it doesn't matter who the ruling class are. It makes no difference whether they're from Dublin or London. The end result will be the same. Because states are subject to the whims of multi-national corporations. This is ca-pi-ta-lism. But hey, if we have a united Ireland, and drive all the prods into the sea, the world order will collapse, capitalism will crumble, and our new benign, gaelic rulers will make all of our wildest dreams come true

by Barry Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:31

Can you give me an example of an Irish anarchist in particular even remotely ruffling the feathers of capitalism ? Connolly , Bishopsgate , Baltic exchange , Bolivar , Fanon , Chavez , Morales , PKK - capitalist feathers ruffled without doubt and long may it continue. The struggle for national sovereignty over colonial practice and capitalist theft of resources and territory is a worthwhile revolutionary enterprise . I doubt your limp wristed outfit if you belong to one ever even robbed a bank , never mind bombed one .

Ireland doesnt have an empire , nor does it aspire to one despite what your little books may say on the matter . Britain certainly did have an empire, we are the last physical vestige of it bar Gibraltar and Las Malvinas .We are still colonised , our system north and south is still based on the premise of colonial politics . Thats worth fighting against .

What I learned today is that despite some quality analysis and posters on this site its still a magnet to creatures like yourself who inhabit a revolutionary fantasy world and whose only purpose is to sneer at all those who are willing to fight in the real world . Just go back to your book/fantasy world/whatever . Youll still be sneering decades from now and be just as useless .

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 13:33

"Notice my name? It's "ANOTHER sharon-baiter". Which means I'm a different person. That was my first comment. How can I back-track when I haven't said anything? Even if you were to ignore the name, from the content it's clear you are arguing with more than one person, who are all making different arguments. Idiot."
Impossible ! There just could not be someone else like you ! No - it is you , Sir , operating under a (slightly) different 'sign-in' name .

"What am I, your teacher? There's this thing called the internet, Sharon. You can look up all manner of wonderful things on it. Still, I guess they didn't have that in 1168. It's probably a Brit invention to control our thoughts, right? Anyway, here: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=denigrate&gwp=13"
'Dictionary' as in hard copy reference , please . As in 'New Standard' , 'Merriam-Webster' etc . Thanks in advace !
(BTW- it's actually '1169' !).

"That doesn't address my point. In fact, it's not even a coherent question. You just claim I'm contradicting myself, even though I hadn't said anything else. You nationalists really are an intellectually challenged bunch "
But YOU did state it . Or , rather , the OTHER you did ;-) !
"
"Reality' is claiming that there are two countries in Ireland , Yes ?"

Eh, yes. What the hell is your definition of a country? Northern Ireland is ruled by a different government, it has different laws, therefore IT'S A DIFFERENT F#*KING COUNTRY!!! "
'Northern Ireland' , you say ? Will one of you please tell me if that includes Donegal ? Oh you idiot : you('s!) have done it again !

Sharon !

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:00

"another baiting for sharon
by more baiting for sharon Fri Apr 07, 2006 09:57
"94.4 per cent of the Irish Republic" , you claim ? Never happened , Seamus - only in your head , I fear ! Because that certainly never happened in this reality." This is the percentage in favour of the belfast agreement, which removed the claim on the six counties. You are wrong on this point full stop."

Could one of you (!) please explain how '94.4 per cent of the Irish republic' managed to vote on a 56.3 per cent turn-out ?
Thank You !

Sharon .

by as-b Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:04

So what have you personally done to topple capitalism? because that seesm to be your criteria for judging whether someone's opinion is valid or not. Rubbish.

And how come you can point to international and historic figures (none of whom are Irish) who achieved nothing, and that somehow proves you right? but i have to back up my argument by providing a list of irish anarchists who destroyed capitalism? That's pathetic, and you know it. Why not engage with the points i actually made? Because you can't?

Bishopsgate? what about it? killing two and destroying a church threatens capitalism?

How is "Chavez" an example of nationalist struggle?

"PKK"?! You really are stupid.

Connolly is a perfect example of how nationalism is death for socialist movements. And I'd take Jack White (Irish Anarchist) above Connolly (who was Scottish in case you don't know) any day.

"Ireland doesnt have an empire" when did i ever claim it did?

"We are still colonised" Proof?

"The struggle for national sovereignty over colonial practice and capitalist theft of resources and territory is a worthwhile revolutionary enterprise" It doesn't exist you twonk.

I'm done with this, I have better thing to do than drag you out of the 20th Century. Goodbye

Sharon:

I have absolutely nothing more to say to you. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who obviously has the mental capacaity of a ten-year-old. Goodbye

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:21

" Sharon:
I have absolutely nothing more to say to you. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who obviously has the mental capacaity of a ten-year-old. Goodbye "

Before you go - perhaps you can help me ?
I am trying to subtract 94.4 from 56.3 .
I might need two 'mental capacities' to do so !
Any ideas ?

Sharon .

by analyst Fri Apr 07, 2006 14:25

One tiny, tiny little detail seems to have escaped those cretins Sharon and Barry. They rant and rant that the Unionists have no right to secede from the Irish nation against the wishes of the rest. Well, for the sake of argume nt, let us concede that they have no such 'right.' But this is beside the point. In practical, hard reality, how are you going to get a united Ireland against their will? Do you seriously think it can be forced upon them without a ferocious civil war? What about Greysteel and the countless atrocities of the 70s? Doesn't this suggest that in teh event of your famous declaration of intent, the Protestants would resist with a ferocity at least equal to that waged by the IRA in the early 70s? They may have no 'right' to do so, but I believe that they would, and the past decades of struggle prove my point. In such a conflict, many would die. Are you so certain of your views and of the benefits of sovereignty that it is worth you risking so many people's lives?

And, Sharon, clipping little phrases from people's arguments and adding supposedly laconic comments of your own does not an argument make. Rather, it leads people (as a previous poster just noted) to think that you have the intelligence of a child. A coherent arguyme nt usually has a series of connected propositions, sentences and paragraphs, with one flowing from the other. I apologise if this seems basic, but then your approach is basic, and you obviously need help. I notice that when you feel really stuck you merely refer people to that dreadful RSF website - this also does not resemble an argument. Most people have neither the time nor the patience to wade through screeds of O'Bradaigh's senseless ramblings.

Bye, and good luck.

by dinger Fri Apr 07, 2006 16:10

'seamus no you have me pegged the wrong way' said: "Long live the republic"

'another sharon-baiter' said: "I'm an anarchist, I have no more desire for a British Government than I do for an Irish one."

They have different politics. They want different things. They're making different arguments. But they both disagree with you (albeit in different ways), therefore it MUST be the same person. Yes. And 'analyst' must be the same person too. And everyone who ever disagreed with you, ever. They're all The Queen, I guess. Strange how you and Barry have both got the same problems with punctuation (eg "....over again . The propaganda...") and yet nobody else is dragging this discussion into "you are barry" "no I'm not" "yes you are" "no...." Grow up.

Barry, you know nothing about 'as-b', nor do I. Just because s/he references one book you assume that s/he has never actually done anything. That's some great logic there, pal.

by sharon baiter is back Fri Apr 07, 2006 16:32

3 points

1.This is sharon's baiter i am the author of comments number 2, 5, 7, 9. There are others here who are commenting also. I am not seamus. I am the person opposing your entire world view.

2.Indeed in the referendum there was a 53.6 turnout. Out of 100 who could vote only 53.6 were motivated enough to do so. Out of those 56.3, 94.4 percent wanted to remove the claim on the north. Nothwithstanding your protestations, this amounts to the majority of the republic choosing to renounce the claim. 94.4% of 53.6 is a 50.5984%. Even if every single person who did not vote had , and had cast their vote against the belfast agreement, it is indisputable that it is the solemn wish of the majority of the republic of ireland to renounce territorial claim on the northern six counties.

Since you are big into "all ireland" thinking lets look at the all island decision, shall we ?

1,442,583 (50.5984%) voted for the agreement ---a little maths ----1,442,583 / 50.5984 * 100 ------ > 2,851,044 total electorate in the south
676,966 (57.51%) voted for the agreement --- a little maths ------- 676,966 / 57.51 * 100 --------------> 1,177,127 total electorate in the north

total vote (1,442,583 + 676,966 ) / (2,851,044+1,177,127) * 100 = (2119549/4028171) * 100 = 52 %

Aaaaah SORRY !!! the majority disagrees with you (nothwithstanding those who didn't vote ) , just as the unionist can't have a country because they are in the minority , you point of view is the wrong , by the judgement of the entire island. I was really hoping for you there!

3. These are my words "If you read history you will see that is how every country started. Take yankee land. It was planted , and a lot more recently than the north. Do the 250 million planters living there not have a right to self determination. What is the cut off point for you , a million , 2 ? "

And this is your reply "The majority would decide the 'cut-off' point . Unionists/loyalists are a minority on this isle . Do you not agree ?" That is a pretty weird view of the world.

Following the logic through to it's conclusion:
Because america was planted by enough people they were able to outnumber the natives, the native lost the right to "their" country. I wouldn't be so louche as to suggest that it's because the british didn't put enough people on this island that we had the troubles!!
Looking to the iberian peninsula, i firmly agree with your view of democracy. The basques have no right to continue their political agitation as they are outnumbered in their country. As spain population outnumbers that of portugal 44million to 10 , and the two countries don't look right on a map , it's not looking good for the portuguese. I demand a new country the republic of iberia , with 20% of seats going to the portuguese- --- none of this power sharing nonsense , the majority decides.

The painful conclusion is that majorities can always be found through gerrymanderring. After the disgracefull treatment of nationalists in the north we irish should be all the more aware of the dangers of the 'majority'.

The reality is that countries are indeed formed by contiguous land , holding a coherent set of people. It is shamefull to try to repeat past injustices on our people by perpatrating them back on others. As our history has shown , it cannot work.

The rsf's view of the world is neither supported by history , common sense or the will of the republic, the 6 counties , or the island as a whole.

A fourth and final thought , it is very interesting that you should take up the moniker of sharon , a neo partitioner if i ever saw one !! I can wait for you reply. Try to avoid big statements like you are in a different reality. Try and actually propose how your view isn't actually nonsense. I would love to see it, i am waiting decades though. GOOD LUCK !!!!

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:16

"One tiny, tiny little detail seems to have escaped those cretins Sharon and Barry. They rant and rant that the Unionists have no right to secede from the Irish nation against the wishes of the rest."
You use the word 'rest' in an attempt to hide the word 'majority' . One would want to be a 'cretin' not to notice that !

" Well, for the sake of argume nt, let us concede that they have no such 'right.' "
'Let us concede that the minority have that right' - that is where you are coming from .

"But this is beside the point. In practical, hard reality, how are you going to get a united Ireland against their will? Do you seriously think it can be forced upon them without a ferocious civil war? What about Greysteel and the countless atrocities of the 70s? Doesn't this suggest that in teh event of your famous declaration of intent, the Protestants would resist with a ferocity at least equal to that waged by the IRA in the early 70s? They may have no 'right' to do so, but I believe that they would, and the past decades of struggle prove my point. In such a conflict, many would die. Are you so certain of your views and of the benefits of sovereignty that it is worth you risking so many people's lives? "
I am 'certain of my views ' regarding the fact that , as history has shown , as long as the issue remains un-resolved there will be conflict .
No-one wants that potential for conflict to exist - the best solution , I believe , is for a withdrawal of the British military and political presence . Would you rather that the jurisdictional issue be 'swept under the carpet' for now ? For a future generation to grapple with , perhaps ?

"And, Sharon, clipping little phrases from people's arguments and adding supposedly laconic comments of your own does not an argument make. Rather, it leads people (as a previous poster just noted) to think that you have the intelligence of a child. A coherent arguyme nt usually has a series of connected propositions, sentences and paragraphs, with one flowing from the other. "
If the printed size of the argument allows for that , then I do that . In a long(ish) post (such as this , for example) I think it makes it easier to follow the discussion in this 'clip-and-answer' format . No ?

"I apologise if this seems basic, but then your approach is basic, and you obviously need help. "
You do not agree with the format I use , so therefore I am "basic" and "need help" ! Not much to base a supposition like that on , is it ?

"I notice that when you feel really stuck you merely refer people to that dreadful RSF website - this also does not resemble an argument. "
I have only referred to the RSF website once ! You really are scratching around for points to throw at me , are'nt you ?

" Most people have neither the time nor the patience to wade through screeds of O'Bradaigh's senseless ramblings."
Would you prefer pictures rather than text ?

Sharon .

by dinger Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:30

"If the printed size of the argument allows for that , then I do that . In a long(ish) post (such as this , for example) I think it makes it easier to follow the discussion in this 'clip-and-answer' format . No ?"

No. For that to work, you have to actually answer the questions, points etc being put to you. Which you seem incapable of doing.

The majority rules for you. So let's poll everyone in Britain and Ireland, since this is a British+Irish problem. Then we'll see if the majority agree with you. When they don't, you can be consistent and shut up for the rest of your life, since the majority disagree with you. (remember, I'm basing that on what YOU'VE said, not anyone else. The rest of us are arguing that the opinion of the minority matters. So if you have a problem with this, you'll be arguing with yourself)

Except, as Sharon's Baiter already proved (by using facts, but who cares about such trivialities, eh?) we don't need to conduct such a poll. The majority in Ireland already disagree with you. Therefore, given your position on the sanctity of the majority, you have lost this "argument" (not really an argument imo, more like telling a toddler there's no santa. Sorry to disappoint you, Sharon).

Now on you go, re-post my comment with nonsensical, irrelevant gibberish inserted and call it a comment. Well done

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:36

Do those figures , per centages etc which you posted 'add up to' the following statement which you made earlier -

"94.4% of the irish republic removed the claim on the 6 counties

" This is the percentage in favour of the belfast agreement, which removed the claim on the six counties. "
Yes or No ?

"The majority would decide the 'cut-off' point . Unionists/loyalists are a minority on this isle . Do you not agree ?" "That is a pretty weird view of the world. "
'Pretty weird' that majority opinion should be listened to ?

"The painful conclusion is that majorities can always be found through gerrymanderring. After the disgracefull treatment of nationalists in the north we irish should be all the more aware of the dangers of the 'majority'. "
But we who consider ourselves Irish ARE the majority on this isle , are we not ? And not a contrived 'majority' , either .

Sharon .

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 18:46

"The majority rules for you. So let's poll everyone in Britain and Ireland, since this is a British+Irish problem. Then we'll see if the majority agree with you. When they don't, you can be consistent and shut up for the rest of your life, since the majority disagree with you. (remember, I'm basing that on what YOU'VE said, not anyone else. The rest of us are arguing that the opinion of the minority matters. So if you have a problem with this, you'll be arguing with yourself)"
Read any good polls lately ? You believe that the majority in Britain and the majority on this isle would vote to 'keep' our six north-eastern counties as part of the 'UK' ?
Seriously ?
Stick to one of your other sign-in names - your position when doing so is not THAT far out !

"The majority in Ireland already disagree with you. "
Pardon me mentioning websites again , but I believe The Sunday Business Post has one . You could do worse than check it out .

Sharon .

by analyst Fri Apr 07, 2006 19:08

Here is a good illustration of the problem of trying t odebate with Sharon, which I have noticed every time she posts. I wrote as follows earlier:

"But this is beside the point. In practical, hard reality, how are you going to get a united Ireland against their will? Do you seriously think it can be forced upon them without a ferocious civil war? What about Greysteel and the countless atrocities of the 70s? Doesn't this suggest that in teh event of your famous declaration of intent, the Protestants would resist with a ferocity at least equal to that waged by the IRA in the early 70s? They may have no 'right' to do so, but I believe that they would, and the past decades of struggle prove my point. In such a conflict, many would die. Are you so certain of your views and of the benefits of sovereignty that it is worth you risking so many people's lives? "

Now, agree or disagree, it is clear that the point being made here is that it is impossible to get a united Ireland - in hard, practical; reality - if a million Protestants are determined to prevent it. Does SHaron address this point? Here is her response in its entirety:

'I am 'certain of my views ' regarding the fact that , as history has shown , as long as the issue remains un-resolved there will be conflict .
No-one wants that potential for conflict to exist - the best solution , I believe , is for a withdrawal of the British military and political presence . Would you rather that the jurisdictional issue be 'swept under the carpet' for now ? For a future generation to grapple with , perhaps ? '

Not one word in her response gets to the core argument I was advancing. Interesting - but not in the way Sharon perhaps intended. The problem of problems -Protestant resistance - is just ignored. It reminds me of how children play hide and seek - they close their eyes, imagining that if they cannot see you, then you cannot see them. Perhaps Sharon has the same approach to Protestants - if she ignores them enough, the issue that they represent disappears. Meanwhile, her infantile level of argument - just endlessly clipping bits and pieces from people's comments and for the most part adding supposedly laconic comments, continues. It demonstrates, I fear, a closed midn verging on zealotry - Sharon is SO convinced of her position, so confident that it is self evident, that she simply cannot articulate her most basic premises, engage with any kind of contra-argument, or advance any serious justification for her views. It is enough to - well, what? It is hard to even dignify her writing as an argument.

On which note, I sign out of this 'discussion.'

by give it up sharon Fri Apr 07, 2006 19:09

Your thoughts are a joke. your logic is that because enough planters settled in america , they were entitled to take over the country !!!! hah hahahahahahahahah you make a mokery of your own wishess

Are you saying that if unionist procreated us into a minority (as is happening in isreal with palestianians) that we would have to rejoin the united kingdom , hahahahahahahahahaaa what a joke stance you take.

You want to gerry mander the result, so stop pretending you are a democrat hahahahahahahahahahahahaha joke joke joke .

You see i am now using your tactic: just rubbish the opposition . But you are convincing noone. Witness the paltry number of people who rioted when those orange "bastards" came to march through the capital, for the first time in decades.

Because ireland didn't have unionist before and things can't change ,well the rsf has no support so give it up , the majority isn't with you , so you just have to accept it and stop trying ,

That's your message hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

But that is ok. In my democracy i accept free speech , and gerrymanderers have the right to spout nonsense. But get this i've never felt more empowered that living in my republic: my great grand father was a spud picker, and i am loaded . what the hell have you done ???? hahahahahahahaha

by Tank Girl Fri Apr 07, 2006 19:14

'my great grand father was a spud picker, and i am loaded .'

You dont say what you are loaded with but I'd venture that its self manufactured fertiliser. Even if you are rich you stil have the mentality of a post colonial forelock tugging peasant. Plenty to criticise RSF about but you are just a Troll and I wont criticise them while vultures like you and your hyena mates here are at work.

Hey Sharon, On To The Workers Republic!

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 20:54

"Perhaps Sharon has the same approach to Protestants - if she ignores them enough, the issue that they represent disappears."
And if you ignore the consequences of the 'writ' from Westminster being allowed to carry-on from generation to generation perhaps it , too , will 'disappear' ?

"hahahahahahahahahahahahaha " - I am having trouble figuring out whether you are for or against my position . When you finish laughing , please re-post . Thank You .

Sharon .

by Sharon - Individual Fri Apr 07, 2006 21:38

Random pieces I came across whilst 'flicking' through various blogs :
"Pat Leahy:Almost 80 per cent of Irish people would like to see a united Ireland. Almost a quarter of voters - 22 per cent - believe that ‘‘delivering a united Ireland should be the government’s first priority’’.More than half of voters, 55 per cent, say they would like to see a united Ireland, but ‘‘other things should have priority’’.Ten per cent of voters say no efforts should be made to bring about a united Ireland, whereas 13 per cent say they have no interest one way or the other."

"Outstanding news! The majority of Irish people are in favour of a United Ireland, according to new poll released on Sunday. A survey has revealed almost four out of five voters (fantastic number!) want to see the country as one, with almost a quarter (22%) believing that achieving a United Ireland should be the Government’s first priority. Only 10% of voters say no efforts should be made to bring about a United Ireland (is that all?), with 13% having no interest one way or the other."

Might be of interest to some (triple!) posters here !

Sharon .

by analyst Fri Apr 07, 2006 22:40

Sharon

You really are silly. You do not address any of the points I make about your position - just engage in ya-bo nonsense. The idea of debate is to analyse what your opponents say, expose its weaknesses, challenge his assertions. I have raised question marks over your approach to Protestants - the great glorious weakness in Republican rhetoric for generations.. You simply ignore the point and make random ones of your own. For example, by challenging your inability to even begin to analyse hoiw Protestants might disrupt your plans for a united Ireland, you claim I am allegedly upholding partition and Westminster sovereignty. Nowhere have I done any such thing - I have simply pointed out that your strategy top deal with the problem is jet propelled nonsense. I have explained why I think this is the case. Unlike you, I offer argument to back my point. You ignore that ploint - and claim this is discussion. And yo usimply ignore what I say.... Incredible, and incrtedibly childish.

Anyone, this is my final reply - I think anyone who is not deluded woudl see that you are incapable of what passes for rational discussion in the adult world. In that, you have much in commo nwith the tradition to which you belong.

by sharon baiter Sat Apr 08, 2006 00:32

indeed indeed. .... newspaper polls do not constitute referenda .... but i am too bored i ll come back and thrash another one of you bumpkins in a few weeks when i have the time....

by Sharon - Individual Sat Apr 08, 2006 00:47

"Sharon
You really are silly. You do not address any of the points I make about your position - just engage in ya-bo nonsense. The idea of debate is to analyse what your opponents say, expose its weaknesses, challenge his assertions. I have raised question marks over your approach to Protestants - the great glorious weakness in Republican rhetoric for generations.. "
I replied to your questions , and asked some of my own . Unanswered to date , I must add . I challenged your assertions and pointed out what I believe to be the faults in them , including your attempt to introduce religion into this discussion ie your use of the term 'protestants' . Have you got a 'thing' about religion ?

"You simply ignore the point and make random ones of your own. For example, by challenging your inability to even begin to analyse hoiw Protestants might disrupt your plans for a united Ireland, you claim I am allegedly upholding partition and Westminster sovereignty. "
Religion again : you DO have a 'thing' about that issue , don't you ?
And where did I claim you were "upholding partition" ? I never did make a claim like that : it is obviously a "random" point you threw out there , hoping that I would not notice !

" Nowhere have I done any such thing - I have simply pointed out that your strategy top deal with the problem is jet propelled nonsense. I have explained why I think this is the case. Unlike you, I offer argument to back my point. You ignore that ploint - and claim this is discussion. And yo usimply ignore what I say.... Incredible, and incrtedibly childish."
You "back your points" by referring to religion and introducing 'claims' which I never made in the first place ! Is that proper 'discussion' , I ask you ?

"Anyone, this is my final reply - I think anyone who is not deluded woudl see that you are incapable of what passes for rational discussion in the adult world. In that, you have much in commo nwith the tradition to which you belong."
The "adult world" in which you hold "rational discussion" is one in which you expect people to be answerable for points they never made in the first place ! I am relieved that you are of the opinion that I do not 'fit in' in such a place . I have no desire to .

Sharon .

by Barry - 32csm Sat Apr 08, 2006 04:36

More tripe from analyst and co ( most likely the same person) . Their nonsense about 94% is a lie ( usual government propaganda) and the rest is just as dishonest .There were 2 seperate referenda in two seperate jurisdictiions on altogether seperate issues. Unionists in the north simply had no power to vote to drop articles 2&3 , a separate referenda altogether and certainly not the will of the Irish people acting as a unit .. They do though have an undemocratic veto over the politics and sovereign rights of the rest of the Irish people , which they have always had under British rule .

The issue of whether or not Britian should withdraw was simply not put to the people . Britain insisted this issue was not even on the agenda for discussion . British sovereignty was non negotiable from the outset . And it is British sovereignty in Ireland which is the root cause of the conflict . So it wasnt even a peace deal as the root cause of the conflict hasnt even been addressed .

The Irish people in both jurisdictions were continually warned that failure to comply with British demands that Irish sovereign claims to the national territory be dropped would lead to massive loss of life . As we now know ( although a meek southern society with decades of draconian censorship and a pro British media largely didnt know) it was the British government who directly controlled , assisted and even armed the imperialist murder gangs which the very same British were threatening would massacre southerners if they didnt comply with westminster demands. A vote with a gun to your head isnt a valid democratic mandate for anything . In fact its illegal under international law , just as the treaty to disrupt the national territory and subdue Irish democracy and sovereignty is illegal under international law .

The issue of a British withdrawal wasnt put to the people . How can the results of these referenda be determined as the will of the Irish people as a whole when this core issue isnt allowed to be put in front of them . ? They have no right to vote on that issue as a whole...but these seperate referenda can considered their will as a whole ?

This is very very simple stuff . If a referendum was called in the north tomorrow about British withdrawal and a simultaneous one held in the 26 cos would the results of those referenda then be the will of the Irish people ?

Would it FUCK !!!!according to the governemnts , especially the British one . If the result of such refernda cannot be considered the will of the Irish people then neither can the seperate results of 1998 . This is subject to a challenge at the UN general assembly which Britain has yet to respond to . A challenge is a challenge , the results can be validly disputed on that basis , international law . Just as a legal dispute here can be validly challenged under law . The challenge is a valid one and has not been dismissed .

As for the dire threats and shibboleths about protestant resistance and the examples of Greysteel etc . We now know that the leader of the gang Toreens Knight was working as a British army agent the entire time . And that prior to the massacre special branch moved the weapons ( British supplied from SAfrica) for the gang after they were found by fishermen . The state directly facilitated this massacre and many others . Such as Dublin Monaghan , Loughinisland ,SEan Grahams bookies etc etc etc ad nauseum . This manifestation of " protestant resistance" over the last 35 years is exposed to the world as a British state creation . It has only ever been remotely effective with the guiding hand of the British directly behind it , and behind it the British certainly were .

As usual the conservatives on this board seek to inhibit Irish peoples demands for sovereignty through dire threats of armaggeddon type repercussions - civil war in the north , economic ruin if we withold shannon , even more ruin if we even dreamed of nationalising our gas and oil resources..we must continue to allow our entire nation to ripped up used and abused by whoever takes a notion to......doom doom and fear . Thats how Ireland is run accross the 32 counties . We have a united Ireland of fear and ignorance , timidity and forelock tugging . Roll on the revolution when all this timid , backward conservative shit gets thrown on a bonfire and consigned to history .

It belongs with the notions of " a priest wouldnt harm a child" and " a garda wouldnt tell alie" . Fear is the social control thats always been used to keep us in line and stop us taking what is rightfully ours . Down with fear .

by analyst Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:08

Barry

I hold your views in as much contempt as you hold mine. But you have at least one virtue that Sharon does not - and that is that you do actually engage with your opponents' views, so thanks for that. In this case, my central point - which Sharon, in her clipped, psuedo sardanic style cannot even acknowledge - was the likelihood of Protestant resistance in the event of a declaration of intent. (Her approach is, in terms of debate, the equivalent of what a stutter is to conversation. She really leaves you nothing to discuss). However: Your view is that there is no such threat, and you at least say why. So, again, thanks - I understand your position a little better.

In my opinion, to write off all Protestant resistance as British inspired is madness. Yes the British provided some guns - but there were willing hands to receive them. Not all loyalist killings were with British guns in any event. But the wider point is this. You are prepared to make any sacrfifice and engage in any resistance to defend what you see as your national rights. I think most groups with a strong national or sectarian identity feel the same - particularly when under threat. The ultimate thrteat, from a loyalist perspective, is withdrawal and a united Ireland. I see absolutely no reason to think that people on the Shankill and elsewhere would be any less tenacious in defence of what they see as their rights than you, or anyone else. In the pastk, you have written with some venom aboujt the terrible conditions loyalists imposed on Catholics in the past - these same loyalists whom you now seem to think would accept your vision of a united Ireland with little more than a murmur.

I believe that the history of Ireland and elsewhere would suggest a different outcome: you are more likely to have a Balkans style civil war. In being willing to run the rismk of this, because of your conviction that there would be minimal loyalist resistance, you are showing an enormous faith in your opinion and being willing to take a terrible risk.

Others can form a view as to whether your view of the likely outcome or mine is rooted in reality. I suspect, given the dismal levels of support for the 32SM (and for Sharon's RSF) that most folks disagree with your optimistic view - which is a little akin to a chap leaping from a high building, and shouting as he passes each successive storey 'SO far, so sgood.'

by Barry - 32csm Sat Apr 08, 2006 13:57

Precisely the same apocalyptic threats of armageddon and civil war were made by Eugene Terreblanche and the AWB in south africa whose followers were more powerful , numerous and better armed than the loyalists,- white homeland , ethnic cleansing , war of unbridled savagery rather than accept this that and the other etc etc etc . In the end all bluster ,all bullyboy tactics and all total balls. The very same irrational hatred and desire to kill was there , theyd killed and terrorised plenty of blacks with state assistance . When the hidden hand was gone the threats were as empty as the heads they came out of. They came to an accomodation with their neighbours , just as the unionists in the south did . And just as the majority of unionism will do in a united Ireland provided they arent trampled over and discriminated against .

Your vision is not rooted in reality , its rooted in fear . Its rooted in nightmares about orange supermen and savages . You havent produced any evidence that it is reality . Youve just accepted bluster and threats as fact . Much the same as many Irish people are conditioned to fear the consequences of maintaining neutrality or taking on shell and exxon mobile for control or even royalties for their national resources . Fear , we are ruled by fear .

The shankill rd is dead on its feet as a community , nothng to fear there unless your a lonely catholic driving a taxi . In the event of a British withdrawal the smart money within unionism will come to an accomadation , just as they made clear even at their extremes they would when withdrawal looked imminent in the 70s . The mythical supermen of the loyalist paramilitaries have long been exposed as incompetent clowns who killed with the hand of the state guiding theirs . When the hand was withdrawn they collapsed . Just as they were a corrupt mess in the late 70s and most of the 1980s until Britain armed and directed their offensive . Exactly as it had done before in the early and mid 70s .

Your fears are such that we must even abandon the Stormont treaty too. God forbid 50% + 1 would ever happen . The loyalists would go mad and kill us all in our beds .

My analysis is rooted in reality , not fear . A political system run on fear if you assert your rights on resources , territory and national democracy is an undemocratic system and an uncivilised system . It belongs i the colonial age - in fact it ties us to a colonial politic long reviled and discarded throughout the world . Its time for Ireland to come out of the feckin dark ages .

by Analyst Sat Apr 08, 2006 14:37

Barry you are seriously, dangerously deluded. The Protestants are 1 million strong, and about one-quarter the entire population in this island. They are geographically concentrated with plenty of territory to hold - a far cry from the small and dispersed whites in south africa. With plenty of weaponry, whether derived from the British or not, they are probably the best armed part of the population in this island. And I remind you that they have fought - in the 70s and beyond, when many hundreds if not more Cathiolics died at their hands. You have a short memory. Why should it all be different in teh future, just ebcause you wish it to be so?

However, we will have to agree to disagree - I simply do not believe that Protestants will be any less tenacious in pursuit of their beliefs than you are in pursuit of yours. They might fight fro a cause they couldn't win - but then Reopublkicans have fought fro a cause they couldn't win either since the foundation of the NI state. If peopel feel thtreatened enough they will fight whatever the odds against victory. Why should Protestants be any different to you? Are they made of lesser genetic material or something? IS it only Republicans who have convictions, courage and determination?

Your comments about the Shankill being dead on its feet are in pretty poor taste, given the barbarous Shankill bomb in the 90s by the way. You may have forgotten it - like many of your persuasion, you have a selective memopry, which dwells on all your hurts and wounds but blots out those of the other side. But the people who lived and live there 'haven't gone away you know.' They have rights too. They have feelings and loyalties every bit as strong as yours, even if you are blind to them. I see no reason to think that they will not fight in defence of what they believe.

Your crazed conviction that they will accomodate to your designs for them, providing they have no fear of discrimination, is self delusion on a dangerous and possibly genocidal scale. In what way have you ever extended the hand of friendship or understanding? Why on earth shoudl loyalists trust the 32CSM to defend their culture, tyraditions and rights? That has never been high on your list of priorities, and only occasions a token mention in your all too voluminous ramblings on this site. For example, you were to the fore protesting at the recent loyalist parade in Dublin. Irrespective of the nature of some of its organisers (who are every bit as bigoted as you), it never occurred to you to consider that this was a golden opportunity to demonstrate to these self same Protestants precisely the tolerance you now say is so important if they are to be won toa united Ireland. You were utterly blind and indifferent to how your rhetoric and protests would appear to Protestants in the North. Not one of them that I know, even the most moderate, has viewed it as anything other than an assault to their traditions. Militant Republicanism of your variety is justplain bogotry, hatred, intolerance, zealotry and tribalism from a bygone age

You have nothing to butblood, sweat and tears, with only the prospect of mayhem and carnage at the other end.

by Sharon - Individual Sat Apr 08, 2006 16:24

'Analyst' stated ( to Barry) -

" I hold your views in as much contempt as you hold mine. But you have at least one virtue that Sharon does not - and that is that you do actually engage with your opponents' views, so thanks for that. In this case, my central point - which Sharon, in her clipped, psuedo sardanic style cannot even acknowledge - was the likelihood of Protestant resistance in the event of a declaration of intent. (Her approach is, in terms of debate, the equivalent of what a stutter is to conversation. She really leaves you nothing to discuss)."

You made the grand total of two posts in reply to comments I posted , before you stated the above : in those two posts ,you wrote , amongst other comments -

"a million Protestants are determined to prevent it.... would resist with a ferocity" All of them ? You know this for a fact , of course - you have no doubt 'analysised' the situation in a scientific manner and , therefore , will (eventually) dismiss those who do not accept your 'findings' . I got 'mine' earlier than Barry , that's all !

" you claim I am allegedly upholding partition and Westminster sovereignty."
As I already pointed out - that never happened ! I asked you to show me where it happened and I received the above 'dismissal' in reply .
When , in this case due to your own blundering , you are 'found out' for attempting to mis-direct a discussion , you accuse those that have exposed you as having a "psuedo sardanic style" . I sincerely hope you confine your work as an 'analyst' to websites such as this -
it would be less harmful to you in the long run than to do so in 'real life' .
You are a troublesome 'blip' in this discussion , Sir . An unnecessary exclamation mark , if you will - there , but serving no useful purpose .

Sharon .

by Barry - 32csm Sat Apr 08, 2006 17:50

Thats all analyst offers , the propaganda of fear . Submit to undemocratic bullying tactics and threats , accept that as normal politics . Firstly northern unionists make up approimately one fifth of Irelnds population , not a quarter . Why lie ?One million protestants ready to fight ? Toddlers , old age pensioners , the disabled , blind and infirm ? Really ? All one million to the last man woman child and blind geriatric !! Just as analyst and his kind spin the myth of 94% of the Irish people voted for the GFA we have more lies , more myths .

In the space of 32 years and with British government arms and direct assistance over that entire period - ( 69-2001) , loyalists managed to kill a grand total of 1020 people , many of that number from their own ranks and community in feuds and criminal disputes. Thats an average of 35 people per year even with direct state assistance and guidance . Far from civil war on a balkans scale this number is far outweighed by deaths from road traffic accidents in the 6 counties alone . Deaths from everyday household accidents far outweigh this total in the 6 cos . Hardly Bosnia ffs !! , a bad weekend in sarajevo eclipsed the death toll at loyalist hands over 35 entire years ( i suppose its as well we didnt really annoy them !!!) . So lay off the Balkans nonsense . Its a myth . The myth and propaganda of fear .

Even within that number claimed by loyalists many are believed in fact to have been the actual hands on work of undercover British army death squads squads such as the MRF who carried out numerous clandestine assassinations of ordinary catholics in the 1970s . The British units were found to have been responsible for a number of random drive by assasinations in Belfast and are suspected of being behind many more than that , such as the sniper massacre in Springhill or the bombing of Kellys bar on the whiterock . The hidden hand was there the entire time - the killing spree within the murder triangle ,the Dublin Monaghan and Dundalk bombings , Greysteel and Loughinisland , Rose Nelson and Pat Finucane - the list is endless. All killed with direct state assistance north and south - with the simple to terrorise the Irish people into lowering their aims and forfeiting their rights. An aim analyst promotes - fear . "The Jackal" Robin Jackson , a British agent had a license to kill by both governemnts both sides of the border . He operated with equal state impunity in Dublin , Monaghan , Kildare and Dundalk as he did in mid ulster . Total impunity for 30 years and with both governemnts and police forces covering his tracks , still covered to this day north and south .

Analyst and the state forces which facilitated these murders have a common political aim - to keep the Irish people terrified of this non existant bogeyman . They share the agenda of presenting these killings as organic loyalist resistance when reality , proven fact is that they were nothing of the kind .Without state assistance the bogeyman is no more than a bumbling clown . Proven yet again just this morning in the Irish News - another UDA dispute set to erupt . Much hyped loyalist hardman Andre Shoukri set to be stood down after gambling away a grand total of £860,000 since becoming the north Belfast brigadier in June 2002 . Comical . Except the UDA cant even stand him down . The organisation which analyst claims will plunge us into a Balkans scenario is unable to stand down a man who has gambled away almost £1 million pounds of its money in 3 years !!!!

These are the clowns we are meant to be terrified of , the supermen that will kill us all in our beds . Away and fuck with that utter nonsense. Without state assistance they are nothing and even with it every single last one of their victims was unarmed and unable to shoot back . Again not even close to the Balkans . Massed and armed ranks of loyalists , literally 1000s , gathered to simultaneously ethnically cleanse Ardoyne and the tiny short strand enclave one night in 1970 . They were met by only a handful of poorly armed Provisional defenders , armed with pre Armalite antiques from the second world war and before . The loyalists were blunted , humiliated and sent packing in both engagements that night . Their appetite for destruction waned without doubt when people stood up tothem , as generally happens with a bully . Loyalists are no serbs thats for sure as those of us whove lived cheek by jowl with them all our lives are well aware .

Youre wasting your time trying to scare me and many other northern residents with the loyalist bogeyamn . We know it for a bully and a stae assisted one . But democratic politics involves facing down bullies and insisting on your rights . Democratic politics rejects the politics of fear , bullying , co-ercion and intimidation . Analyst and the bullies reject the notion of of democratic politics in Ireland in favour of superstion , coercion threats and the power of nightmares . Waste of time arguing with a propagandist whose currency is fear . ALL he has to offer is fear and the politics of continued failure .

by analyst Sat Apr 08, 2006 17:53

Sharon has tried for virtually the first time to string two consecutive sentences together. She strains her mighty intellect only to find that the effort defeats her: logic crumbles into irrelevance under the strain. Earlier, I opined that she accused me of wanting to uphold Westminster sovereignty. This was a comment in passing, but rather than deal with my central point - Protestant opposition, indeed Protestant fear and loathing of RSF in all its manifestations - she bleats that she never raised any such issue. Where, she whines, did I do so. Please tell me. So, here goes -

I wrote at one point: "Perhaps Sharon has the same approach to Protestants - if she ignores them enough, the issue that they represent disappears."

Sharon replied:

'And if you ignore the consequences of the 'writ' from Westminster being allowed to carry-on from generation to generation perhaps it , too , will 'disappear' ?

It is clear from this that she characterises my position as being one of ignoring the consequences of the 'writ' from Westminster - that is, doing nothing about it, that is condoning it/ upholding it. Is this not resaonably clear?

In any event, it is beside the main point. But it is typical of Sharon that she wields her rapier wit at side issues while ignoring the major moat in her eye. The Protestants vote en masse for the DUP - scarcely evidence of their determination to join a united Ireland. If there is even one Protestant member of RSF I would be surprised. Even if there were one or two, it would scarcely signify a trend. Many tens of thousands at different times were in loyalist paramilitaries; hundreds of them in jail; tens of thousands march ever year in defence of their traditions. I say that these people would display every bit as much courage, determination and ferocity in defence of what they perceive as their vital interests as would Sharon, Barry and the rest of their deluded crew. Sharon evidently thinks that a declaration of intent (to be obtained by what means, she declines to say) would change all this. Perhaps she also still believes in tooth fairies.

I know of no precedent in history for any such thing happening, and suggest that to think otherwise shows only that Barry, Sharon and Co. are completely out of touch with the mood in loyalist working class areas, and dine out each evening on a diet of self deception, delusion and nationalist zealotry that blinds them to facts obvious to anyone who does not share their tribalistic bigotry.

Not once have I read a comment from either of them that showed the slighted empathy for Protestants, nor any interest in finding out anything about what animates them, nor the slightest glimmer of an understanding that maybe militant Republicanism has done nothing but antagonise loyalists rather than convince them of the great joys allegedly waiting them in a united Ireland.

The point remains: their chosen strategy (military struggle) failed. It only deepened division. Any rresumption in the future woudl do the same. People cannot be coerced into a settlement against their will. This is the reality - not the fantasies of nationalist Republicans. Enough blood has been spilled in purtsuit of it - lets start afresh and try something a little less animated by bigotry.

by Sharon - Individual Sat Apr 08, 2006 19:10

'Analyst' said of me in an earlier post - " you claim I am allegedly upholding partition and Westminster sovereignty."

On my second statement that I had done no such thing and , also for the second time in asking where and when I had done so , 'analyst' replied - "This was a comment in passing.... " !!
As I insinuated earlier , Sir - when you are pulled-up on a comment you have made , you invent an argument/comment to 'hit back' at . You are a fraud .

Analyst stated - "People cannot be coerced into a settlement against their will." It is just as well that Westminster never attempted to do so here , then , is'nt it ?

Should you decide to change your 'sign-in' name again , may I suggest you use the following symbol - !
If lucky , you will get a few posts in before having to change again .

Sharon .

by analyst Sat Apr 08, 2006 23:31

i now formally resign from this thread. There is not one syllable of Sharon's comment that merits attention or which seriously addresses the substantive issues to hand. She is on planet RSF, in which one's fantasies are reality, one's enemies are weak, all virtue is on one side, all devilment opn the other - a world utterly different to that which the rest of us inhabit. People can draw their own conclusions from the posts above. If Sharon seriously believes that loyalists would not resist the imposition of a united Ireland, I suggest that she belongs in a sanatorium. Sad to say, her style of 'debate' would invite such a thought.

If she is desperate enough to want the last word, however meaningless or irrelevant to the discussion at hand, she is very welcome to it.

by Sharon - Individual Sun Apr 09, 2006 00:54

"cretinism
by analyst Fri Apr 07, 2006 21:40
Anyone, this is my final reply "

"i quit
by analyst Sat Apr 08, 2006 22:31
i now formally resign from this thread. "
As before , 'Analyst' , words mean little to you : you throw them around like confetti then dis-own and/or deny them .
You have accused me of being on a different planet than you . I pray that you are right .

Sharon .

by another observer Sun Apr 09, 2006 01:52

Sharon

If that is a reply to any points raised about your political views, you are bloody pathetic. Is having the last word so important to you that you don't even care if it makes sense?

by legion Sun Apr 09, 2006 03:24

how many does analyst have ?

by a child Sun Apr 09, 2006 09:32

No Sharon, legion or whatever you call yourself - I want the last word. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa.

by Sharon - Individual Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:20

" Sharon - answer the bloody question
by another observer Sun Apr 09, 2006 00:52
Sharon

If that is a reply to any points raised about your political views, you are bloody pathetic. Is having the last word so important to you that you don't even care if it makes sense? "
My post which you refer to was in reference to the fact that that was not the first time that 'Analyst' had said that he/she/they were finished posting on this thread .

"last word
by a child Sun Apr 09, 2006 08:32
No Sharon, legion or whatever you call yourself - I want the last word. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa."
I post here only under my own name . I have no need to do otherwise .

Sharon .

by a child Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:11

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa