British Occupation of Ireland

Great Debates
41

I don’t agree that the refusal to hand over weapons is all (or even very much) to do with racketeering, but I do agree it’s not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. And the whole issue drives me up the frigging wall.

For one thing, the GFA does not require IRA decommissioning, and most certainly does not condition Sinn Fein’s participation in government upon it. Sinn Fein and the IRA are not the same organization!! Closely related, yes. But the former does not and cannot pull the latter’s strings.

Secondly, a lot of people seem to be losing sight of the fact that decommissioning would essentially be a symbolic gesture. Even if the Provos gave up all their guns (as if) it would be easy enough for them to get more whenever they needed them, and besides what are they going to do, ban fertiliser? I agree that it would be a nice symbolic gesture, but for fuck’s sake, is it worth bringing down the whole peace process over??? The logic of doing so completely escapes me … “You’re not using your guns, but you won’t give them up, so we’re going to back out of the agreement that has been keeping you from using your guns” - HELLO?

And thirdly there’s the fact that the overfrigginwhelming majority of the violence committed up North in the past year or so has been committed by loyalist paramilitaries and yet it is republicans who are constantly taken to task for refusing to disarm. Apart from the obvious hypocrisy, it really shouldn’t take a genius to see why an organization which sees itself as defender of a group of people is not going to give up its weapons while those people are under attack.

I think the simple fact is that Trimble sold the GFA to his constituents as the means by which the IRA could be muzzled and eventually put to sleep. Not seeing that happen and coming under increasing pressure by the No and soft-Yes unionists, he found an issue to take a hard line on, to deflect the pressure from himself and put it over on the republican/nationalist side. Never mind what the agreement actually promised, or what decommissioning would actually achieve. It’s a red herring. And it makes me absolutely sick that the peace process has come to centre on it.

OK, and I’ve just seen Steve Wright’s post in preview … Steve, Billy Hutchinson of the PUP (political wing of the UFV) said a few months ago that he didn’t believe the UVF would disarm even if the Provos did, so there’s your answer. And let’s not forget that a few years ago the LVF did make a nice symbolic gesture of decommissioning a few weapons … and then promptly set out on yet another sectarian shooting spree.

It’s hopeless, really :frowning:

42

Diifcult yes, hopeless never, I refuse to give up hope that we can work this out.

This agreement may fail with a resumption of hostilities, so might the next, and the one after that but never can we say its hopeless for that would be to condemn all people to the prospect of never being able to rise above our animal nature, for eternity.

43

I think all the parties to the GFA have been guilty of this to some extent. The Agreement was a masterpiece of negotiation and drafting which allowed each party to make it look acceptable to their own constituents, even where what different groups found acceptable was mutually contradictory. Now it is beginning to unravel, it looks like it was always capable of being all things to all men and simulaneously nothing at all.

Maybe, maybe not, but an argument based on the current situation in Northern Ireland and likely future events in that place would be much more compelling than a flawed and irrelevant historical comparison.

44

There’s the rub, though, isn’t it? The Provo, Real, INLF, whathaveyou, are in a real pickle. They can’t win by democratic means, simply because there are more Prods than Papists in Northern Ireland. And if they were to win by military means (bloody unlikely), the Republic wouldn’t want the murdering bastards.

BTW, Oglaigh

So, the British, in the 17th Century, knew that in 1921 the Irish were going to rebel, and in order to maintain possession of a strategically useless bit of turf (Northern Ireland is a dagger pointed at the heart of Greenland), started shipping over Scots and Brits in order to gerrymander that bit of turf 300 years later? Man, with that type of prescience, how the hell did they lose their empire?

Oh, have you ever heard of gerrymandering? “Gerrymandering” is the creation of geographically warped constituencies in order to ensure the election of particular party members. Northern Ireland is a geographically cohesive unit.

Further, I am sick and tired of “it’s our land, because our ancestors were here before your ancestors.” So freaking what? My family lost land in County Cork about 200 years ago - do I have the right to uproot whatever folk are living on it now? On the other side of the family, they were forced into exile from Germany for being on the losing side of the revolutions in 1848. I’ve always wanted a summer home in Schleswig-Holstein, and our holdings were confiscated without compensation. Is it still mine?

Sua

45

Down the back of the couch? That’s where my car keys always seem to go, anyway.

I do hope our dear volunteer returns soon, as I’d like to see his response to the points raised above. I really would.

46

In time I hope to reply to a number of issues raised by some of you with which I find issue but I’ll use this post to attempt to clarify a few points of my own and attempt to clear up some possible mis-understandings.

First off, my first posting on this issue " ASKED A QUESTION " provocative perhaps, but still a question, NOT a statement as some of you appear to think.

In relation to what has go on on this Island I want to be quite clear on this least some people attempt to twist my words or others mis-understand my position.

I believe that ALL sides have suffered and ALL sides have inflicted, despite what the media may have you believe NOBODY has a monopoly on suffering.

I am an Irish Republican and have in the past understood the reasons why we were at war with England. We are now engaged in a peace process which was started when Albert Reynolds, Gerry Adams and John Hume sat down to discuss a way forward over fifteen years ago, we are beginning to see the fruits of those engagements, there would be NO peace process if the IRA were not a fully pledged party to all that it intails, we also need the Unionist Paramilitaries to come on board too.

The reality of life folks is that they came here, murdered the people, stole the land and gave that land to their own people.

I’m sorry if some of you feel that I’m winding you up on this issue and trying to get a fight going, this issue is far too serious for that sort of bull, it means too much to me and unlike some of the people on here I live with the reality every day.

Having visited Britain on a number of occaisions I admit that I have very little time for the people there who’s opinion about or knowledge of, the situation in Ireland is based entirely on what they read in the British media. I urge these people and the rest of you to look beyond this and I’ll make you an offer that the British Government won’t and it is this…

Come to Ireland, totally ignore my views and opinions and do likewise with the opinions and views of others, take a look around and if you do so with a clear and open mind I honestly believe that you will see how rotten on this side of the fence. Visit both Republican and Loyalist areas, speak to the people and then come back to me, also, see if my opposition would be comfortable with making you the same offer.

And for those who really got my Goat by trying to connect the IRA to the drugs trade…

" I do not believe that the IRA are involved in the drug trade "…Ronnie Flanagan ( Chief Constable of the RUC )

On this issue I again urgue you all to see beyond the tabloids and question all sources, including the Garda, RUC and any half respectable journalist and see that they are not involved. I am also willing to enter into a private discussion with any of you on this issue and love them or hate them I welcome ALL of your commonents and opinions.

I will be responding throughout the day to some points raised.

               Oglaigh
47

Ah, now that’s getting more like a tone of debate. A couple of questions though:

Again, is it England or Britain you were at war with? You seem to use the two interchangeably.

And you do accept that we’re talking about the seventeenth century here. Hell, you could describe the european settlement of North America and Australia in exactly the same terms, or indeed the Normandy invasion of England in 1066. Do you have a cunning plan by which we can all undo the atrocities of the past, or are you just looking for a historical excuse to feel all wronged by someone.

Yes, and I have little time for people whose opinion is based on hate filled propaganda. Also, what are you talking about here with your “offer that the British Government won’t make”? As a matter of interest, what reason do you see for the Britain government having any desire other than to hand Northern Ireland back to Ireland, and let them worry about it. Please tell me what the motive is.

Yes, I have been to Ireland, and Northern Ireland (in fact I’m due back there next month, which I’m rather looking forward to). I’m not quite sure though what point you’re making. Could you clarify?

As for paramilitaries and drugs (not just the IRA, but I do include them) read the excellent Mr Nice for an account of their involvement in the trade. Unless you think Howard Marks is an agent of the British government too?

48

I’m sorry - did you actually say anything with that last post? I scanned it several times and as far as I can see, it simply boils down to “I live here, you don’t.” Even leaving aside the fact that this isn’t true for some of the posters, so what? And what makes you think that

a) Our knowledge derives from the British press?
b) The British press is biased and inaccurate? The Guardian, for example, doesn’t exactly have a long track record in sycophanticism
c) YOUR knowledge is free from bias? If anything, I’d say that information deriving from right on the ground, so to speak, is MORE likely to be tainted.

Do you have anything of actual substance to respond to all the posters here that have taken the time to provide thoughtful responses to your hate-mongering?

pan

49

Obviously, that was addressed to Oglaigh, not Gary!

pan

50

Well according to him, he was :wink:

51

In reply to Gary Kumquat:

You asked:
Again, is it England or Britain you were at war with? You seem to use the two interchangeably.

I see England, Scotland and Wales as being three different countries and Britain as being a place that those who sopport the monarchy and the Empire like to believe exists despite the fact that the Empire is finished and people have moved on. I see it that Mother England has been a thorn in our side and from there came the Majority of the gunwomen and Men who walked our streets.
You asked:
And you do accept that we’re talking about the seventeenth century here. Hell, you could describe the european settlement of North America and Australia in exactly the same terms, or indeed the Normandy invasion of England in 1066.

I do accept that, of course I do but the differential here is that there are very few settlers who are armed to the teeth coat-trailing around North America or Australia, every few months new Battalions of troops arrive here, no change.
You asked:
Do you have a cunning plan by which we can all undo the atrocities of the past, or are you just looking for a historical excuse to feel all wronged by someone.

Yes, it’s called reconcilliation, lets ALL stand up and be honest, apologise for ALL that we did wrong and try to work together so that the next generations don’t have to suffer.
My Historical excuse just is presently sitting in it’s helicopter over my estate and driving around in landrovers.

You asked:
what are you talking about here with your “offer that the British Government won’t make”?

Very few journalists deviate from the standard issue government issued statements on incidents here, compare the different newspaper reports and teletext and ceefax to see that they are almost word for word. The British Government have been involved in EVERY aspect of both their and the loyalist war on the Republican / Catholic / Nationalist people. Someone on this list cast doubt on this FACT, my response is to urge you to read the papers ( Legal )on the Brian Nelson case, one tiny example is where the loyalists, with the full knowledge and co-operation of their military handlers ( Nelson was a UDA commander who worked for British intellegence ) stole blow-pipe missiles from shorts and gave them to the South African Government who in turn supplied the loyalists with guns and grenades which were subsequently used to kill large numbers of Catholics. This was at a time when there was an embargo on arms supplies to South Africa.
The Nelson papers rip the lid off the whole rotten game.

As a matter of interest, what reason do you see for the Britain government having any desire other than to hand Northern Ireland back to Ireland, and let them worry about it. Please tell me what the motive is.

If that is their desire then why isn’t it happening? You have a strong ( Numerically at least ) Labour Government which doesn’t have to depend on the decreasing Unionist M.P.'s like the Tories did so why don’t they get it on?
A lot of this has to do with the fact that us " Paddies " have never bowed the knee or tipped the forelock to our " Masters " across the pond and a lot of the fossils in the 1922 committee and the War-dogs in Whitehall would’nt be too pleased to have to come over here and lower the butchers apron.

As for paramilitaries and drugs (not just the IRA, but I do include them) read the excellent Mr Nice for an account of their involvement in the trade. Unless you think Howard Marks is an agent of the British government too?

Howard Marks? Now there’s a man who wouldn’t tell a lie, I read the book and it smacks of the same thing we see all over the World every day. How many criminals in London would you say have on occaison " Pretended " to be part of the Kray gang to instill fear into their enemies, how many " Two bit punks " in America have claimed to be Mafia people?
You only have to look around any estate, anywhere to see people who say they are connected to someone or something that couldn’t be further from the truth. It concerns me that you see Marks as a reliable source and ignore the voices of the Irish police, the RUC ( I’ve little time for either ) and the dwindling number of credable journalists in relation to this matter. NUMERICAL, MILITARY, LOGISTICAL " FACT "

If the IRA were involved in the drug trade, there would be no one else involved, they wouldn’t have to entertain opposition. Check what I am saying with whoever you wish. Large numbers of IRA men and Women have been imprisoned for attack on the scum involved in the drug trade, how many have been convicted of involvement in drugs? Thought so…

52

Ooh, I knew this was going to come back on me, but I did say “IS” an agent, i.e. he’s lying for the government now when he talks about the involvement of paramilitaries.

53

My apologies to all this is going to be long…

Again, this is just empty rhetoric. If you really want to debate the issue, you might want to drop the use of “Mother England” and other such phrases.

Obviously incorrect. America’s police forces walk around their “settled” lands, armed to the teeth. The settlers also have a huge standing military force there too, the worlds most sophisticated army. Bloody settlers, eh, most of them have hardly been there for 3 generations.

An excellent plan, and surely the only way forward from this mess. How do you reconcile that with your suggestion for armed uprisings and further violence?

I’ll read up on it then.

Oh god, it’s back to the mindless hatefilled rhetoric, is it? The vast majority of mainland UK doesn’t want to retain control of Northern Ireland. Politicians view it as a minefield, which is likely to kill the career of most who get involved. It doesn’t give anything in terms of national resources (i.e. minerals, strategic value). It costs a lot of money. All in all, most everyone concerned in Whitehall would like nothing more than to pass it over as a proverbial hot potato for the Irish government to deal with. One slight problem. The majority of people there don’t want to be part of Ireland. Or do you not view these people as having the same right to representation as you? And by the way, the 1922 committee is a Tory party organisation, who therefore have had very little say in things over the last four years. Do try to stay abreast of things.

To be honest, you’re showing up the flaws in your own argument. Labour doesn’t need the Unionist vote. It doesn’t gain Britain anything in terms of wealth or power. It’s not a strong issue to the electorate. Please tell me why you think Britain hasn’t got just as strong a desire to sort this out as anyone. Preferably without resorting to a load of cliched bollocks about wardogs, forelocks or butchers apron (butcher apron…wtf? someone help me with this one, I don’t get it)

Actually, it’s quite common for dealers to attack other dealers. Again, do try not to make arguments that fall over themselves. You say that if the IRA were involved they’d stamp out the opposition. Then you point out how often they, well, stamp out dealers. A cynical person might suggest that they were trying to eliminate any competition. Anyway, I’m just preparing a list of other sources linking the IRA fundraising with drugs, I’ll get back to you as soon as work allows.

54

The only problem with the “Mr. Nice” example is that in the book it is stated several times that McCann(is that his name?) didn’t want the IRA to find out that he was dealing drugs because he would have been killed. It’s a bit like saying that the Tory Party as an entity is a thieving, lying sack of shit because of Archer. Then again… :smiley:

I’m not saying that the IRA where/are not involved in drug running I’m just saying your example is a flawed one.

55

Or it demonstrates very well how individuals and groups within the IRA took part in the drugs trade, despite it being against the part line.

56

In response to Kabbes:

You said:
I’m sorry - did you actually say anything with that last post? I scanned it several times and as far as I can see, it simply boils down to “I live here, you don’t.”

Ahh, the inability to read, where does it say “I live here, you don’t.”?? I’ve just looked at it too, really close, and I can’t even see it between the lines!! No wait, I have your blinkers on now, ahh the World looks soooo different now, yup even that part that says " Nobody has a monopoly on suffering " actually reads " I want to eat dead babies whilst pushing drugs "

You said:
Even leaving aside the fact that this isn’t true for some of the posters, so what? And what makes you think that

a) Our knowledge derives from the British press?

Go back and read it again, seriously, go on. Look really close, yeah just there, the bit where I say about those who depend entirly on the rags ( Not verbatum )

b) The British press is biased and inaccurate?

Never!!! How dare anyone question such pillars of honesty? They have never been dragged screaming through the courts, who am I to question these masters of journalism who worked their hands to the bone to bring us such classic investivgative works as " Freddy Starr ate my hamster "
Spot the deliberate mistake.

c) YOUR knowledge is free from bias? If anything, I’d say that information deriving from right on the ground, so to speak, is MORE likely to be tainted.
I see what you mean, I see an incident but the message handed to a journalist to print from some civil servant who probably couldn’t pick out the location on a map is more dependable. How did I miss that? I apologise…

Do you have anything of actual substance to respond to all the posters here that have taken the time to provide thoughtful responses to your hate-mongering?

Please CLEARLY indicate a few incidents of what you call my
" hate-mongering "

I somehow don’t see you being the type to say something like " I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it "

57

And, as another example, there’s the case of Patrick Farrell

From the Irish Times:

“One of the remarkable things about Farrell’s existence was that he was able to be such a high profile criminal - and well known drug dealer - while living openly in the south Armagh-north Louth Border area where the IRA is so strong. According to republican sources in the area, Farrell had bought the IRA off, paying £5,000 a month to a senior local IRA figure.”

58

A quick search on the web turned up several quite informative links on paramilitary involvement in the drugs trade. Actually, my search turned up many more links than these, but I’ve omitted references to Hansard and the British media, since oglaigh32 seems convinced they’re all either dupes or liars :rolleyes:.

And: I’ve answered this point before, but I’ll keep on answering it until it sinks in. Why is the British government not handing Northern Ireland over to Eire? Because the majority in Northern Ireland don’t want it. And both the British and Irish governments have committed themselves to the principle that constitutional change in Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the population of Northern Ireland. (For unification, obviously, the consent of the people of Eire is also required).

59

Damn. There’s something wrong with that time.com link. The relevant article is in the August 16, 1999 Vol. 154 No. 7
issue, titled “Traffic in Terror”. I take it that Time magazine is not a tool of the British establishment?

60

Good heavens, but we need a raised eyebrow smiley.

I don’t need to isolate quotes of yours Volunteer to make my point. Everyone involved in this debate has read your posts. They speak for themselves.

And like most cretins, you make the mistake of equating the British press with the tabloids. We do have some rather fine examples of investigative and political journalism here you know. They’re the ones without a red top.

Please do enlighten us to the point you were trying to make in your offending post I referred to previously, if it wasn’t “I live here, you don’t”. I shall wait with baited breath.

You have espoused several times now the desire to forcibly realign NI with Eire. You have said that the Unionists are wimps who have no stomach for your glorious paramilitaries, if this were to happen. You have embraced the idea of violence to achieve your minority-position aims. You refer to the evils of “Mother England” and Britain as “the oppressors”. You are a hatemonger in the truest possible sense.

Tell me this isn’t so. Tell me that you have no desire to see any more violence, that you support talking and a peace process. Please.

pan