The Belfast Agreement

[Enver]

Let's discuss the GFA....

[Gareth]

Irish sovereignty? I think people should let the Northern Irish decide what they want. And while the majority say with UK, I support their freedoms as part of the United Kingdom. Personally I think it's immature to wish to impose Irish nationality on a nation that does not yet feel Irish.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Personally I feel it a step closer to Re-Unification. The British army for the most part have withdrawn. Sinn Féin and The D.U.P ae sitting at the same table making decisions on behalf of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities.

Most importantly it brough an end to an armed campaign that was making no progress and had for the most part stagnated, and wresulting in the pointless loss of lives.

Plus the south now has some sway in the decision making of the North for the first time since the treaty.

[Gareth]

Yes, but it is the decision of the Northerners not ours.

[Enver]

Irish sovereignty?

Yes, something that will have to be respected if there is ever to be a lasting peace on this island.


I think people should let the Northern Irish decide what they want.

The who?

There is no such nationality or cultural identity as 'Northern Irish'.

And while the majority say with UK, I support their freedoms as part of the United Kingdom. Personally I think it's immature to wish to impose Irish nationality on a nation that does not yet feel Irish.

Yes anti-imperialism is terribly inconvenient and immature.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Yes, but it is the decision of the Northerners not ours.

Yes, it apears that the majority of the population of the north accept the agreement and do not want to see the return of the days of the troubles. It s majority rules and we cannot force unionists into the state if they do not wish for it to be so. There are as far as I'am aware provisions within Bunreacht Na hEireann that state should the majority of the north vote trough referendum for the Re-Unification to commence thn it will. However I agree it has to be the decision of the northerners

[Enver]

Personally I feel it a step closer to Re-Unification.

By establishing the British as having the sole legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory? The GFA/St. Andrews deems the constitutional question to be settled. How will this bring about an independent and sovereign Ireland?

The British army for the most part have withdrawn.

You still have a permanent garrison of roughly 5,000 troops plus a paramilitary police force which is heavily armed, not to mention Loyalist death squads.

Sinn Féin and The D.U.P ae sitting at the same table making decisions on behalf of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities.

But they ultimately have no meaningful power and have accepted the British occupation as legitimate.

Most importantly it brough an end to an armed campaign that was making no progress and had for the most part stagnated, and wresulting in the pointless loss of lives.

I agree, but why does a ceasefire have to mean complete capitulation to the British system?

Plus the south now has some sway in the decision making of the North for the first time since the treaty.

The Free State has always been and remains firmly opposed to Irish national sovereignty.

[Enver]

Yes, it apears that the majority of the population of the north accept the agreement and do not want to see the return of the days of the troubles. It s majority rules and we cannot force unionists into the state if they do not wish for it to be so. There are as far as I'am aware provisions within Bunreacht Na hEireann that state should the majority of the north vote trough referendum for the Re-Unification to commence thn it will. However I agree it has to be the decision of the northerners

It has to be the decision of the Irish people.

[An Céachta Dearg]

It has to be the decision of the Irish people.

True i retract my earlier statement it has to be the decision of irish people, but the unfortunate reality is we now live in two seperate states, whether you recognise those states or not. And the polls which will conduct the decisions will have to be taken speratly in the interest of fairness

[Enver]

True i retract my earlier statement it has to be the decision of irish people, but the unfortunate reality is we now live in two seperate states, whether you recognise those states or not. And the polls which will conduct the decisions will have to be taken speratly in the interest of fairness

What do you mean in the interest of fairness?

[Gareth]

It has to be the decision of the Irish people.

2 seperate referenda

1. for the people of the Republic to see if they want to include the North
2. for the people of Northern Ireland to see if they want to join the Republic.

The Northerners are the ones affected by this, therefore they should have the final say.

Irish do not have sovereignty over the North currently.

[An Céachta Dearg]

What do you mean in the interest of fairness?

If a singular poll is taken troughout the entire country, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion and the Unionist would refuse to accept the legitimacy of it and would most likely mobolise their death squads. However if they are defeated in a 6 county only poll then they have been defeated in "their legitimate State"( Please note I'am being ironic). Thus their entire argument as being a majority and being legitimate would be crushed and destroyed.

The poll in the South would be pretty much pointless and would be nothing more than ceremonial to prove that the majority of Irish people both north and south support the re-unification of the country.
This may not be the case but is certainlymy opinion.

[quirk]

Personally I feel it a step closer to Re-Unification. The British army for the most part have withdrawn. Sinn Féin and The D.U.P ae sitting at the same table making decisions on behalf of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities.

Most importantly it brough an end to an armed campaign that was making no progress and had for the most part stagnated, and wresulting in the pointless loss of lives.

Plus the south now has some sway in the decision making of the North for the first time since the treaty.

You have said that you believe that it is a step closer to unity yet haven't seemed to detail how you see this coming about. Yes it may be desirable that there is less British soldiers in Ireland but the occupation is political in nature - the soldiers where just a particular manifestation of that. There is also the fact that there is still 5000 British soldiers in the 6 counties and as many as is needed can be brought back within a certain time frame. The replacement of the British army by the RUC has been a British goal for decades - Ulsterisation.

On the issue of PSF and the DUP sitting down and administering British rule together, I just cannot see how this is a move towards unity. Surely a more stable, peaceful and prosperous 6 counties will in fact decrease the desire of people to opt out of that set up. Again this was another long term British goal - Normalisation.

The south has only as much say in the north as the Brits allow them. The GFA recognises Britain as the legitimate sovereign power in that part of Ireland. The south have dropped their own claim to this, so if the Brits decide to cut of their input there is absolutely nothing they can say.

Finally on the issue of armed struggle I dont think it has been ended. I think we are witnessing a lull just as has happened many times in the past. I believe that there will always be Irish men and women who are prepared to carry out armed actions for as long as their country is occupied.

[quirk]

It also seems that many people are unaware that the final decision on Irish unity will not be taken in two polls but taken at Westminster. The British do not have to recognise the outcome of such polls. This is written into the GFA.

[An Céachta Dearg]

You have said that you believe that it is a step closer to unity yet haven't seemed to detail how you see this coming about. Yes it may be desirable that there is less British soldiers in Ireland but the occupation is political in nature - the soldiers where just a particular manifestation of that. There is also the fact that there is still 5000 British soldiers in the 6 counties and as many as is needed can be brought back within a certain time frame. The replacement of the British army by the RUC has been a British goal for decades - Ulsterisation.

On the issue of PSF and the DUP sitting down and administering British rule together, I just cannot see how this is a move towards unity. Surely a more stable, peaceful and prosperous 6 counties will in fact decrease the desire of people to opt out of that set up. Again this was another long term British goal - Normalisation.

The south has only as much say in the north as the Brits allow them. The GFA recognises Britain as the legitimate sovereign power in that part of Ireland. The south have dropped their own claim to this, so if the Brits decide to cut of their input there is absolutely nothing they can say.

Finally on the issue of armed struggle I dont think it has been ended. I think we are witnessing a lull just as has happened many times in the past. I believe that there will always be Irish men and women who are prepared to carry out armed actions for as long as their country is occupied.

The south dropped the claim to sovereignity by referendum as a way to bring an end to the armed campaigns from both sides and as I have said before a stagnated war.

You may believe otherwise but I truly believe that the fact that hardline unionists are now sitting in the same assembly as nationalists is huge stride on the road to reunification. The borders are now open and their are no longer road blocks. True it may be only as the Brits allow however it is significantly more than it used to be and for once they take into accoun the views and opinions of the souths government on issues regarding the north. Popular opinion in Britain doesnt even recognise the 6 counties as being British and polls have shown for a public preference for the counties to be returned to the republic.

As for the point on Westminster having the final decision on the faith of the North, this maybe be true. However in reality should the electorate in the North ever decide to return to a free and sovereign Ireland then they would have no reason to stand in their way. It holds no interest in Ireland anymore the 6 counties cost the British government more money than they can make back from it on tax, its services must be subsidised from Westminster.

You say I have not shown how the GFA has made any strides towards the return of Irish sovereignity, you at the same time have not presented any alternatives to the Belfast/St. Andres agreement.

[bay]

lurking, reading and learning, thank you all

[AngelVelasco]

Personally I think it's immature to wish to impose Irish nationality on a nation that does not yet feel Irish.

The point that "what people decide" may be used if people don't refuse to a nationality due to other troubles (religious or economic ones or even alienation from the State). Can't they be protestant and Irish(wo)men? Nationality have nothing to be with feelings, I may feel I'm 2meters high and it doesn't mean I were so. North Ireland is Ireland under British control, so Irish nationality is not imposed.

What we surely know are two points: North Ireland is Irish by its culture; and British nationality has no own culture and so it's based on the English one, and North Ireland may be everything but English.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Can't they be protestant and Irish(wo)men?.

You have made the age old mistake of over simplifying the Irish issue on the grounds of religion. The issue is actually very little to do with religion and more to do with nationality and politics. There are many Protestants who consider themselves Irish and are Republican. There are many Catholics who consider themselves British and are Unionist.

North Ireland is Ireland under British control, so Irish nationality is not imposed.

This analyses is almost completely commendable. Yes The 6 counties are Irish under jurisdiction I would have no problems with that. However at the moment the majority of the 6 counties are unionistand therefore they do not consider themselves Irish but British. Irish nationality does exist within the Nationalist/Republican community.

What we surely know are two points: North Ireland is Irish by its culture; and British nationality has no own culture and so it's based on the English one, and North Ireland may be everything but English.


Here you have just completely disregarded the culture of the Unionists. Their is no doubt that the North is more culturally Irish than it is British However the Orange Culture is more tied into Scottish culture than it is too Irish culture. I would agree with the analyses that British culture is based upon the idea o fbeing English because frankly its true.

"We've never understood the Irish, they refuse to be English" - Winston Churchill

[Gareth]

You have made the age old mistake of over simplifying the Irish issue on the grounds of religion. The issue is actually very little to do with religion and more to do with nationality and politics. There are many Protestants who consider themselves Irish and are Republican. There are many Catholics who consider themselves British and are Unionist.


Nail on head, I'm one of these Irish Protestants you are speaking of. Well, not republican per sé but happy to live in the Republic. I don't really know how you define Republican really.


What we surely know are two points: North Ireland is Irish by its culture; and British nationality has no own culture and so it's based on the English one, and North Ireland may be everything but English.

A lot of the Northerners do see themselves as British before Irish. This is why we cannot impose Irish nationality on them.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Nail on head, I'm one of these Irish Protestants you are speaking of. Well, not republican per sé but happy to live in the Republic. I don't really know how you define Republican really.

I didn't mean in as being republican, what I meant is their are Protestants that are politically Republican. Just as their are Catholics who are politically Unionist.

[Gareth]

Yes, it's a political affiliation. There is no religious support for picking to stay with the United Kingdom over staying in Ireland. It's not like it's written in the Bible to do so, that's why it annoys me that people make this out to be a religious conflict, or more importantly that people manipulated religion for their own goals.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Yes, it's a political affiliation. There is no religious support for picking to stay with the United Kingdom over staying in Ireland. It's not like it's written in the Bible to do so, that's why it annoys me that people make this out to be a religious conflict, or more importantly that people manipulated religion for their own goals.

Exactly.

[Enver]

I don't really know how you define Republican really.

An Irish Republican is someone who at the very least upholds the principles of the Proclamation and Declaration of Independence, so that rules out Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, PSF, the SDLP and Labour etc.

[Gareth]

That rules out most of the Irish people then :rolleyes:

Hm I don't fall into that category then. I voted for SF during the last election as they were the better of the flock. However I don't agree entirely with them.

[Enver]

That rules out most of the Irish people then :rolleyes:

Republicans have always been in the minority in Ireland.

[Gareth]

Republicans have always been in the minority in Ireland.

what do you make of Fianna Fáils slogan, "The Republican Party"?

[Enver]

what do you make of Fianna Fáils slogan, "The Republican Party"?

"The Unionist Party" would be more accurate.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Republicans have always been in the minority in Ireland.

1917 British General election Irish results returned a majority of Sinn Féin candidates to Westminster!!!

These were republicans and led the foundation of the first Dáil supported by the majority of the country, just as the IRA were supported by the majority of Irish people during the War of Independance 1919-1921.

[Gareth]

the first Dáil was illegal I thought, and recognised only by Russia?

[Enver]

1917 British General election Irish results returned a majority of Sinn Féin candidates to Westminster!!!

These were republicans and led the foundation of the first Dáil supported by the majority of the country, just as the IRA were supported by the majority of Irish people during the War of Independance 1919-1921.

How do you account for the majority of people accepting the Free State then, allowing it to crush the Republic?

[Enver]

the first Dáil was illegal I thought, and recognised only by Russia?

Yup.

[An Céachta Dearg]

How do you account for the majority of people accepting the Free State then, allowing it to crush the Republic?

The majority of the populace accepted the treaty as they were involved in the fighting and had lost loved ones or friends in some, way, shape or form no-one escaped. The Irish people were at that stage war weary they were just out of WW1 when we entered the Tan War, they were tired of the Nazi policing provided by the British government in the form of the RIC, Black & Tans and the Auxiliaries. Also the believed the treaty to be temporary and that partition would not have lasted more than ten years and would end after the border commision submitted its report in 1926.

Also the majority of the Irish populace were loyal to Collins, whom had he not been assinated ould have made great social change that did not come about under De Valera, but also planned to run an armed campaign in the 6 counties that Loyd George actually knew about and had no intention to halt.

'This treaty does not give us the freedom we sought, but it gives us the freedom to attain freedom'

Loyd George: I fear I'am signing my political death warrant
Michael Collins: I fear I'am signing my actual death warrant

[Gareth]

the Free State was the only realistic way forward by the by.

[An Céachta Dearg]

the Free State was the only realistic way forward by the by.

Exactly the IRA could only keep going for another 2 weeks by the time the ceasefire was called and Collins, Boland and De Valera knew that the struggle was reaching an end and an inevitable defeat, if we didnt get the free state it would have just been another glorious failure where we would write our ballads for our glorious heroes who came so close to defeating the occupier but failed yet again.

[quirk]

The south dropped the claim to sovereignity by referendum as a way to bring an end to the armed campaigns from both sides and as I have said before a stagnated war.

They did not drop it to end the armed campaign as the PIRA campaign would have ended regardless of this. Of course this is how the referendums both north and south were sold to the people - as a choice between war and peace. Is there any real difference between this or demanding the signing of a treaty or face "immediate and terrible war"?

You may believe otherwise but I truly believe that the fact that hardline unionists are now sitting in the same assembly as nationalists is huge stride on the road to reunification.

This is what I really don't get. How is sitting in an assembly with the DUP leading towards reunification?

There is within the GFA a single mechanism for bringing about a united Ireland and sitting in Stormont makes not one bit of difference to that. That mechanism in my opinion can never bring about a united Ireland for a number of reasons.

First of the GFA says that in order for there to be a united Ireland their must first be a majority within the 6 counties that desires this. This has been the British position since the 1970's and therfore is not an advancement on the road to unity as it would have been the case whether the GFA was signed or not and whether there was an armed campaign or not.

The GFA also does not state exactly what a majority is in this case. Is it a 50%+1 (which the unionists have ensured us it isnt), a majority in both communities (like most other things require these days) or a constitutional majority (which is 2/3rds) as this is a constitutional issue?

Even if it was a 50%+1 which would be the best outcome for republicans under these terms, will that ever be achieved. If you count i on a sectarian headcount the fact that the Catholic and Protestant birth rates have now for the first time virtually levelled out means this might not ever happen. Even if it did there are much more catholic unionists (especially but not just the middle classes) than protestant nationalist. Also as I have pointed out before making the six counties more workable, prosperous and peaceful logically will persuade people that the status quo is good rather than the other way about.

Then even after all this if there is still a majority that will not automatically mean a united Ireland but simply that the British Government are forced to put before Westminster and back legislation to that effect. The British Government at present consists of 119 members (not all MPs) in a parliament which will soon be raising to 650. When this is taken into account you get the picture that they can easily be defeated by the opposition and a given number of their MPs. If you say this wont happen then why did they need to do it in such a way in the first place? They easily could have past legislation to ensure that a vote for a united Ireland would automatically pass through the house.

In summary: Seeing the GFA as the road to a united Ireland means convincing unionists to become nationalists (by securing and making the union more workable) then relying on the good will of Westminster (who have back stabbed us for centuries). So excuse me if I am a little pessimistic about the whole project, and more so as it required the abandonment of republican principles.

The borders are now open and their are no longer road blocks.

The same is the case between France and Germany, Spain and Portugal etc. Cross border is very different from no border.

You say I have not shown how the GFA has made any strides towards the return of Irish sovereignity, you at the same time have not presented any alternatives to the Belfast/St. Andres agreement.

I don't pretend to have a magic solution for a United Ireland but the straightforward and natural alternative to British politics in Ireland is Irish politics in Ireland. I think we need to regroup and reorganise and in the process come up with a viable alternative that will challenge the British and eventually defeat them. This is possible although I believe it has been set back massively by the GFA. When the Provos called the ceasefire and had the moral high ground if they had embarked on a campaign of intense and prolonged civil disobedience this would have not left many options for the British. Sadly however the Provisional leadership accepted everything they ever fought against.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement (32CSM) has challenged the British at the United Nations. Our submission demonstrates that the British presence in Ireland is in fact illegal under international law. I don't believe this itself could defeat them but if the constitutional nationalist parties had (or still do) put their weight behind it then we could get to a situation where the UN makes a ruling on this.

The 32CSM, IRSP, RNU and individual republicans have also began to cooperate in what has been known as the republican unity initiative. It is in its early stages and there have been problems but this is a very positive development. What is needed now is for more republican groups to come on board (eirigi and RSF have so far not done so) and also for socialist groups to participate (I know Socialist Democracy has been invited). After regroupment which might take many more years I believe there will once more be a viable alternative to British parliamentary activity in Ireland.

This is my alternative but even if I had none I dont think it should prevent me from criticising the occupation of my country and the mechanism (GFA) through which that is done.

[Enver]

The majority of the populace accepted the treaty as they were involved in the fighting and had lost loved ones or friends in some, way, shape or form no-one escaped. The Irish people were at that stage war weary they were just out of WW1 when we entered the Tan War, they were tired of the Nazi policing provided by the British government in the form of the RIC, Black & Tans and the Auxiliaries. Also the believed the treaty to be temporary and that partition would not have lasted more than ten years and would end after the border commision submitted its report in 1926.

Also the majority of the Irish populace were loyal to Collins, whom had he not been assinated ould have made great social change that did not come about under De Valera, but also planned to run an armed campaign in the 6 counties that Loyd George actually knew about and had no intention to halt.

'This treaty does not give us the freedom we sought, but it gives us the freedom to attain freedom'

Loyd George: I fear I'am signing my political death warrant
Michael Collins: I fear I'am signing my actual death warrant

Watched that terrible tripe Michael Collins a few too many times, no?

[An Céachta Dearg]

Watched that terrible tripe Michael Collins a few too many times, no?

Yes Enver I have based my entire argument on a highly dramatised 'based' on real events Hollywood production.

[Enver]

Yes Enver I have based my entire argument on a highly dramatised 'based' on real events Hollywood production.

Jaysus I hate that film.

Collins deserved what he got though. :D

[Enver]

They did not drop it to end the armed campaign as the PIRA campaign would have ended regardless of this. Of course this is how the referendums both north and south were sold to the people - as a choice between war and peace. Is there any real difference between this or demanding the signing of a treaty or face "immediate and terrible war"?



This is what I really don't get. How is sitting in an assembly with the DUP leading towards reunification?

There is within the GFA a single mechanism for bringing about a united Ireland and sitting in Stormont makes not one bit of difference to that. That mechanism in my opinion can never bring about a united Ireland for a number of reasons.

First of the GFA says that in order for there to be a united Ireland their must first be a majority within the 6 counties that desires this. This has been the British position since the 1970's and therfore is not an advancement on the road to unity as it would have been the case whether the GFA was signed or not and whether there was an armed campaign or not.

The GFA also does not state exactly what a majority is in this case. Is it a 50%+1 (which the unionists have ensured us it isnt), a majority in both communities (like most other things require these days) or a constitutional majority (which is 2/3rds) as this is a constitutional issue?

Even if it was a 50%+1 which would be the best outcome for republicans under these terms, will that ever be achieved. If you count i on a sectarian headcount the fact that the Catholic and Protestant birth rates have now for the first time virtually levelled out means this might not ever happen. Even if it did there are much more catholic unionists (especially but not just the middle classes) than protestant nationalist. Also as I have pointed out before making the six counties more workable, prosperous and peaceful logically will persuade people that the status quo is good rather than the other way about.

Then even after all this if there is still a majority that will not automatically mean a united Ireland but simply that the British Government are forced to put before Westminster and back legislation to that effect. The British Government at present consists of 119 members (not all MPs) in a parliament which will soon be raising to 650. When this is taken into account you get the picture that they can easily be defeated by the opposition and a given number of their MPs. If you say this wont happen then why did they need to do it in such a way in the first place? They easily could have past legislation to ensure that a vote for a united Ireland would automatically pass through the house.

In summary: Seeing the GFA as the road to a united Ireland means convincing unionists to become nationalists (by securing and making the union more workable) then relying on the good will of Westminster (who have back stabbed us for centuries). So excuse me if I am a little pessimistic about the whole project, and more so as it required the abandonment of republican principles.



The same is the case between France and Germany, Spain and Portugal etc. Cross border is very different from no border.



I don't pretend to have a magic solution for a United Ireland but the straightforward and natural alternative to British politics in Ireland is Irish politics in Ireland. I think we need to regroup and reorganise and in the process come up with a viable alternative that will challenge the British and eventually defeat them. This is possible although I believe it has been set back massively by the GFA. When the Provos called the ceasefire and had the moral high ground if they had embarked on a campaign of intense and prolonged civil disobedience this would have not left many options for the British. Sadly however the Provisional leadership accepted everything they ever fought against.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement (32CSM) has challenged the British at the United Nations. Our submission demonstrates that the British presence in Ireland is in fact illegal under international law. I don't believe this itself could defeat them but if the constitutional nationalist parties had (or still do) put their weight behind it then we could get to a situation where the UN makes a ruling on this.

The 32CSM, IRSP, RNU and individual republicans have also began to cooperate in what has been known as the republican unity initiative. It is in its early stages and there have been problems but this is a very positive development. What is needed now is for more republican groups to come on board (eirigi and RSF have so far not done so) and also for socialist groups to participate (I know Socialist Democracy has been invited). After regroupment which might take many more years I believe there will once more be a viable alternative to British parliamentary activity in Ireland.

This is my alternative but even if I had none I dont think it should prevent me from criticising the occupation of my country and the mechanism (GFA) through which that is done.

Well said comrade.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Jaysus I hate that film.

Collins deserved what he got though. :D

It is one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of having to watch.

I wouldn't say he deserved what he got I hate to see any Irishman die by the bullet. Plus no matter what your opinion of him maybe he was a guerilla genuis, though Barry also holds sway there.

I do admire Collins in many ways, however I can never forgive him for turning on his former comrades during the civil war and executing them. The nation lost some great men in those times Liam Mellows probably the greatest of the lot.

[Enver]

I wouldn't say he deserved what he got I hate to see any Irishman die by the bullet.

I would, the man betrayed the people of this country.

There is a considerably long list of Irishmen who I would like to see get the bullet.

[Gareth]

I wouldn't say he deserved what he got I hate to see any Irishman die by the bullet.

I hate to see any man of any nationality die through violence.

[quirk]

I hate to see any man of any nationality die through violence.

Although tragic I believe that in times of occupation it is completely legitimate and justified to execute informers and collaborators.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Although tragic I believe that in times of occupation it is completely legitimate and justified to execute informers and collaborators.

Informers yes!!

But define collaborators?

[quirk]

Informers yes!!

But define collaborators?

Those who collaborate with the occupation knowingly.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Those who collaborate with the occupation knowingly.

So Taxpayers would be included in that?

[Enver]

So Taxpayers would be included in that?

No.

[An Céachta Dearg]

No.

But technically they collaborate with the occupier by providing them with funds to continue their occupation do they not?, Thye pay the wages of the soldiers and the RUC/PSNI do they not? So that makes them collaborators and they are fully aware that they pay taxes.

[quirk]

There is a difference between doing something out of necessity and doing it out of choice. People have to live their daily lives, they dont have to administer British rule. See the difference?

[An Céachta Dearg]

There is a difference between doing something out of necessity and doing it out of choice. People have to live their daily lives, they dont have to administer British rule. See the difference?

So what about people who join the police to feed their family ut ultimately want to see the end of partition?
Paying taxes is recognising and adminstrating rule by funding it

[quirk]

So what about people who join the police to feed their family ut ultimately want to see the end of partition?
Paying taxes is recognising and adminstrating rule by funding it

I have no problem with members of a British police force in Ireland being killed. Paying taxes is different. The state compels people to do so however if we got to a situation where alternative structures where set up as happened following the 1918 general election then I think people should be expected to withdraw their taxes from the occupying state and give it to this one.

[An Céachta Dearg]

I have no problem with members of a British police force in Ireland being killed. Paying taxes is different. The state compels people to do so however if we got to a situation where alternative structures where set up as happened following the 1918 general election then I think people should be expected to withdraw their taxes from the occupying state and give it to this one.

Why then did PIRA not set up such a system in the early 70s when they had te British on the rack?

[quirk]

Why then did PIRA not set up such a system in the early 70s when they had te British on the rack?

They should have especially in areas like South Armagh, West Belfast and East Tyrone. Why it didnt happen is beyond me although I guess its easy to judge in retrospect. I think doing that would have been one of the things which could have actually enabled republicans to win the conflict. It is something I would like to see in future. But it must not be set up by a military group alone as this would have negative effects.

[Enver]

Why then did PIRA not set up such a system in the early 70s when they had te British on the rack?

I think the PIRA always lacked a strong leadership with more political finesse that had the willingness to take chances like creating parallel structures or intensifying the war even more. This could well be down to successful counter-intelligence by the British and the Free State, but then again maybe not. Perhaps not enough Volunteers or activists were willing to upset the apple cart too much, never mind upending it.

Another problem, as I see it, was the confining of the struggle to the occupied counties, rather than making it national. When the PIRA was in a position of strength it should have attacked the Free State. Any future struggle for national liberation must be exactly that: national.

[IrishRepublican]

2 seperate referenda

1. for the people of the Republic to see if they want to include the North
2. for the people of Northern Ireland to see if they want to join the Republic.

The Northerners are the ones affected by this, therefore they should have the final say.

Irish do not have sovereignty over the North currently.


Do you feel its fair that unionists are the majority in the north? or should I say 'were' as its almost 50/50 now. There still a bit ahead though, and thats how the state was created in the first place. Irish catholics had no say.

[IrishRepublican]

Yes, it's a political affiliation. There is no religious support for picking to stay with the United Kingdom over staying in Ireland. It's not like it's written in the Bible to do so, that's why it annoys me that people make this out to be a religious conflict, or more importantly that people manipulated religion for their own goals.

Divide and conquer


http://www.iraqirabita.org/english/index.php?do=article&id=836

[An Céachta Dearg]

I have no problem with members of a British police force in Ireland being killed. Paying taxes is different. The state compels people to do so however if we got to a situation where alternative structures where set up as happened following the 1918 general election then I think people should be expected to withdraw their taxes from the occupying state and give it to this one.

Sorry that was a poor example I choose. Think in the lines of a school eacher who wrks in the civil service and teaches a British cirriculum and pays their taxes to the crown, by your definition they are also collaborators.

[Enver]

Sorry that was a poor example I choose. Think in the lines of a school eacher who wrks in the civil service and teaches a British cirriculum and pays their taxes to the crown, by your definition they are also collaborators.

They are not making a conscious effort to prop-up the British occupation; they're not imposing it by force, so therefore I fail to see how they could be considered collaborators.

[An Céachta Dearg]

They are not making a conscious effort to prop-up the British occupation; they're not imposing it by force, so therefore I fail to see how they could be considered collaborators.

They are concious members of the British civil service, therefore they are teaching the kids a cirriculum the way the British want the cirriculum to be thaught, they also pay taxes to te government therefore they are collaborators in the extreme given the earlier definition.

[Gareth]

Do you feel its fair that unionists are the majority in the north? or should I say 'were' as its almost 50/50 now. There still a bit ahead though, and thats how the state was created in the first place. Irish catholics had no say.

Yes, I think it's fair that people can choose whatever side they want to follow. The majority have picked to remain in the UK, unless you are suggesting deportation to the Shetlands :D

Irish Catholics? Not all Catholics are Republicans, and not all Protestants are Unionists. Secondly, this conflict is entirely political not religious.

[Enver]

They are concious members of the British civil service, therefore they are teaching the kids a cirriculum the way the British want the cirriculum to be thaught, they also pay taxes to te government therefore they are collaborators in the extreme given the earlier definition.

So you see no difference between someone who has to pay their taxes (otherwise the state will imprison them) and someone who joins a paramilitary police force like the RUC/PSNI? They also happen to be civilians as opposed to combatants so that rules them out as targets regardless.

[Gareth]

Anyone who joins INLA, CIRA, UVF, UDA, they are all the same. People hindering progress. Please tell what have you against a police force with equal partnership between nationalist and unionist communities though? :rolleyes:

[Enver]

Anyone who joins INLA, CIRA, UVF, UDA, they are all the same.

Rubbish.

Please tell what have you against a police force with equal partnership between nationalist and unionist communities though? :rolleyes:

The RUC/PSNI is a paramilitary police force that forms part of the British security apparatus here in Ireland. Other sections of this structure are MI5 and the British military. Combined; their job is to ensure that British parliamentary activity in Ireland is protected from any potential threats, namely native resistance. All this talk of equal 'nationalist' and 'unionist' involvement is irrelevant; it doesn't change the fact that they are the forces of occupation and an obstacle to Irish self-determination.

[Gareth]

most people consider themselves British or are probably racially British in the first place. That is the problem for Irish determination (I removed self, as it isn't the case for the majority).

I'm happy in the Republic, but I have no will or wish to impose that on a predominately non-Republican population.

[Enver]

most people consider themselves British or are probably racially British in the first place.

A small majority (within an artificially and illegally created statelet) claim they are both Irish and British and wish to retain the union with Great Britain, but that is irrelevant as the British presence is enforced through a military occupation and the desires of the Unionist people are very much secondary to those of the British state.

[Enver]

I'm happy in the Republic, but I have no will or wish to impose that on a predominately non-Republican population.

The only imposition is the British occupation of part of the national territory.

[An Céachta Dearg]

A small majority (within an artificially and illegally created statelet) claim they are both Irish and British and wish to retain the union with Great Britain, but that is irrelevant as the British presence is enforced through a military occupation and the desires of the Unionist people are very much secondary to those of the British state.


What do the British Government have to gain from mainting both a political and military in the 6 counties other than to placate those people who are descended from Britian originally. The only thing keeping the Brits here is their feeling of obligation to the Unionist community. In reality Ireland holds no startegic or economic advantages for the British to continue their occupation, and as I have already stated they support the northern counites at a loss and the popular opinion in Britian is to relinquish the control of the 6 counties to Ireland.

[IrishRepublican]

Yes, I think it's fair that people can choose whatever side they want to follow. The majority have picked to remain in the UK, unless you are suggesting deportation to the Shetlands :D

Irish Catholics? Not all Catholics are Republicans, and not all Protestants are Unionists. Secondly, this conflict is entirely political not religious.

I don't see it as religious, but theres no denying or escaping the fact that the north is mainly divided by religion. You seem to be missing the whole point, England divided the country and treated catholics like second class citizens. Just look up some of the history. There is no denying it. The ulster protestants were given special rights, and the Irish catholics were made a minority in the north, their own country. How is that fair? is it fair if I invade England and bring enough Irish with me to outnumber the English in London then call it a democracy and say the people voted to stay Irish?

[Gareth]

I don't see it as religious, but theres no denying or escaping the fact that the north is mainly divided by religion. You seem to be missing the whole point, England divided the country and treated catholics like second class citizens. Just look up some of the history. There is no denying it. The ulster protestants were given special rights, and the Irish catholics were made a minority in the north, their own country. How is that fair? is it fair if I invade England and bring enough Irish with me to outnumber the English in London then call it a democracy and say the people voted to stay Irish?

A large proportion of Irish have Anglo-Saxon blood at this stage, and secondly no Ireland is not divided due to religion it's due to politics. Why do you think Douglas Hyde got president? Charles Stewart Parnell anyone? Wolfe Tone? so on and so forth. My point is made. Politics not religion.

[IrishRepublican]

A large proportion of Irish have Anglo-Saxon blood at this stage, and secondly no Ireland is not divided due to religion it's due to politics. Why do you think Douglas Hyde got president? Charles Stewart Parnell anyone? Wolfe Tone? so on and so forth. My point is made. Politics not religion.

I know, some of the first republicans were protestants. I even have a few protestant/mixed relatives. The north is divided by mainly catholic/republican and protestant/unionist areas though. I live here I think I should know. I don't like to look at it as a religious conflict because thats what the English and other people against Irish freedom like to look at it as. There is no denying that the place is divided though. I think 30 years of secterianism is enough to prove that.

[IrishRepublican]

The Cromwellian conquest completed the British colonisation of Ireland. It destroyed the native Irish Catholic land-owning classes and replaced them with colonists with a British identity. The bitterness caused by the Cromwellian settlement was a powerful source of Irish nationalism from the seventeenth century onwards. After the Stuart Restoration in 1660, Charles II of England restored about a third of the confiscated land to the former landlords, but not all, as he needed political support from former parliamentarians in England. A generation later, during the Glorious Revolution, many of the Irish Catholic landed class tried to reverse the remaining Cromwellian settlement in the Williamite war in Ireland (1689-91), where they fought en masse for the Jacobites. They were defeated once again, and many lost land that had been regranted after 1660. As a result, Irish and English Catholics did not become full political citizens of the British state again until 1829 and were legally barred from owning valuable interests in land until 1778-93

thats from wikipedia, not a credible source I know :) but just giving a quick example. It even goes way back to the cromwell times. Pick up a history book.

[Enver]

The only thing keeping the Brits here is their feeling of obligation to the Unionist community. In reality Ireland holds no startegic or economic advantages for the British to continue their occupation

Do you honestly believe that?

[An Céachta Dearg]

I don't see it as religious, but theres no denying or escaping the fact that the north is mainly divided by religion. You seem to be missing the whole point, England divided the country and treated catholics like second class citizens. Just look up some of the history. There is no denying it. The ulster protestants were given special rights, and the Irish catholics were made a minority in the north, their own country. How is that fair? is it fair if I invade England and bring enough Irish with me to outnumber the English in London then call it a democracy and say the people voted to stay Irish?


England not only treated Catholics as second class citizens, it treated anyone who did not conform to the established church as second class citiznens these included Presbyterians. There are more Presbyterians now in the north than their are Anglicans.

You are speaking in a hypothetical manner their. The Unionists for the most part have been here for over 400 years and have now set roots and established culture in Ireland. They see themselves as British and t would be unfair to force them undemocratically into a 32 county Republic.
Whether you like it or not NI exists and the Unionists exists, ignoring this and ignoring their views will not change their views nor will it make them leave. However if we engage them politcally and try to change their views and tackle them politcally and democratically we can destroy the majority claim and hopefully return NI to the Republic and fully establish Irish sovereignty.

The Unionists culture and opinions have to be respected or you are going against evrything you are fighting for, A republic is supposed to be a democratic system in which the people make their own choices.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes

[Enver]

The north is divided by mainly catholic/republican and protestant/unionist areas though.

I think Catholic/Nationalist and Protestant/Unionist might be more accurate as Republicanism is a secular ideology whereas (unfortunately) Catholicism is often associated with Irish nationalism. I, for example, am neither a Catholic nor a nationalist yet I am still an Irish Republican.

Gareth is right; it hasn't anything to do with religion. The root-cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict is the usurpation of Irish sovereignty.

[IrishRepublican]

England not only treated Catholics as second class citizens, it treated anyone who did not conform to the established church as second class citiznens these included Presbyterians. There are more Presbyterians now in the north than their are Anglicans.

You are speaking in a hypothetical manner their. The Unionists for the most part have been here for over 400 years and have now set roots and established culture in Ireland. They see themselves as British and t would be unfair to force them undemocratically into a 32 county Republic.
Whether you like it or not NI exists and the Unionists exists, ignoring this and ignoring their views will not change their views nor will it make them leave. However if we engage them politcally and try to change their views and tackle them politcally and democratically we can destroy the majority claim and hopefully return NI to the Republic and fully establish Irish sovereignty.

The Unionists culture and opinions have to be respected or you are going against evrything you are fighting for, A republic is supposed to be a democratic system in which the people make their own choices.

I agree, but no one mentioned driving them out in the first place. I'm just explaining the divide

[Enver]

Yes

Can you expand on this please, what leads you to believe this?

[IrishRepublican]

theres protestants living happy down south, and some up north think they will be threatened down south. I don't understand :) the republic guarentees equality. So I just want to move forward already :)

[Enver]

The Unionists culture and opinions have to be respected or you are going against evrything you are fighting for, A republic is supposed to be a democratic system in which the people make their own choices.

Just think about that for a second. How can Republicanism and Unionism possibly be compatible? Our national flag, the tricolour, is a fallacy. There can be no reconciliation between Green and Orange. Do not mistake this observation for religious or cultural intolerance; I'm simply stating the facts.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Can expand on this please, what leads you to believe this?

Ireland holds no strategic military importance in anyway shape or form.
We have no natural resources that are greatly sought after bar the Corrib gas field which is being given away to the Shell MNC anyway:mad:. We as a complete nation would be far too much trouble for Britain as we are not British and would not be contented benath British rule.

In regards to Northern Ireland the 'state' is a loss to the British government. They lose Billions in subsiding its entire social structure. Unemployment is rife within the 6 counties and does not appear to be drastically improving. The social divide that exists is one that the British have grown tired of and do not want to try and control henceforth. The age of landlordism is now well and truely over and the British upper class no longer have estates within Ireland.

[An Céachta Dearg]

Just think about that for a second. How can Republicanism and Unionism possibly be compatible? Our national flag, the tricolour, is a fallacy. There can be no reconciliation between Green and Orange. Do not mistake this observation for religious or cultural intolerance; I'm simply stating the facts.


So what you propose we Ethnically cleanse them then is it?

[Enver]

So what you propose we Ethnically cleanse them then is it?

I know you can do better than that.

[Enver]

The age of landlordism is now well and truely over and the British upper class no longer have estates within Ireland.

Nearly all of Ireland's rivers and streams are still owned by British lords. :mad:

[An Céachta Dearg]

Nearly all of Ireland's rivers and streams are still owned by British lords. :mad:

Elaborate....

[IrishRepublican]

I think Catholic/Nationalist and Protestant/Unionist might be more accurate as Republicanism is a secular ideology whereas (unfortunately) Catholicism is often associated with Irish nationalism. I, for example, am neither a Catholic nor a nationalist yet I am still an Irish Republican.

Gareth is right; it hasn't anything to do with religion. The root-cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict is the usurpation of Irish sovereignty.


Thats exactly what I have been saying, so why do people keep saying that and trying to make it out im making it all about religion? I clearly stated I don't like to look at it as religious. There is no denying the divide up north and 30 years of secterianism. There is no denying the ruc were mainly a protestant police force and all the other history.

[Enver]

Elaborate....

In name (as in technically speaking) many of Ireland's rivers and streams are still owned by the British aristocracy, but this is irrelevant to the present topic.

[Enver]

Thats exactly what I have been saying, so why do people keep saying that and trying to make it out im making it all about religion? I clearly stated I don't like to look at it as religious. There is no denying the divide up north and 30 years of secterianism. There is no denying the ruc were mainly a protestant police force and all the other history.

Sectarianism is a by-product of the conflict, a dimension if you will.

[Enver]

So what you propose we Ethnically cleanse them then is it?

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement's Submission to Unionism:

http://www.32csm.info/su.html

This is part of an excellent policy document Irish Democracy: A Framework for Unity.

I suggest you take the time to read it all.

[IrishRepublican]

The exact same thing that I have been explaining is going on with Israel-Palestine at the minute. People try to make it look like its all religious. Jew-Muslim, when its about land. There is also divide there to though. It all boils down to what I already mentioned, divide and conquer, a tactic thats been used for centuries.

I believe in equality and freedom for all


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeV-VSH8TGk

[Gareth]

As far as I'm concerned I can't see anything happening until more people feel Irish than British.

[Gareth]

The only imposition is the British occupation of part of the national territory.

I don't consider the North as a part of the Republic's territory yet.

[Viv]

As far as I'm concerned I can't see anything happening until more people feel Irish than British.

What is the split on that at the moment?

[quirk]

I don't consider the North as a part of the Republic's territory yet.

So you consider me a foreigner? The northern part of our country is occupied by a foreign power. They purposely cut out a part of the country (against the will of the Irish people) in which they knew a majority would be in favour of the occupation, then said the fact that that majority wants this is democracy.

Not only is the British presence in Ireland wrong but it is also in fact illegal under international law and is in breech of the following articles amongst others:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. GA Res. 2200A(XXI), Dec 16th 1966. 21.GAOR Supp. (No 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966). 999 U.N. -S.171 entered into force March 23, 1976. ) Part.1 Art,1(1).

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. GA Res. 2200A (XXI). Dec 16th 1966. Dec 16th 1966. 21 GAOR Supp. (No.16) at 49, U/N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.:S.3. entered into force on 3rd of January 1976. Part.1. Art.1. Art 1 (1).

(4)All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

(6)Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
The United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. (Adopted by the UN General Assembly on 14th December 1960). GA Res. 1514/XV, Dec 14th, 1960. Article 4 and Article 6.

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 1815 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, 1966 (XVIII) of 16 December 1963, 2103 (XX) of 20 December 1965, 2181 (XXI) of 12 December 1966, 2327 (XXII) of 18 December 1967, 2463 (XVIII) of 20 December 1968 and 2533 (XXIV) of 8 December 1969, in which it affirmed the importance of the progressive development and codification of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, which met in Geneva from 31 March to 1 May 1970,

Emphasizing the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the development of friendly relations and co-operation among States,

Deeply convinced that the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations would contribute to the strengthening of world peace and constitute a landmark in the development of international law and of relations among States, in promoting the rule of law among nations and particularly the universal application of the principles embodied in the Charter,

Considering the desirability of the wide dissemination of the text of the Declaration,

1. Approves the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution;

2. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States for its work resulting in the elaboration of the Declaration;

3. Recommends that all efforts be made so that the Declaration becomes generally known.

1883rd plenary meeting, 24 October 1970.



PREAMBLE
The General Assembly,

Reaffirming in the terms of the Charter of the United Nations that the maintenance of international peace and security and the development of friendly relations and cooperation between nations are among the fundamental purposes of the United Nations,

Recalling that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,

Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or die levels of their development,

Bearing in mind also the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations in die promotion of the rule of law among nations,

Considering that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfilment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the implementation of the other purposes of the United Nations,

Noting that the great political, economic and social changes and scientific progress which have taken place in the world since the adoption of the Charter give increased importance to these principles and to the need for their more effective application in die conduct of States wherever carried on,

Recalling the established principle that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means, and mindful of die fact that consideration is being given in the United Nations to the question of establishing other appropriate provisions similarly inspired,

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Considering it equally essential that all States shah settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,

Reaffirming, in accordance with the Charter, the basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing that the purposes of die United Nations can be implemented only if States enjoy sovereign equality and comply fully with the requirements of this principle in their international relations,

Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to die .promotion of international peace and security,

Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to

contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality,

Convinced in consequence that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country or at its political independence is incompatible with die purposes and principles of the Charter,

Considering the provisions of die Charter as a whole and taking into account the role of relevant resolutions adopted by die competent organs of the United Nations relating to the content of the principles,

Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

(a) The principle that States shah refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

(b) The principle that States shall settle their International disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

(c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter,

(e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

(f) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter,

so as to secure their more effective application within the international community, would promote the realization of the purposes of the United Nations,

Having considered the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States,


1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:
The principle that States shah refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has die duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international dis-putes, including territorial disputes and problems conc erning frontiers of States.

Every State likewise has die duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lins of demarcation, such as armistice fines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shah be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerna with regard to the status and effects of such Unes under their special régimes or as affecting their temporary character.

States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisai involving the use of force.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in arts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such arts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as affecting:

(a) Provisions of the Charter or any international agreement prior to the Charter régime and valid under international law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the (starter.

All States shall pursue in good faith negotiations for the early conclusion of a universal treaty on general and corn-plate disarmament under effective international control and strive to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence among States.

All States shall comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rides of international law with respect to the maintenance of international pence and security, and shall endeavour to make die United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the pro-visions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful.


The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered

Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, media-don, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to reglonal sondes or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In se:king such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumatances and nature of the dispute.

The parties to a dispute have die duty, in the event of biffure to reach a solution by any one of the above peaceful meus, to continue to seek a settlement of the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by them.

States parties to an international dispute, as well as other States, shall refrain from any action which may aggravate the situation so as to endanger the maintenance of inter-national peace and security, and shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means. Recouru to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely agreed to by States with regard to existing or future disputes to which they are parties shall not be regarded as incompatible with sovereign equality.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or derogates from die applicable provisions of the Charter, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of international disputes.


The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the régime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.

The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.

Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall he construed as affecting the relevant provisions of the Charter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.


The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter

States have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of die differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences.

To this end:

(a) States shall co-operate with other States in the maintenance of international peace and security;

(b) States shall co-operate in the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the elimination of all forma of racial discrimination and all forma of religious intolerance;

(c) States shall conduct their international relations in the economic, social, cultural, technical and trade fields in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention;

(d) States Members of the United Nations have the duty to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.

States should co-operate in the economic, social and cultural fields as well as in the field of science and technology and for the promotion of international cultural and educational progress. States should co-operate in die promotion of economic growth throughout the world, especially that of die developing countries.


The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:

(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and

(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to Mien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory bas, under die Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct statue under the Charter shall exist until die people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shah be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as

described above and thus possessed of a government representing die whole people belonging to the territory without distinction u to race, creed or colour.

Every State shah refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.


The principle of sovereign equality of States

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences et an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:

(a) States are juridically equal;

(b) Bach State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

(c) Each State bas the duty to respect die personality of other States;

(d) The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;

(e) Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;

(f) Bach State has die duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.


The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its obligations under the generally recognized principles and rides of international law.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its obligations under international agreements valid under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law.

Where obligations arising under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations, the obligations under the Charter shall prevail.



GENERAL PART
2. Declares that:

In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as prejudicing in any manner the provisions of the Charter or the rights and duties of Member States under the Charter or the rights of peoples under die Charter, taking into account the elaboration of these rights in this Declaration.


3. Declares further that:

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in Ibis Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on die basis of die strict observance of these principles.
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.G.A. Res. 2625, 25 UN GAOR Supp. No. 28 at 121, UN doc. A/8082 (1970)

[Enver]

I don't consider the North as a part of the Republic's territory yet.

The Irish Republic doesn't exist, but if you're referring to the Free State then I suppose you are correct, technically speaking. But let me ask you this; are the territories held by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer Iraqi or Afghan because they're under foreign military occupation? As quirk mentioned above: do you consider him a foreigner since he is from Armagh rather than Monaghan or Louth?

[quirk]

What do the British Government have to gain from mainting both a political and military in the 6 counties other than to placate those people who are descended from Britian originally. The only thing keeping the Brits here is their feeling of obligation to the Unionist community. In reality Ireland holds no startegic or economic advantages for the British to continue their occupation, and as I have already stated they support the northern counites at a loss and the popular opinion in Britian is to relinquish the control of the 6 counties to Ireland.

The fact that they are here demonstrates that they have an interest in being here. You don't seriously believe they are doing it out of goodwill. As for economic interests the issue of Rockall and the natural resources contained there is one.

[Enver]

The fact that they are here demonstrates that they have an interest in being here. You don't seriously believe they are doing it out of goodwill. As for economic interests the issue of Rockall and the natural resources contained there is one.

I think US and UK intervention in the Balkans demonstrates how just because the intentions of imperialist powers are not immediately apparent does not mean that they are benign or acting in good faith. I think what's essential for imperialism is political hegemony. All other issues such as resources will then naturally flow in their favour.

From the occupied six counties the British state wields influence over the whole of Ireland. I think at the time of partition they recognised this and that's why they decided to withdraw troops from the South. Why waste resources on what would have had to have been a campaign of ethnic cleansing to stamp out indigenous resistance when you can control affairs from a small fascist statelet?

[quirk]

... and you also have the free state trying to crush any opposition (military or political ) to the occupation of Ireland.

Just last week 4 members of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement were arrested while in Donegal buying petrol and have been charged with membership of the IRA despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this. But again no evidence is needed in such trials as your trial is in a non jury court in which the belief of a senior Guard is enough evidence to convict you and he does not even have to say why he believes you are a member.

Also last week the following bugging device was found in one of our members van in Dublin. This is what you have to accept if you want to see your country free:

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0581_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0579_rev2.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0578_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0576_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0575_rev1.jpg

[ciaranxavier]

Yes, but it is the decision of the Northerners not ours.

thats not a one nation kind of attitude.

[Enver]

This is what you have to accept if you want to see your country free:

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0581_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0579_rev2.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0578_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0576_rev1.jpg
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj215/32csm/HPIM0575_rev1.jpg

Indeed. The upcoming anniversary of Vol. Rónán MacLochlainn (www.dublin32csm.com/mcgowanmaclochlainn.htm) should also be a reminder to us all of how far the Free State authorities will go to protect the interests of the British state here in Ireland.

[Gareth]

The Irish Republic doesn't exist, but if you're referring to the Free State then I suppose you are correct, technically speaking. But let me ask you this; are the territories held by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer Iraqi or Afghan because they're under foreign military occupation? As quirk mentioned above: do you consider him a foreigner since he is from Armagh rather than Monaghan or Louth?

Yes, the Republic does exist and does not include Armagh, Antrim, Down, Fermanagh, Derry, or Tyrone as of yet. That's part of what we have to accept until the time comes when they are a part of the Republic.

quirk: Yes, the State have the right to monitor anyone who is a part of a paramilitary group (I have suspicion to whether these men were just involved in the 32 county sovereignty movement and apparently the Gards did too) or is considered a threat to the State. They have perfect reason to do this.

[quirk]

If they where members of the IRA then why is there no evidence to suggest this and I really hope that you don't believe the state only monitors members of armed groups.

On what do you base your suspicion? The guards more than likely didnt but rather are using these charges to remove political (not military) opposition just as they have done many times before.

[Enver]

quirk: Yes, the State have the right to monitor anyone who is a part of a paramilitary group (I have suspicion to whether these men were just involved in the 32 county sovereignty movement and apparently the Gards did too) or is considered a threat to the State. They have perfect reason to do this.

I'm not a member of an armed group but I've had my home visited by SDU officers in an attempt to intimidate me.

Do you think that's acceptable?

[Gareth]

Enver: you hardly suspect me to comment on that as I don't know the circumstances.

[Enver]

Enver: you hardly suspect me to comment on that as I don't know the circumstances.

In other words you'd believe just about anything the state and the media come out with. The circumstances were that I was a member of the RSYM and they wanted information on IRSP activists in Dublin.

[Gareth]

Not enough detail, to truly understand the motivation.

As for the state / media I trust it more than hearsay.

[Enver]

Not enough detail, to truly understand the motivation.

Fair enough.

As for the state / media I trust it more than hearsay.

Come out with it; you trust them more than Republicans, which says it all really.

[Gareth]

Come out with it; you trust them more than Republicans, which says it all really.

I can't bank on hearsay and theories. I have to have solid facts infront of me before I accuse people of conspiracy against you or against Republicans.

[quirk]

I can't bank on hearsay and theories. I have to have solid facts infront of me before I accuse people of conspiracy against you or against Republicans.

Then why did you judge that the 4 men arrested in Donegal and the one who found the bug where probably members of an armed group without any evidence to support this?

[Gareth]

and the BBC reporters?

I for one trust the Gardaí enough not to arrest people without adequate suspicions. However I concede that they were released.

[quirk]

and the BBC reporters?

I for one trust the Gardaí enough not to arrest people without adequate suspicions. However I concede that they were released.

But there was 4 men arrested the next day in Donegal in a petrol station while buying petrol and top ups for mobile phones. They have been charged with membership and no evidence has been presented yet they where remanded in custody. The media said they where arrested when the Guards stormed a house which is just lies. What this amounts to is internment by remand.

In relation to the man who found the bug and tracking device in his van - If they have evidence he done anything they deem illegal then why not arrest him and get a conviction (wouldnt be to hard considering the draconian legislation). If they dont have evidence then why bug him. Again it is because he is politically opposed to the British presence.

[Gareth]

In cases of terrorism is there not a detainment period for questioning? The same applies in the UK and was used in the July 21st attempt and the attempt on Glasgow and London last year, the Irish government are perfectly right in reserving this for paramilitary suspects in Ireland. It's not internment at all infact.

As for bugging the car in cases where paramilitary activity is thought, I don't see an issue with this either.

[Enver]

In cases of terrorism is there not a detainment period for questioning? The same applies in the UK and was used in the July 21st attempt and the attempt on Glasgow and London last year, the Irish government are perfectly right in reserving this for paramilitary suspects in Ireland. It's not internment at all infact.

As for bugging the car in cases where paramilitary activity is thought, I don't see an issue with this either.

Ah aren't we a good little native....

[Gareth]

Ah aren't we a good little native....

You seem to think that there is an issue with British - Irish co-operation? It's what has been constantly improving the status and the influence that the Irish State can have in Northern affairs.

If that's being a good little native :p (native of which country do you mean :p)

I'm not incredibly patriotic, I care for the well being of the people though.

[Enver]

You seem to think that there is an issue with British - Irish co-operation?

Of course there's a problem with co-operating; we're at war with the British state (admittedly there is almost a complete absence of armed actions, but we're still at war nonetheless).

It's what has been constantly improving the status and the influence that the Irish State can have in Northern affairs.

Can you demonstrate where the Free State has any meaningful influence over the North, besides aiding the normalisation of British rule?

If that's being a good little native :p (native of which country do you mean :p)

Ireland. That's supporting the illegal occupation of part of the country you reside in, hence 'good native'.

I'm not incredibly patriotic, I care for the well being of the people though.

Not Republicans though, it would seem. I'm not nationalistic or patriotic either, but I do believe in national sovereignty as a prerequisite to building a truly democratic society.

[Gareth]

Of course there's a problem with co-operating; we're at war with the British state (admittedly there is almost a complete absence of armed actions, but we're still at war nonetheless).

If you are at "war" with the British state, you are not a useful part for furthering peace. You should be patient and wait for what the future will hold for Northern Ireland.


Can you demonstrate where the Republic has any meaningful influence over the North, besides aiding the normalisation of British rule?

In decision making and in the processing of infrastructural projects and in relation to trade.

Ireland. That's supporting the illegal occupation of part of the country you reside in, hence 'good native'.

It's highly likely that I am descended from Scottish and English as well as Irish given my genealogy. Although probably lesser than in my case practically every Irish citizen has British blood in their systems by this stage. My ancestors therefore were a part of this occupation. Not saying I entirely agree with it, but is a fact of life that I and others must accept.

Not Republicans though, it would seem. I'm not nationalistic or patriotic either, but I do believe in national sovereignty as a prerequisite to building a truly democratic society.

I don't understand the difference between life in the North and life here to a huge extent. The difference between me and you is actually I'm not opposed entirely to Britain, however I do like our independence from them also.

[Enver]

The difference between me and you is actually I'm not opposed entirely to Britain

What exactly does that mean; you're not opposed to imperialism?

You're not opposed to the government that bank-rolled the Indonesian ethnic cleansing campaigns in East Timor?

You're not opposed to a government that is one of the largest financial and military backers of Turkey; a state guilty of horrendous crimes against ethnic Kurds and all manner of groups on the Left?

You're not opposed to a government that directly assisted the US in its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq?

You're not opposed to a state that for 35 or so years used Loyalist death squads and its own special forces to butcher hundreds of innocent people and peaceful political activists, never mind its shoot-to-kill policy regarding Volunteers.

All of this is either on going or happened within the last 10 or 12 years.

And just one more thing; do you believe that Iraqi and Afghan resistance to coalition forces is legitimate?

[Enver]

Can you demonstrate where the Republic

Don't ever edit anything I post again.

[Gareth]

IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF are all illegitimate and are not furthering any peace negosiations.

And as for the Republic notion surely you shouldn't be diminishing previous achievements by referring to it as "Free State".

You seem incredibly biased towards the "left". I'm pretty sure I can remember leftist abuses too. Objective much?

As for Iraqi and Afghan resistance? I don't believe in an eye for an eye, it's not going to do any good. Ever heard "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind".

[Enver]

IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF are all illegitimate and are not furthering any peace negosiations.

The Provos, UDA and UVF are all in support of the British occupation and the current normalisation of said occupation. As for the IRA, CIRA and INLA; they all remain perfectly legitimate armies who oppose the British presence in Ireland. If you knew anything about the recent conflict you wouldn't compare armed Republican groups to Loyalist death squads such as the UDA and UVF, even if you disagreed with the Republican position.

And as for the Republic notion surely you shouldn't be diminishing previous achievements by referring to it as "Free State".

What previous achievements? The Republic was declared in arms in Easter 1916 and was crushed by the British-backed Free State in 1923. Republicans struggle for the re-establishment of this Republic.

You seem incredibly biased towards the "left". I'm pretty sure I can remember leftist abuses too. Objective much?

If that's in reference to Turkey you should be ashamed of yourself.

As for Iraqi and Afghan resistance? I don't believe in an eye for an eye, it's not going to do any good. Ever heard "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind".

What do you propose people whose homes are being destroyed, children are being murdered, and mothers, sisters and daughters being raped do then exactly? Sit there and do nothing? Are you going to help them? They're being denied the most basic of human rights and you're going to sit there and lecture them about "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind". Get up d'yard.

[Gareth]

The Provos, UDA and UVF are all in support of the British occupation and the current normalisation of said occupation. As for the IRA, CIRA and INLA; they all remain perfectly legitimate armies who oppose the British presence in Ireland. If you knew anything about the recent conflict you wouldn't compare armed Republican groups to Loyalist death squads such as the UDA and UVF, even if you disagreed with the Republican position.

They are all one and the same to me. Paramilitaries which must be rid of.



What previous achievements? The Republic was declared in arms in Easter 1916 and was crushed by the British-backed Free State in 1923. Republicans struggle for the re-establishment of this Republic.

Having somewhat stable relations between Britain and Ireland is an achievement


If that's in reference to Turkey you should be ashamed of yourself.

Albania would have been enough. But China, Russia and several other nations in the past.


What do you propose people whose homes are being destroyed, children are being murdered, and mothers, sisters and daughters being raped do then exactly? Sit there and do nothing? Are you going to help them? They're being denied the most basic of human rights and you're going to sit there and lecture them about "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind". Get up d'yard.

Use the police force and assist in returning to normality or even volunteer for police force.

[Enver]

Paramilitaries which must be rid of.

Aye, bloody paddies don't know what's good for 'em, eh?

Having somewhat stable relations between Britain and Ireland is an achievement

It's no great achievement to surrender, quite easy really.

Albania would have been enough. But China, Russia and several other nations in the past.

Albania under Hoxha was nowhere near as bad as conditions in Turkey at present. While admittedly dire, the events in China and the USSR which I presume you are referring to happened many, many decades ago when societies in general were far less civilised (that doesn't in anyway excuse it), not a few years ago on the borders of the EU! For example, in 1997, thanks to Clinton and Blair, the Turkish state was able to massacre around 12,000 Kurdish civilians and torture and maim many thousands more.

Use the police force and assist in returning to normality or even volunteer for police force.

So partake in the killing of your own people?

Perhaps it's just me, but that would appear to make absolutely no sense at all.

[Daithí]

quirk: Yes, the State have the right to monitor anyone who is a part of a paramilitary group (I have suspicion to whether these men were just involved in the 32 county sovereignty movement and apparently the Gards did too) or is considered a threat to the State. They have perfect reason to do this.

Why have you suspicion? Do you know something we don't?

[Gareth]

Why have you suspicion? Do you know something we don't?

When the Gardai warrant an arrest probe like this one they generally have a lead or something to go by. I don't see any problem with the arrest if it is only to ensure the safety of people within the Republic and in Northern Ireland.

[Enver]

When the Gardai warrant an arrest probe like this one they generally have a lead or something to go by. I don't see any problem with the arrest if it is only to ensure the safety of people within the Republic and in Northern Ireland.

And who will ensure our safety from the state forces?

To quote a Dead Kennedy's song "Who will baby-sit the babysitters?!"

[Gareth]

And who will ensure our safety from the state forces?

To quote a Dead Kennedy's song "Who will baby-sit the babysitters?!"

There is the Garda Ombudsman for complaints. Other than that we have to have confidence and faith in what our police do do. However I can see how you might have difficulty with that given the rest of the conversation :D

[Enver]

Other than that we have to have confidence and faith in what our police do do. However I can see how you might have difficulty with that given the rest of the conversation :D

And the fact that they have imprisoned, tortured and murdered Republican activists since their inception.

[Daithí]

When the Gardai warrant an arrest probe like this one they generally have a lead or something to go by. I don't see any problem with the arrest if it is only to ensure the safety of people within the Republic and in Northern Ireland.

Well that is clearly not the case. What was the lead? What was the something to go by?
Why have they been interned?

[Gareth]

No they haven't been interned. The law makes provisions for investigating paramilitary / terrorist links. In the UK this is 21 days infact. I'm not quite sure how long it is in Ireland but still it's a very neccessary measure to protect the interests of the people.

[Enver]

the interests of the people.

Government*

[Gareth]

No I mean what I said :)

[Enver]

No they haven't been interned.

Yes they have been, but you probably subscribe to the view that it's not internment since the state doesn't refer to it as such. What the British government are doing to many of their Muslim citizens is no different.

[Gareth]

Yes they have been, but you probably subscribe to the view that it's not internment since the state doesn't refer to it as such. What the British government are doing to many of their Muslim citizens is no different.

That period can be neccessary to save lives and find out answers. It's perfectly acceptable in my eyes.

[Enver]

No I mean what I said :)

I don't doubt that, but the government is acting in their interests, not yours or mine. Actually in this case it's actually more in the interest of the British since the men reside in the occupied counties.

[Gareth]

I don't doubt that, but the government is acting in their interests, not yours or mine. Actually in this case it's actually more in the interest of the British since the men reside in the occupied counties.

I disagree still :D

[Enver]

That period can be neccessary to save lives and find out answers. It's perfectly acceptable in my eyes.

So tell me, what risk do you believe these men pose to the Irish people?

[Daithí]

These are the facts;

The men were 32CSM members. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no evidence, Gareth, to explain why you have suspicions that they were ''involved in more than the 32CSM''. They were interned. What threat did these 32CSM members pose to people either side of the border?

[Sonny]

RED PLOUGH said:

What do the British Government have to gain from mainting both a political and military in the 6 counties other than to placate those people who ar