Sinn Fein expels 'British agent'

[Felix the Cat]

Sinn Fein expels 'British agent' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4535774.stm)

A veteran Sinn Fein figure has been expelled by the party which accused him of being a "British agent".

Charges of involvement in an alleged IRA spy ring against the party's former Stormont head of administration, Denis Donaldson, were dropped by the Crown.

Party leader Gerry Adams claimed he was about to be "outed" by the same "securocrats" who set him up as a spy.

The government said the October 2002 Stormont raid was solely to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering.

Northern Ireland's power-sharing executive collapsed following the arrests of three men, who had all charges against them dropped last week.

The Northern Ireland Office said in a statement on Friday that they "completely reject any allegation that the police operation in October 2002 was for any reason other than to prevent paramilitary intelligence gathering".

It said "the fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police".

At a news conference on Friday, Mr Adams claimed Mr Donaldson had been approached by police officers earlier this week and told he was about to be "outed" as an informer.

Mr Adams said he contacted Sinn Fein and at a meeting at the party's Belfast headquarters on Thursday, he admitted that he had been working for the British authorities.

He said Mr Donaldson was not under any threat from the republican movement.

There has been no comment yet from Mr Donaldson.

Last week, Mr Donaldson appeared alongside Mr Adams at Stormont after the charges were dropped.

Mr Donaldson told the news conference that the "charges should never have been brought".

"It was political policing and political charges and the fact that we were acquitted today proves that," he said.

The police said on Friday that it was a matter of policy to neither confirm nor deny whether any individual is or had been an informant.

Police sources reiterated that the "Stormontgate" affair began because a paramilitary organisation was involved in the systematic gathering of information and targeting or individuals.

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said Mr Donaldson had been known to the Irish government and if "one of Sinn Fein's top administrators in Stormont turns out to be a British spy, this is as bizarre as it gets".

'Public interest'

The BBC understands that the mole whose information prompted the Stormont raids was not Mr Donaldson, nor was it the other two men against whom the charges were dropped.

DUP leader Ian Paisley said the people of Northern Ireland "will never again be surprised at anything that happens in the political world" and that the prime minister must make a statement.

"There must be no attempt at further cover-up," he said.

"The democratic right of the people to be informed must be honoured."

Last week, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be drawn on why the charges were dropped, only saying that it was "in the public interest".

Other parties have demanded that Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain or Attorney General Lord Goldsmith must clarify what were these public interest reasons.

The three men were arrested following a police raid on Sinn Fein's offices at Parliament Buildings on 4 October 2002, when documents and computer discs were seized.

Following the arrests, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists, led at that time by then First Minister David Trimble, threatened to collapse the executive with resignations.

The British government then suspended devolution in the province, embarking on direct rule for the last three years.

[Felix the Cat]

Sinn Fein man was British agent (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/17/nira17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/17/ixnewstop.html)

A leading republican arrested in connection with the alleged spy ring that brought down devolution in Northern Ireland admitted last night that he had been a British agent for two decades.

Denis Donaldson, 55, was expelled from Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, a week after he and two other men were cleared of spying inside Stormont, an incident that led to the collapse of power sharing.

His admission proves that the highest echelons of the Provisional movement were infiltrated by British intelligence for years.

The case against Mr Donaldson, formerly Sinn Fein's head of administration, was dropped when the prosecution said it would not be in the public interest to pursue it.

Unionists were outraged that Mr Donaldson and his fellow accused Ciaran Kearney, his son-in-law, and William Mackessy, a civil servant, were found not guilty after a huge police operation. Tony Blair has been questioned about the collapse of the case, in which more than 200 police officers raided Sinn Fein's offices at the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2002.

The Government suspended devolution and imposed direct rule when David Trimble, the former Ulster Unionist leader and first minister, threatened to resign.

Mr Donaldson and Mr Kearney were accused of having documents useful to terrorists. Mr Mackessy was charged with collecting information on the security forces.

Many observers were highly suspicious of the decision to find the three men not guilty during an unlisted hearing at Belfast Crown Court.

A statement issued by Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president, claiming that Mr Donaldson was helping the security forces would seem to offer some explanation. The authorities would be reluctant to expose their intelligence sources in a court hearing.

In the past, the IRA used bullets to deal with informers, but the prospect of Mr Donaldson being targeted because of his involvement with the authorities would seem unlikely since the organisation's statement embracing peace on July 28.

However, last night one security source said: "I would think it unlikely that Mr Donaldson would be offered life insurance after this."

Mr Adams claimed that the spy ring allegations were fabricated by the security forces to bring down devolution.

He said: "The fact is that there was no Sinn Fein spy ring at Stormont. The collapse of the political institutions was a direct result of the actions of some of those who run the intelligence and policing system of the British. The fact is that the key person at the centre of those events was a Sinn Fein member who was a British agent. This is the responsibility of the British Government."

At a press conference in Dublin, Mr Adams said Mr Donaldson had approached a Sinn Fein official after being told by the Police Service of Northern Ireland that his role was about to be revealed. He admitted to helping the police at a subsequent Sinn Fein meeting.

The Northern Ireland Office rejected Mr Adams's claim that "Stormontgate" was politically motivated saying the dropping of charges was a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. The NIO added: "The fact remains that a huge number of stolen documents were recovered by the police."

Mr Adams's assertion almost immediately resulted in comparisons being drawn with Stakeknife, the most important British agent within the IRA during the Troubles.

Stakeknife was the codename for Freddie Scappaticci, a west Belfast republican and a senior figure in the IRA's internal security division responsible for catching informers.

While he worked in this role he was himself an agent for the Force Research Unit (FRU), a British special forces team responsible for agents within paramilitary groups. Since being unmasked in 2003, he has not been harmed by the IRA.

Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP, said: "This has certainly given an added twist to the entire Stormontgate scandal, and confirms our view that the reasons the court decided not to prosecute was because to do so would have compromised an agent of the state and sensitive security documents."

[Lenny]

Why are the IRA terrorists (a.k.a. Sinn Fein) allowed to have any say in the political process at all.

Does the US allow Osama bin Laden and Ahman Zarkawi to have a say in the US political process? :mad:

[Felix the Cat]

(I would like to know what the hell is going on here)

It is now in the public interest for us to hear the truth about Stormontgate (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=673052)

Now we know. There was a spy ring at Stormont, but it was one controlled by the intelligence services, not Sinn Fein. One of the men charged with spying for republicans was, it appears, actually working for the other side.

Denis Donaldson and two other men who had been facing criminal charges had those charges dropped nine days ago because it was not in the public interest to proceed.

Since then the Secretary of State, Prime Minister and the prosecution service have all steadfastly refused to elaborate just what was meant by the public interest.

It is a stance which is now unsustainable, given yesterday's expulsion from Sinn Fein of Mr Donaldson following his admission that he was working for British intelligence for up to 20 years. The official line from the Government is that the prosecution service is independent of political interference and decides cases on individual merits.

That is a line many people will have difficulty accepting given developments. The coincidence of charges being dropped for reasons of public interest and the unmasking of one of the accused as an alleged agent stretches credulity.

The public is also wondering just why did the police raid Sinn Fein offices at Stormont, bringing down the power-sharing Executive, and leading ultimately to the unmasking of an agent? Who gave the go-ahead for that operation?

By indicating that one of the parties elected to Government in Northern Ireland was acting illegally it was inevitable that the whole edifice would collapse.

It was also inevitable that no unionist party would work to rebuild the Assembly with Sinn Fein while the stench of criminality hung over republicans.

The whole Stormontgate affair has soured faith in the political process and Tony Blair and Peter Hain must now give further explanations.

If this was happening in any other region of the UK there would be an almighty uproar and a call for heads to roll.

If we are expected to pay our way as part of the UK then we are justified in demanding that those who govern us should also pay their dues.

[Jonathan]

Why are the IRA terrorists (a.k.a. Sinn Fein) allowed to have any say in the political process at all.
Because they are the elected representatives of the majority of nationalists in northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland is ever to be feasable, both communities must be reconsiled. Unionist domination(which was the case in the past) is no way to go about this. Therefore, Sinn Féin get their share in Stormont et al.

[Jonathan]

Hot off the Press - Supposedly another senior figure in Sinn Féin is an agent from the Gardaí(Irish police).

Sinn Féin are also in hot water at the minute over Frank Connolly who may have travelled to Columbia on a false passport to liase with Farc gurillas.

[Felix the Cat]

Sinn Fein British agent shot dead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4877516.stm)

Former senior Sinn Fein member Denis Donaldson has been found shot dead in the Irish Republic.
Mr Donaldson was expelled from the party last December after admitting he was a paid British spy for 20 years.

The IRA issued a statement saying it had "no involvement whatsoever" in Mr Donaldson's death in County Donegal.

Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern described the death as a "brutal murder", while NI Secretary Peter Hain said it was "barbaric".

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams said he wanted to "disassociate (his party) and all republicans who support the peace process from this killing".

The death of Mr Donaldson came hours before a planned visit to Northern Ireland by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Mr Ahern to unveil their blueprint for reviving the assembly at Stormont.

A Downing Street spokesman said that Mr Blair "strongly condemned" the killing and had noted Mr Adams' statement of condemnation.

It is understood that Irish police found two shotgun cartridges close to the body of Mr Donaldson at his remote cottage in County Donegal.

Irish justice minister Michael McDowell said he understood that Mr Donaldson had extensive damage to his right arm.

Mr Donaldson moved out of his Belfast home last December, and had been living in the run-down cottage which had neither electricity nor running water.

His body was found at the cottage near the village of Glenties at about 1700 BST on Tuesday.

A large area surrounding the property has been cordoned off by Irish police for scientific examination.

One of Mr Donaldson's nearest neighbours, who lives more than a mile away, said he had last seen him driving past on Tuesday morning.

Mr Donaldson had been Sinn Fein's head of administration at Stormont before his 2002 arrest over alleged spying led to its collapse.

Mr Donaldson and two others were acquitted of charges last December "in the public interest".

One week later, Sinn Fein expelled him from the party.

At the time, he told a news conference that he was recruited in the 1980s as a paid British agent and deeply regretted his activities.


He said there had not been a republican spy ring at Stormont.

Gerry Adams told the same news conference that Mr Donaldson was not under any threat from the republican movement.

Mr Adams said on Tuesday he had spoken to the Donaldson family just before news of his death broke.

He said he was not prepared to speculate on who might have been responsible.

"It has to be condemned. We are living in a different era, and in the future in which everyone could share," he said.

"This killing seems to have been carried out by those who have not accepted that."

DUP leader Ian Paisley said Mr Donaldson's death would be a setback for the political process.

"If this man has been murdered because of his connection with the IRA/Sinn Fein, and because of the past happenings, then it strikes a blow at what the two governments are trying to do," he said.

[Slavic Enforcer]

What he did was more than (just) betrayal. :mad:

[Lenny]

Sinn Fein British agent shot dead

Former senior Sinn Fein member Denis Donaldson has been found shot dead in the Irish Republic. They fail to mention that he was tortured before being killed

Former Sinn Fein official, exposed as British spy, found tortured and killed (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/04042006/2/world-former-sinn-fein-official-exposed-british-spy-found-tortured.html)

Savages :nono:

What he did was more than (just) betrayal. :mad:Betrayal of terrorists, civilian-bombers, and indiscriminate child-killers is not a bad thing, I'd say it's a good thing actually

[Slavic Enforcer]

Betrayal of terrorists, civilian-bombers, and indiscriminate child-killers is not a bad thing, I'd say it's a good thing actually

And how should they have fought for their freedom instead?
With flowers and chocolates?

He was a big animal there, do you think he did not motivate his comrades to commit attacks?
And then he betrayed them.. disgusting!

[Der Sozialist]

And how should they have fought for their freedom instead?
With flowers and chocolates?

He was a big animal there, do you think he did not motivate his comrades to commit attacks?
And then he betrayed them.. disgusting!

I am not sure that a free and independent Ireland is good for Ireland. Just look at your native homeland, Yugoslavia—do you believe that the fractionalization of Yugoslavia was beneficial for the Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenians, etc?

Take one more example: The Native-Americans. They were divided, often by playing individual tribes off each other, and hence are almost extinct as of today.

Sometimes people have to reevaluate their priorities….

[Zrinski]

I am not sure that a free and independent Ireland is good for Ireland. Just look at your native homeland, Yugoslavia—do you believe that the fractionalization of Yugoslavia was beneficial for the Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenians, etc?

Yugoslavia was beneficial for political reasons for a certain period of time. Overall it had quite negative impact on all nations within it. Yugoslavia was created by force and exploded in blood...twice. A fool would learn his lesson once but European powers thought they give it a second try.... :rolleyes:


Take one more example: The Native-Americans. They were divided, often by playing individual tribes off each other, and hence are almost extinct as of today.

Sometimes people have to reevaluate their priorities….

I don't see how is this relevant to the subject. First you are comparing South Slavic nations in some strange arrtifical conglomeration called Yugoslavia and then you compare Native Americans. Irish are currently divided thanks to the basically British occuppation of the northern part of Ireland. Irish people want to reunite but outsiders don't let them.

IRA used and uses gruesome methods but sometimes there is nothing else left. If not for IRA there wouldn't even be Republic of Ireland today.

[Slavic Enforcer]

I am not sure that a free and independent Ireland is good for Ireland. Just look at your native homeland, Yugoslavia—do you believe that the fractionalization of Yugoslavia was beneficial for the Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenians, etc?

For me surely not.

You know, I am more or less neutral in the case of Northern Ireland, but I can understand the Irish Nationalists.

It's easy to talk about brotherhood and unity when you are a 1st class citizen.
I doubt that the (Catholic) Irish are on equal terms with the English.

[Der Sozialist]

I don't see how is this relevant to the subject. First you are comparing South Slavic nations in some strange arrtifical conglomeration called Yugoslavia and then you compare Native Americans. Irish are currently divided thanks to the basically British occuppation of the northern part of Ireland. Irish people want to reunite but outsiders don't let them.

IRA used and uses gruesome methods but sometimes there is nothing else left. If not for IRA there wouldn't even be Republic of Ireland today.

Small countries almost always (there are exceptions) will be less successful than their larger counterparts. The Irish are somewhat distinct from the English but not enough so to warrant independence.

As for Yugoslavia….. I don’t know, if you are satisfied with the current situation then who am I to comment?

However, if I was not mistaken, Yugoslavia worked well under Tito….

I guess another parallel could be Iraq--- The different ethnicities got a long fine under Saddam Hussein but….

[Lenny]

And how should they have fought for their freedom instead?
With flowers and chocolates?They are despicable terrorists and insurrectionaries trying to overthrow a legitimate civil government that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have endorsed (the people of Northern Ireland have voted again and again to stay part of the United Kingdom). They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters :rolleyes: :nono:

[Zrinski]

Small countries almost always (there are exceptions) will be less successful than their larger counterparts.

I don't agree. Besides I don't see what size has to do with anything. Nations can cooperate without forcing themselves upon each other which was the cae with certain arrtificial states such as Yugoslavia, Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia.


The Irish are somewhat distinct from the English but not enough so to warrant independence.

Excuse me?! This is just ridiculous argument. Irish are Irish...if they want indepedence they should get it....same for any other nation. By your logic some states/nations wouldn't even exist today....especially former colonies.


As for Yugoslavia….. I don’t know, if you are satisfied with the current situation then who am I to comment?

I am satisfied. It could be better and it will get better.


However, if I was not mistaken, Yugoslavia worked well under Tito….

You are mistaken. Yugoslavia lived on the back of western donations for yours. It's economy on loan, human rights and freedeom of speech not on it's lowest point but very low.


I guess another parallel could be Iraq--- The different ethnicities got a long fine under Saddam Hussein but….

Iraq has only two different ethnic groups - Arabs and Kurds. Yugoslavia had 6 different already formed south slavic nations and there were also Albanians and Hungarians as substantial minorities. It just could not work. Same as Soviet Union.

[Der Sozialist]

Excuse me?! This is just ridiculous argument. Irish are Irish...if they want indepedence they should get it....same for any other nation. By your logic some states/nations wouldn't even exist today....especially former colonies.

Irish are Irish—sure. But you have to draw a line since if every distinct group demanded autonomy and independence in Europe then Europe would resemble a very complicated jig saw puzzle.

I feel that the Irish are not acting in their best interest but since I am not Irish maybe my opinion is little ‘myopic’.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Ireland is a good example of the negative influence of churches (not religions, churches!).

The Protestant Irish fight together with the English (!) against their Catholic brothers. I guess their feeling of belonging together is bigger towards the English. And why should that be if not because of their different churches? :rolleyes:

[Der Sozialist]

I don't agree. Besides I don't see what size has to do with anything. Nations can cooperate without forcing themselves upon each other which was the cae with certain arrtificial states such as Yugoslavia, Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia.

Resources and capitol mainly---usually leads to a more successful economy.

There are, as noted, exceptions.

BTW,

How is the economy in Croatia? Are things better or worse than they were under Tito.

[Zrinski]

Irish are Irish—sure. But you have to draw a line since if every distinct group demanded autonomy and independence in Europe then Europe would resemble a very complicated jig saw puzzle.

I agree...but in case of the Irish the matter is clear.

I feel that the Irish are not acting in their best interest but since I am not Irish maybe my opinion is little ‘myopic’.

Only the Irish know what is best for the Irish.

Ireland is a good example of the negative influence of churches (not religions, churches!).

The Protestant Irish fight together with the English (!) against their Catholic brothers. I guess their feeling of belonging together is bigger towards the English. And why should that be if not because of their different churches? :rolleyes:

Actually it's not that simple. Most protetants and unionists in Northern Ireland are not really Irish. They are British(English and Scottish) colonists.

Resources and capitol mainly---usually leads to a more successful economy.

Not in todays globalized world. What leased to a more successful economy is decentralization, plenty of qualified workforce and social system.

How is the economy in Croatia? Are things better or worse than they were under Tito.

I'd say that it is by far better and it is definately getting better. Of course the overall feeling is a bit nostalgic as is always for past times....it's the same in all European transitional countries from Baltic states down to Croatia.

[Slavic Enforcer]

I'd say that it is by far better and it is definately getting better. Of course the overall feeling is a bit nostalgic as is always for past times....it's the same in all European transitional countries from Baltic states down to Croatia.

Even the Croatian Telekom is in foreign hands. I would say some things have become worse.

[Zrinski]

Even the Croatian Telekom is in foreign hands. I would say some things have become worse.

It doesn't matter in whose hands it is while it gives good and confident service, employs Croatian citizens and pays tax to Croatian goverment.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Actually it's not that simple. Most protetants and unionists in Northern Ireland are not really Irish. They are British(English and Scottish) colonists.


I heard of that.

[Will Scarlet]

They are despicable terrorists and insurrectionaries trying to overthrow a legitimate civil government that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have endorsed (the people of Northern Ireland have voted again and again to stay part of the United Kingdom).

True.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4326


They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters :rolleyes: :nono:


True. And let's not forget that the IRA has killed more people, both Catholic and Protestant, than British military forces and Loyalist paramilitaries combined.

[Billy Score]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_re_eu/nireland_sinn_fein_spy;_ylt=AiMptUh9ag5ADKfA61u8Ss.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-
DUBLIN, Ireland - A former Sinn Fein official recently exposed as a British spy was found fatally shot Tuesday after apparently being tortured, police said — a slaying certain to send shock waves through Northern Ireland's peace process.

ADVERTISEMENT

Denis Donaldson was Sinn Fein's former legislative chief in the failed power-sharing government of Northern Ireland. He admitted in December he had been on the payroll of the British secret service and the province's anti-terrorist police for two decades. He went into hiding because the traditional Irish Republican Army punishment for informing is death.

But the IRA denied responsibility in a one-line statement. "The IRA had no involvement whatsoever in the death of Denis Donaldson," the outlawed group said.

Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell said the 55-year-old Donaldson had been tortured before being killed — apparently with one or two shotgun blasts to his head — inside his isolated home near Glenties, County Donegal, in northwest Ireland. He was last seen alive Monday while walking in the village, McDowell said.

"His right forearm is almost severed," McDowell said. "He was shot in the head and mutilation was done to his body. It's a murder we're dealing with."

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and British Prime Minister Tony Blair both condemned the murder.

The killing comes at a pivotal moment in Northern Ireland's 13-year-old peace process.

On Thursday, Blair and Ahern are to travel to Northern Ireland to reveal a new blueprint for reviving a Protestant-Catholic administration, the intended cornerstone of the province's 1998 peace accord.

The plan — 3 1/2 years of diplomacy in the making — would call for Northern Ireland's legislature to reconvene in mid-May and face a Nov. 24 deadline to elect an administration.

The killing appeared certain to harden Protestant opinion against cooperating with Sinn Fein, the IRA-linked party that represents most Catholics in Northern Ireland. But officials in both governments said Thursday's announcement would go ahead anyway.

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams — who in December initially defended Donaldson as an innocent man, then outed him as a British spy — said he did not know who killed him. But he suggested it might have been the work of IRA dissidents opposed to Sinn Fein's peacemaking efforts.

"It is likely that his death at this time is intended to undermine current efforts to make political progress," Adams said. "Those who carried out this murder are clearly opposed to the peace process."

But Ian Paisley, whose Democratic Unionist Party represents most of Northern Ireland's British Protestant majority, said someone within IRA ranks was the most likely culprit. "There is a finger-pointing tonight at IRA-Sinn Fein," he said.

A Catholic-Protestant administration for Northern Ireland fell apart in October 2002 because of an IRA spying scandal involving Donaldson.

Donaldson and two others were charged with pilfering documents that identified the personal details of thousands of potential IRA targets. Protestants accused the IRA of plotting a potential resumption of its violent campaign to oust Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.

But British prosecutors mysteriously dropped all charges in early December. A week later, Adams announced that Donaldson had confessed to being a paid British spy. Within hours, Donaldson admitted the same in a television interview.

During its 27-year campaign, the IRA's internal security unit tortured scores of IRA members suspected of passing information to British intelligence. Typical IRA methods included drowning the interrogation victim in a bathtub, applying electric shocks, and administering cigarette burns.

Those who admitted informing had their confessions audiotaped before being shot in the head; their bodies were usually dumped — naked and with hands tied behind their backs — on rural roadsides.

The IRA last year declared it was renouncing violence for political purposes and backed the pledge by handing over its weapons stockpiles — moves supposed to spur a revival of power-sharing involving Sinn Fein.

But Paisley has refused to cooperate with Sinn Fein, citing the IRA's refusal to disband and its alleged involvement in criminal activities.

Power-sharing rules require the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein to lead the next administration. It would receive substantial powers from the British government in London, which began governing Northern Ireland in 1972 during the bloodiest year of the province's conflict.


good riddance, nothing lower or more vile than a rat.
i was waiting for this since i first heard he admitted to this treachery in the fall.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Serves him right for being a traitor.

[Jonathan]

Betrayal of terrorists, civilian-bombers, and indiscriminate child-killers is not a bad thing, I'd say it's a good thing actually
Lenny, would you like to be the next to take up the "indiscriminate killers" baton? I must warn you though, some of your co-slanderers didn't succeed in the past.

They are despicable terrorists and insurrectionaries trying to overthrow a legitimate civil government that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have endorsed (the people of Northern Ireland have voted again and again to stay part of the United Kingdom).
First of all, none of us are certain who carried out the action. If it was a group of individuals acting off their own initiative then your discription is superfluous.

Secondly, it could be argued that the Government of Northern Ireland (the whole Satellite itself) is considered illegitimate owing to the democratic mandate of 1918.

They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc.
See my first comment.

I am not sure that a free and independent Ireland is good for Ireland.
I would disagree with that. I suppose it depends on your definition of what is 'good'.

Just look at your native homeland, Yugoslavia—do you believe that the fractionalization of Yugoslavia was beneficial for the Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenians, etc?
I don't see how that applies to Ireland. Are you trying to say that the succession of the Irish Free State from the U.K. in the 20s has had a negative effect on the people of both entities? If so, I disagree.

Small countries almost always (there are exceptions) will be less successful than their larger counterparts.
What do you measure success by?

The Irish are somewhat distinct from the English but not enough so to warrant independence.
I would wholeheartedly disagree with this comment. The Irish are significantly different from the English (not to mention the Welsh and Scots) to warrant succession. Furthermore, the two communities of Northern Ireland are sufficiently different from those of Britain and similar to each other and the people of the Republic to warrant unification. If anything, one could argue that the people of both islands are currently more similar than they were in the 10s/20s when this issue came to a serious head.

But you have to draw a line since if every distinct group demanded autonomy and independence in Europe then Europe would resemble a very complicated jig saw puzzle.
It already does. This does not prevent co-operation between different nations/states though.

Ireland is a good example of the negative influence of churches (not religions, churches!).

The Protestant Irish fight together with the English (!) against their Catholic brothers. I guess their feeling of belonging together is bigger towards the English. And why should that be if not because of their different churches?
There are several other factors. The primary divide between the two communities is based on Unionist paranoia that a United Ireland would see them as an oppressed minority - a myth generated by the likes of the Orange Order.

True.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4326
George, you are aware that the Ulster covenant was illegal in so far as it stood in the way of the Democratic mandate of the people of Ireland?

They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters :rolleyes: :nono:. True.
Last time I checked, you weren't fit to keep this myth going.

And let's not forget that the IRA has killed more people, both Catholic and Protestant, than British military forces and Loyalist paramilitaries combined.
"There's lies, damned lies, and statistics". I could argue that the British military are responcible for numerous times as many Irish killings than the IRA.

[Will Scarlet]

Lenny, would you like to be the next to take up the "indiscriminate killers" baton? I must warn you though, some of your co-slanderers didn't succeed in the past.


Bullshit. Shane here thinks that making excuses for indiscriminate murder means that indiscriminate murders were not committed.


There are several other factors. The primary divide between the two communities is based on Unionist paranoia that a United Ireland would see them as an oppressed minority - a myth generated by the likes of the Orange Order.


False. The "paranoia" Shane describes is a well-founded fear of repression based on centuries of conflict, decades of attempts at ethnic cleansing, and thousands upon thousands of brutal murders at the hands of the so-called "Irish Nationalists".


George, you are aware that the Ulster covenant was illegal in so far as it stood in the way of the Democratic mandate of the people of Ireland?



No more illegal than your little Easter Uprising. Besides, the people of Ireland got their wish and their independence. The people of Ulster (at least those counties which were not given to the Irish for purposes of appeasement) got their wish and remained part of the UK.



Last time I checked, you weren't fit to keep this myth going.



Myth? So now you're denying that the IRA have killed children, tortured people, executed people, and bombed civilians?

If that's what you're trying to say here, then I'll have to state once again that you may be the biggest liar on this board.


"There's lies, damned lies, and statistics". I could argue that the British military are responcible for numerous times as many Irish killings than the IRA.

Yeah, you could, but you'd be as full of shit as you usually are.

[Jonathan]

You could do us all a favour and use more polite language.

Bullshit. Shane here thinks that making excuses for indiscriminate murder means that indiscriminate murders were not committed.
GRC, if you would like to continue the discussion on "IRA indiscriminate murder" then you can take it back to the threads where it was started. I see no need to use another thread (the 3rd?) on the subject.

The Gallery can, if they are so inclined, go through our last discussions are decide for themselves.

False. The "paranoia" Shane describes is a well-founded fear of repression based
I disagree. If this were the case, then the Protestant minority in the Republic of Ireland would have faced descrimination after the original succession in the 20s. This did not happen, in fact protestants in the Republic enjoy much the same lifestyle as their Catholic equals. I've posted evidence on this in other threads before.

on centuries of conflict, decades of attempts at ethnic cleansing, and thousands upon thousands of brutal murders at the hands of the so-called "Irish Nationalists".
GRC, has tried this before, and failed. Notice how he makes these claims but fails to provide evidence.

I will inform the Gallery that an organisation called "the United Irishmen", dedicated to setting up an independant Ireland, staged a rebellion in 1798 under the Prysbeterian Henry Joy McCraken. These men were united with Irish Catholics against the English administration.

It is only since the Prysbeterians have been deluded by the likes of the Orange Order that they have turned against their Catholic neighbours.

No more illegal than your little Easter Uprising.
Notice how George refuses to admit that his beloved Covernant was illegal, but tried to change the subject.

P.S. The Easter Rising has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Irish people were nationalists, but a unionist minority overruled them.

Besides, the people of Ireland got their wish and their independence.
No they did not. The democratic mandate of 1918 should have turned over a united Ireland. Only for a small, selfish minority stood in there way, this would have happened.

The people of Ulster (at least those counties which were not given to the Irish for purposes of appeasement) got their wish and remained part of the UK.
They completely subverted democracy and overruled the wishes of millions of people. How is this justified (not to mention the fact that Tyrone and Fermanagh had nationalist majorities - the Unionists held onto as much as they could irrespective of creed, ethnicity, politics etc)?

Myth? So now you're denying that the IRA have killed children, tortured people, executed people, and bombed civilians?
Have I? Have I ever denied this?

I have denied your "indiscriminate murder" slander.

Yeah, you could
Good man, glad to see your growing up and admitting the truth.

[Will Scarlet]

You could do us all a favour and use more polite language.

You could do us all a favor and kill yourself.


GRC, if you would like to continue the discussion on "IRA indiscriminate murder" then you can take it back to the threads where it was started. I see no need to use another thread (the 3rd?) on the subject.


So why'd you bring it up, you slimey little bastard?


The Gallery can, if they are so inclined, go through our last discussions are decide for themselves.



Yeah, if your semantic quibbling doesn't put them to sleep.


I disagree. If this were the case, then the Protestant minority in the Republic of Ireland would have faced descrimination after the original succession in the 20s. This did not happen, in fact protestants in the Republic enjoy much the same lifestyle as their Catholic equals. I've posted evidence on this in other threads before.


You may have posted this on other threads, but it was as much a lie then as it is now. The facts speak for themselves. The marked decline in the Protestant population of Ireland was predicated on several factors, not the least of which was long-term campaign of violence and intimidation. Another factor was the institutionalized enforcement of papal encyclicals dictating that, since Catholics are not secure enough in the correctness of their own faith to tolerate the existance of Protestantism in 'their' countries, children of mixed marriages must be raised Catholic.


GRC, has tried this before, and failed. Notice how he makes these claims but fails to provide evidence.


Shane, no one here but you denies that the IRA and other "Irish Nationalist" groups have killed thousands upon thousands of people. No one here but you denies that they've killed innocent civilians. No on here but you can possibly deny that killing civilians while screaming "Brits Out!" or forcing people out their neighborhoods because of their religion or national affiliation is not an attempt at ethnic cleansing.


I will inform the Gallery that an organisation called "the United Irishmen", dedicated to setting up an independant Ireland, staged a rebellion in 1798 under the Prysbeterian Henry Joy McCraken. These men were united with Irish Catholics against the English administration.

It is only since the Prysbeterians have been deluded by the likes of the Orange Order that they have turned against their Catholic neighbours.

No, it is since "Irish Nationalism" has been hijacked and turned into a Gaelic-Catholic nationalist movement that they have come to understand that acquiescing to the demands of the murdering, repressive Irish filth will spell the end of their existance as a cohesive people.


Notice how George refuses to admit that his beloved Covernant was illegal, but tried to change the subject.


Yes, it was as illegal as your rebellion or the American Revolution. And like those two conflicts, it reflected the democratic desire of the population to determine its own political orientation and affiliation.

The men of Ulster knew they did not want to be Irish, and they took up arms to prevent England from handing them over to Irish rule. That in no way prevented Ireland from gaining its independence.


P.S. The Easter Rising has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Irish people were nationalists, but a unionist minority overruled them.


Your point of view is fundamentally flawed in that you are assuming that because so-called "Irish Nationalists" may have been a majority in the south, then they had the right to force their will on the majority of the people in the north.

By your logic, the United States should have forced Canadian loyalists to give up their allegiance to the crown and unite with the US just because they share the same land mass.


No they did not. The democratic mandate of 1918 should have turned over a united Ireland. Only for a small, selfish minority stood in there way, this would have happened.



But since there never has been a "united Ireland," there was no precedence for this, and it was clearly not the will of the people of Ulster to be under the rule of the Irish. Despite the fact that you and your kind have spent decades trying to bomb and murder them in order to change their minds, their minds have not changed.

This is because they are stronger than you, and you have not been able to break their resolve.


They completely subverted democracy and overruled the wishes of millions of people. How is this justified (not to mention the fact that Tyrone and Fermanagh had nationalist majorities - the Unionists held onto as much as they could irrespective of creed, ethnicity, politics etc)?

No, they simply made it clear that the wishes of those in the south were not their wishes and that they would not submit to being ruled by the Irish.


Have I? Have I ever denied this?

You just did, numbskull. Observe:

Lenny: They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters

GRC: True.

Shane: Last time I checked, you weren't fit to keep this myth going.

:rolleyes:


I have denied your "indiscriminate murder" slander.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've all borne witness to your continued insistence that mudering 29 innocent civilians without regard to their nationality, religion, or political affiliation somehow miraculously doesn't count as "indiscriminate murder." But we've also borne witness to the fact that you're a slimey, underhanded little toad who would deny being a supporter of the IRA in one breath and then make excuses for their reprehensible acts of terrorism in the next.


Good man, glad to see your growing up and admitting the truth.

I said you could argue it, but you'd be lying. Of course, that's par for the course with you.

[Der Sozialist]

I would disagree with that. I suppose it depends on your definition of what is 'good'.

My personal opinion is that Ireland would be much poorer being an autonomous country than being a part of the UK.

I don't see how that applies to Ireland. Are you trying to say that the succession of the Irish Free State from the U.K. in the 20s has had a negative effect on the people of both entities? If so, I disagree.

My example was attempting to illustrate the harm of micro-nationalism. The region was torn apart simply because Croats and Serbs (the worst offenders) were not carbon copies of each other.
***

The Scots and the Welsh are not very similar to the Brits either (in fact, more similar to the Irish), however there seems to be no visible problems between these groups.

*****

While no one is suggesting for Europe to turn into one Country (i.e. the European Union)—one must ask that for relatively small populations (such as Ireland) if a need for autonomous rule is beneficial in the long run.

[Jonathan]

So why'd you bring it up, you slimey little bastard?
Lenny did.

Yeah, if your semantic quibbling doesn't put them to sleep.
What a witty retort:rolleyes:

You may have posted this on other threads, but it was as much a lie then as it is now.
So why can't you disprove it so?

The facts speak for themselves.
No they don't.

The marked decline in the Protestant population of Ireland was predicated on several factors, not the least of which was long-term campaign of violence and intimidation.
So why can't you prove it? (If you intend doing so, do it in the old threads).

Any members of the Gallery may look to the old threads in the Ireland Forum to see GRC being refuted on this issue (twice).

Another factor was the institutionalized enforcement of papal encyclicals dictating that, since Catholics are not secure enough in the correctness of their own faith to tolerate the existance of Protestantism in 'their' countries, children of mixed marriages must be raised Catholic.
1)This trend was well established before the Free State.
2)There were few mixed marriages.
3)If so many Protestants and Catholics got married, then how can you argue that they hated each other? Or that they're even seperate ethnic groups?

Let the Gallery know that GRC has no idea what kind of lives Protestants live in the Republic. I have first had experience of it.

Shane, no one here but you denies that the IRA and other "Irish Nationalist" groups have killed thousands upon thousands of people.
When have I ever denied this? I have only disputed your "indiscriminate murder" comments.

GRC is now trying to paint me as "the bad guy". This is not the first time he has done so. I have never stooped to his level, and have consistantly stated that I do not support the IRA or Sinn Féin.

No one here but you denies that they've killed innocent civilians.
When did I deny that? Evidence please.

No on here but you can possibly deny that killing civilians while screaming "Brits Out!" or forcing people out their neighborhoods because of their religion or national affiliation is not an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Do I? Evidence...

No, it is since "Irish Nationalism" has been hijacked and turned into a Gaelic-Catholic nationalist movement that they have come to understand that acquiescing to the demands of the murdering, repressive Irish filth will spell the end of their existance as a cohesive people.
This is incorrect. The Orange Order which is responcible for turning most Ulster-Scots Protestants against Irish Independence pre-dates the Gaelic League (by about 100 years). It also pre-dates the Young Irelanders. I will also point out that the founders of the United Irishmen were protestants (Theobald Wolfe Tone), so was the Irish Patriot Robert Emmett, and so were the founders of the Young Irelanders(William Smith-O'Brien et al.).

Yes, it was as illegal as your rebellion or the American Revolution.
Which rebellion was my rebellion?

And like those two conflicts, it reflected the democratic desire of the population to determine its own political orientation and affiliation.
Not really. The Unionists had long supported democracy throughout Ireland. It was only when they became a democratic minority that they turned against it, not to mention the fact that they still swallowed Fermanagh and Tyrone.

The men of Ulster knew they did not want to be Irish
No, they were afraid of being oppressed by a Catholic majority - an unfounded paranoia.

and they took up arms to prevent England from handing them over to Irish rule.
And they called it "loyalty" :rolleyes:

That in no way prevented Ireland from gaining its independence.
Of course it did. Our Island is still occupied.

Your point of view is fundamentally flawed in that you are assuming that because so-called "Irish Nationalists" may have been a majority in the south, then they had the right to force their will on the majority of the people in the north.
Not really. The Unionist minority were part of the same "constituency" by choice.

George has called me an irridentist in the past. When this didn't fit, he called me an imperialist. He consistantly throws this mud around while ignoring my true political stance.

By your logic, the United States should have forced Canadian loyalists to give up their allegiance to the crown and unite with the US just because they share the same land mass.
Not really. Land mass has nothing to do with it.

But since there never has been a "united Ireland," there was no precedence for this
Nonsense. The Leabhar Gabhála, the Milesian Genealogies, the Remonstrations to the Pope, the United Irishmen etc etc.

What you are arguing is like saying that there is no Republic of Ireland today because some people vote Fianna Fáil, some vote Fine Gael, some Labour, some PD, some vote Sinn Féin etc etc.

it was clearly not the will of the people of Ulster to be under the rule of the Irish.
Everyone should take a good look at how GRC's mind has been completely corrupted by the myth of the Orange Order. He says that the people of Ulster would be "ruled by the Irish". Tell me GRC, are the current Protestants of the Republic "ruled by the Irish" ?

Despite the fact that you and your kind have spent decades trying to bomb and murder them in order to change their minds, their minds have not changed.
Who are "my kind"?

No, they simply made it clear that the wishes of those in the south were not their wishes
And they were in the democratic minority. A democracy which they previously agreed to.

and that they would not submit to being ruled by the Irish.
ruled by the Irish :rolleyes:


You just did, numbskull. Observe:

Lenny: They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters

GRC: True.

Shane: Last time I checked, you weren't fit to keep this myth going.

:rolleyes:
I was [clearly] refering to your past comments on "indiscriminate murder". I also made this clear in my responces to Lenny. You're trying tom put words in my mouth again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've all borne witness to your continued insistence that mudering 29 innocent civilians without regard to their nationality, religion, or political affiliation somehow miraculously doesn't count as "indiscriminate murder."
Still pissed off that you couldn't prove your lies?

But we've also borne witness to the fact that you're a slimey, underhanded little toad who would deny being a supporter of the IRA in one breath and then make excuses for their reprehensible acts of terrorism in the next.
Meeyow.

I said you could argue it, but you'd be lying. Of course, that's par for the course with you.
:( :rolleyes:

P.S. Notice how GRC has still failed to answer the questions.

[Jonathan]

My personal opinion is that Ireland would be much poorer being an autonomous country than being a part of the UK.
The Republic of Ireland has a much more dynamic economy than Northern Ireland's, so no, I think you're wrong on that one.

My example was attempting to illustrate the harm of micro-nationalism. The region was torn apart simply because Croats and Serbs (the worst offenders) were not carbon copies of each other.
Fiar point, but I don't think it's so extreem in Ireland.

The Scots and the Welsh are not very similar to the Brits either (in fact, more similar to the Irish), however there seems to be no visible problems between these groups.
They get considerable devolution.

While no one is suggesting for Europe to turn into one Country (i.e. the European Union)—one must ask that for relatively small populations (such as Ireland) if a need for autonomous rule is beneficial in the long run.
Well if you measure success by economics, then autonomous rule has been very benificial for the Republic of Ireland.

[Felix the Cat]

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

[Der Sozialist]

The Republic of Ireland has a much more dynamic economy than Northern Ireland's, so no, I think you're wrong on that one.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges…

You, as an Irishman (assumed) should know of the continuous turmoil that plagues that region (N. Ireland). Because of the struggle for independence and the insurgency in the region (in conjunction with pseudo-martial law) the economy simply has never had much of a chance to develop.

However, in all fairness, the Irish economy is growing fairly rapidly and is catching up with its Western neighbors.

They get considerable devolution.

True, and do you expect less for Ireland?

I am not advocating turning the Irish into Brits—flying the union jack and drinking tea with milk…

What I am advocating is for the Irish and the British to learn how to cooperate and form a stable country together.

Now, the Irish are not solely to blame here---The British have treated the Irish horribly in the past and therefore I can understand some of the directed hostility.

[cerberus]

I have not read the thread owing to time constraints.
When a man is shot dea for whatever reason you have to ask questions about who did what and why , within the context of what all have said and what all have aggreeded upon.

Killing has no place in Irish politics and revenge shooting of an informer or agent will do what ?

We hear much about confidence building measures and accomadation , movement , bringing people on board , lots of sound bites all sides use them but what do they mean , do they mean anything ?

This man's death , what doe s it serve , whom does it serve.
Will it build confidence , will it bring people on board , will it underpin the peace process ?

I think not. Revenge would seem to be the motive.
What message might this be rad out of this " They havn't gone away you know" would seem to be part of it.

"No claim , no blame" has been bantered about previously , does it was or not ?

Revenge never stengthened anything , it is hardly the way we want to go.

[Will Scarlet]

Lenny did.

No, he didn't. He spoke the truth about the IRA. You then asked him if he wanted to "take up the 'indiscriminate killers' [sic] baton". It is therefore obvious that you revived (yet again) the semantic quibbling over the meaning of the phrase.

You do this because you think that if you keep us bogged down in these little semantic arguments, no one will notice that every other word out of your filthy gob is a bloody lie.


What a witty retort:rolleyes:

It wasn't intended to be witty, just truthful.


So why can't you disprove it so?

I have, and the fact that you keep asking for proof after it's been shown you doesn't change that.


No they don't.

Sure they do. You, sir, are clearly an absolute stranger to the concept of Truth; therefore your opinion on the veracity of any claim is not to be granted one iota of credence.


So why can't you prove it? (If you intend doing so, do it in the old threads).

It's been done, and the fact that you keep saying it hasn't doesn't change it.



Any members of the Gallery may look to the old threads in the Ireland Forum to see GRC being refuted on this issue (twice).


They can look there and see that I speak the Truth, while you try to bog us down in nit-picking little arguments over the meanings of words in order to distract us from the fact that you're making excuses for the bloodthirsty marxist murderers of the IRA.


1)This trend was well established before the Free State.
2)There were few mixed marriages.
3)If so many Protestants and Catholics got married, then how can you argue that they hated each other? Or that they're even seperate ethnic groups?


While there may have been only a low-level of enmity between the two population groups, it was extremists who took it to the level of brutality that brought about the mass exodus of Protestants from Ireland. It's really no different from the North today, where individuals of Protestant and Catholic backgrounds may be friends or even lovers, but that doesn't prevent extremist terrorists and criminals on both sides of the issue from causing mayhem.


Let the Gallery know that GRC has no idea what kind of lives Protestants live in the Republic. I have first had experience of it.


Let the "gallery" know that Shane is in his early twenties at the oldest, and so he has absolutely no "first had [sic]" experience of what sorts of lives Protestants lived in the Free State or Republic before his birth. And most of them had been driven out long before that sad, sad day.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/charts/declining_prot_1891_1991.gif
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/maps/island_protestants_1861_1991.gif

And being that Protestants make up less than 3% of the population of the Republic of Ireland today, one must certainly ask how many Irish Protestants Shane actually interacts with on a daily basis.

When have I ever denied this? I have only disputed your "indiscriminate murder" comments.

You just did. It's really tiring having to rehash the conversation because you're either too fucking stupid and/or drunk to remember what we were talking about or spewing more of your lies and half-assed cover-ups.

Let's look at it again:

GRC: False. The "paranoia" Shane describes is a well-founded fear of repression based on centuries of conflict, decades of attempts at ethnic cleansing, and thousands upon thousands of brutal murders at the hands of the so-called "Irish Nationalists".

Shane: GRC, has tried this before, and failed. Notice how he makes these claims but fails to provide evidence.

So you see, Mikey, there was no mention in that particular exchange of any comments about "indiscriminate murder." You were saying that there's no evidence that what I said is true. Now you say you don't deny it.

Which is it? Decided to stop lying yet?

GRC is now trying to paint me as "the bad guy". This is not the first time he has done so. I have never stooped to his level, and have consistantly stated that I do not support the IRA or Sinn Féin.

You are the bad guy, and despite your constant insistence that you do not support the IRA or Sinn Fein, you continue to make excuses for their bloodthirsty acts of terrorism.

'Oh, they didn't mean to kill twenty-nine innocent people, both Catholic and Protestant, Irish, British, and Spanish, including the pregnant mother of unborn twins. It was an accident! Quit calling them 'indiscriminate murderers,' Shane the forked-tongued liar tells us.


When did I deny that? Evidence please.

Do I? Evidence...

The evidence is on this and every thread we've discussed the issue on. As you yourself say, the "gallery" can look and see that you deny that your terrorist compatriots have engaged in attempts at ethnic cleansing.


This is incorrect. The Orange Order which is responcible for turning most Ulster-Scots Protestants against Irish Independence pre-dates the Gaelic League (by about 100 years). It also pre-dates the Young Irelanders. I will also point out that the founders of the United Irishmen were protestants (Theobald Wolfe Tone), so was the Irish Patriot Robert Emmett, and so were the founders of the Young Irelanders(William Smith-O'Brien et al.).


And they'd be rolling in their graves if they knew what horror had been unleashed upon their own kinsmen in the name of "Irish Nationalism"

Which rebellion was my rebellion?

The one which granted you "Irish Nationalists" your independence and led to the founding of your Republic. Sadly, that wasn't enough for you bloodthirsty savages, and now you feel compelled to force a separate nation to abandon their identity, forget who they are, and become Irish savages like you.


Not really. The Unionists had long supported democracy throughout Ireland. It was only when they became a democratic minority that they turned against it, not to mention the fact that they still swallowed Fermanagh and Tyrone.


You know as well as I do that there was as much disatisfaction over the borders agreed upon by the governments of Ireland and Britain among the Unionists as among the Irish "nationalists".

No, they were afraid of being oppressed by a Catholic majority - an unfounded paranoia.

Unfounded? So seeing their friends and loved ones brutalized before their very eyes or hearing the tales of horror told by their relatives who fled Irish persecution in the south was nothing but "unfounded paranoia"?

Bloody lies.


And they called it "loyalty" :rolleyes:

They called it the right of free men to determine their own destinies, and what they wanted was to maintain their loyalty to the crown, despite parliament's attempts to hand them over to the savage hordes.

These were the seed of Mighty Cuchulain
These were the sons of Congal Claen
Determined that Gael and rogue would not rule them
And England, if need be, withstand...


Of course it did. Our Island is still occupied.


It's not your island, and it never was.

George has called me an irridentist in the past.

No, I haven't. Hakluyt called you an irredentist.


When this didn't fit, he called me an imperialist. He consistantly throws this mud around while ignoring my true political stance.
[/quote]

Which is what, Shane? Do you or do you not want to force a nation which identifies itself as something other than Irish and wishes to maintain its place within the United Kingdom to abandon those ties and submit to the rule of the government in Dublin?



Not really. Land mass has nothing to do with it.


Then why all this hebraic whining about "a united Ireland" and "the six stolen counties" and all of that utter horseshit?


Nonsense. The Leabhar Gabhála, the Milesian Genealogies, the Remonstrations to the Pope, the United Irishmen etc etc.


Name one point at which Ireland has been completely united as a single political entity except for when it was under British rule.



What you are arguing is like saying that there is no Republic of Ireland today because some people vote Fianna Fáil, some vote Fine Gael, some Labour, some PD, some vote Sinn Féin etc etc.


No, what I am saying is that there has never been any such thing as a "united Ireland," that Ulster has always been at odds with the rest of the island, that there are two nations inhabiting the island of Hibernia, and that your filthy "nationalists" are nothing more than bloodthirsty, imperialist murderers bent on domination.

Everyone should take a good look at how GRC's mind has been completely corrupted by the myth of the Orange Order. He says that the people of Ulster would be "ruled by the Irish". Tell me GRC, are the current Protestants of the Republic "ruled by the Irish" ?


What Protestants of the Republic? The ones who disappeared in the span of a few short years after "Irish Nationalists" came to power?

Who are "my kind"?

Bloodthirsty savages and despicable liars, apparently.


And they were in the democratic minority. A democracy which they previously agreed to.


When they thought that said democracy was a British democracy and before they discovered the treachory of a parliament ready to hand them over to the rule of savages.


I was [clearly] refering to your past comments on "indiscriminate murder". I also made this clear in my responces to Lenny. You're trying tom put words in my mouth again.

I'm putting no words in your mouth, I'm just exposing the ones that come out of them for the bloody lies that they are. Once more, here was the exchange. Show me in this particular exchange where you find any reference to the words "indiscriminate murder".

Lenny: They use terrorism against civilians to achieve their goal of overthrowing the legtimiate government, and they are not above child-killing, torturing people, executing people, bombing civilians etc. Some freedom fighters

GRC: True.

Shane: Last time I checked, you weren't fit to keep this myth going.


Still pissed off that you couldn't prove your lies?

It's obvious who is the liar here, Mikey, and it ain't me.

P.S. Notice how GRC has still failed to answer the questions.

I've answered every question you've posed and then some, you slimey little shit.

[Jonathan]

You are comparing Apples to Oranges…
I don't understand?
I was under the impression that we were comparing an Independant Ireland from an Ireland within the UK.

You, as an Irishman (assumed)
Yes, I am an Irishman.

Because of the struggle for independence and the insurgency in the region (in conjunction with pseudo-martial law) the economy simply has never had much of a chance to develop.
True. But in a united Ireland, the economy on Northern Ireland and the economy of the Republic of Ireland would be a whole, and as has been mentioned, the economy of the Republic is far better than the economy of the North. While I don't have a crystal ball, I would suggest that the economy of a united Ireland would be more successful than the economy of Northern Ireland in the long run (the "Eastern Corridor" between Dublin and Belfast would do much better for example).

True, and do you expect less for Ireland?
There already is less for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland does not enjoy devolusion to the same extent as Scotland or Wales (because the two communities have not been reconciled).

What I am advocating is for the Irish and the British to learn how to cooperate and form a stable country together.
I don't see why we would need to form a single country to co-operate with each other. The Republic of Ireland enjoys a very good relationship with the UK at the moment, yet we are not part of the UK or the Commonwealth et al. In fact, the Republic is probably better off now than it would be if it were still part of the Union.

[Jonathan]

No, he didn't. He spoke the truth about the IRA. You then asked him if he wanted to "take up the 'indiscriminate killers' [sic] baton".
I would contend that one led to the other.

It is therefore obvious that you revived (yet again) the semantic quibbling over the meaning of the phrase.
The "meaning of the phrase" is very important. It is exactly our interpretations of phrases which lead to opinions. You, for example, use the term "indiscriminate murder" in the wrong context and portray certain individuals in a certain light.

You do this because you think that if you keep us bogged down in these little semantic arguments, no one will notice that every other word out of your filthy gob is a bloody lie.
Where do you expect this comment to go? Would you like me to reply "I don't lie, you do" so then you can say "No I don't, you do". Try typing something constructive.

I have, and the fact that you keep asking for proof after it's been shown you doesn't change that.
Pathetic. So you proved it? So why then did you make a post in another thread, then delete it, then say that you were letting me have the last word? You've completely failed to prove anything, as is evident in the other threads.

Sure they do. You, sir, are clearly an absolute stranger to the concept of Truth; therefore your opinion on the veracity of any claim is not to be granted one iota of credence.
No they don't. The cause of the population decline has been accounted for by several academics with greater knowledge than both of us, yet you persist in trying to contradict them without proof.

It's been done, and the fact that you keep saying it hasn't doesn't change it.
No, it hasn't been done. You've posted statistics without accounting for them. When I questioned you on this, you got a little bit braver and cited Hartes book on the IRA in Cork. Then I disproved your argument and provide a counter argument which you simply ignored. The evidence is there for everyone to see.

They can look there and see that I speak the Truth, while you try to bog us down in nit-picking little arguments over the meanings of words
Your "meanings of words" comment here is a reference to my taking exception to your comment about "indiscriminate murder". However, when I said that the Gallery could look at the old threads to see you being refuted, I was obviously referring to your comments about the decline of the Protestant population. The fact that you have just tried to change the subject shows that you are well aware that you were refuted.

in order to distract us from the fact that you're making excuses for the bloodthirsty marxist murderers of the IRA.
What excuses have I made for the IRA? I have disputed your use of the words "indiscriminate murderers" that is all.

While there may have been only a low-level of enmity between the two population groups, it was extremists who took it to the level of brutality that brought about the mass exodus of Protestants from Ireland.
1)What extremists?
The ones that formed the Free State Government and constitutionally guaranteed that Protestants would be over-represented?
2)What brutality?
What are you going to do now, cite Harte's book and get refuted again?

It's really no different from the North today, where individuals of Protestant and Catholic backgrounds may be friends or even lovers, but that doesn't prevent extremist terrorists and criminals on both sides of the issue from causing mayhem.
Of course it's different from the North today. The two communities have not been reconciled in the North, as is evident by democratic support for Sinn Féin and the DUP, unlike the Republic, where the two communities get on fine.

Let the "gallery" know that Shane is in his early twenties at the oldest, and so he has absolutely no "first had [sic]" experience of what sorts of lives Protestants lived in the Free State or Republic before his birth.
You will notice that I used the word "live" rather than "lived" thus indicating that I'm talking about the current Protestant population.
Are you implying that Protestants in the Republic of Ireland are now treated better than they were in the 20s? Are protestants in the Republic now treated better than their forefathers were in the 20s? This is a new angle to the discussion. Perhaps you would like to provide evidence with your answer too.

And most of them had been driven out long before that sad, sad day.
Care to prove that they were driven out? Oh sorry, I forgot, you already have :rolleyes:

I've seen you post the same pictures in three threads now, yet you've never accounted for the decline. You've said that the decline is due to "intimidation" etc yet you've never provided evidence of this intimidation. When you were presented with a counter argument, you ignored it.

And being that Protestants make up less than 3% of the population of the Republic of Ireland today, one must certainly ask how many Irish Protestants Shane actually interacts with on a daily basis.
Several. The University which I attend has a disproportionate number of Anglo-Irish protestants in it, many of whom are my good acquaintances.

You just did. It's really tiring having to rehash the conversation because you're either too fucking stupid and/or drunk to remember what we were talking about or spewing more of your lies and half-assed cover-ups.
You've clearly taken that out of context.

So you see, Mikey, there was no mention in that particular exchange of any comments about "indiscriminate murder." You were saying that there's no evidence that what I said is true. Now you say you don't deny it.

Which is it? Decided to stop lying yet?
It's pathetic that you have to resort to trying to distort my argument. I've never denied that there has often been conflict between the two communities.

You are the bad guy
How so?

and despite your constant insistence that you do not support the IRA or Sinn Fein, you continue to make excuses for their bloodthirsty acts of terrorism.
Show everyone some evidence of where I've ever made excuses for the IRA.

'Oh, they didn't mean to kill twenty-nine innocent people, both Catholic and Protestant, Irish, British, and Spanish, including the pregnant mother of unborn twins. It was an accident! Quit calling them 'indiscriminate murderers,' Shane the forked-tongued liar tells us.
But they didn't. Are you now saying that they planned to kill those people?

As you yourself say, the "gallery" can look and see that you deny that your terrorist compatriots have engaged in attempts at ethnic cleansing.
You claimed that:
No one here but you denies that they've killed innocent civilians.
And I’ve asked for evidence that I deny it. You have failed to provide any.

And they'd be rolling in their graves if they knew what horror had been unleashed upon their own kinsmen in the name of "Irish Nationalism"
I’m sure they’d be displeased at the current situation. That doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said about Catholic/Protestant relations. You’ve failed to give a worthwhile answer.

The one which granted you "Irish Nationalists" your independence
Really? Are Gerry Adams or Austin Currie independent of the UK in their homes?

and led to the founding of your Republic. Sadly, that wasn't enough for you bloodthirsty savages, and now you feel compelled to force a separate nation to abandon their identity, forget who they are, and become Irish savages like you.
When have the Irish people tried to “Force a separate nation to abandon their identity forget who they are, and become Irish savages”. Last time I checked, the majority of people in the Republic voted ‘for’ the ‘Good Friday Agreement’, not to mention the stance of the major political parties in the Republic. Which of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, PDs, Greens etc want to force a united Ireland on the Unionists?

Unfounded? So seeing their friends and loved ones brutalized before their very eyes or hearing the tales of horror told by their relatives who fled Irish persecution in the south was nothing but "unfounded paranoia"?
What number of the Unionist population saw “their friends and loved ones brutalized before their very eyes” or heard “the tales of horror told by their relatives who fled Irish persecution in the south”?
The people who signed the Covenant?

That’s a ridiculously anachronistic statement for what you’re trying to do and demonstrates your lack of knowledge too.

It's not your island, and it never was.
Like I said, it’s not about land. I’m not necessarily an irredentist.

Do you or do you not want to force a nation which identifies itself as something other than Irish and wishes to maintain its place within the United Kingdom to abandon those ties and submit to the rule of the government in Dublin?
No I don’t and I never have.

Then why all this hebraic whining about "a united Ireland" and "the six stolen counties" and all of that utter horseshit?
Because the geographical location embraces the nation.

Name one point at which Ireland has been completely united as a single political entity except for when it was under British rule.
Most of the time before 1175.

No, what I am saying is that there has never been any such thing as a "united Ireland,"
Prove that.

that Ulster has always been at odds with the rest of the island
Prove that.

that there are two nations inhabiting the island of Hibernia, and that your filthy "nationalists" are nothing more than bloodthirsty, imperialist murderers bent on domination.
I’ve asked you for a definition of “Irish Nationalists” before and you refused to give it (unless you want me to use the one that you deleted?)

What Protestants of the Republic? The ones who disappeared in the span of a few short years after "Irish Nationalists" came to power?
No, the ones that currently live here. Answer the question.

Bloodthirsty savages and despicable liars, apparently.
And who are they apart from that?

When they thought that said democracy was a British democracy and before they discovered the treachory of a parliament ready to hand them over to the rule of savages.
1)How was it treachory[sic]
2)Who were/are the savages?

I'm putting no words in your mouth, I'm just exposing the ones that come out of them for the bloody lies that they are. Once more, here was the exchange. Show me in this particular exchange where you find any reference to the words "indiscriminate murder".
It was earlier in the post as you well know.

I've answered every question you've posed and then some, you slimey little shit.
Perhaps you should look again? Or maybe undelete the post in the other thread you coward?

Edit: In future, I will also be editing what I view as "unacceptable language". Rules are rules.

[Meursault]

And how should they have fought for their freedom instead?

What "freedom"? The majority of Ulster residents want to remain part of the UK.

How are a group of terrorists, gangsters and drug dealers who have murdered innocent people so that they can have their own way fighting for "freedom"?

How would a united Ireland represent "Freedom" even though the majority of the citizens are against the idea?

And then he betrayed them.. disgusting!

Yes, terrorists are freedom fighters, and someone who betrays terrorists is "disgusting".:rolleyes:

[Der Sozialist]

I don't understand?
I was under the impression that we were comparing an Independant Ireland from an Ireland within the UK.

Well, simply that the N. Irish economy due to the current situation has not had a chance to develop. This would change once the fighting ends.

I don't see why we would need to form a single country to co-operate with each other. The Republic of Ireland enjoys a very good relationship with the UK at the moment, yet we are not part of the UK or the Commonwealth et al. In fact, the Republic is probably better off now than it would be if it were still part of the Union.

Okay, we see things a little differently but I hope everything works out well for Ireland. :)

[Zrinski]

What "freedom"? The majority of Ulster residents want to remain part of the UK.

It's a rather thin majority. No doubt the future of Ulster is ultimately integration into Republic of Ireland. Thats just uninevitable.

Yes, terrorists are freedom fighters, and someone who betrays terrorists is "disgusting".:rolleyes:

Terrorist is today easily thrown away at certain groups. What is a terrorist to some to others it may represent freedom fighter.

[Jonathan]

How would a united Ireland represent "Freedom" even though the majority of the citizens are against the idea?
But a majority of citizens within a United Ireland would be for a United Ireland, that's the point.

[WFHermans]

IRA Torture/Murder -
The Man Who Knew Too Much


By Wayne Madsen
Wayne Madsen Report.com
4-6-6


Irish Republican Army (IRA) official who spied for British may have had the goods on more senior spies. The torture/slaying of Denis Donaldson, the former Sinn Fein legislative chief in the aborted Protestant-Catholic Northern Ireland administration, reportedly knew of more senior Sinn Fein/IRA officials who had provided internal IRA documents to British intelligence, according to sources close to Sinn Fein.

Donaldson, who was imprisoned in Long Kesh (HM Prison Maze) prison with his friend, famous IRA hunger striker and British MP Bobby Sands, trained in the early 1980s in Lebanon with members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and other terrorist groups. Donaldson maintained his contacts with Hezbollah and the Sh'ia Amal militia after he was recruited as a British agent.

Donaldson had made numerous enemies over the years, ranging from more militant Irish republicans, others within Sinn Fein and the IRA, and Israeli and, more recently, U.S. intelligence, which has been authorized to assassinate any current or former terrorist as part of a "Worldwide Attack Matrix" drawn up by former CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of 911. All are prime suspects in his assassination.

Donaldson was living in fear of his life in a small village in county Donegal in Ireland. He remained distraught throughout the remainder of his life over the death of Sands. However, with torture and two gunshot wounds to the head, suicide was not the cause of Donaldson's death. The Iranian revolutionary government changed the name of the Tehran street where the British embassy is located from Winston Churchill Street to Bobby Sands Street as a show of support for the Irish republican movement.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

[Jonathan]

I've also seen it suggestsed that Donaldson may have been a tripple agent, knocked off by the Brits...

[Niko Bellic]

"His right forearm is almost severed," McDowell said. "He was shot in the head and mutilation was done to his body. It's a murder we're dealing with."


Good work, Sherlock.:D

[Billy Score]

Good work, Sherlock.:D
Not really. How many mobsters would have multiple stab/gunshot wounds and be found hung only to have their deaths ruled "suicide"?

[Slavic Enforcer]

Yes, terrorists are freedom fighters, and someone who betrays terrorists is "disgusting".:rolleyes:

Didn't the English betray Donaldson at the end?

Do you really think he didn't know that traitors like him profit by the "war" and that when there's peace he'll lose a lot of influence and probably be dropped by the English?

[cerberus]

I've also seen it suggestsed that Donaldson may have been a tripple agent, knocked off by the Brits...

Probably unlikely Shane.
I wonder what the Armagh "line in the sand" will bring forth.
I have a dreadful feeling that what was voted for will shortly be delivered , an imposed structure from both Goverments , "direct rule" by both ?

[Felix the Cat]

Interestingly, his family are claiming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4886774.stm) the IRA was not responsible

Ex-Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, 56, was found shot dead in a remote cottage in County Donegal on Tuesday.

He had been expelled from the party in 2005 after admitting he was a paid British agent.

Mr Donaldson's family said they did not know who killed him but blamed the "activities of British intelligence" for their "difficult situation".

In a statement, the family said: "On Tuesday 4th April, Denis was murdered. We do not know by whom.

"But the difficult situation which our family has been put in is the direct result of the activities of the Special Branch and British Intelligence agencies.

"We acknowledge the speedy statement from the IRA disassociating themselves from this murder. We believe that statement to be true.

"We would ask those politicians and media commentators who have sought to use this tragedy to score cheap political points to stop doing so."

In a statement released by a Belfast law firm, the family also blamed the media for reporting details of Mr Donaldson's new location.

"In December, Denis left his home in Belfast and moved to Donegal, where it was his desire that he be left alone to rebuild his life.

"Unfortunately, he continued to be pursued by sections of the media, some of whom gave details about his whereabouts."

The family said Mr Donaldson was a loving husband, a devoted father and grandfather and a good brother.

"The events of recent months have been very difficult for our family. In the next few days, Denis will return home to Belfast to be with his family for one last time and to be buried."

Irish police have been carrying out searches in the vicinity of the remote cottage near the village of Glenties where Mr Donaldson's body was found.

Post mortem results have indicated he died from a shotgun wound to the chest. It said there were other injuries to his body consistent with shotgun blasts, including a severe injury to his right hand.

Police removed a car at the scene on Thursday.

Mr Donaldson had been Sinn Fein's head of administration at Stormont before his 2002 arrest over alleged spying led to its collapse.

He and two others were acquitted of charges last December "in the public interest".

One week later he admitted being recruited in the 1980s as a paid British agent.

He said there had not been a republican spy ring at Stormont.

Who killed Denis Donaldson? (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/danny_morrison/2006/04/who_killed_denis_donaldson.html)

Denis Donaldson's death, after his being unearthed as an agent, would not have come as a shock several years ago. Traditionally, the price of informing on the IRA has been execution. But last year the IRA, in laying down its arms, formally announcing an end to its armed struggle and exhorting its volunteers to work politically for the organisation's objectives, certainly eschewed action such as a revenge killing.

Ian Paisley's DUP, in particular, by blaming "Sinn Fein/IRA" and alleging continued IRA activity has exploited Donaldson's death as a golden pretext for the DUP's continued opposition to power sharing and the Good Friday Agreement.

The republican movement had nothing to gain by killing Donaldson. It needs peace in order to bed down the Agreement and work the all-Ireland bodies established by it. Crucially, Sinn Fein needs peace to expand on its flourishing electoral base in the south of Ireland and perhaps hold the balance of power in a future coalition. It certainly does not need a fresh, brutal reminder of the old days.

For the IRA to be linked to Donaldson's death would completely undermine its strategy. Nevertheless, the DUP and sections of the media, largely because of their own bias, claim his killing could only have been carried out by the IRA. Others allow for the possibility of IRA volunteers acting unofficially, individual republicans or dissidents aiming to scupper the peace process on the eve of a major announcement about the future of the Assembly by the British and Irish premiers in Armagh.

Few in the media or among mainstream political parties have dared to consider British involvement.

Denis Donaldson, for whatever reason, would not reveal to his former comrades how the British "turned" him into becoming an agent, nor the detail and extent of his betrayal. He was a liability and still had secrets about Stormontgate, amongst others: dangerous secrets which could potentially damage his British superiors.

Why would British involvement, rogue or otherwise, seem so fantastical? We know that members of British intelligence and the Special Branch ran loyalist murder squads; that as far back as the 1970s the Garda Siochana were infiltrated by the British; that during the conflict they allowed their agents in the IRA - such as "Stakeknife" - to kill. They allowed other agents to kill soldiers and policemen in order to establish and maintain their subversive credentials. In a desperate attempt to thwart Sir John Stevens' inquiry they even burned down his offices! It was certainly a dirty war.

The media is so conditioned to be hostile to the republican movement that it does a disservice to the public by not exploring all the possibilities, however unpalatable the possible conclusions. Why doesn't some MP ask the British prime minister in the House of Commons if he can he rule out the possibility of state involvement in the assassination of Denis Donaldson?

[Meursault]

Didn't the English betray Donaldson at the end?

Do you really think he didn't know that traitors like him profit by the "war" and that when there's peace he'll lose a lot of influence and probably be dropped by the English?

Ok, you seem to either be trying to change the subject, or you've simply misunderstood.

What we're discussing is the moral condemnation of Donaldson, not the inevitability of his murder.

If you care to respond to my comments then that's fine, but at least vaguely address what I've said.

It's a rather thin majority.

So? Are you saying that if it's a thin majority, we should go with the minority?

No doubt the future of Ulster is ultimately integration into Republic of Ireland. Thats just uninevitable.

What the hell is "uninevitable"?

Now, like Mr Kash, you have also failed to address the point. The point is how exactly these terrorists are "freedom fighters". Whether or not "integration into Republic of Ireland" is "uninevitable" doesn't change that.

Terrorist is today easily thrown away at certain groups. What is a terrorist to some to others it may represent freedom fighter.

I'm aware of that, but you can't just say "some people may feel differently" and leave it as that. You've offered an opinion. I'm asking you to justify it.

But a majority of citizens within a United Ireland would be for a United Ireland, that's the point.

No Shane that isn't the point at all.

Your reasoning here is a tad strange. If we follow this, then if Latvians who want their country to become part of Russia once more started commiting terrorist attacks they would be "freedom fighters" as long as the majority of the people in Russia support it.

Or you could say that a united Iberia would be fine as long as enough Spanish people supported it. After all, there are enough Spanish people that it wouldn't matter if every single Portugese citizen was against the move, because they, like the people of Ulster, are outnumbered by the population of the larger country.

I feel that there is two ways by which we arrive at beliefs. Number 1 is that we look at all opinions, facts and details objectively, and then come to what we feel is the most logical conclusion. Number two is more common: we think about what we want and then try to find the most logical argument in order to justify it (sometimes to ourselves, sometimes to others).

I feel that you are guilty of the second in this instance. Let's find out. If the majority of the UK want a united Britain that includes the Republic of Ireland, would you support it? Would you support the Republic becoming part of Britain against the will of its population just because the majority of people in the British Isles as a whole support the idea?

[Lenny]

Lenny, would you like to be the next to take up the "indiscriminate killers" baton? I must warn you though, some of your co-slanderers didn't succeed in the past.True or false: The IRA has targeted and killed Protestant civilians in the past. (The answer is true.) Those would be indiscriminate killings, not to mention despicable acts of terrorism. Those people were totally innocent civilians, not British military "occupiers" [:rolleyes:] or Protestant paramilitaries. Protestant paramilitary groups only formed in reaction to and for self-defense against IRA fanatics/terrorists/murderers anyway


Your reasoning here is a tad strange. If we follow this, then if Latvians who want their country to become part of Russia once more started commiting terrorist attacks they would be "freedom fighters" as long as the majority of the people in Russia support it.

Or you could say that a united Iberia would be fine as long as enough Spanish people supported it. After all, there are enough Spanish people that it wouldn't matter if every single Portugese citizen was against the move, because they, like the people of Ulster, are outnumbered by the population of the larger country.

I feel that there is two ways by which we arrive at beliefs. Number 1 is that we look at all opinions, facts and details objectively, and then come to what we feel is the most logical conclusion. Number two is more common: we think about what we want and then try to find the most logical argument in order to justify it (sometimes to ourselves, sometimes to others).

I feel that you are guilty of the second in this instance. Let's find out. If the majority of the UK want a united Britain that includes the Republic of Ireland, would you support it? Would you support the Republic becoming part of Britain against the will of its population just because the majority of people in the British Isles as a whole support the idea?Yes very true. If Shane's logic were applied to North America, the US would be well within its right to annex Canada next week and start pouring in soldiers and military equipment to solidify their hold on it, as a majority of Americans support Canada joining the US according to polls, and there are 10x as many Americans as Canadians. If it were applied to "1830s Mexico", i.e. Mexico and the four US-Mexico border states (those four states were part of Mexico back then), all four states are also then legitimately part of Mexico because the 100 million people in Mexico and their millions of cousins in those four states outnumber all non-hispanics in CA-NM-AZ-TX.

[Hakluyt]

How many dozens of times have we attempted to reason with Shane on this issue? It simply can't be done. There's no getting it through that thick, doublethinking skull: what he advocates is imperialism plain and simple, and not only flies in the face of any kind of basic lesson one could take from Irish history itself, but is justified with the most surreal and ridiculously dishonest arguments. Yes. A majority of citizens in a United Ireland would favour said union. I imagine the same would apply to a new union of the entire British isles themselves, today, to say nothing of public opinion at the time of Home Rule. Why shouldn't Norway be integrated into the EU? Canada into the US? Austria into Germany? That whole Swiss independence thing is getting a bit tiresome as well, don't you think? What a joke.

Of course his brazenness is understandable. He appreciates the total disregard for Ulster's interests in the mainstream of opinion. They don't meet any of the criteria for potential victim status, after all; they're haven't been 'exploited' by British rule, they're not not Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim, and most importantly they're not any swarthier than their potential oppressors. :rolleyes:

As far as Balkanoids commenting on Ireland - too easy :p

[Lenny]

Mazdak do you support IRA because they are supposedly Marxist or because they are Catholic and attack/murder Protestants, or both?

Very significant Thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2096)

[Jonathan]

No Shane that isn't the point at all.
I contend that it is the point.

You seem (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) to be looking at Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (or else the Unionists and the Nationalists of the island as a whole) as two seperate groups, as if the population of the Republic (or the Nationalist population of the whole island) shouldn't have anything to do with Northern Ireland(or the Unionist population of the whole island). I believe that this is an incorrect view of the situation.

What is the point IYO?

If we follow this, then if Latvians who want their country to become part of Russia once more started commiting terrorist attacks they would be "freedom fighters" as long as the majority of the people in Russia support it.
No, not really.

P.S. When have I ever called the P/CIRA "freedom fighters" ?

Or you could say that a united Iberia would be fine as long as enough Spanish people supported it. After all, there are enough Spanish people that it wouldn't matter if every single Portugese citizen was against the move, because they, like the people of Ulster, are outnumbered by the population of the larger country.

If the Iberian peninnsula was taken as a single constituency (a Portugal+Spain constituency) and a majority of those who voted on the issue were in agreement with a united Iberian state, then I would recognise the democratic will of the people and acknowledge the existance of the new Iberian state.

If a majority of the people of the constituency voted for the status quo, then I would acknowledge the existance of Portugal and Spain as two different states.

However, if a majority of the voters were in favour of a united Iberia, and a small minority of voters voted against it, then took up arms and carved out an entity for themselves, I would find it hard to justify that entities existance (especially if there were those in the entity who still wished for a united Iberia). That is the situation we are dealing with on this island.

If the majority of the UK want a united Britain that includes the Republic of Ireland, would you support it?
No I wouldn't. What right would the people of the U.K. have to decide the fate of the Republic of Ireland?
That's not exactly the same as the Iberian situation you were talking about.

If the Isles as a whole were taken as one constituency (this would include the UK as well as the Republic of Ireland) and the majority voted for a united Isles, then I would recognise the democratic will of the majority and acknowledge the existance of the "United Isles" (for lack of a better title) - though I would vote against the move myself, and advocate for it's reversal afterwards(through democratic means).

For the second scenario to happen, the Republic of Ireland would have to decide that it was willing to enter into a sinlge constituency with the UK to vote on the issue - that wouldn't happen(not in the forseeable future anyway).

Would you support the Republic becoming part of Britain against the will of its population just because the majority of people in the British Isles as a whole support the idea?
If the people of the Isles as a whole supported it, then yes, I would recognise the democratic will of the majority of the Isles as a whole(which is different from the question you were posing just above).
But like I've just said above, this would only happen if both the populations of the Republic and the UK (or a majority within both seperately) were willing to unite in a single constituency.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my position on the issue is exactly?

[Jonathan]

True or false: The IRA has targeted and killed Protestant civilians in the past. (The answer is true.) Those would be indiscriminate killings, not to mention despicable acts of terrorism.
Look at the words I've highlighted in bold in your statement. How can someone "target" someone "indiscriminantly" ? It is impossible. The IRA doesn't go around killing people "indiscriminantly". Explain your position.

Those people were totally innocent civilians
Which people are you talking about exaclty? Which innocent civilians have been "targeted" and which ones have been "killed indiscriminantly" ?

Protestant paramilitary groups only formed in reaction to and for self-defense against IRA fanatics/terrorists/murderers anyway
What?

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You must be completely ignorant of Irish history.

Haven't you seen GRC's thread on the Ulster Covenant? The Ulster Volunteers were the first illegal group to be formed on the island. They were formed to fight for Ulster if the Home Rule Bill (which was supported by the majority of the people in Ireland) was passed.
It was only after the Ulster Volunteers were founded that the Irish Volunteers were founded.

P.S. If we go further back into history we find that other Protestant groups like the Orange Order and the Peep-o'-day boys et al. were set up before any such Catholic groups existed.

If Shane's logic were applied to North America, the US would be well within its right to annex Canada next week and start pouring in soldiers and military equipment to solidify their hold on it, as a majority of Americans support Canada joining the US according to polls, and there are 10x as many Americans as Canadians.
That's not my position on the issue.

You are suggesting that my position is such that I would advocate/support an invasion/annexation of Northern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland just because the majority in the Republic of Ireland are in favour of a United Ireland.

The citizens of the USA have no right to decide the fate of Canada.

For the USA and Canada to unite, a majority of citizens in both entities would have to agree on forming a single constituency which would decide whether or not the two entities should unite, then a majority of voters in that single
constituency would have to vote for unification.

If it were applied to "1830s Mexico", i.e. Mexico and the four US-Mexico border states (those four states were part of Mexico back then), all four states are also then legitimately part of Mexico because the 100 million people in Mexico and their millions of cousins in those four states outnumber all non-hispanics in CA-NM-AZ-TX.
Can you explain the situation further?

[Jonathan]

what he advocates is imperialism plain and simple
How is what I advocate "imperialism" ? Do you even know what I advocate? You've called me an irridentist in the past, inspite of me claiming otherwise. Do you still hold this view?

and not only flies in the face of any kind of basic lesson one could take from Irish history itself, but is justified with the most surreal and ridiculously dishonest arguments.
What arguements are these?

Yes. A majority of citizens in a United Ireland would favour said union.
What is your problem with that?

I imagine the same would apply to a new union of the entire British isles themselves, today
Dealt with.

to say nothing of public opinion at the time of Home Rule.
Would you care to explain this comment?

Why shouldn't Norway be integrated into the EU?
Because a majority within Norway wish to remain outside of the EU, and the majority within the EU have no right to decide the fate of Norway without Norwegain consent.

Canada into the US?...
Dealt with.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Ok, you seem to either be trying to change the subject, or you've simply misunderstood.

What we're discussing is the moral condemnation of Donaldson, not the inevitability of his murder.

I told you the reason why he was probably one of the worst instigators in the brotherhood.

[Hakluyt]

Shane, comments like these need no clarification:

But a majority of citizens within a United Ireland would be for a United Ireland, that's the point.

Until you're willing to seriously address this issue there's no point in speaking with you; if you can't even conceive of Ulster as an 'entity' [as you referred to Canada] with its own interested sovereignty, the discussion is really pre-determined.

[Jonathan]

Shane, comments like these need no clarification
Really? If you would be so co-operative as to explain to everyone what your interpretation of that statement is, then I'll let you know whether or not you need me to clarify my position.

Until you're willing to seriously address this issue there's no point in speaking with you
No offence, but that looks like a real cop-out for an answer. You posted in this thread, and I replied. If it's not too much to ask, I'd like you to answer my questions.

You could start by answering whether or not you still believe that I am an irridentist? If so, why do you hold this view? If not, then what am I IYO and how have you come to this conclusion?

P.S. I really shouldn't have had to ask that twice.

if you can't even conceive of Ulster as an 'entity' [as you referred to Canada] with its own interested sovereignty, the discussion is really pre-determined.
Define "interested sovereignty" ?

How would the arguement be "pre-determined" ?

[Hakluyt]

Really? If you would be so co-operative as to explain to everyone what your interpretation of that statement is, then I'll let you know whether or not you need me to clarify my position.
Was that not a statement in support of the concept of a united Ireland? If so, there is only one possible interpretation: the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland on sovereignty is irrelevant and trumped by the will of your illusory United majority.

You could start by answering whether or not you still believe that I am an irridentist? If so, why do you hold this view? If not, then what am I IYO and how have you come to this conclusion?
Yes I think you're an irredentist. That is simply the definiton of one who seeks control over territory and people they feel historically linked to. You have told me in the past you don't see a problem with this term so I don't see why you're bringing it up.

Define "interested sovereignty" ?

How would the arguement be "pre-determined" ?
Sovereignty, Shane, is the right of a people to control their highest political authority. The discussion is pre-determined because we know you disregard Ulster's interest in this capacity, and will revert to your ad hoc reasoning about Ireland's 'majority'.

[Jonathan]

Was that not a statement in support of the concept of a united Ireland?
Yes, indeed that was a statement in support of the concept of a united Ireland.

If so, there is only one possible interpretation
I disagree.

The opinion of the people of Northern Ireland on sovereignty is irrelevant
That is not my position on the issue. You are wrong in this regard. If this were the case, then I would be advocating some sort of invasion of Northern Ireland. I would also have said that some USA/Norway unification with Canada/the EU should go ahead, which (if you read my previous posts) is not the case.

and trumped by the will of your illusory United majority.
I believe that it should be, but that is not the political reality at the moment.

Yes I think you're an irredentist.
Then you are incorrect.

That is simply the definition of one who seeks control over territory and people they feel historically linked to.
That isn’t the definition of irredentism. Irredentism advocates “recovery” not “control”. It only deals with “territory” not “territory and people”.

As I’ve said in the past (In this very thread too, if I’m not mistaken), the issue is to do with population, not a landmass. Hence the appellation “Nationalist” is appropriate rather than “Irredentist”.

You have told me in the past you don't see a problem with this term so I don't see why you're bringing it up.
That is not true. I said to you (on Mootstormfront?) that I had no problem with proper Irredentism per se, but that this was not the issue in Northern Ireland because the land has been occupied and owned by various people at various times. The issue for the North is based on population not land.

Sovereignty, Shane, is the right of a people to control their highest political authority.
And how do you come to the conclusion that I have no regard for the right of the people of Northern Ireland to control their highest political authority?

The discussion is pre-determined because we know you disregard Ulster's interest in this capacity…
See above.

…and will revert to your ad hoc reasoning about Ireland's 'majority'.
Explain how it is ad hoc?

[Meursault]

I told you the reason why he was probably one of the worst instigators in the brotherhood.

I'm still not seeing what you're getting at here. You're saying that he was "disgusting" because of instigating terrorism? Or something else? What is "the brotherhood"?

[Meursault]

I contend that it is the point.

You seem (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) to be looking at Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (or else the Unionists and the Nationalists of the island as a whole) as two seperate groups, as if the population of the Republic (or the Nationalist population of the whole island) shouldn't have anything to do with Northern Ireland(or the Unionist population of the whole island). I believe that this is an incorrect view of the situation.

I see the two countries as two seperate groups, yes. I consider NI to be as independent from ROI as it is from Norway.

My own views are that I favour English independence. Should the majority of people in NI want complete independence then I would support that. Should they wish to become part of the ROI then I'd support that too.

What is the point IYO?

The point is that if the majority of citizens in a country want to remain seperate from another nation then they should be allowed to do so, even if the majority of the population of the two nations as a whole feels otherwise.

No, not really.

P.S. When have I ever called the P/CIRA "freedom fighters" ?

You haven't; I was replying to you and the other chap in the same post and confused his views with yours. Sorry about that.:o

If the Iberian peninnsula was taken as a single constituency (a Portugal+Spain constituency) and a majority of those who voted on the issue were in agreement with a united Iberian state, then I would recognise the democratic will of the people and acknowledge the existance of the new Iberian state.

So you're saying that if every single Portugese citizen voted against, you'd still support their country being united with Spain as long as enough Spaniards voted in favour of the move?

No I wouldn't. What right would the people of the U.K. have to decide the fate of the Republic of Ireland?

The people of the UK have no right to decide the fate of the ROI but if a referendum was held and enough of the UK voted for it wouldn't matter if every single Irish citizen voted against, would it? They would be outnumbered.

For the second scenario to happen, the Republic of Ireland would have to decide that it was willing to enter into a sinlge constituency with the UK to vote on the issue - that wouldn't happen(not in the forseeable future anyway).

Well then you surely concede that I am right, because if the smaller entity must decide on its own if it wants such a move, then what matters is whether or not the people of Northern Ireland want unification or not. Or are you saying that Ireland would get to decide on its own but NI wouldn't?

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think my position on the issue is exactly?

I've only responded to the opinion you expressed earlier in this thread. You believe in a united Ireland, but other than that I don't know much about your views.

[Hakluyt]

That is not my position on the issue. You are wrong in this regard. If this were the case, then I would be advocating some sort of invasion of Northern Ireland. I would also have said that some USA/Norway unification with Canada/the EU should go ahead, which (if you read my previous posts) is not the case.
Neither of these statments logically follow.

That isn’t the definition of irredentism. Irredentism advocates “recovery” not “control”. It only deals with “territory” not “territory and people”.

As I’ve said in the past (In this very thread too, if I’m not mistaken), the issue is to do with population, not a landmass. Hence the appellation “Nationalist” is appropriate rather than “Irredentist”.
You're mistaken, irredentism describes extension of control based on either a claim to a group of people or the territory itself. Look it up if you've got to.

And how do you come to the conclusion that I have no regard for the right of the people of Northern Ireland to control their highest political authority?
Because you "believe that it should be" trumped regardless of their will to protect it, it's just "not the political reality at the moment".

Explain how it is ad hoc?
Because it expresses a disregard for universally held principles of international law and morality; it is constructed for use in this particular case because you know it is rhetorically acceptable (as I've outlined).

[Jonathan]

Just one or two definitions for clarity:
I take it that a State/Country is an institution, a Nation are a people, Ireland is an island, Northern Ireland is the 6 counties, The Republic is the 26 counties. Are we singing off the same hymnsheet?

I see the two countries as two seperate groups, yes.
I think that's a somewhat blinkered view of the situation. For the Northern Ireland situation to been seen purely in terms of the Nationalists and Unionists isolated within the 6 Counties is to ignore the aspirations of both communities. One must acknowledge the role of both the Republic of Ireland and Britain. Although we may be dealing with two political entities, we're still dealing with one population on one island. To see the two groups as being completely different strikes me as saying "Republicans in America should recognise Bush as President but Democrats should only recognise Kerry" or something to that effect.

I consider NI to be as independent from ROI as it is from Norway.
Politically/Legally perhaps, but that would be a blinkered view IMO.

My own views are that I favour English independence. Should the majority of people in NI want complete independence then I would support that. Should they wish to become part of the ROI then I'd support that too.
Why would you support one thing and then support the opposite just like that without having changed your views on the issue yourself?
I don't think you're making the necessary distinction between "acceptance" and "support".
For example, you "accept" that England is part of the UK, but you "support" the idea of English independence.
Similarly, I "accept" that the majority within Northern Ireland wish to remain within the UK at the moment, but I "support" the idea of Irish unity.

Should the majority of people in NI want complete independence then I would support that.
I think we can safely sweep that off the table for the moment.

The point is that if the majority of citizens in a country want to remain seperate from another nation then they should be allowed to do so, even if the majority of the population of the two nations as a whole feels otherwise.
If one state does not agree to form the single constituency, then the other state has no right to forcibly form it or to invade the other state. But I've never suggested that the Republic should follow either of those routes.

You haven't; I was replying to you and the other chap in the same post and confused his views with yours. Sorry about that.:o
No problem (I'm sure you can understand why I had to ask - if I don't, I get labelled as "a blood thirsty savage" et al.).

So you're saying that if every single Portugese citizen voted against, you'd still support their country being united with Spain as long as enough Spaniards voted in favour of the move?
As I said, first it would be necessary for a majority of the Portuguese voters in Portugal, and of Spanish in Spain, who were willing to enter into a single constituency election in the first place, to make their opinion known. If, after that had been agreed upon, a majority within the single constituency voted for unification, then I would support it.

The people of the UK have no right to decide the fate of the ROI
Yes.

but if a referendum was held and enough of the UK voted for it wouldn't matter if every single Irish citizen voted against, would it? They would be outnumbered.
Yes. But as I've said above, it would be necessary for a majority of voters in the Republic (and similarly, the UK) to agree to enter such a single constituency for that kind of referendum in the first place. The voters in the Republic would be responsible for having agreed to the single constituency election, and then they would have to recognise the democratic will of the majority of the single constituency, which they had previously agreed to form.

Well then you surely concede that I am right
Right on what? You asked me a question. I don't think you asked whether you were right or wrong.

because if the smaller entity must decide on its own if it wants such a move, then what matters is whether or not the people of Northern Ireland want unification or not.
Of course it matters whether the people of Northern Ireland want unification. I've never argued otherwise. Just because I "believe in a united Ireland" doesn't mean that I believe in forcibly occupying it.

Or are you saying that Ireland would get to decide on its own but NI wouldn't?
I'll take it that by "Ireland" (which I view as a 32 county island) you mean "The Republic of Ireland" (a 26 county Republic) in that question. In which case:

No, I'm not saying that "[the Republic of]Ireland would get to decide on its own but NI wouldn't?". I would never suggest that the people of the 6 counties(NI) shouldn't have a say in what happens to them.

You believe in a united Ireland
If only it were that simple. The fact that "I believe in a united Ireland" is enough for some to label me as an irredentist, an Imperialist, and/or a savage...

[Jonathan]

Neither of these statments logically follow.
Of course they do. If I believed that "The opinion of the people of Northern Ireland on sovereignty is irrelevant", as you suggest, then I would have to be advocating a forcible occupation of Northern Ireland by the Republic in order to form a United Ireland.

You're mistaken, irredentism describes extension of control based on either a claim to a group of people or the territory itself. Look it up if you've got to.
www.dictionary.com tells it otherwise.

Because you "believe that it should be" trumped regardless of their will to protect it, it's just "not the political reality at the moment".
That doesn’t necessarily “logically follow”.
One the one hand, I believe that the Democratic will of the Irish people, as expressed through the 1918 election, should have been realised. That was/is the ideal. That’s over and done with now though and we must move on to the present.
The second issue is about dealing with the present state of affairs. While I recognise the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their future, I do not support their current disposition.
Take this scenario for example:
Hakluyt, if you were an English woman and you supported the Conservative party, you would have the right to vote Conservative in the general elections. Presumably, you would also recognise the democratic rights of the voters of Britain to vote for whatever party they felt like. If a majority of voters elected a Labour government under Tony Blair, you would recognise the right of Tony Blair to be in government but you would not necessarily support his government. You wouldn’t have to support Labour in every election just because the majority supported him too. You would be well within your rights to vote for the Conservative party in every single election for the rest of your life and support them at every opportunity, in spite of them being the opposition party, without necessarily advocating a Coup d’etat or a Putsch or anything of the sort.

Because it expresses a disregard for universally held principles of international law and morality
There are thousands of disputed borders all over the world.

it is constructed for use in this particular case because you know it is rhetorically acceptable (as I've outlined).
Don’t go too far, or you’ll sound like your playing the victim card :p

[Hakluyt]

Of course they do. If I believed that "The opinion of the people of Northern Ireland on sovereignty is irrelevant", as you suggest, then I would have to be advocating a forcible occupation of Northern Ireland by the Republic in order to form a United Ireland.
You are just repeating yourself. It doesn't follow and it's a matter of rhetorical excess on your part; there are any number of pragmatic or otherwise genuine moral reasons for you not to advocate military occupation of Northern Ireland that are not inconsistent with a disregard for their sovereignty. I won't be responding to this again as it's not a real point of contention.

www.dictionary.com tells it otherwise.
ir·re·den·tist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dntst)
n.
One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one's nation but now subject to a foreign government.

If you need further clarification please consult a proper encyclopaedia, and if you're still not convinced, Google for scholarly analyses or historical examples.

One the one hand, I believe that the Democratic will of the Irish people, as expressed through the 1918 election, should have been realised. That was/is the ideal. That’s over and done with now though and we must move on to the present.
Yes, this is the irredentist mentality at its most apparent, even within the democratic context. Some of the examples already mentioned in this thread match the situation almost perfectly: German (Austrian particularly but others still apply) referenda on unification and secession from other countries, most obviously, and Quebec may soon fit this model as well.

Again, I'm not insisting that you advocate control of NI by any means necessary, I'm only pointing out that your point of view is informed by immature emotionalism, inconsistent with the basic premise of the international system.

The second issue is about dealing with the present state of affairs. While I recognise the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their future, I do not support their current disposition.
Their disposition being toward maintaining their sovereignty outside the republic, and by a wide margin. What if this situation was treated abstractly, or compared to similar claims throughout the world; what if there was no media conception of the Irish question? There would be nothing to distinguish the campaign from the German republic advocating the integration of Austria.

Take this scenario for example:
Hakluyt, if you were an English woman and you supported the Conservative party, you would have the right to vote Conservative in the general elections. Presumably, you would also recognise the democratic rights of the voters of Britain to vote for whatever party they felt like. If a majority of voters elected a Labour government under Tony Blair, you would recognise the right of Tony Blair to be in government but you would not necessarily support his government. You wouldn’t have to support Labour in every election just because the majority supported him too. You would be well within your rights to vote for the Conservative party in every single election for the rest of your life and support them at every opportunity, in spite of them being the opposition party, without necessarily advocating a Coup d’etat or a Putsch or anything of the sort.
This example suggests to me you do lack an understanding of the importance and gravity of sovereignty. This is an example of political control within a state, not between states, and the ethics and legal questions to be considered are of a fundamentally different nature.

There are thousands of disputed borders all over the world.
It's a wholly one-way dispute: the will of the Northern Irish is clear, the possible results of a referendum are known in advance, and there is absolutely no legal dimension complicating the issue.

[Jonathan]

I won't be responding to this again as it's not a real point of contention.
...

ir·re·den·tist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dntst)
n.
One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one's nation but now subject to a foreign government.
I see nothing in this definition which mentions taking control of a population. I mentions recovery of territory...then again it's not a real point of contention is it?

Yes, this is the irredentist mentality at its most apparent, even within the democratic context.
Irrespective of whether we take Irredentism to be "control of population" or "recovery of territory" I don't see how that comment fits.

Expressing disappointment at a historical event which led to much dissatisfaction (such as the partition following the 1918 election, the Treaty, and the Boundary Commission) is hardly Irredentism(by either definition). Nor is the expression of disappointment that a historical event, which didn’t take place, could have saved generations of trouble (such as an Independent Ireland after the 1918 elections).

Some of the examples already mentioned in this thread match the situation almost perfectly: German (Austrian particularly but others still apply) referenda on unification and secession from other countries, most obviously, and Quebec may soon fit this model as well.
I don't understand. I have not expressed disappointment at the results of any past German/Austrian referenda, nor have I been asked to.

Again, I'm not insisting that you advocate control of NI by any means necessary
I don't advocate "control of NI" at all. Like I asked GRC: Were the Unionist voters of 1918, "controlled" by the Free State in the 20s?
You've mention "rhetoric" a few time on this thread already and I haven't really responded to it, but using words like "control of NI" displays a certain mentality on your behalf that can be misleading to the uninformed.

Furthermore, if I advocate the Unification of Ireland, but not through the democratic process, then surely I must advocate it through force? This in sort of sliding back into the issue at the top of the post that you said you didn't intend replying to, so if you don't want to reply to this, I wont follow you up on it, but I think the bares mentioning.

I'm only pointing out that your point of view
By my "point of view" do you mean "My understanding of the NI situation" or "My view on how the NI situation should be dealt with"?

In both cases, I would dispute your following description...

is informed by immature emotionalism...
By "informed" are you specifically referring to "the kind of information and/or views which were imparted to me on the subject by others before I had developed my own stance" or do you mean "my own stance itself".

In both cases, I would disagree.

While my stance on the issue (and much of the info. imparted to me) is, to an extent, based on emotion, I see no problem with this. Most political action is brought back to emotion at the end of the day. What do you think that the Unionists in Northern Ireland base their stance on, emotion? Isn't your stance as a Tory based on emotion to an extent?

The key word here is "immature". While "everything is relative" and all that, I'll try to deal with the word.

I would disagree that my stance is immature. My stance on the NI issue is bound up with my stance on nationalism(I was interested in nationalism long before NI - nationalism having allot more to it than just jingoism and unification) and ultimately, my views on "the good life" et al(that's stretching things to the philosophical which might be off bounds for this discussion). These are grounded in my interpretation of history, ethnicity, and well-being. Without trying to sound too pompous, I think that my views are quite well thought out and level headed on each of those three. You'll never see me crying "Brits out", "Prody bastards", or "700 years!".

inconsistent with the basic premise of the international system.
I don't see what's so inconsistent about advocating Irish Unification(not to mention the fact that "the international system" is an Anarchy technically speaking).

Their disposition being toward maintaining their sovereignty outside the republic
Corrections: (1)Their "current" disposition being towards (2)maintaining "the Union".
1)Just because their "current" disposition is one thing, doesn't mean that we must accept that this will be the case for time immemorial - after all, the Ulster-Scots and the Irish were prepared to unite in 1641 and 1798, it was the likes of the Orange Order who changed this disposition. What is wrong with someone else (such as myself) advocating a change of disposition?
2)Sovereignty and Maintaining the Union are not necessarily the same. If you're up to speed on the current situation, you will know that several prominent Unionists are willing to accept further influence from both Britain and the Republic of Ireland as a compromise, and further input from the Republic perhaps to curb the rise of Sinn Féin among Northern Nationalists at the expense of the SDLP.

and by a wide margin.
Not really - not to mention the potential for change as I've mentioned(before the last elections the UUP and the SDLP were in stronger positions than the DUP and Sinn Féin, but this in no longer the case).

What if this situation was treated abstractly
Like what exactly?

or compared to similar claims throughout the world
Pick a country if you like.

what if there was no media conception of the Irish question?
What are you getting at here? Do you think it's my fault that the majority of the misinformed world thinks that the NI situation is a simple case of occupation? Have you ever seen me posting about "reparations for the famine" or "Brits out!" ?

There would be nothing to distinguish the campaign from the German republic advocating the integration of Austria.
What has this to do with my comments?

This example suggests to me you do lack an understanding of the importance and gravity of sovereignty.
How so?

This is an example of political control within a state
Well it's not supposed to be, and that's just your specific interpretation of the example.

not between states, and the ethics and legal questions to be considered are of a fundamentally different nature.
The main tenet to the example was/is the compatibility of the expression of a will and the recognition of a right. Can't you accept that?

There with that "control" word again btw...

It's a wholly one-way dispute: the will of the Northern Irish is clear, the possible results of a referendum are known in advance, and there is absolutely no legal dimension complicating the issue.
Your point being?