It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

England and Northern Ireland!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Ok now, I am just going to discuss why Northern Ireland has not been declared a fre state as the British Government don't really care about us, especially the Catholics!

There are some questions that must be answered!

1. Why did the British allow the Protestants allow to bring in guns, but not Catholics?

2. Why did the British allow the British Army to shoot and kill many un-armed innocent Catholics in Derry?

3. Why did the British Government allow the killingof innocent Catholics by Protestant Paramilitiries (UDA, UFF, LVF)

4. Why did the British Government detest the idea about the IRA getting Catholic's our human rights and give the British a taste of their own medicine?

5. Why does the British Government always lie when talking about Northern Ireland? They always say that they want peace and are working toward it! To get the real answer ask any resident of Northern Ireland, and they will tell you otherwise!

Now what do you think about this?




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
well it's obvious why to all those questions and the answer is because Northern Ireland IS England and control it, as well as supporting those paramilitary groups. I visited Belfast several months ago and that place isn't Ireland, neither is Derry, which I just stopped over at for several hours on the way to Belfast. Belfast IS a war torn London not Ireland!! After lackering up the beautiful Irish spirit, hospitality, friendliness and Craic, it was bitter to get to Northern Ireland and Belfast and have all that instantly vanquished by the rude snobby English people who reside there. I'm sure there are good ones but the vibe was just totally different and it was very strange just bussing across to Northern Ireland to have the whole environment and culture instantly be lost. Now in terms of Politics, people like Alex Jones have proven with news articles, that just as the UK Government faked the Tube terrorist attacks, there is actual solid proof and confessions I believe, that several of the so called IRA terrorist attacks in London, where done through MI5, as an excuse to setup groups like UDF, and other loyalist paramilitaries, for the reason of so called 'retaliation' against the alleged IRA attacks. Long live Sinn Fein, the IRA, and the Republic of Ireland!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   


Northern Ireland IS England


If Northern Ireland is England then why do the government hate the Catholics and why do they not take care of it?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by speight89
I am just going to discuss why Northern Ireland has not been declared a fre state as the British Government don't really care about us, especially the Catholics!


- I don't think that is a fair or accurate view.

I'd probably agree much more with this view if you were talking about previous UK governments.
In fact as far as many of those old governments was concerned it was their obvious policy of simply ignoring NI which was what IMO gave rise to the disgrace that was the old sectarian unionist state here.

But this particular British gov/cabinet/ PM has probably invested more time and effort into reaching an equitable 'solution' as all the others put together.

One could say that there is effectively a system of undeclared 'joint authority' in place now given the high level of cooperation between the UK and RoI (Republic of Ireland) governments.

Until we have a border poll (and this time one all will engage with and not boycott like the last) we do not and will not know what the split is for or against the maintenance of the Union or pro or anti a United Ireland.
Polling in elections and the census suggest there is still a majority for the Union but demographics suggest this is set to change in the not too distant future.
(there are larger numbers of younger nationalist/republicans compared to an aging unionist/loyalist population)

But certainly the newly unveiled system of local government that has been just been announced would indicate the UK gov is happy and prepared to see the 'green' part of NI assert much greater and increasing control over itself, with or without an operating Assembly.


1. Why did the British allow the Protestants allow to bring in guns, but not Catholics?


- Historically I suppose the obvious and simplistic answer was that the protestant/unionist/loyalists were seen as supportive of the state rather than trying to destabilise and subvert the state.
The contrary view was held of nationalists and republicans.

But even that is not quite so black and white.
The British did stop arms shipments from each side on occasion and I do not think they were happy to just stand by and see large quantities of arms flowing in here.

I also think it is a mistake to believe the British were always aware of everything the unionists/loyalists were up to.

There always was a marked distrust between the British gov and those groups.
Carson & Co.'s original act of bringing in arms to resist the then UK government's policy of 'Home Rule' was after all an act of treason.

In any case whereas once they may well have seen each other as 'being on the same side' I very much doubt that is still the case now.
(as this autumns' recent disturbances and shooting at the British army and the PSNI - the name of local Police now - by loyalists would indicate; you'll also find the unionist politicians furious at the recently announced local government plans )


2. Why did the British allow the British Army to shoot and kill many un-armed innocent Catholics in Derry?


- Personally I don't think they did.

I think the British army went to Derry very wound up and determined to teach 'PIRA' a lesson.

I think they were, by then, naturally inclined to believe the nonsense they were told by the more vehement local unionists (which at one time practically amounted to claiming that 'every young able bodied RC man is an IRA man') and once the shooting started it got totally out of hand, people panicked making the situation worse and we ended up with the tragic horrifying disgrace that was 'Bloody Sunday'.

The British government then later acted to 'whitewash' the whole thing (as did the army embarrassed by the scale of panic and what everyone had just seen had just gone on on the streets of Britain)
but
that is not the same thing IMO as sanctioning, ordering or "allowing" the events to happen.


3. Why did the British Government allow the killingof innocent Catholics by Protestant Paramilitiries (UDA, UFF, LVF)


- Again I'm not sure that is completely accurate or it was that simple.

I think it is probably more accurate to say that certain British governments cared to know about what was happening more or less than others (and the same happened on 'the other side' with Irish governments at times).

Once the 'war' got going again and bombs started going off in England (again) I suppose it was inevitable that questionable and/or underhand means were used against the IRA.
(who after all described it as a 'war' themselves)

It is my view that, unquestionably, certain elements within the army and within NI and the old RUC (the old name for the Police here in NI) and special branch particularly came to regard either 'the loyalist groups' or individuals within them as useful 'irregulars' who could go and do the murderous 'black ops' jobs that they legally couldn't.

I am in no way attempting to 'justify' any of this.

I suppose all one can say is that it was tragically inevitable that innocent Catholics died at their hands; just as innocent protestants died at republicans' hands, just as innocents always get killed, in numbers, in every war.


4. Why did the British Government detest the idea about the IRA getting Catholic's our human rights and give the British a taste of their own medicine?


- I disagree that "the IRA got RC's in NI their human/equal rights".
But I suppose that is debatable depending on your point of view but it is fair comment that they (the IRA) denied the human rights of many here and abroad too.

I think proper inclusive negotiation like the British government genuinely and increasingly talking to nationalist and republican politicians and representatives from the start of the 1970's onward), 'Direct Rule' itself - treating NI like the rest of the UK put a degree of 'normality' into our government and removed the previous entirely sectarian basis of the old devolved government here, the involvement of the government of the RoI along with Europe and the ECHR had a hell of a lot more to do with it.

I'm glad to think everyone has equal rights in NI now and where that is not reflected in actuality on the ground efforts are being made to redress the balance.
(fair employment legislation and the 50/50 recruitment for the cops are a prime examples).


5. Why does the British Government always lie when talking about Northern Ireland?


- I don't think they do "always lie".

I think they have a point of view like everyone else and at times that is, perfectly naturally, a different view to those others may or may not hold.

Like it or not they are part of things in NI and will be for a while yet.
Given their responsibility for and to us all they are surely entitled to have a view on matters just like everyone else?


They always say that they want peace and are working toward it! To get the real answer ask any resident of Northern Ireland, and they will tell you otherwise!


- Well I am from NI and I think they want peace and I think they are working towards it.

I think anyone who has even half a clue about how things were here (and not that long ago either) would have major trouble trying to seriously deny the enormous advances that have been made.
In fact it would be a ridiculous proposition.

I think this government has made huge strides towards involving and giving genuine account to all the voices in NI.

Even 'membership' of the UK itself is now - unlike anywhere else within the UK - wholly dependant (as agreed under an international treaty) on the people of NI wanting things to be that way.

When a majority here want a United Ireland it will happen (subject to the arrangements the Irish government makes......won't that be a little ironic?!
).

Frankly I think this a matter of when and not if.

In the meantime I think we suffer having (mainly) 2 bands of nutcases on either extreme who don't want 'normal democratic progress' and who are doing their best to block progress.
But
I think there are far more people interested in moving towards 'normality' than not.

The republican dissidents are small, are supposedly thoroughly 'penetrated' by the security forces north and south and thankfully are totally unrepresentative having very little support in the nationalist and republican community.

The DUP end of unionism is sadly much larger but for all that largely ineffectual.
They can drag their feet and say 'no' all they like but the UK government is (together with the Irish gov and the US gov) pushing things along with or without them.
The door is always open for them to engage (which is how it should be) but the days of the 'protestant state for a protestant people' are long over and never to return.

Sinn Fein is in and out of Downing Street and having a serious and substantial input into policy acted out in NI.
That isn't going to change.
Republicans have their proper voice in the governance of NI, but you have to accept and remember that theirs is not the only voice.


Now what do you think about this?


- You have a view you are entitled to, I don't always agree but at least we are able to debate these things like reasonable people.


[edit on 2-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   


The British government then later acted to 'whitewash' the whole thing (as did the army embarrassed by the scale of panic and what everyone had just seen had just gone on on the streets of Britain)


Then why did they not punish the soldiers, and they brought out the "On The Run" legislation which ensures that the soldiers involved in bloody Sunday can't be charged!




I disagree that "the IRA got RC's in NI their human/equal rights".


Then why is it that on the job advertisements about 3 decaded ago stated "Catholics Need Not Apply"
The the Ra came in and now we have more Catholics working!




Well I am from NI and I think they want peace and I think they are working towards it.


I doubt that all people want it, apart from Ian Paisley! After the IRA decomissioning, which was witnessed by one Catholic and one Protestant, big Ian, still failed to believe that it actually happened, he wanted photographic proof, he has the proof of everyone who witnessed it.

Also, if I was to walk down the Westland or Shankill road wearing a Celtic top i'd get jumped, and i'm sure that a Protestant wearing a rangers top would get jumped in Ardoyne! Does that sound like they want peace?

Not to me!!




Ok now, I am just going to discuss why Northern Ireland has not been declared a fre state as the British Government don't really care about us, especially the Catholics!


I should have been more precise, i should have put in Maggie Thatcher! sorry!



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by speight89
Then why did they not punish the soldiers, and they brought out the "On The Run" legislation which ensures that the soldiers involved in bloody Sunday can't be charged!


- I think the original answer to this was they chose the Widgery whitewash to deny and keep on denying what had happened.
I suppose it's easy (or easier) to just keep on denying something so aweful and which should never have happened if you (like everyone else)have understandable trouble believing it did actually happen too.

I do expect the Saville enquiry to reveal much new and honest information.

As for the OTR issue?
Well let's be honest, it arises from the early prisoner release measures.
It's an obvious issue to be tackled (and not just from the British point of view either).
The whole OTR issue (in many ways ethically similar to the early release of prisoners) is a necessary evil idea cobbled together to 'tie up a loose end'.

But really, what does anyone in their right mind expect?

Does anyone seriously think the British gov (in agreement with the RoI & US govs, remember) would introduce a system such as that proposed for the OTRs and have it apply to all except their own?

The only way this will work is for everybody's' 'slate' to be wiped clean like this and whilst I agree this is contrary to almost everybody's' idea of natural justice (depending upon which 'side' you think should still face prosecution) it will lead to the end of this obvious anomaly.

With luck it may well also lead to many more people (on all sides) finally finding out the truth of what happened to them and theirs as a fuller and more complete 'truth' emerges, with the threat of prosecution lifted.


Then why is it that on the job advertisements about 3 decades ago stated "Catholics Need Not Apply"
The the Ra came in and now we have more Catholics working!


- I have not denied and do not deny how things used to be but if you think the only thing that happened between then and now was the IRA and the 'war' you are mistaken.

As I said the British gov began a long process of getting directly involved (which they were not before they dissolved the old stormont) and genuinely talking to all parties involved from the early 1970's on.

Considering what was agreed at Sunningdale in 1973 (the SDLP's Seamus Mallon did not refer to the GFA as 'Sunningdale for slow learners' for nothing) I'd suggest that it was the SDLP that actually made the break through and really achieved so much.


I doubt that all people want it, apart from Ian Paisley! After the IRA decommissioning, which was witnessed by one Catholic and one Protestant, big Ian, still failed to believe that it actually happened, he wanted photographic proof, he has the proof of everyone who witnessed it.

Also, if I was to walk down the Westland or Shankill road wearing a Celtic top i'd get jumped, and i'm sure that a Protestant wearing a rangers top would get jumped in Ardoyne! Does that sound like they want peace?

Not to me!!


- OK there is a core of bigots who are beyond reason, I'll agree with you there but they are not the majority and they offer nothing to anyone......and lets be honest, they exist on either extreme (although I agree in larger number within groups like Paisley's)

But Paisley is an idiot and a bigot; his days are numbered, his party split between fundamentalist religio-politicians and those supposedly prepared to do proper politics.
Even though his party are supposedly the biggest 'unionist' party it's worth remembering they don't poll a majority, they get around high 20%'s and low 30%'s.

Their current 'high point' is mainly as a result of so-called 'moderate unionism' not coming out to vote, not because unionists of all persuasions are flocking to the DUP.

As for sectarianism?
You're right, we are lumbered for some time yet with petty and vicious sectarian bigotry.

You'd be ill advised to walk down the Shankill in a Celtic shirt just as your proddy equivalent would be ill advised to stroll up the Falls in a Rangers top.

Such is the legacy of our past.

However that does not mean all is either hopeless or a waste of time.
It is still a matter of undeniable fact that we make progress, year on year, slowly but surely.


i should have put in Maggie Thatcher! sorry!


- No problem and yes, I'd agree, Thatcher did so much harm here for so long.

Sadly she represented a version of tory unionist who believed the 'war' winnable when a military victory was an impossibility for either side; only a political settlement could actually 'solve' anything, as we have seen.

But even she wasn't completely 100% bad (and it takes a lot for me to admit that); she did after all force the unionist hard line to see that even those they took to be their tory friends were prepared to engage with the government of the Republic over their .s.
The 'Anglo-Irish agreement' she signed up to IMO shattered the old cosy unionist notion of a tory party always coming to their 'rescue'.

The effect of all this is that even the tory party of today has shifted far from those old unionist ideals.

There's a long way to go yet, it's far from perfect, but I think we are on a road to a proper settlement we can all live with (certainly one we can all live with a hell of a lot better than what we have had to put up with in previous decades).

It may be a little trite but I always say it took 800+ years to make this mess so if it takes a wee while sorting it out I won't mind too much - so long as those trying to do that difficult job are doing it in good faith.



[edit on 3-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I think that there is a religious division, but it can't only be religion that keeps NI and Eire apart. Surely another factor is country and political identity?. The English go with Protestant beliefs, whilst the Irish gravitate to Catholic values. More then likely, the difference of religion helps to separate "Them" from "Us".
Thus it'd probebly be better to call others instead of Catholics and Protestants, to Irish and British.
And just another point. If the British government will pardon all the terrorists, Nationalist and Unionist, I'd like for them to tell the truth. On the reasons why they did what they did. After all, telling the truth is probebly more favourable, then getting chucked into prison for their crimes. They at least owe the victims the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join