the death of Mo Mowlam

by Sharon. - Individual. Fri Aug 19, 2005 18:28

Mo Mowlams working time in Ireland was as a representative of the British Crown . Her 'job' in this country was to manage the affairs of six Irish counties on behalf of her political colleagues in Westminster .

In this regard it is immaterial how 'down-to-earth' she was or was'nt : if she really "loved the Irish" she could have made better use of her position by stating the obvious - that there will never be peace in this country untill the British withdraw their jurisdictional claim to the Six Counties and permanently dismantle their military and political presence .

Sharon .

by iosaf Fri Aug 19, 2005 19:00

ironic.

by Fed up Fri Aug 19, 2005 20:41

I am fed up with Shinners ranting about six occupied counmties on every pretext. An occupation to my mind is one that occurs AGAINST the will of the people living there. Well, Guess what SF - most people in the 'six occupied counties' actually want to be occupied. This is is ever so slightly a different thing. The fact that NI was carved out of Ireland is by this stage entirely secondary - however the bloody place originated, the fact now remains that most people there want it to stay part of the UK, and the ONLY way that can change (note: can change, not SHOULD change) is if they change their minds. You simply cannot compel, force, bomb, shoot or intimidate a million people into a new state against their will. Hence the futility of the IRA's 'war' - all it did was reinforce the attachment of the Protestants to the British state.

I mourn Mo Mowlan on a human level. She was a good person trying her best to make sense of a nonsensical and stupid and squalid little war that SF did its part in making worse. I wish she were still healthy and here - we would better off with more of her, and a little bit less of SF.

by Sharon. - Individual. Fri Aug 19, 2005 21:57

"Ah! you have brought the "down to earth" tag into her obit. "

-- I am not attempting to write the womans 'obit' .

"I am fed up with Shinners ranting about six occupied counmties on every pretext."

-- " pretext" ? "ranting" ?
I done neither ! I did , however , 'write' about the Six Counties being occupied .

"An occupation to my mind is one that occurs AGAINST the will of the people living there."

-- Is it the "will" of the people of Ireland that Britain should claim jurisdiction over six of our counties , do you think ?

" Well, Guess what SF - most people in the 'six occupied counties' actually want to be occupied."

-- Do "most people" on the island "want " it , do you think ?

"This is is ever so slightly a different thing. The fact that NI was carved out of Ireland is by this stage entirely secondary"

-- "entirely secondary " ? To whom ? And at what "stage" was it NOT "entirely secondary" ? !!

" however the bloody place originated, the fact now remains that most people there want it to stay part of the UK,"

-- Do "most people " on this island "want it to stay (sic) part of the UK " , do you think ?

"You simply cannot compel, force, bomb, shoot or intimidate a million people into a new state against their will "

-- but Westminster can ? And they can "compel , force . bomb shoot (and) intimidate " people in an attempt to ensure that that position cannot change , can they ?

"I mourn Mo Mowlan on a human level."

--As do I . On a "human level" . But not on a political level .

"She was a good person trying her best to make sense of a nonsensical and stupid and squalid little war.... "

-- .... that her own country started .

What a wasted opportunity that Mo Mowlam did not use her position to call for a British military and political withdrawal from this country . Perhaps her 'successor ' will do so now and earn his 'stripes' .

Sharon .

by StripeyCat Fri Aug 19, 2005 21:58

However you want to dress it up, the six counties are ruled directly from London by someone for whom nobody in Ireland gets to vote.

There is more democracy in Baghdad than in Belfast.

This might be fine with everybody there (when was the last time they were asked?), but I would have to question whether you would like to be ruled by an un-elected pro-consul from a neighbouring country?

On a personal note, I will always remember that it was Mo Mowlam who released the murderers of teenager Peter McBride from prison outside the terms of the Peace Agreement, and stood by while they rejoined the British Army.

Perhaps she really was concerned for human rights, but you have to ask yourself-would you want these two patrolling your street?

by iosaf Fri Aug 19, 2005 22:28

(((its a rhetorical question)))

On the practical side of current anti-war activity, the death of Mowlam means the list of senior UK New Labour politicians who opposed the war is almost finished. In fact there are but two more left alive, and only one has been other than very silent this summer.

On the practical tie-in side, the de Menezes case is to be taken up by the Brazilian government who today announced they would open their own inquiry in to the murder of their citizen and the lies and blatent dis-information which followed.

your co-operation please...

by Sharon. - Individual. Fri Aug 19, 2005 23:49

" (((its a rhetorical question))) "

--- What is ? You never asked me a question . "Rhetorical" or otherwise .

"your co-operation please..."

--is that a "rhetorical" request ?
Co-operation with what ... ?

Sharon .

by Fitz Sat Aug 20, 2005 01:08

Some people, like Fed Up, seem incapable of understanding that the "majority" in "Northern Ireland" is an artificial majority created by the British-imposed partition of Ireland - imposed under threat of "immediate and terrible war".
Some people also believe that the will of the "majority", genuine or artificial, is infallible. Hitler rose to power via popular support. At one point n time, slavery had popular support. The bottom line is England has no right in Ireland.

Respect to those who refuse to be mastered.

by anarcho Sat Aug 20, 2005 01:29

..a million people that don't want to be part of a united ireland, you can ignore them all you wish and talk about veteos, but to parapharse gerry "they haven't gone away you know" The british aren't whats stopping a united ireland, they couldn't against a majority, it's the unionists. And there's no point in ignoring them.

by Michael Sat Aug 20, 2005 02:18

You're missing the point, and I guess it's because like most of us you only have a few moments here and there to steal away from work and other duties to quickly read/reply on Indymedia.

by rooster Sat Aug 20, 2005 02:33

Let me ask you a simple question, and by the way I expect a simple answer, if the the British Army where to pull out tonite what do you think would happen? or more to the point what do you think would happen?

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 20, 2005 09:32

"..a million people that don't want to be part of a united ireland, you can ignore them all you wish... "

-- Republicans have never ignored the fact that there is a large (albeit a minority) population of Unionists on this island .

"The british aren't whats stopping a united ireland... "

-- ...then why do they maintain their jurisdictional claim to six Irish counties ?

"they couldn't against a majority... "

-- so in ALL their colonies they were only doing as 'the majority' wanted them to do ?

"Let me ask you a simple question, and by the way I expect a simple answer, if the the British Army where to pull out tonite what do you think would happen? or more to the point what do you think would happen? "

-- much the same as what happened in their other colonies - their loyalists would take to the gun . Withdrawal would have to be phased in and managed professionally .
Over a 3-year period ? 5-years ... ? Westminster itself is a past-master at organising this ; they are aware of the dangers if same is not organised properly .

Sharon .

by Fed Up Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:52

Sharon - I have very little time for theology, and most of what passes for Republican 'theory ' is theology. You thus spend a great deal of time on the 'right' or otherwise of the British to be in Ireland. I am not interested in abstractions. But I am interested in what is possible and what is impossible: poliotics should be the art of the possible, not the art of fantasy.

Whether you like it or not,. whether it is right or not, whether it is just or not, whether it originated in threats of terrible war or not - the fact remains that now, in the year 2005, a million plus people in the North want it to remain part of Britain. Ranting about what happened in the 1920s and droning on about occupation is just bollocks. The North is NOT occupied against the will of the majority there. As to the island as a whole, I would hazard a guess that most folks in the 26 counties could barely give a fuck about the issue: They have a living to earn. Getting drunk on Friday night and singing Rebel songs does not count as a concern.

The main point remains: you simply cannot force a million people into a united Ireland against their will, without a catastrophic civil war. The Provos have found that out to their cost: hence the collapse of their campaign.

I described it as stupid and squalid because a bit of thought, and less time on Republican theology, would have made this obvious circa 1970. As Seamus Mallon said about the Good Friday Agreement: Sunningdale for slow learners. The only way I can think of describe people who fight for 30 years to achieve an impossible goal and then settle for what was avaiulabel all along is... well, stupid. Squalid doesn't seem somehow strong enough to describe their disgusting activities.

And why disgusting? because for all your concern about the people of Ireland as a whole want you fail to acknowledge one other crucial truth: the majority in Ireland never supported the IRA war. It is questionable even whether the majority of Catholics in the North ever did - iof they did, it was only for a short time circa 1972, and after direct rule the mood ebbed even more away from the IRA campaign. But because you think it right, you think it ok to wage 'war' against the wishes of the majority of your own people.

Never mind theology - it isn't even consistent. When it suits you, you claim refuge for your ideas in what you assert is the wish of the entire people of Ireland. But when that mood is against you you ignore it anyway. Shinners are some pups....

by Sharon. - Individual Sat Aug 20, 2005 13:38

" You thus spend a great deal of time on the 'right' or otherwise of the British to be in Ireland. I am not interested in abstractions."

--You dismiss the fact of a British claim of jurisdiction , backed-up by an armed presence , as "an abstraction" ? As something that 'exists only in the mind...' ?
How can you do that ?

" But I am interested in what is possible and what is impossible: poliotics should be the art of the possible, not the art of fantasy. "

-- Is it not "fantasy" to describe the British presence in this country as "an abstraction" , as you have done ?

"Whether you like it or not,. whether it is right or not, whether it is just or not, whether it originated in threats of terrible war or not - the fact remains that now, in the year 2005, a million plus people in the North want it to remain part of Britain."

-- Do the majority of the people in Britan want that ? Or the majority of the people on this island ?

" Ranting about what happened in the 1920s and droning.... "

-- Please show me where I "ranted and droned about what happened in the 1920's... " in any of my posts above ? You are attempting to dismiss my points by 'colouring' same to suit your own argument . Unsuccessfully , too . Argue with me over my points , by all means - but please do not charge me with something I did not do .

"The North is NOT occupied against the will of the majority there."

-- " I believe in the United Kingdom . I value the Union . My agenda is not a united Ireland . None of us in this hall today , even the youngest , is likely to see Northern Ireland as anything but a part of the UK . That is the reality . " - Tony Blair , 16 May 1997 . No mention of '....unless the majority decide otherwise ..' in that speech ! But , then again - when did the "will of the majority" ever matter to Westminster when it set out to 'conquer' the globe ?

"As to the island as a whole, I would hazard a guess that most folks in the 26 counties could barely give a fuck about the issue.. "

-- Would there be more in favour of the British presence REMAINING than there would be in favour of same coming to an end , in your opinion ... ?

"They have a living to earn."

--Opposition to the British presence is not confined to the unemployed - is that news to you ?

"Getting drunk on Friday night and singing Rebel songs does not count as a concern. "

-- Of course not ! I have witnessed all types stand up on the table in front of them and shake their fist to the strains of our National Anthem - but the desire to want to see this injustice resolved was in them BEFORE the drink , and is there after they sober up , too .
How patronising and insulting of you to insinuate that that desire is fuelled by alcohol .

"The main point remains: you simply cannot force a million people into a united Ireland against their will, without a catastrophic civil war."

-- They can , and probably will , continue to consider themselves 'British' - but it will be in an island nation on which Westminster has no claim of 'ownership' .

"I described it as stupid and squalid because a bit of thought, and less time on Republican theology, would have made this obvious circa 1970."

-- Is it not "stupid and squalid" to ignore the proven fact that the POTENTIAL for future conflict remains in place as long as the British maintain a political and military presence on this island ? Has that not been proved in our history to date ?

"Squalid doesn't seem somehow strong enough to describe their disgusting activities."

-- ...and no such condemnation , from you , regarding the role of the British in the affair . Why ?

" because for all your concern about the people of Ireland as a whole want you fail to acknowledge one other crucial truth: the majority in Ireland never supported the IRA war."

-- Please show me where I stated that they did ? And , while you are at it - show me where I stated that 1798 was the will of the majority ? Or 1803 ? Or 1916 ? From what we know - what did 'the majority' consider those actions to be ?

" But because you think it right, you think it ok to wage 'war' against the wishes of the majority of your own people."

-- Emmet ? Tone ? Pearse ?

"When it suits you, you claim refuge for your ideas in what you assert is the wish of the entire people of Ireland. But when that mood is against you you ignore it anyway."

-- Please show me where I stated that my ideas are shared by "...the wish of the entire people of Ireland .. " ? Why do you persist in 'colouring' my position to suit your own argument ? It only exposes your weakness !

Sharon.

by iosaf Sat Aug 20, 2005 14:23

you were the first to leave a comment on the obituary, I wrote for Dr Marjorie Mowlam, and then you wrote "i'm not writing an obit" and then have the gall to ask "where is the obit?"

THE OBIT IS THE ARTICLE YOU ARE FKING TROLL COMMENTING ON!

Are you so incensed that you did not read the article you were commenting to?
Did you just see "northern ireland"? or was it "northern ireland secretary of state? or was it the "long kesh / the maze"? Please tell me and other readers, what was the trigger that led you to return again and again in the last 24 hours to this thread adding comments?

I'll make it easy for you, so you dont have to scroll up and read it again-
After an explanation of why the women is/was considered relevant to Irish history and an explanation of the post she held, I wrote this:-

"Of all the direct rulers, she was perhaps the nicest & will be remember fondly by many.

A member of the British Labour Party who came into her ascendance under Tony Blair, she had come from the older wing of the party that upheld the prinicple of Irish unity.

Unknown to most who negotiated with her, or were affected by the decisions she made during her tenure, she suffered a brain tumor.

Few will forget the occasion when she removed her wig in anger.

Other will recall her role in bringing the IRA back to a ceasefire and Sinn Fein into multi-party talks.

Yet more will remember her visit to the loyalist prisoners in Long Kesh / the Maze prison.

Some will remember her admittal she smoked cannabis.

Some will remember her role in the Good Friday agreement which was signed during her tenure.

& we all ought remember her vehement opposition to the war on Iraq and British foreign policy after her resignation from politics in 2001."

That Sharon was her obit.
& you turned it into an attack on someone or something, and I suspect you think I authored the other comments, I didn't.

************************************************
Has no-one anything halfway decent to add?
Is Mowlam's memory worth nothing more than the usual 800 years and counting?
Like it or not, Sharon your buttons were pressed. I'm sorry for that, but I think its a shame that the moment of her passing could produce nothing more fromyou than the analysis of the northern irish statelet which _we all have heard already_.
This isn't the first time we've shouted at each other over the newswire at cross purposes, & each time seems more ridiculous than the first, Please Sharon, tell me, is there any suggestion in the OBITUARY I wrote that I was arguing for a continued british military or state presence in Ireland? Or was it simply a mark of respect for a woman who appeared to do her best under very difficult circumstances, and it is arguable did more than the previous 10 englishmen to hold the post and the subsequent englishman and scottishman?

Sharon, you've spoilt a potential link for readers who know nothing about Mowlam who come here as a large percentage of oru readership from outside of Ireland and the UK who know little about either -
*the recent history of NI
*the job she held.
*who she was.
*where New Labour differed from Labour 30 years ago.
*& how this links to the Blair regime now.
The same Blair regime which is in Iraq illegally, and killed a Brazilian illegally.
*************************************************

Do us (or just me) a favour, write another article explaining it all to us. & calm down.
Tell me (and the foreign readers I care about) why is it "Long Kesh / The Maze"?
Why did the "british direct ruler with the brain tumor who never upheld a simple British withdrawl" go in there in 1998?
What type of personalities did she find in there?
Are you glad she did?
Or did you prefer the status quo pre-1998?

by Fintan Lawlor Sat Aug 20, 2005 15:31

Mo Mowlam was very nice, and called Martin McGuinness 'babe'. She is one of the very nice British that make it O.K. to be Anglophile and accepting of the British presence in Ireland. In a recent election campaign, a phoney anti-imperialist , named Eamonn McCann, called for the British and Americans to leave Iraq. He didn't mention the British troops in Ireland. There are twice as many British troops in Ireland as there are in Iraq. To be opposed to Anglo-American imperialism in Iraq and to accept it in Ireland is a stupid political position. 'Nice' British administrators of British rule in Ireland, such as Mowlam, make possible political idiots like Eamonn McCann.

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 20, 2005 16:45

"you were the first to leave a comment on the obituary, I wrote for Dr Marjorie Mowlam.. "

-- YOU wrote it - not me !

"and then you wrote "i'm not writing an obit" .. "

-- I DID'NT write it - YOU did ! See your comment , above ! I replied to YOUR obit - what IS your problem ?

"THE OBIT IS THE ARTICLE YOU ARE FKING TROLL COMMENTING ON! "

--- YES! YOUR obit - NOT mine . You "FKING" half-wit .

"Are you so incensed that you did not read the article you were commenting to?"

-- I did read it - then I replied to it . What is your problem with that ?

"Please tell me and other readers, what was the trigger that led you to return again and again in the last 24 hours to this thread adding comments?"

-- I would imagine it is the same 'trigger' that brings you back , too - the fact that a post you wrote has been replied to . That's pretty obvious , no ?

""Of all the direct rulers, she was perhaps the nicest & will be remember fondly by many. "

-- So a 'Master' is not really a 'Master' if he/she is "nice" ? Are you serious ?

"A member of the British Labour Party who came into her ascendance under Tony Blair, she had come from the older wing of the party that upheld the prinicple of Irish unity."

-- Read my comment in one of the above posts concerning Tony Blair and Irish unity .
And tell me this - if what you say is true , why , then , is the jurisdictional 'claim' not revoked ?

"Few will forget the occasion when she removed her wig in anger."

-- What bearing has that got on our discussion ? Is that why you liked her - because "she removed her wig in anger " ?

"That Sharon was her obit."

-- an obit which YOU wrote - not me !

"& you turned it into an attack on someone or something, "

-- No . I added to it . Admittedly , you did not care for what I wrote . Which was the 'trigger' for you to return "again and again ... " . I understand that . But I , too , have that right . Do YOU understand that ?

" I suspect you think I authored the other comments... "

-- What a strange way your mind works - paranoia ? Why , in your opinion(s) , would I think that ?

"Like it or not, Sharon your buttons were pressed. "

-- They were , yes . In reply to posts YOU made . I did not start this thread . YOU did .

"This isn't the first time we've shouted at each other over the newswire at cross purposes... "

-- It is as far I can re-call ! Where and when have we 'met' before ? I , for one , do not feel the need to keep track of such occasions .

"Please Sharon, tell me, is there any suggestion in the OBITUARY I wrote... "

-- Thank You for that ! An admission that it was YOU that wrote the 'obit' - NOT me !

" Please Sharon, tell me, is there any suggestion in the OBITUARY I wrote that I was arguing for a continued british military or state presence in Ireland? "

-- No , there is not . Now , please , tell me - where have I suggested there was ?

"Sharon, you've spoilt a potential link for readers who know nothing about Mowlam.."

-- If anything , I have added to the information which , I believe , will assit the readers in a better understanding of the situation in which Mo Mowlam became involved .

" who come here as a large percentage of oru readership from outside of Ireland and the UK who know little about either .. "

-- ...and I hope those same readers will leave the site knowing at least a little more re the situation here than they came with . Is that a reason for you to get 'upset' ?

"Do us (or just me) a favour, write another article explaining it all to us. & calm down."
-- But I did'nt use 'CAPS' first - YOU DID ! SO CALM DOWN YOURSELF !! ;-)

"Tell me (and the foreign readers I care about) why is it "Long Kesh / The Maze"?"

-- Why is it 'Derry/Londonderry' ?
Why is it 'Northern Ireland' when Donegal is not included ?
Why is it 'Ulster' when same has nine counties , not six ?
Why did you ask such a question ?

"Why did the "british direct ruler with the brain tumor who never upheld a simple British withdrawl" go in there in 1998?"

-- Because she tought she could 'charm' us all with her 'down-to-earth' personality ? Which , by the way , seems to have worked on you ! Are you really that shallow ?

"What type of personalities did she find in there? "

-- I would imagine , as in all walks of life , that she found mixed personalities there .
Do you know differently ?

"Are you glad she did? "

-- Am I glad she "did" what ?

"Or did you prefer the status quo pre-1998?"

-- The "status-quo" then being that Westminster was enforcing a jurisdictional claim over part of this island . Which is different from today ... how ?

I would appreciate if , in any reply , you could minimise your use of capital letters . You are giving me a headache .... ;-)


Sharon .

by iosaf Sat Aug 20, 2005 17:08

So, despite all the warm messages coming from the world to Mo as she finally gets really down to earth ;-)
there are some Irish, (in derry?) and in Bcn, who really just think the poor woman fool that she was to get involved with the Blair regime in its early days was a stooge, the "nice-direct ruler" to butter up the hardmen, and melt the frostiness of the southerners via the Late Late Show to discussing the north, the first to go the NI office as a genuine promotion, and not just to get punished by a uk cabinet reshuffle, the perfect "nice-direct ruler" whose medical records would have been known to Blair as the HIV status of all his cabinet, she must have been the perfect choice.

What can we say?

The british state lie. They have always lied.
They have mastered the lie which blends tissues of dissemblance, manipulation, half-truth, plausible deniablity, with-holding of fact, omission, to present truths which are accepted by those in denial that behind the lie is the violence and threat of murder on which their regime has always been based.
Their lies beget lies, beget violence, beget division, beget anger and terror, so that the global interests of their ruling class remain as unaltered as possible century through century, rise of empire to fall of empire, and to sup with the devil and accept their jobs without a very long spoon is the most foolish thing you can do.


RIP Mo Mowlam, may you be forgiven for the career choices you made, but you will be remembered for the Good Friday agreement to mock, strip, and crucify the christ second time round.

So, though we may say it in different ways,
Sharon & myself may agree, why is that i wonder can anyone else explain?

by Fed Up Sat Aug 20, 2005 17:39

Sharon and I are discussing two entirely different things. S/he is rehearsing her/ his bitterness at British perfidity down the ages: I am trying to discuss what behaviours make sense in the year 2005. Sharon is discussing 1798, 1803 and 1916 - I am discussing how to create a worthwhile society in 2005.

For the sake of argument, but only for the sake of argument, let us grant all Sharon's premises. Let us accept that Britain's presence was/ is malign; that partition was forced through at the point of a gun; that a sectarian loyalist state was set up in consequence; that in a moral universe the British had no right to partition the country circa 1920. Now: what follows?

And the answer to that has to flow not from some sense of abstract rights, nor from a thriving culture of victimhood, but from what is possible. I describe Shgaron's thesis as 'abstract; since the writer seems to imagine that by establishing some sense of moral superioroity for his/ her analysis, then the nasty little problem of a million Unionists can be vaulted over.

But: It can't! No matter how correct your premises might be, you cannot force a million Protesdtants into a united Ireland against their will. It simply cannot be done. Even a bloody civil war probably would not achieve it: more likely to be repartition, and a new cemetery on every corner. Every bomb the Provos ever planted, every shot they fired, every person they killed - all of it reinforced Protestant attachment to the British presence. It was therefore profoundly counter productive - and in my opinion, stupid.

Hwo does Sharon deal with this point? Simply by respondinbg to the view that they cannot be coerced into a united Ireland by saying: 'They can , and probably will , continue to consider themselves 'British' - but it will be in an island nation on which Westminster has no claim of 'ownership' The evasion is breath-taking. It is simply assumed that the British can be forced to withdraw - despite the fact that a million people in the North still want them there, and that out of the resultant chaos a united Ireland can be manufactired. There is not a shred of evidence that this is anything other than wishful thinking. It is a fantasy - with the potential for genocide. The failure, collapse and rout of a Provo campaign founded precisely on these preusmptions demsonstrates that if you want a united Ireland that badly (personally, I couldn't care less), you must work to persuade people that it is a good idea, not intimidate them into it. If the Provos had invested half the energy they spent on acquiring semtex in political persuasion, maybe they would have made more progress.

Finally, what right do these people have to wage war on my behalf, or that of the Irish people? There is no excaping the fact that the majority of the Irish people ALWAYS opposed the IRA campaign - the derisory poll results for SF in the south when the IRA was waging war demonstrate this. And how does Sharon deal with this? Not at all - simply the rhetorical questione, as if it settled the issue:

" -- Emmet ? Tone ? Pearse ? '

You see the theology. Why bother analysing the present reality in the year 2005, when you can summon up the ghosts of the past, and retreat 100 years into Irish history? There is nothing so invincible as ignorance. 1798, 1803 and 1916 - but this is 2005. Have you noticed??? Now, I am not going to get into Tone et al they had the right or not to do what they did when they did. But it should be obvious that whatever was right 90 years ago does not nevessarily apply right now. The situation has changed. The realit ywe face is a different one to what obtained in 1916 and in 1798. In particular, we have a partitioned island, and a million of its inhabitants demanding that the British presence remain. This is some reality: a Mount Everest of a problem that the Shinners never dealt with. Tone did not have to deal with that, and neither did Emmet or Pearse. We do. Is it right to do so (more importantly, is it feasible or effective) with bomnbs and bullets? Or would the language of persuasion be a tad better?

In addition to which, unlike in previous times, we all now have the right to vote, to argue, to persuade, to organise, to demonstrate, to set up political parties, to agitate on the streets, to march. I know the Unionists opposed this right being exercised in 1968 - but, hey, this is now 2005. Such elementary points need repeating for Shinners. We have made progress - and would have made it quicker, in my view, if the Provos had been a shade more reluctant to embrace the gun in 1970. But that is by the by.

We are whete we are: and I insist that screeching about occupation, with the implication that people can be forced into a united Irelabnd against their will (presumably by a resumption of war action at some point) is a dangerous delusion and nonsense that we would best grow out of.

Leave that mindest to the drunks singing Republican songs. They have nothing to lose but their hangovers. And get a life.

by iosaf Sat Aug 20, 2005 18:06

I don't want to use up more space on this thread.
so i put my comment elsewhere as my day's blog - http://iosaf.allotherplaces.org

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 20, 2005 22:32

"just think the poor woman fool that she was to get involved with the Blair regime in its early days... "

-- I never considered Mo Mowlam to be a "fool" : she might have "got involved with the Blair regime... " in the hope that she could 'change' it from the inside . I don't know .

"The british state lie. They have always lied.
They have mastered the lie which blends tissues of dissemblance, manipulation, half-truth, plausible deniablity, with-holding of fact, omission, to present truths which are accepted by those in denial that behind the lie is the violence and threat of murder on which their regime has always been based.
Their lies beget lies, beget violence, beget division, beget anger and terror, so that the global interests of their ruling class remain as unaltered as possible century through century, rise of empire to fall of empire, and to sup with the devil and accept their jobs without a very long spoon is the most foolish thing you can do."

-- The pity is that it took this long for you to post the above quote . And the bigger pity is that you will forget it again .

"So, though we may say it in different ways,
Sharon & myself may agree, why is that i wonder can anyone else explain? "

-- We "...may agree .. " when those sentiments are literally pulled out of you .
I need no such 'encouragement' .

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 20, 2005 23:47

First off - what is this meant to signify -

"S/he is rehearsing her/ his... " I have no idea where you are going with that ... !

"bitterness at British perfidity down the ages"

--...should I feel grateful to Westminster , then .. ?

"I am trying to discuss what behaviours make sense in the year 2005. Sharon is discussing 1798, 1803 and 1916 - I am discussing how to create a worthwhile society in 2005."

-- I was pointing out what had happened in those years , and , in my opinion , why it happened : because the potential was there for it to happen . I made the point that that potential is still there . 'Spin' it as you have , above , or any other way you like . It does'nt change the facts !

"For the sake of argument, but only for the sake of argument, let us grant all Sharon's premises. Let us accept that Britain's presence was/ is malign; that partition was forced through at the point of a gun; that a sectarian loyalist state was set up in consequence.... "

-- ...they are not MY "premises" : they are historical fact ! You do not like the messenger and therefore disregard the message . How short-sighted of you !

"that in a moral universe the British had no right to partition the country circa 1920.. "

-- ..do you believe the British HAD that "right" ? You do , don't you ... ?

" I describe Shgaron's thesis as 'abstract; since the writer seems to imagine that by establishing some sense of moral superioroity for his/ her analysis... "

-- Again - why the "..his/her.... " remark ?
I AM puzzled !
So - when I back-up my position with dates , quotes etc , I am being "...morally superior... " . But when YOU attempt the same , and realise you are unable to , you attack the messenger . Transparent 'spin' , I'm afraid !

"....then the nasty little problem of a million Unionists can be vaulted over.... "

-- ...but I replied to that question - I answered it for you . Attacking the messenger because you do not like the message , again .

" No matter how correct your premises might be, you cannot force a million Protesdtants into a united Ireland against their will. It simply cannot be done."

-- so less than 20 per cent of the islands population has a veto ? I thought you favoured "democracy" ? The Unionists can stay , as I stated on a post above , as part of the Irish nation , which is what they are . Those that choose not to could try their luck on the 'Mainland' if they want . Or perhaps Mr Paisley could 'put them up ' at his Ranch in Canada ?

"more likely to be repartition.. "

-- ...and pass the 'problem' on to other generations ? Is that what you favour ? Sweep it under the carpet for now ....?

"Hwo does Sharon deal with this point? Simply by respondinbg to the view that they cannot be coerced into a united Ireland by saying: 'They can , and probably will , continue to consider themselves 'British' - but it will be in an island nation on which Westminster has no claim of 'ownership' The evasion is breath-taking."

-- "...evasion... " ? No . It's an answer which you don't like , obviously . But NOT to answer would be to 'evade' . Do you know the difference between the two ?

" you must work to persuade people that it is a good idea.... "

-- ...as the British did in their other colonies , you mean ... ;-)

"Finally, what right do these people have to wage war on my behalf, or that of the Irish people?"

-- Yes , I know . You would have thought that Pearse would have learned from Emmet who , in turn , should have learned from Tone . Would'nt you ...?

"There is no excaping the fact that the majority of the Irish people ALWAYS opposed the IRA campaign .. "

--As , indeed , they opposed Pearse , in his day . Do you regard Pearse as a 'terrorist' ?

"" -- Emmet ? Tone ? Pearse ? '

You see the theology."

-- ...there you go with your 'fetish' word again !
You may see Emmet , Tone and Pearse as "theological" figures . I see them as historical figures . So 'theologise' away to your hearts content !

"Why bother analysing the present reality in the year 2005, when you can summon up the ghosts of the past... "

-- When I refer to our past , you dismiss it as "summoning up the ghosts of our past ... " . We would be foolish NOT to refer to our past (as would any country) in the hope of avoiding the same mistakes . Or is that just too much common-sense for you to deal with ... !

"and retreat 100 years into Irish history? "

200 . 300 . 400 years , even , if there are lessons there to be learned . Why not ?

"There is nothing so invincible as ignorance."

-- No . You are not "invincible" . Just hard to get through too ...

"1798, 1803 and 1916 - but this is 2005."

-- So we have nothing to learn from those periods in our history , no ?

" Now, I am not going to get into Tone et al they had the right or not to do what they did when they did... "

-- Oh God no , don't do that . You will blow your own 'argument' out of the water by doing so !

" But it should be obvious that whatever was right 90 years ago does not nevessarily apply right now... "

-- and how would we know that unless we looked 'back' ? But you against looking 'back' , are you not ?

". ..we have a partitioned island, and a million of its inhabitants demanding that the British presence remain. This is some reality..."
--...and a reality which I already addressed . Apparently not to your liking , granted . but addressed nonetheless .

"a Mount Everest of a problem that the Shinners never dealt with... "

-- Mount Everest has been 'conquered' . Did'nt you hear ?

" we all now have the right to vote, to argue, to persuade, to organise, to demonstrate, to set up political parties, to agitate on the streets, to march....."

-- as is being done . What's your point , exactly ?

"and I insist that screeching about occupation... "

-- "screeching" ? Attempting to 'colour' my position again , with a 'loaded' word . Do you still believe that those 'tricks' actually work ?

"Leave that mindest to the drunks singing Republican songs... "

-- Still of the mindset that Republicanism is fuelled by alcohol , I see . Poor you !

"They have nothing to lose but their hangovers.... "

--...more alcohol-related remarks . You do your position a disservice by dismissing those you apparently regard as your opponents as ' alcoholics with hangovers' .
It is a very crude device which fails as a result of being so crude .

"And get a life."

-- I have a full life , thank you . Which is why I am not on this Site as often as I would like to be . But HEY ! - thanks for your concern !
Your 'arguments' lack substance - you have 'learned' from other people's experiences , probably out of books and 'theological' papers . But you are in a political wilderness and do not know your own mind . I hope I have been of some assistance to you .

Sharon .

by Fed Up Sun Aug 21, 2005 01:13

Enough of the nonsense. Sharon just doesn't get it. This will suffice as an example. I said ' No matter how correct your premises might be, you cannot force a million Protesdtants into a united Ireland against their will. It simply cannot be done."

Sharon responds:
-- so less than 20 per cent of the islands population has a veto ? I thought you favoured "democracy" ? The Unionists can stay , as I stated on a post above , as part of the Irish nation , which is what they are . Those that choose not to could try their luck on the 'Mainland' if they want . Or perhaps Mr Paisley could 'put them up ' at his Ranch in Canada ?'

This is the crux of the problem, and why I regard her ramblings as theology. I raise questiosn abou twhat is possible. Sharon always resopirts to: but have they the right? My dear blind friend,. thsi is so irrelevant!!! Whether you or I concede their rights in the matter has no significance. What matters is whether we can or cannot force them into a united Ireland. I say we can't! You say - but they have no right to refuse! I say - right or not right, they have the power to refuse. And you say, again, they have no right..... You may remain on your theological island all you wish. I will remain in the real world, where we consider what is possible.

You have and never had any right to wage war on behalf your theoloigical abstractions. You have none either.

And I have better things to do than engage further with your nonsense. It is called having a life - in which whether, in the year 2005 (utterly different to 1798), this little little on this little island that you call a border is erased matters not a jot.....

by iosaf Sun Aug 21, 2005 01:14

in reply to "The pity is that it took this long for you to post the above quote . And the bigger pity is that you will forget it again ."

if you think i'll forget it, you really don't understand me at all, nor have you read me carefully enough across the years to see the statement to which you refer is completely consistent with what I have already written many times.
maybe i won't or don't write so much on your local Irish / British problem concerns, since they are not really my concerns now, I don't live in either of the irelands as you know, I don't benefit from the tax, or social welfare benefits of either ireland, i don't see my conversations peppered with references to the dates of ireland, and especially as neither Ireland has of yet achieved any effect worthy of being considered out of the "local" box, especially as regards the real problems both sides of the border now and on the various mainlands far from the dreary church steeples, dates and arguments of both ireland and britain.

Yet I must note, the mere passing of a british politician pressed all our buttons so much, maybe I shouldn't have written the obit, perhaps I should avoid the whole Irish problem completely. I'll stick to the Israeli Palestinian problem sharon, for that button gave you your name.

Mo Mowlam RIP.

sure its the least we could offer any outsider who "got involved".

by Sharon. - Individual. Sun Aug 21, 2005 09:40

"Enough of the nonsense."

-- My sentiments exactly ! Any answer that does not fit into your world of 'theology' is instantly dismissed by you as "nonsense" .

" I regard her ramblings as theology."

--What IS it with you and that word ? Are you a failed student , perhaps ?

" Sharon always resopirts to: but have they the right? "

-- ...that is either a typo or a 'theological' description which I am not familar with ...

"My dear blind friend,."

-- "pot" and "kettle" come to mind . You are blind to all but the most extreme and abstract 'theological' point that you can drag any discussion to .

"but they have no right to refuse! "

-- Ony in your minds eye did I ever reply with that answer ! You obviously would have preferred me too and , when I did not do so , you stumble right in and charge me as having done so anyway ! You are a sad case .....

" And you say, again, they have no right....."

-- ..... a very sad case !

" You may remain on your theological island all you wish... "

-- Oh you and your 'fetish' ... !

"I will remain in the real world... "

-- How can you "remain" in a place you have not been ?

" behalf your theoloigical abstractions... "

--God! Not again ...

"this little little on this little island that you call a border is erased matters not a jot....."

-- You are rambling worse than usual now - perhaps it is just as well that that was your last post .

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual. Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:17

" nor have you read me carefully enough across the years... "

-- ...your second such innuendo of that nature - will you now ignore my question for the second time also - when have we discussed politics before ? On what Forum ?
What 'name' did you go under then ?

"maybe i won't or don't write so much on your local Irish / British problem concerns, since they are not really my concerns now.. "

-- Is that an admission , 'Iosaf' , that you feel out-of-touch re the political situation in this country ?

" I don't live in either of the irelands as you know... "

-- There IS only one Ireland ! And how on earth would I "know" where you live ? I do not even know who you are ! 'Iosaf ' - this is 'creepy' stuff : you imagine I know who you are and where you live ....?

" I don't benefit from the tax, or social welfare benefits of either ireland... "

-- " either Ireland ... " ?

" and especially as neither Ireland has of yet achieved any effect worthy of being considered out of the "local" box... "

-- ...I'm nearly sure that U2 comes from "one of the Irelands ".... !

"maybe I shouldn't have written the obit, perhaps I should avoid the whole Irish problem completely... "

-- ...or perhaps you should simply refrain from comment until such time as you have a better grasp on the subject . There is a lot more to the mark Mo Mowlam left here than you realise .

" I'll stick to the Israeli Palestinian problem sharon, for that button gave you your name."

-- I really have no idea what you mean by that remark .

"Mo Mowlam RIP."

-- I concur with that sentiment . I was , all along , only attempting to point out to you (and others) that Mo Mowlam was not the 'knight in shining armour' that you presented her as . I would hazard a guess that , indeed , none of us are .

"sure its the least we could offer any outsider who "got involved". "

-- A 'blank check' , no ? Should it not depend on WHY they "got involved " ? And on what they hoped to achieve ?

Sharon .

by observer Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:39

Sharon makes Republicanism sound like a crackpot theory.

Of course it flows from her attempts at analysis that Protestants must be forced into a united Ireland. She is conveniently vague on how this might be accomplished - perhaps the Irish army will install watchtowers on the Shankill Rd? Does she really think that if the British declare their intent to withdraw that the UVF/ LVF etc will say: o'h well, we lost that one. What time is the next train to Dublin?' Will they hell. They will revolt, fight , murder and kill, on a scale greater than ever before - and backed by more people than ever before. It simply can't be done. You cannot force them into a state to which they do not wish to belong. Whether the British had the right to partition Ireland in 1920 etc is simply irrelevant to this central political problem - one Republicanism has never understood, and the main reason why their recent campaign was always doomed to failure.

I have some sympathy for the description of Sharon's position as theology - it proceeds from abstract moral principles (who has the right to do what), but it is theology because it has not one word of sense to say about reality on the ground. I repeat: it says nothing about how to compel the Protestants into a united Ireland they want no part of.

Take, also, this imposing fact that Protestants number 20% of the population and therefore have no 'right of veto.' Rights - again.... Look at teh reality, Sharon, and get down from the pulpit. They may be 20% (only!!! - it is some minority) - but they aren't evenly distributed around the suburbs of Dublin and Cork. They physically hold the entire north east of the country in their hands. They are incredibly well armed, legally and illegally. They are determined - and their determination has been fuelled and strengthened by the Provos over the past 30 years. Your abstractions are no more impressive in terms of geopgraphy than they are in terms of politics, Deal with the reality. The Unionist veto is not something granted by English law - it is an inescapable fact of demography, geograpohy and real politics. Your Republican sermonising does not begin to address it.

Nor do you offer any credible response to the following dilemma. On the one hand, because the majority of people in Ireland would like to see the country united you demand that this wish be respected by the erasing of the border. Britain must announce it is withdrawing etc. Now, I note but won't dwell on tthe fact that for the majority this liking is rather weak - most people don't care that much one way or the other. It really doesn't bother or agitate most people that much any more. But it also remains a fact that the majority always opposed the Provo campaign and would oppose any resumption. But you disregard this. How can you say that a weak constitional preference must be respected, but that a strong opposition to militarism can be discarded? Oh, its all right you see - Sharon and her Republican co-thinkers have the divine right to decide what the Irish people want, how it will be achieved, toi wage war on our behalf - and if we don't like it, we can fuck off. Our voice doesn't matter on the crucial issue of war or peace. This isn't 1798 or 1916, as someone above said - we have a different reality to deal with, and in the modern age you simply cannot discard the most syrongly expressed views of the people you claim to represent in this matten.

by Shipsea Sun Aug 21, 2005 15:18

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article307109.ece

To get back to the original, anyone see this obit in yesterday's English Independent? Talk about bitchy, sexist, jealous and just downright nasty! When you contrast and compare the eulogies for the likes of, say, Richard Nixon when he finally popped his clogs, it makes you wonder. What did she do to deserve this? Murder 100K in the Middle East, perhaps? Or was her crime to be a successful and strong female personality? She threw herself into the Northern Irish situation with a genuine desire to bring about a resolution and achieved much more than the likes of Mandelson (disaster) who bust the whole thing up. Tam Dalyell should be ashamed of himself - a classic old left-wing mysoginist, like so many of 'em.

by baiting the troll. Sun Aug 21, 2005 15:49

what's the currency?
what's the language?
where's the capital?
what's the flag?
what's the international dialing code?
squawk. Your style sharon is so unmistakable, its not really surprising you have made no progress to your goals, it must be the bigotry. take a break, read the rest of the site, or go on holidays, get a job somewhere far from "32 county souvenir dish cloth map" ireland.

by Sharon. - Individual Sun Aug 21, 2005 16:29

"Sharon makes Republicanism sound like a crackpot theory. "

-- ...as it has always been dismissed by those opposed to it ! Nothing new in that .

"Of course it flows from her attempts at analysis that Protestants must be forced into a united Ireland."

-- And I wrote that they must be forced into a UI , did I ? Where ? Check back - you will discover that I wrote that they live on this island , like we all do , and that I would hope they would remain . The "...Sharon said forced... " line was ascribed to me by one of the previous posters . Please read what I wrote , not what THEY claimed I wrote !

" Does she really think that if the British declare their intent to withdraw that the UVF/ LVF etc will say: o'h well, we lost that one. What time is the next train to Dublin?' Will they hell. They will revolt, fight , murder and kill, on a scale greater than ever before - and backed by more people than ever before."

-- As I myself stated in an earlier post ! Again - you are depending on your information about my political position on one of the other people who posted on this thread : your position is therefore based on a false assumption . Pure laziness on your part , I believe - if you cannot be bothered to scroll this thread in search of what I actually said , then it would be better if you refrained from posting until such time as you make yourself aware of the facts .

" Whether the British had the right to partition Ireland in 1920 etc is simply irrelevant to this central political problem... "

-- " irrelevant.. " ? Do you believe Westminster had that 'right' ? Is the 'border' a natural and lawful boundary , in your opinion ?

"I have some sympathy for the description of Sharon's position as theology - it proceeds from abstract moral principles (who has the right to do what), but it is theology because it has not one word of sense to say about reality on the ground "
-- (...that 'T' word again .. ) Is the " ..reality on the ground.. " not one in which a foreign country claims jurisdictional control over part of its neighbouring country ? It does'nt get more "real" than that .

" it says nothing about how to compel the Protestants into a united Ireland they want no part of... "

-- " compel " ? That is such a ... oh I don't know ... a ... 'British' .... word ...? As stated - those loyal to the British Crown will stay here , in Ireland , hopefully . They will not be "compelled" to stay . Or leave . Again - please read my posts in the above threads , not only the comments of those who posted in reply to same . Though at this stage - I don't think you actually want to .

"Take, also, this imposing fact that Protestants number 20% of the population and therefore have no 'right of veto.' ... "

-- Should a minority in ANY society have an automatic 'right of veto' ?

"get down from the pulpit... "

-- ...so in stating my political position I am on a "pulpit" , am I ? I think I preferred the "theological" put-down better - it was a new 'spin' on an old chestnut ... !

"They may be 20% (only!!! - it is some minority) - but they aren't evenly distributed around the suburbs of Dublin and Cork."

-- It would , I imagine , actually be harder to contain any situation if those intent on causing trouble WERE more widely dispersed - no ...?

"They physically hold the entire north east of the country in their hands... "

-- .... the "entire... " north-east of the country ? So each of the Six Counties has a Unionist majority , then ... ?

"They are incredibly well armed, legally and illegally... "

-- ...'thanks' to whom ? The answer to that question should take you back to basics in relation to this whole scene .

"Deal with the reality.... "

-- Reality - more British troops in the Six Counties than there is in Iraq !
Reality - our six north-eastern counties are claimed , by Westminster , to be part of 'the UK' .
Reality - as long as the above-mentioned claim is there , the potential for opposition to that claim will remain . Is that not writ large in our history ? Would you prefer if this problem was passed-on to future generations to deal with ? Your children ? Mine ? Either would I .

". The Unionist veto is not something granted by English law... "

-- Do YOU recognise "English law " as having any validation in Ireland ?

" it is an inescapable fact of demography, geograpohy and real politics."

... and that "inescapable fact " once loomed large over the whole island , did it not ? But some amongst us objected and ..... !

" Your Republican sermonising does not begin to address it... "

-- well - what else would one do on a "pulpit" EXCEPT "sermonise" ... Again - I am stating my position on this issue . As are you . As have others . Yet it is only I who "sermonise (from) a pulpit ... " !
That says more about you than it does about me !

" On the one hand, because the majority of people in Ireland would like to see the country united you demand that this wish be respected... "

-- " demand " ? If it is the 'will of the majority' then why should it not be implemented ?
And you attempt to 'lecture' me on democracy ... ?

" ...by the erasing of the border... "

-- Is the 'border' a natural and lawful boundary , in your opinion ?

" Britain must announce it is withdrawing etc."

-- as she is well versed in doing elsewhere .

" How can you say that a weak constitional preference must be respected, but that a strong opposition to militarism can be discarded? "

-- Bertie Ahern does - Shannon . Bush Jnr does - Iraq . Tony Blair does - Iraq . Tell me - in your opinion - is there more in FAVOUR of the British presence in this country than there would be AGAINST it ?

"Sharon and her Republican co-thinkers have the divine right to decide what the Irish people want... "

--I believe that majority opinion on this island would favour a British political and military withdrawal - and I agree with that opinion !
You , Sir/Madam , are the 'Dissident' : not me .Have you got a "divine right" to ignore what you yourself described as the wishes of "the majority of people in Ireland ... " ?

" ...and if we don't like it, we can fuck off... "

-- Why the foul language ? Is it perhaps now the only way you feel you can get your point of view across ? What does that say about your point of view ?

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual. Sun Aug 21, 2005 16:43

"what's the currency?
what's the language?
where's the capital?
what's the flag?
what's the international dialing code? "

-- ...and that equates to there being "two Irelands" , does it ? Two 'countries' on the island of Ireland ? How many counties in these "two Irelands" of yours ... ?

"squawk. Your style sharon is so unmistakable, its not really surprising you have made no progress to your goals.. "

-- "squawk" ? Is that some female 'put-down' ? "Progress " ? - Westminster DID claim jurisdiction over the whole island at one stage . Now she does'nt . How would you describe that ? With a "squawk" , no doubt ... !

"...or go on holidays... "

-- ...only back from two weeks in Tramore . Thanks . Been anywhere yourself ... ?

" ...get a job somewhere... "

-- ...already have one of those :-(

""32 county souvenir dish cloth map" ireland."


-- ...where the "squawk" is that ... !!

Sharon .

by observer Sun Aug 21, 2005 17:12

Sharon simply hasn't addressed any of the real issues. Let me try, once again, to be as simple and direct as possible. For the sake of argument, let me accept all your premises about British perfidity - to save space, I won't list them all. Let us accept that there is no 'right' of veto for the Unionists, that Britain should withdraw , that most Irish people would prefer a united Ireland (even though most have no desire to bomb and shoot to achieve it, and are more interested in many other issues than this one). Let us for the sake of argument agree with all of that.

Two central points remain that you simply refuse to discuss. These are:

1. You cannot force a million Protestants into a united Ireland against their will. How do you propose that, when your version of what is right is acknowledged, that this is to be accomplished??? Their 'veto' is simply a fact of numbers. Whether their veto is endorsed by Westminster is therefore irrelevant - on the ground, unless you propose genocide, they can damn well veto the ending of partition if they so wish. 30 years of IRA effort didn't dislodge it: no ranting by you will do so wither.
2. Neither you nor anyone else has a mandate or right to decide that , on teh one hand, the wish of the Irish people on the border must be sacrosanct, BUT - you can utterly disregard their express prference as to what should be done about it.

Now, please, less on rights etc - and actually address these two points.

You are a theologian, it appears, more interested in arguments along the line of how many angels can dance on the head of pin, than in actually discussing what is possible or impossible. You also suffer from a chromic confusion as to whether this is 2005 or 1798. May I have an address where I can send you a calender?

by Non-nationalist Sun Aug 21, 2005 17:19

As a non-nationalist I am just puzzled that the Border is such a big issue for nationalists and Republicans. Who cares, for Christ's sake? Maybe it had some deep significance 30 years ago when the Stormont regime still existed. But in this day and age we are all in the EU. The importance of national borders is steadily being reduced. In that context, I couldn't care less whether I send my elected reps to Dublin or Westminster, so long as I can vote and carry on living and working anyway. There are issues worth getting more excited about.

Someone recently described the whole 'war' as just stupid, and I couldn't agree more. It scarcely matters whether the borcder exists in the first place: to believe that it is worth killing thousands of people and brutalising many more to get rid of something of cosmic insignificance is brainless stupidity of the worst order. A stupidity that Sharon shows in spades.

by Sharon. - Individual. Sun Aug 21, 2005 18:38

"Sharon simply hasn't addressed any of the real issues.. "


-- I have addressed all the issues which were put to me . Obviously not to your liking , but they have been addressed by me nonetheless .

"1. You cannot force a million Protestants into a united Ireland against their will. How do you propose that, when your version of what is right is acknowledged, that this is to be accomplished??? "

-- Again - where did I use the word "force" ?
The Unionists are already here - and they are welcome to stay , if that is their desire .
I never said otherwise !

" Their 'veto' is simply a fact of numbers.. "

-- On 'a simple fact of numbers' on this island they are a minority .

"...no ranting by you will do so wither... "

- "ranting ...sermonising ...pulpit... " - dear me ; I AM well travelled , are'nt I .... !!

". Neither you nor anyone else has a mandate or right to decide that ... "

--- ...and has Westminster a mandate from the people of Ireand for IT'S actions ?

" the wish of the Irish people on the border must be sacrosanct... "

-- Is that "wish" to keep Britains 'border' or remove it , do you think ?

" , BUT - you can utterly disregard their express prference as to what should be done about it.... "

-- No - you can't ! You think you CAN do that simply because YOU don't go along with it ??

"Now, please, less on rights etc -"

-- Are we , all of us , not ENTITLED to our 'rights' ? Even if it does'nt suit some that those 'rights' should be enforced ?


" You are a theologian, it appears... "

-- Most definitely NOT !! Wherever did you get that notion from .... lol !!

"more interested in arguments along the line of how many angels can dance on the head of pin... "

-- ...have absolutely no interest in that type of thing ! That and 'crosswords' bore me silly !

" You also suffer from a chromic confusion as to whether this is 2005 or 1798... "

-- You say that because I realise we have a history - that this conflict has a history - which can offer us 'pointers' . You don't agree ... ?

" May I have an address where I can send you a calender? "

-- How very droll ! How's this for an equally droll answer - I have no use for a machine , with rollers , which is used for smoothing cloth . May I have an address where I can send you a dictionary ..... !!

Sharon .

by Sharon - Individual. Sun Aug 21, 2005 19:00 http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com

"As a non-nationalist I am just puzzled that the Border is such a big issue for nationalists and Republicans."

-- Your country is forcefully partitioned and you "are puzzled" as to why people make "such a big issue " out of it ?
Are you for real ... ?

"Who cares, for Christ's sake?"

-- But you know the answer - "nationalists and republicans" . (See your first paragraph ... !).

" Maybe it had some deep significance 30 years ago when the Stormont regime still existed.... "

-- Whether Stormont 'exists' or not , partition is still an issue with ...well , you know who .....

" But in this day and age we are all in the EU."

-- Tell Tony Blair that ; he seems to think that his country still 'rules the waves...' .

" The importance of national borders is steadily being reduced.... "

-- Is the 'border' a natural and lawful boundary , do you think ... ?

" I couldn't care less whether I send my elected reps to Dublin or Westminster.. "

-- That , to me , would depend on if I was living in Ireland or England . Some of us "could care less .. " .

" There are issues worth getting more excited about.... "

-- ..does that mean we allow this 'issue' to fester ? Ignore it and hope it sorts itself out ?
Is that what you suggest ?

"Someone recently described the whole 'war' as just stupid.... "

-- ' Without reason' , do you mean ?

" It scarcely matters whether the borcder exists in the first place... "

-- To you , anyway . You have made that clear enough !

"to believe that it is worth killing thousands of people and brutalising many more... "

-- Yes . It was not only in Ireland that Britain done that .

"to get rid of something of cosmic insignificance is brainless stupidity of the worst order.... "

-- The 'border' is , apparently , "insignificant"
to your good self . But not to some of us .

" A stupidity that Sharon shows in spades."

-- ..for one with such a lack of understanding of the political situation that exists here , you ARE forward , are'nt you ... !!

Sharon .

by oBSERVER Sun Aug 21, 2005 19:14

Sharon like Republicans in general simply can't answer the most simple questions. I have granted all her premises - premises that I still think, along with one or two others here, are theological. So let me repeat: let us grant that the 1798 rebellion was right (this is important to S for some reason); let us accept British perfidity, the horror of partition etc. We come back to: what now?

The logic of Sharon's position is that the Protestant should be forced into a united Ireland. She resists this interpretation of her position, for some reason, appearing to think that inviting them to either stay and accept a united Ireland or fuck off to Britain gets her around this point, but it doesn't. Of course they will stay - it is their country as much as anyone else's. And they will fight to resist a united Ireland they don't want. Isn't that obvious? Isn't it obvious that this makes a united Ireland without their active agreement rather impossible???

Sharon says they have no right to opt out of it - ok, let us accept this point, for the sake of argument. S - they have no abstract, legal, moral right to opt out of teh singular entity of Ireland - ok, you win. My point is simply that whether they have that right in the abstract or not, we cannot compel them into a united Ireland against their will. By implying that they have an alternatiev of buggering of to Blighty you don't get around by one iota the concrete problem of one million heavliy armed people who will fight your view of reality to the death. Even if we grant all your other opinions as valid (which I actually don't but never mind), your rhetoric cannot get around the hard, physical, unmovable reality of one million people utterly opposed to your position, who will fight to resist it, and whom you will not be able to over power without one hell of a civil war, if even then. That is the reality ,away from your legalistic prattle about what is right or not right.

Nor have you addressed the point that you have no right to wage war in support of your position anyway! The majority of the Irish people oppose it - have you noticed? Why have you the right to disregard their wishes on this?????? You just don't engage with the real world, and sit smugly on a perch of self proclaimed rights, imagining that the central problem of a million Protestants can be magicked out of existence.

Well, I'm away from Indymedia and back to addressing issues in my world, like work and play, that matter a hell of a lot more than your pious prattle. By bye.....

by iosaf Sun Aug 21, 2005 19:18

I thought you were a regular indymedia ireland contributor using a topical international newsworthy alias, I now realise my mistake, I don't know you at all. Nor wish to. You only appear to comment to north of ireland articles, and haven't left your name as a comment to other contributions on international themes, or the whole range of issues we have dealt with globally for years.
It surprises me how much you write, it is almost as if our website with millions of hits each month is providing you a platform to take other comments apart line by line and reply to each one.

That is remarkable selfish sharon.

Our comments do sometimes provide a "chatroom atmosphere" but the comments are meant to offer more information on the article or a complete rebuttal.

There are individuals who use this site from far away, who can not afford financially to wade through your criticism, and I wonder will they put off.
As for the "two irelands" comment, there are indeed many irelands. I grew up in Dublin, in one ireland which seemed a world removed from the ireland of poverty in the same city, so much so I got a different accent and then I was sent to the gaeltacht to another ireland to learn "my language", and then we occasionally went to jonesborough market to another ireland to buy cheap biscuits on the border, and I have fond memories of visiting antrim yet another ireland. Many interpretations of the history and reality and nationalities from shinner to twerp to swimmie to church of ireland boy scouts.

Now needless to say you're going to have the last word, because thats what you seem to need so much.

but as you have it, know that you've pissed off a lot of us regular contributors, and commentators by turning the comments to this thread into a self-obsessed trollfest.
I hope you don't do this to other threads as well.

by Sharon. - Individual. Mon Aug 22, 2005 01:58

"Sharon like Republicans in general simply can't answer the most simple questions."

-- You don't like the answers I give you - therefore you say I do not answer at all !

" let us grant that the 1798 rebellion was right (this is important to S for some reason);"

-- I would hope it is important to most Irish people - not all of us would dismiss that Rising as "unimportant " .

"The logic of Sharon's position is that the Protestant should be forced into a united Ireland.. "

-- As I stated ... where , exactly ? On one of the above threads ? Which one ?

" Of course they will stay - it is their country as much as anyone else's... "

-- My sentiments , too . As expressed on this thread .

" And they will fight to resist a united Ireland they don't want.. "

-- A point I made also .

"Sharon says they have no right to opt out of it - ok, let us accept this point, for the sake of argument.... "

-- Wrong ! I have stated here , at least twice , that the Unionists will NOT be forced out of this country , nor will they be forced to stay . You are stating I wrote something which I did'nt write . Did you read my posts at all , I wonder ... ?

"they have no abstract, legal, moral right to opt out of teh singular entity of Ireland... "

-- Absolute rubbish ! Of course they have , you moron .

"Well, I'm away from Indymedia and back to addressing issues in my world, like work and play, that matter a hell of a lot more than your pious prattle. By bye..... "

-- And 'by bye' to you , too !

Sharon .

by Sharon - Individual Mon Aug 22, 2005 02:25

"I thought you were a regular indymedia ireland contributor using a topical international newsworthy alias, I now realise my mistake, I don't know you at all."

-- I am glad that is cleared up - thought you were 'stalking' me there for a while ... !

" You only appear to comment to north of ireland articles, and haven't left your name as a comment to other contributions on international themes, or the whole range of issues we have dealt with globally for years."

-- As I already said : I am not a regular contributor . Time constraints , family etc .

"It surprises me how much you write, it is almost as if our website with millions of hits each month is providing you a platform.. "

--....the 'blog' I help publish has almost 50,000 hits : not much , obviously , when compared with 'Indymedia' (or other 'blogs' ) but it is all the "platform" I need . The 'Mo Mowlam' thread on this Forum caught my attention .

"... to take other comments apart line by line and reply to each one....that is remarkable selfish sharon.... "

-- " selfish " ? Am I not entitled to my opinion because it differs from yours ? Are you a fascist or just anti-republican , 'Iosaf' ?

"Our comments do sometimes provide a "chatroom atmosphere" but the comments are meant to offer more information on the article or a complete rebuttal..... "

-- ...or ' flesh out ' the original post . As I attempted to do .

"There are individuals who use this site from far away, who can not afford financially to wade through your criticism, and I wonder will they put off.... "

-- Are you arrogant enough to presume that it will not be YOUR comments which "put them off .. " ?

"As for the "two irelands" comment, there are indeed many irelands.... "

-- How many 'countries' on this isle ? Is the answer " two " ? Are they both (!) called 'Ireland' ?

"Now needless to say you're going to have the last word, because thats what you seem to need so much.... "

-- I seriously believe that you do not read my posts anyway , 'Iosaf' . So you will probably never know if I get "the last word ... " or not !Is it THAT important to you ... ?

"but as you have it, know that you've pissed off a lot of us regular contributors, and commentators by turning the comments to this thread into a self-obsessed trollfest... "

-- I replied to a post . My reply was commented on . I replied to that comment . Etc . "self-obsessed trollfest... " or defending my position ? When YOU reply , 'Iosaf' , it's to 'clarify' : when I do it - I'm a 'troll' . You hypocrite .

"I hope you don't do this to other threads as well.... "

-- If a comment on another thread catches my eye , I will reply to same , yes . Is that not acceptable to you ... ?

Sharon .

by Shipsea Tue Aug 23, 2005 08:54

A child blown up in Warrington. Innocent men and women maimed and killed in London. Business-men murdered in their homes in front of their children in Belfast and Derry. Omagh. And all the retaliation, and counter-retaliation - ad nauseam. Reading reports of these events down the years you found yourself wondering what went on in the heads of people who coldly prop themselves up behind gun-sights or sneak bombs into public places to cause this carnage. I have no idea whether or not 'Sharon' has been involved in any atrocities but 'hers' is exactly the sort of ruthless, self-serving and arid logic Ive always imagined must fuel this murderous behaviour. The robotic 'one ireland regardless' mantra that can't admit even basic humanitarian engagement with the rights and wishes of fellow citizens. 'They can always leave', comes the reply. God forbid that Sharon and her ilk ever come within a prayer of political influence in the South. And all this emotional 'my country' rubbish. From a purely practical point of view there must be many a 'Catholic' in the North wondering whether they arent actually a lot better off in a state where health and education are better funded, abortion and divorce are a matter of personal choice, infrstructure is better, arts and community projects are better funded etc etc. What would you give all that up for in order to 'belong' to a state which is endemically corrupt and which actually doesnt give a toss about its citizens unless they get in the way of the corporate juggernaut? What's it all about, for Christ's sake? So you can sit under a bloody tri-colour? Then what? You live, you eat, you educate your children - whatever. Im sick of people like Sharon - Catholic or Protestant - nursing grievances to the exclusion of any other consideration. To hell with them all.

by Sharon. - Individual. Tue Aug 23, 2005 09:33

"A child blown up in Warrington. Innocent men and women maimed and killed in London. Business-men murdered in their homes in front of their children in Belfast and Derry. Omagh. And all the retaliation, and counter-retaliation - ad nauseam.... "

-- "..to the point of disgust.." indeed . The British have had over 800 years to be 'disgusted' by their behaviour . And that is only in this country .

"Reading reports of these events down the years you found yourself wondering what went on in the heads of people who coldly prop themselves up behind gun-sights... "

-- What about those 'who coldly prop themselves up' in their nice , clean suits , behind teak desks , and assist in the slaughter by their inaction . Then go to the media to condemn same ?

"I have no idea whether or not 'Sharon' has been involved in any atrocities ... "

-- Likewise , " I have no idea... " if you have been/are involved "in any atrocities... " .
And does being silent 'count' ... ?

"... 'hers'....."

-- Let me guess : you , too , think I am someone else ... !

" exactly the sort of ruthless, self-serving and arid logic Ive always imagined must fuel this murderous behaviour.... "

--...or perhaps it came about because of it ?

"The robotic 'one ireland regardless' mantra that can't admit even basic humanitarian engagement with the rights and wishes of fellow citizens.... "

-- "robotic.. " ? That fits in this sentence , too - "The robotic ' one Ireland ? - not in my lifetime ' mantra that can't admit even basic humanitarian engagement with the rights and wishes of fellow citizens.... " Actually , anyone that takes a political stance , and adheres to it , could be thus 'described' . What is your point ?

" 'They can always leave', comes the reply."

-- Would you force any section of our population to stay ?

" God forbid that Sharon and her ilk ever come within a prayer of political influence in the South."

-- Yes. We might corrupt the State . (!)

"And all this emotional 'my country' rubbish."

-- Easy for you to say . And for anyone else that apparently has no sense of history .

"From a purely practical point of view there must be many a 'Catholic' in the North wondering whether they arent actually a lot better off in a state where health and education are better funded... "

-- I would agree . There must be many in the Six Counties looking 'down here' and saying that . And I do not blame them . How could you ?

" What would you give all that up for in order to 'belong' to a state which is endemically corrupt ... "

-- Agreed . We should get this 'part of the house' in order first . And some day they may be in a position to help us do that .

" ...and which actually doesnt give a toss about its citizens unless they get in the way of the corporate juggernaut? "

-- Agreed . The 'Ros Dumhach Five' , for example .

"What's it all about, for Christ's sake? "

-- I believe it has/had something to do with "expanding the Empire ... " .

"Im sick of people like Sharon - Catholic or Protestant - nursing grievances to the exclusion of any other consideration."

-- It is not that I "nurse a grievance " : rather that I want to see the potential for that "grievance" removed ie Westminster involvement in the affairs of this country .

"To hell with them all."

-- Will that solve anything ?

Sharon .

by Amused Tue Aug 23, 2005 09:35

I am mroe amused by the rubbish of Sharon than anything. The porevious post says it all for me. But a note to Sharon the nature of argument and debate. You do notg make a good case by taking one sentence from a lengthy post by someone else and appending a one-sentence comment of your own. Here is an example of how it looks, when you do it:

'But a note to Sharon the nature of argument and debate'
'Debate to you maybe - but not to me.'

This is kind of typical of how Sharon thinks she is making a good case. It is actually just laughable. If you want to deal with how a united Ireland can be achieved in teh face of Protestant opposition, a few paragraphs is required to clearly illuminate how it will occur, in your view. Ya boo style of sentence cutting just mnakes your poisition look absurd, and it clearly annoys many people who read the thread.

Another Sharon style of debate:
'it clearly annoys many people who read the thread
'Maybe it annoys you - but not Republicans.'

If this is anything like the best that Republicans can do to advance their cause, the general intellectual level must be through the floor.

by Also amused Tue Aug 23, 2005 09:43

The previous poster could hardly have imagined that Sharon would have already furnished us with another example of her style of debate. But there it is anyway. Thus:

Someone writes:
A child blown up in Warrington. Innocent men and women maimed and killed in London. Business-men murdered in their homes in front of their children in Belfast and Derry. Omagh. And all the retaliation, and counter-retaliation - ad nauseam.... "

Whether you agree with the point or not, it is a good one and requires some kind of response. Sharon thinks she is being smart by twittering:

-- "..to the point of disgust.." indeed . The British have had over 800 years to be 'disgusted' by their behaviour . And that is only in this country .'

You see. One sentence cut from a previous post, and smart alec reply - which actually does not address the issue. The writer was talking about Republican atrocities, and if you support them you must defend them with poilitical arguments, rather than smirking to the effect that the British also have blood on their hands. You think it makes you sound smart - in truth, it just comes across as callous and rather stupid. Only those who are already convinced by Republicanism would find it reassuring: the very many who do not support your cause just find it annoying.

Yes, of course teh British have a histolry of bloodshed in Ireland - no one here has ever suggested otherwise. But this neither justifies, explains nor excuses what you think is right in return. You need logical argument, my friend, which requires a few paragraphs of coherence to get across.

But perhaps sustained argument is beyond the Republiucan tradition..... Now, go on - cut a sentence from this and give a smart alec reply. You do, after all, want the last word.

by Shipsea Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:27

...You will be assimilated! Hear that, all you NI prods?

Sharon, why dont you ask yourself whether your puerile obsession with existing inside a particular border is worth all the murder - whoever is committing it? Nation states are nothing but notional boundaries inside which resources are jealously guarded for the pursuit of profit. People say religion is divisive but it pales in comparison to the trouble borders have caused. You are a personification of the problem. Irish history didnt begin 800 years ago, incidentally. There never was a uniquely Irish or any other national identity for that matter - we arrived here from virtually every part of the globe - some think even the Chinese were here several aeons ago and were the people referred to as the Fir Bolg! (If I'm recollecting my archaeological history correctly.) Let's reclaim China! It's the same thing. If you can go back 800 years, you can go back 3,000! Isnt that the lunacy that is Palestine, in fact? You blindly follow the pursuit of a United Ireland for no other reason than to win an argument. To be able to say 'we won'! Its meaningless. Forget about it. Go and have a cup of tea with your protestant/unionist/loyalist neighbours. Ask them how they are. Spend as much time as you can doing this sort of thing because a pleasant surprise awaits you: you have far more in common with them than you have with anyone in the Republic. Sure, we're half Polish down here now anyway, and isnt it grand! How do the Asian people in NI feel? Id really like to hear about them, for a change. It must be God-awful for them, if you think about it.

by Sharon. - Individual. Tue Aug 23, 2005 17:46

Why 'Thank You' , 'A' , and you ,too , 'AA' , for the advice on how to debate ie -

Poster 'B' makes a point/states a 'fact' which Poster 'C' disagrees with . So the latter replies to Poster 'B' , stating why it is that , in his/her opinion , Poster 'B' 's point was wrong and/or the 'fact' was nothing of the sort . But , in doing so , according to 'A' and 'AA' , Poster 'C' is not 'properly' debating the issues in question .

This , according to 'A' and 'AA' , is how it should go -

Poster 'B' makes a point/states a 'fact' which Poster 'C' disagrees with . So the latter replies to Poster 'B' , completely ignoring the points/'fact' raised and introduces new issues into the thread .Without having attempted to debate the points raised in Poster 'B' 's post . That is , apparently , a "debate" . Especially if , no doubt , Poster 'B' replies with new points/'facts' , without having commented on the fact that Poster 'C' completely ignored the previous points raised by him/her . Now THAT'S a debate ..... ;-)

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual. Tue Aug 23, 2005 17:51

'Shipsea' -


I would love to answer your post . I REALLY want to answer your post .


But 'Amused' and 'Also Amused' will not be 'amused' if I do . So I have taken their advice on board . I am now going to ignore your post . Because it is the proper way to debate ....


Sharon .

by Amused Tue Aug 23, 2005 18:25

Perhaps Sharon is conceding defeat, while continuing her rather futile attempt at being smart. However, one has to have intelligence to accomplish this - something patently lacking in this case. Is this really typical of Republican argumentation? Is it normal in such circles to avoid people's points, to invent arguments they haven't expressed, to write in short, stacatto sentences - and call that an argument?

A five year old child could see that Sharon is claiming people have said something that they haven't. My complaint about her style of debate isn't that she answers people's points - it is the opposite. By cutting one sentence from a reasoned argument which someone makes, and appendin a one sentence comment of your own, Sharon, you do not rebut anyone's points effectively, and you certainly do not make a case of your own. You need to sustain an argument over a couple of paragraphs to develop a cogent argument, in which your premises are convincingly articulated and your conclusions flow logically from your premises. Otherwise, you just look rather snide and, well, weak. You also annoy readers of the thread - and it shoudl be obvious that in merely annoying people you do not convince them of your views (since your views remain so hopelessly under-developed). I am, you see, trying to help you.

By inventing spurious arguments that no one has articulated (eg that I was inviting you NOT to answer people's points!) you make yourself look doubly silly - and fail, once again, to articulate your case. All that you are accomplishing is that you are conveying a rather childish desire toihave the last word here - even if that word is nonsense.

I am temped to respond to each of your subesquent posts with a one line reply saying 'ya boo to you Sharon' - it would on a level with your own contribuitions, but would afford me the satisfaction of stopping you having the last word. You have set your goals rather low - to have the last word here, rather than articulate your case. Sad, really.

PS

Could it be that you declined to answer the rather well expressed view of the last poster for sone very simple reason - you can't! When pushed, you actually have nothing to say (and sorry, one sentence retorts of the wiseguy variety just do not amount t oa coherent position).

by Sharon. - Individual. Tue Aug 23, 2005 21:30

"Perhaps Sharon is conceding defeat... "

-- So , 'Amused' : is that what this was about to you ? You wanted to "defeat" a poster - not get YOUR point of view across , but to "defeat" someone who WAS trying to get a point of view across . Childish and pointess , no ?

" while continuing her rather futile attempt at being smart.... "

-- Oh I don't know . I thought my "calendar/dictionary " reply was quite good .... ;-)

" However, one has to have intelligence to accomplish this - something patently lacking in this case.... "

-- Nasty ! But you are easily 'amused' , are'nt you ...

" Is it normal in such circles to avoid people's points.... "

-- Apparently so - at least according to your good self and that other poster , 'Also Amused' . Did'nt you hear - thats the way todays 'debates' take place !

"A five year old child could see that Sharon is claiming people have said something that they haven't.... "

--.... if said child was called 'Amused Junior' and you threatened to with-hold his/her pocket money !

"My complaint about her style of debate isn't that she answers people's points - it is the opposite.... "

-- Well ..it is in THIS post . But was'nt in your last post . And in your next post I fully expect you will deny having said the above , too ... !

" You also annoy readers of the thread - and it shoudl be obvious that in merely annoying people you do not convince them of your views (since your views remain so hopelessly under-developed).... "

-- I hope you can forgive me for being somewhat reluctant to take advice from a poster who calls him/herself 'Amused' and considers a good debate to be one in which points raised are not discussed .

"I am, you see, trying to help you.... "

-- Oh much appreciated , I'm sure ... ;-)
lol!

" All that you are accomplishing is that you are conveying a rather childish desire toihave the last word here... "

-- You mean I do not want to be "defeated ... " ?

"I am temped to respond to each of your subesquent posts with a one line reply saying 'ya boo to you Sharon'... "

-- What a "hopelessly under-developed ... " comment !

" but would afford me the satisfaction of stopping you having the last word... "

-- ...have you got a five-year old child ? Or ARE you one ?

"Could it be that you declined to answer the rather well expressed view of the last poster for sone very simple reason - you can't! "

-- ...but you advised me to change my style and stop replying to the comments put to me . Then , when I do that ...... !

Sharon .

by also also amused (in spades) Wed Aug 24, 2005 00:26

Just stumbled across this thread, and spotted this from Sharon, in which she cites an opponent and responds:

'Could it be that you declined to answer the rather well expressed view of the last poster for some very simple reason - you can't! "

-- ...but you advised me to change my style and stop replying to the comments put to me . Then , when I do that ...... !'

The whole point, Sharon, seems to be that NOBODY has advised you to do any such thing - ie stop responding. Rather, people have invited you to stop cutting individual sentences out of previous posts, and responding with one sentence laconic replies - the point being that it does not do justice to the positon of your opponents, and certainly does not afford you the room to develop your own position. For example, you have not been able to explain why it is that you think the Provos were justified in waging a 30 year war to achieve a united Irelnd when the majority of the Irish people wanted no such thing. Now, maybe there is a csae to be made for this - but one sentence chopping at the arguments of your opponents and bizarre psuedo reponses from you do not make it.

So: my suggestion is either give up, OR take a couple of cogent paras and make your case. But rather sad sniping (1 sentence quotes and 1 sentence 'replies') simply reinforces the view that you don't have a leg to stand on, and deep down know this yourself......

by Also also also amused Wed Aug 24, 2005 00:35

1. It has just been discovered that this is not 1798, 1803 or 1916. Scientists have convincingly established that it is 2005. Early reports indicate that Sharon is in deep shock, and receiving hospital treatment. She is heard repeating: 'But historians have no right to move on.....'
2. Anthropologists have stumbled acoss a previously undiscovered and unsuspected tribe - one million Ulster Protestants, who believe that they are British. Preliminary reports indicate that they are armed to the teeth, don't want to leave their present territory, but are willing to fight to the death to defend it. Republican anthropoligists are rushing to the scene - bearing flame throwers and machine guns. mnSharon is heard screaming: 'But they have no right to defy the national will.'
3. Unofficial reports indicate a sad case of gender confusion. It appears that Sharon is now strutting around in jackboots and wearing a little moustache, while shouting: 'Zieg Heil.' (Plus: I want the last word. Followed by: This is the death rattle of Republicanism. It SHOULD be 1803, it therefore IS 1803, I will ensure that it BECOMES 1803.'

by Sharon. - Individual Wed Aug 24, 2005 08:27

"..people have invited you to stop cutting individual sentences out of previous posts, and responding with one sentence laconic replies .."

--Ooops! I have just done it again ! But it's ok because this reply is now gone over one sentence ...

"the point being that it does not do justice to the positon of your opponents, and certainly does not afford you the room to develop your own position.... "

--...my own position was "developed" in my original post . If I can reply to a comment in one or two sentences then I will do so . Should I need a paragraph to reply , then I will use a paragraph to reply . What is the 'problem' in doing so ?

". For example, you have not been able to explain why it is that you think the Provos were justified in waging a 30 year war to achieve a united Irelnd when the majority of the Irish people wanted no such thing...."

-- "the majority of people wanted no such thing (as) a united Ireland... " ? Is it your understanding that "the majority of the Irish people ... " want the British presence to remain in this country ? Also , please note - this is NOT a "one sentence laconic " reply !

"So: my suggestion is either give up..."

-- ...but I am only 'warming-up' .....

" ...OR take a couple of cogent paras and make your case.... "

-- ...but the 'paras' make my case for me ;-) !

" But rather sad sniping (1 sentence quotes and 1 sentence 'replies') simply reinforces the view that you don't have a leg to stand on,..."

-- As stated : If I need a paragraph ....

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual Wed Aug 24, 2005 08:59

1) It has just been discovered that the British claim of jurisdiction over six of Ireland's counties is still in force . Scientists have convincingly confirmed that it is 2005. Early reports suggest that the 'AMUSED' family of Indymedia posters are in denial and have gone to the UK (proper!) for medical treatment . The 'family' were last heard bickering amongst themselves over the best way to deal with this crisis . They then agreed to simply ignore it in the belief that if they can refuse to acknowledge it , then so can everyone else .

2) Anthropologists have stumbled acoss a previously undiscovered and unsuspected tribe - one million Ulster Protestants, who believe that they are British. Preliminary reports indicate that they are armed to the teeth, don't want to leave their present territory, but are willing to fight to the death to defend it , as were the 'settlers' in the West Bank . The 'AMUSED' family , armed with some extremely 'dodgy' comments ,rushed to the scene to defend the 'rights' of this national minority . They were last heard of roaring " ...the majority have no right to inflict their will on the minority ... " .

3) Unofficial reports indicate that the 'AMUSED' family are suffering from a disorder known as 'nationality confusion' .
This family are on record for strutting around what they believe to be "...this part of the Commonwealth... " , draped in a 'Butchers Apron' , whilst shouting at started passers-by - " It's YOUR OWN FAULT ! Ye would'nt listen to us ... " They knocked one poor girl , a M/s Sharon O Suillibhan , unconscious , when she reminded the family of what year it was . However , M/s O Suillibhan has indicted that she bears no grudge against the family and is willing to have an adult discussion with them when they regain their senses . She is believed to have great patience . She will be sorely tested .....

Sharon !

by another effort.... Wed Aug 24, 2005 09:47

This is a desperate enterprise, but I have a moment so thought I would try. Sharon, you have managed to actually avoid every point put to you. (One line sardonic 'witticisms' do not constitute a meaningful reply!)

The key one is this: you keep on saying that the minority of Pritestants on the island of Ireland have no right to defy the national will and secede out of the national entity of Ireland. This is a key cornerstone of Republican theory (or theology) in general. Now, for the sake of argument, many people have said: lets accept this. They have then asked you a very simple question: what are you going to do about it? What flows from your premise? It is inherent to your argument, and that of the Republican movement in general, that the Protestants are told either to fuck off to england OR accept a united Ireland. It is equally clear to anyone who is capable distinguising between their wishes/ rhetoric and reality that the majority would do neither, but would stand and fight. Now, I am inclined to agree with some writers here that this renders a united Ireland against the will of the Protestants a practical impossibility. Do you understand? This is a different argument from the one you favour - ie whether they have the 'right' or do not have the right to do any such thing. Let us accept your point that, in legal or moral terms, they have no such right - however dubious the argumen tactually is, but let us accept it for the sake of argument. It is absolutely clear that it is impossible to overcome their opposition on the ground, in reality, in actual political as opposed to philosophical fact - ie that they can be neither compelled to leave, nor compelled to join a united Ireland. It therefore follows that if a united Ireland is so important to you, your only route towards it is patient persuasion. Not, I have to say, cutting inividual lines out of people's posts and appending what come across as fairly brainless one line ripostes. So - how about it? Deal with the point please - or an admission of defeat is really what it amounts to......

by Shipsea Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:19

Well done! She can't resist the bait! But I'm actually REALLY bored by Sharon and her childish, pedantic nonsense (round in ever decreasing circles - surely only a matter of time before she disappears up...no - correction - she's been right up there for at least the last 500 of her posts). Could we just ignore her now, perhaps? Can we have some sensible discussion about Mo Mowlam and her legacy instead? Did you have a chance to look at Dalyells obituary of her? There seems to be something of a bandwagon forming in the English press - tacitly accepted that the knives can now be got out - all the Blairite usuals are at it - damning with feint praise and so forth if not openly bitching about her. It's a shame this thread hasnt been more about Mowlam herself than it has been about the sort of idiotic prejudice that she did her best to marginalise in favour of humane engagement with others. Let's try and do some justice to the motives of the original poster.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:36

Nearly 80 years of partition have given the six counties nothing except conflict and sectarianism..?

I would take this as the jump off point of any argument about the "protestant" population. In using religon as a common demoninator for this diverse minority is a diservice. It also takes politics out of the equation.

Economic and political guarantees to the status of the unionist population exist within the constitution of the 26 counties, in fact they will have more guaranteed rights in a 32 county republic then they have now in the six counties,

Lets deal with the problems of partition now as the old ways have so obviously failed.

by Wha Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:54

Sharon - obviously a person who just cannot get it. Thus I wrote:

". For example, you have not been able to explain why it is that you think the Provos were justified in waging a 30 year war to achieve a united Irelnd when the majority of the Irish people wanted no such thing...."

Is it not obvious that Iam saying that the Irish people did not want a 30 year war? That in fact they opposed it? That I wasn't saying anything abou the goal of a united Ireland per se? Sharon however quotes me, but adds a crucial set of words I did not use, encased within quotation marks:

-- "the majority of people wanted no such thing (as) a united Ireland... " ? Is it your understanding that "the majority of the Irish people ... " want the British presence to remain in this country ?

This is imbecilic. It amounts to inventing your opponents' arguments for them, rather than addressing what they actually think. So, in a remedial school kind of way, let's say it again. Let us accept that the majority of Irish people would lik ea united Ireland - although I think that many do not give a damn, and of those who would like a united Ireland it is for many of them a mild prefernce, that they don't feel very strongly about. BUIT - ok, Sharon, most would like a united Ireland. The point remains. The overwhel,ming majority opposed the IRA's brutal war, very strongly, from its beginning to its end. But Sharon feels that she has the moral right to set this aside. Now, Sharon, simply parroting 1803/ 1916 as your rationale and justification (with no attempt at contextualising those events, indicating what was worthwhile in them, and what mistakes they made to be avoided) answers nothing. We can of course learn from history - but that doesn't mean repeating it. We are i na different situation, one that Tone, Emmet and Pearse did not have to face. In particular, we have a million Protestants armed to the teeth who will resist your vision of a united Ireland to their death and yours if need be, and we have God knows how many nationalists who dispute your right to wage war on their behalf. Many of them MAY endorse your goals, but they reject completely your means. If they want a united Ireland, they want oit to be realiosed by persuasion and by consent - they certainly do not think that a full scale civil war (for this is what it woudl require) would be worth it.

Wake up, woman and face reality. You have no strategy to achieve a united Ireland that could work, and the strategy you appear to endorse (armed conflict? is expressly rejected by the people whose views you appear to be so concerned about.

Truly, Irish Republicanism is in deep s*** if this is typical of its people....

by Barry Wed Aug 24, 2005 16:34

Im sure the residents of Garvaghy Road have fond memories of the cuddly British ruler . Mowlam gathered them together one night in 1997 for a face to face meeting at the height of the yearly Orange siege of their housing estate . Mowlam came to them supposedly as a freind claiming she would do everything she could to help them .

Thinking she was an honest trustworthy sort as her spin suggested , they went along to hear what she had to say . When they got to were the meeting was supposed to be it turned out Mowlam wasnt there . It was in fact a dirty trick , a confidence trick against those who had been encouraged to view her as a different type of direct ruler . When the residents and their representatives let down their guard to meet her , Mowlam ordered in a massive force of British Army and the RUC who saturated the area .They then used batons , massive armour and fired plastic bullets to clear the area of its helpfully scattered residents and placed it under full military control . Even the residents elected representative was split open by a baton across the head . Lines of British armour hemmed the residents into their homes for almost an entire day .The religious bigots who Mo chummily referred to as " the Orange" were then allowed to proceed triumphally through the area they had terrorised , tortured and murdered for decades .

This act of duplicity must also be viewed alongside her decision to reinstate the murderers of New Lodge youngster Peter McBride into the British Army . They apparently broke the rules but murdering an Irish catholic teenager wasnt a particularly bad thing to do in Mowlams considered analysis . That was her decision and no-one elses .

Mo is hailed for the GFA . Her great acheivement is essentially the success of British counter insurgency strategy introduced in the mid 1970s - Ulsterisation , Normalisation and Criminalisation of republican prisoners . This strategy was first brought in under a labour govt but acheived notoriety particularly under Margaret Thatcher . However despite the demise of Thatcher , it hasnt gone away you know . That is the British strategy Ireland lives under today .

Indeed one of the very first things Mowlam gleefully announced after the Stormont agreement was that the political status won by Bobby Sands and his comrades was being done away with . There would be no longer any such thing as an Irish political prisoner in a British jail . Of course she announced this after the vote and not before .

As a result prisoners were once again forced to go on dirty protest . The situation in Maghaberry continues to simmertoday and in time a crisis will undoubtedly develop once more . Sad but inevitable .

Mowlam merely presided over the end of a successful process in which Britain used the H Blocks , torture , censorship , state sponsored death squads , mass murder and increased military occupation to acheive its aims in Ireland - forcing nationalists and republicans to lower their aims and accept British rule in Ireland .

Mowlam was merely a con -woman , a cuddly front for the British establishment which she served well . She successfully used her chummy approach and even her illness to sell the long term interests of the British establishment to the Irish people . For instance when she instructed the people of the 26 counties to do away with articles 2&3 she warned them if they didnt blood would flow on the streets of Dublin , Dundalk and elsewhere if they refused . And she was of course well placed to make this threat becuase at the end of theday it would be her governments agents whod be sent out to shed the blood in the first place ( as they did in Dublin Monaghan and countless other places). If Margaret Thatcher or any other British direct ruler had made this call it would have been seen as the threat of " immediate and terrible war " which it was . But when cuddly Mo said it , sure it was took in good part . She successfully marketed British war as Irish peace .

Mowlam was simply the velvet that covered Britains iron fist when dealing with the Irish . Those eulogising her in this country are little better than stage Irish music hall fools , who loved the little British apparatchick because she took off her wig a few times and pretended to be one of them when it suited her political designs . She was an able and willing tool of the British establishment and served their interests well .

The Stormont agreement she brought into being has merely institutionalised sectarianism ( its now worse than ever) , created bitter division also amongst republican communities and ensured British rule here is strengthened and opposition to it greatly dispersed and diminished . That was its sole intention and hers . And why would we expect any diferent from a careerist British politician ?

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 16:45

Your post contains many points/questions which you put to me , all based on this , the first line of that post -

"The key one is this: you keep on saying that the minority of Pritestants on the island of Ireland have no right to defy the national will and secede out of the national entity of Ireland..... "

-- Wrong ! I have stated here two or three times that nobody will be forced INTO or OUT OF a united Ireland . The proof that I did so is in the above thread . The rest of your questions/comments/points were based around me having said the opposite of that which I did , in fact , say : therefore - they are based , obviously , on an incorrect assumption on your part . Please read what I write - not what other posters claim I have written . Thank You .

Sharon .

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 16:59

'Barry' -

I agree with your post ; others here will tell you to "cop-on to yourself ...this is the 21st century ...get over it .... " etc .

Those that will reply to your post as indicated by me are amongst those who have already posted re their 'admiration' for Mo Mowlam because ....

"Few will forget the occasion when she removed her wig in anger.... "

"Some will remember her admittal she smoked cannabis.... "

...and this 'beauty' -

"Of all the direct rulers, she was perhaps the nicest & will be remember fondly by many.... "

You , 'Barry' , are an 'old-fashioned savage' , or similar , for daring to write , in some detail , about the womans political role on this island . Welcome aboard !

Sharon .

by statistics Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:02

and 6 have been removed. Those which have been removed were aimed at one contributor (sharon).

There are now approximately 21,280 words on this page.

of those 10,578 approximately have been written (or re-written) by Sharon. Of which more than 7000 are replies to excerpts of previous comments made by other people.

30% Of the material on this thread relates to varying degrees of amusement or frustration at a use of the newswire and comment facility which would make the site unreadable if extended to all articles.

Thank you Barry, you concisely expressed a viewpoint which is valid, legitimate and helps many readers of this site to understand mowlam in the context of Irish nationalists and/or republicans living in the northern ireland state.

& you did it in 861 words.

You can write amd write well, and does it matter we have to wade through so much dross to find a vaild opinion expressed well?

(this comment is 166 words long)

by biting the bridle Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:06

and many remember her so, but she wasn't really very nice at all, but she was the nicest because the others were horrible, and though we know mandelsohn got up to all sort of tricks in brazil on holidays we don't know if he smoked dope.

Sharon, practise writing your opinions without replying line by line. That way some people will read you in future, and you may extend your ideas.

by donegal 11% Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:09

she let my people march and if a united ireland is ever to happen then the bigotry of both sides must be contained, if not by a british direct ruler than by a mc dowell type.
& we march to remember our liberty from an alien and foreign religion and the bigotry it spread and hatred through history.

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:11

" Well done! She can't resist the bait! But I'm actually REALLY bored by Sharon and her childish, pedantic nonsense (round in ever decreasing circles - surely only a matter of time before she disappears up...no - correction - she's been right up there for at least the last 500 of her posts). Could we just ignore her now, perhaps?"

-- The 'bait' , I'm afraid , is as 'poor' in quality as is the 'fisherman' !
Your comment re "disappearing up her ... " is not sarcasm , 'Shipsea' , which I presume was your intention ; rather , it is crude and allows an insight into your mentality . And do , by all means , "ignore" me if you want , just as you "ignore" the 'cause and effect' element which presently exists in our six north-eastern counties . That will solve everything , won't it ?

Sharon .

by donegal 11% Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:16

this is how you want to argue your united ireland?
this is how you will convince all on the island to come together & be happy?
great. kill and main, divide your own people first fighting an enemy that was mostly only here a few months, and write your miserable blog explaining how bigotted your neighbours are and monopolise a page of indymedia.

you're on the way Sharon.
nothing stopping you.
except the majority.

by Barry Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:18

Im not exactly surprised . I see the Donegal bigots are importing more of their coat trailers accross the border this year too . Just what the people need , more sectarian marches . Another sucess for Mo's GFA.

by donegal 11% Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:25

get this straight, 89% of my neighbours support an ulster without the border. & I do. But I will never abandon my culture. i can read you, I can understand you, i know your people got as bad as you gave if not worse.
But I can't deal with likes of Sharon, don't you see, its the same on both sides? I don't want to see the bigots on my side here leaving comments no more than i want to see them in government but they're my own. is sharon yours? Then why dont we leave it the way it was?

by statistics Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:29

thats 260 words approximately.
she might be having a cup of tea.

now you know the rules.

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:30

How do YOU argue AGAINST a united Ireland ?
How will YOU "convince all on the island" to accept their lot ?
" ...an enemy that was mostly here only a few months ... " - ?
The "miserable blog... " which I assist in putting together has almost 50,000 ' hits ' - not as much as some other blogs , perhaps , but more than some others . We have been 'picked up' by search engines from Canada to South Africa , amongst others . Good progress for such a "miserable" effort , would you agree ?
I would imagine that the Administrators at 'Indymedia' will let me know if , in their opinion , I am making a nuisance of myself on this site . If they request that I desist , I will do so . Until then I will continue to voice my opinion .

Sharon .

by donegal 11% Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:34

de valera & all the fascists.
nuns and their laundry.
FF and their celtic tiger.
and the social security thing.

to name a few reasons why I can say no to an united ireland.

its great what google can find isn't it?

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 17:59

"de valera & all the fascists."

-- Agreed . I want nothing to do with the Fianna Fail party either . I do not trust them .

"nuns and their laundry."

-- Agreed. I am not a religious person myself . That is a personal issue for each individual .

"FF and their celtic tiger."

-- "celtic tiger" for those 'in the know' only .
Increased cost of living for the rest of us .

"and the social security thing."

-- ...not sure what you mean by that exactly .. ?

No reply to my other points/questions ... ?

Sharon.

by donegal 11% Wed Aug 24, 2005 18:09

sorry did you make any points or ask any questions?

I don't have the time to wade through it all Sharon.
I'm going to "sign off" this thread now like a lot of the other people before, and isn't it odd, that you can understand why I and if I dare write for others of my minority don't like FF you could think we would replace them with the political wings of those who murdered us in the name of "unity" for the last 30 years. If you ever progress to writing your own article explaining what you believe and think will work for donegal and and the rest of the country I'll comment on it.

"if it catches my eye". But if its just the same trading insults and stating the positions, then I and my dead, my family, my Irish family have had a century of it both ways. & you're not going to change a thing.

by Not amused Wed Aug 24, 2005 18:13

I had a spare moment and went through all of the above. It took some effort. But I still, Sharon, with the best will in the world, don't see what you are on about. Look, several people have said: ok, lets accept that the border is an important issue and let us accept that Protestants have no right to secede from a united Ireland. They have then asked you with all civility to tell us how you think a united Irelabd can be achieved in the face of their opposition. You have quite clearly implied that the protestants can either join your united Ireland or leave, and waxed lyrical to the effect that most people want a united Ireland. But you seem reluctant to take the next leap, and actualy answer the bloody question. How, with one million Protestants against the idea, can a united Ireland be achieved, and how could the Provo campaign in the past or anything like it in the future, succeed in delivering a united Ireland in the teeth of so much opposition?

A secondary point that some people have asked you, and again you have repeatedly declined to answer, is why have you or Republicans the right to wage a military struggle to achieve a united Ireland when the majority of the Irish people are and always been forcibly opposed to this tactic?

I can see that you regard the border as a vital issue. It appears that you think it is worth killing, and maybe even being killed, to try and get rid of it. The above questions in my post summarise those other people have put here that you simply have not dealt with - merely repeating that the British have no right in Ireland (usually, in stacatto one sentence laconic replies) does NOT answer these issues.

Would you please oblige me and deal specifically with these questions? Or would some other Republican, who can string together a coherent argument, do so?

by Barry Wed Aug 24, 2005 20:12

This question has been posed not only on this thread but many others .

Firstly Irish republicans , purely and simply , did NOT and NEVER will need to ask the residents of Dublin , Cork , Dundalk or anywhere else for permission to wage armed struggle against a foreign occupier . Just as Irish republicans in Dublin , Cork or Dundalk never asked the residents of the Falls and the Bogside if it was ok if they fought the same foreign occupying army and its police .

When you are occupied by a foreign power you dont need to hold a referendum , you simply resist it with any means at your disposal . That is a right common to all people . It is even enshrined under international law .Thats also the reality of an anti - imperialist struggle anywhere in the world . Native apathy / timidity / selfish interest is only a factor which can determine success or failure , not something which determines whether a force has the right to resist a foreign occupier . The same apathy /timidity / selfish interest even waxes and wanes at different times . It is not an Irish phenomenon but common to all people of the world . The majority of people generally dont like war and will simply try and keep their heads down under which ever system is in power . Only rarely will they act in concert against it no matter how much they hate it . Thats a fact of life .

Those posing the question blindly assume misty eyed patriots (at best !) took it upon themselves to get the gear out and have a bash at the Brits for Erins sake , regardless of what ordinary people wanted .

In the early 1970s for example virtually the entire Provisional IRA in Belfast , although led by veteran republicans such as Billy McKee , joined the IRA as a matter of simple physical necessity . Beleaguered Catholic districts were crying out for 2 things , guns and the men who would use them and the overwhelming body of opinion on this island believed they should have them . Thousands of ordinary people throughout southern Ireland even rummaged for the family " pike in the thatch" to make sure they got them .

This was simply becaused the British state declared war on those people and many others . The British state forces shot ordinary people dead in the streets originally because they asked to be treated as equal British citizens. They invaded and wrecked their districts with utter brutality . There were simply no arms or IRA men to defend those districts. The writing on the wall spelt "IRA - I RAN AWAY". A British reporter famously asked a Falls rd resident whose street was burned to the ground "why did you not call the police ?" His reply was " sure it was the fucking police that burnt it down !!" . But according to some , permission to resist this wasnt given by them , so resistance was therefore illegitimate .

Outside of Belfast at that time, in South Armagh for example the British took it upon themselves to crater the border roads . This meant that parishes , communities and families would be split asunder . Homes and farms would go the wall , people would be unable to cross the border to tend their cattle or for the few jobs there were in Dundalk , nor to socialise at weekends in their favorite hotels and bars with their friends and girlfriends . That was the reality . Firstly people tried peaceful protest with priests and respectable politicians at the forefront . They were rebuffed . Next they tried physical protest , filling in the explosive craters and removing barriers . The Brits responded with beatings , rubber bullets , CS gas and arrests . They then announced they would shoot "rioters" dead . The only option then left was a simple one - shoot the British army off the fucking roads or South Armagh becomes a derelict wasteland . The British Army were then successfully shot and bombed off those roads and they remained open to this day . Our families , farms and community remained physically united at least . But of course liberals maintain we had no right to keep those roads open because we didnt ask their permission .

In Derry , whose civil rights protestors were slaughtered in the streets by state forces , the same liberals again say those people had no right to resist a murderous , foreign occupying power . Maybe the fact that Dubliners themselves in a massive outpouring of anger burned the British embassy to the ground led them to believe they had their permission to take similar violent action against the British governments forces and the British state itself . However it appears that those who say they hadnt their permission to do so maintain it was wrong to take up a gun after Bloody Sunday as well . And after Operation Motorman when tanks were sent into Catholic housing estates and troops were authorised by Edward Heath to use Carl Gustav rocket launchers on those housing estates if they faced resistance from them . Unarmed catholic youngsters were shot dead in that operation simply for looking at the troops . They faced no resistance whatsoever .

On Bloody Sunday Britain proved it was perfectly prepared to use lethal force against civilian demonstrators protesting for civil rights and an end to internment . They werent protesting against partition , it certainly wasnt an IRA mob . That spelled the end of peaceful protest . The SDLP helped them also remove other avenues of peaceful protest , for example allowing the government to claw back any money owed in civil disobedience such as the rent and rates strike against the state .

The British government then went on to use a policy of state sponsored murder through loyalist killer gangs . With British government assistance they murdered at will , north and South of the border . They even imported weapons and directed the killer gangs to their always defenceless targets. 99 % of the time these targets werent even remotely republican . But without permission from " the Irish people" the struggle against this foreign , occupying government was illegitimate all the same according to some . But to many Irish people this murderous regime was simply unfit to rule , never mind having the right to rule us in the first place . It never did have that right , north or south and it never will .

Bearing all this in mind ,anyone who derides republicans for resisting those murerous forces , simply because they didnt have their permission , should not be overly surprised when they are politely told to fuck off . Ive seen other comments here , referring to northeners who complain about their lot as proffessional victims . However the fact is that many took a conscious decision not to be a victim and fight back , regardless of whether they had the electorates permission or not . It seems the criticism is not only against those who fought back but even against those who just complained about the states activities as well !!!

I have no problem whatsoever with the armed struggle against British rule being honestly and critically analysed . In fact I strongly believe it should be , warts and all . But I do get quite ticked off when people say Irish people have no right to resist foreign occupation in the first place , especially when those critics advance no alternative of their own .

Insults and derision are not an alternative to a very serious personal choice which was made by 1000s of ordinary Irish men and women . Its a choice those critics have never been forced to take .Nonetheless the most ignorant and cynical comment of all was by Shipsea who reckons we should just have popped across to the Shankill rd for a cup of tea instead . This elaborate masterplan has one glaring flaw . Even if a catholic was to be let accross the door in the first place , the chances of getting out of there alive and in possession of ones vital organs would be slim indeed . Even a decent protestant who would take you in would run the risk of being burnt out himself .

Ill be charitable however and assume this ignorance is mainly due to 30 years of Section 31 censorship and the dominance of a pro - British media in the south . Many today are still Conor Cruises brainwashed children when alls said and done .

by Northern Catholic - and ex-IRA Supporter! Wed Aug 24, 2005 20:59

Barry - it is good to have you spell out your views in this manner, and a relief from Sharon's non-postings. I quite get where you are coming from, and at one point shared your viewpoint. Can I explain why I no longer do so, and why I believe you are seriously mistaken?

Yes, the British state inflicted Bloody Sunday on Northern Catholics and much more. But.... I have several problems with teh conclusions you draw from this:

1. Your analysis is, from your own perspective, dangerously partitionist. If you have no obligation whatsoever to take into account the views of people outside Northern Ireland about your right to wage war, it would appear to me that you are close to declaring their views on the issue of reunification also off limits. It is hard to see how you can justify one and reject the other. How can Republicans claim that the majority of Irish people want an end to the border and that this is the preminent fact of Irish life that must be dealt with, BUT that we can completely dismiss their opposition to your chosen methods of achieving it??? IF their views on 'the war' are so off limit and can be dismissed, why take seriously their views on national unity either?
2. Even in the North, most Catholics voted SDLP until recently. That is, at the peak of the IRA campaign, theyconsciously voted for parties that opposed your tactics. It wasn't indifference, caution or uncertainty: it was explicit opposition. This is not an easy thing to discard. Your movement waged war despite the opposition of most people in the south of Ireland, and with the opposition of most Catholics in the North, in whose name it was supposedly being waged. Of course, and I lived through it, most for a period after Bloody Sunday would have supported anything the IRA sought to do: maybe even up to a nuclear bomb in London!. But this was a relatively short-lived moment, and after Stormint was disbanded there was no doubting that the IRA campaign commanded decreasing support and in fact stimulated increased opposition. I see no serious rationale in your posting to justify or excuse the belief that your movement is entitled to engage in a 30 year campaign, in the face of such opposition from the community from which it comes. If truth be told, this opposition increasingly meant that the campaign declined in effectiveness anyway, and is one of the reasons for the Adams peace strategy - ongoing military action was just getting untenable. There are I think very few circusmtances (I find it hard to think of any....)in which a minority is entitled to engage in war on behalf of a group of people - despite their outright opposition.
3. And I suppose this blends into the most crucial point of all. At the end of the day, your campaign failed. All that killing, all that sacrifice, all that time in prison - for what? I would conclude that the tactics, of urban guerrilla struggle in a political context of insufficient mass support (in fact, with mass opposition) just doesn't work!!!! Your right or otherwise to do it (which I would dispute) therefore becomes secondary, as a number of people here have been trying to patiently explain. Look at it this way. I might have the right to jump from the top of a tall building - that doesn't mean that it is sensible, or that I have a serious prospect of achieving flight were I to do so. Granted, for teh sake of argument, that you have some right to 'war' - this doesn't mean that you should, or that it will work!!!!
4. Thus, we also come back to the absolutely inescapable fact (and it was that made me personally turn away from Republicanism, as a young man, many years ago): in the face of Protestant oppposition to a united Ireland, bombing and shooting just cannot work. These people will not be intimidated into a united Ireland, and nor will they leave the island. They look on it as theirs, and are as attached to their homes as are the Catholics of the Falls Rd., the Bogside and Strabane. They will fight to their last breath. The conseqnece would be bloody civil war, putting into the shade anything we have ever seen in Irish history, and I think most probably resulting in re-partition anyway rather than a united Ireland.

But if you could 'win' such a civil war, what would you inhereit? A scorched land, cemeteries full everywhere, a deeper sense of national division than ever, unimaginable pain and horror and terror, far beyond anything that Britain ever inflicted on Ireland. You might want to ask therefore whether your objective is so goddam important as to justify that level of sacrifice and grief, even if it could be done!

In essence therefore: your tactics (whatever moral justification you construct - and I believe that is tenuous) just cannot deliver your goals. Isn't that what the failure of the Provo campaign has shown? And if so, why not move away from this form of Republicanism, and embrace the very process of persuasion that just might mean you are less demonised, and more succesful in achieving your ends. It makes little sense to spill so much blood in pursuit of the impossible....

Time to evolve?

by Sharon. - Individual. Wed Aug 24, 2005 23:18

Yes - I did post other points and questions , besides the one you referred too - they were actually in the same post ! What a pity you "did'nt have time ... " to "wade through... " that one post .
You wrote of "...others " of your "minority " :
thereby automatically 'placing' me in a category apart - how can you presume that to be the case ?
And if a post "catches my eye ... " then yes - I will reply to it regardless of what you and your relatives think of it . You won't "change a thing " in that respect , 'Donegal' .

Sharon .

by hochwasserlager Wed Aug 24, 2005 23:47

has had a "close encounter of the cyber kind" on this very page.

But this time, minority issues are to be discussed,.. what is the significance of Donegal's 11%? Who are they? What do they stand for? what are the issues?
or... If not, there will be a rebuke of a few hundred words, you could say it in less than six minutes conversation - and minority issues will not be reported.
Oh its a rocky road and no doubt. and the "signed off" remains the final message, the last thing that can be appended.
What will happen? Will you witness here on this page the exciting final solution of the Irish and British problem?
Will the questions of How? Why? When? Where? What? Who? be answered or even phrased without the "-" thing. & the futility of it is, that we can't really up the insult stakes, the guidelines (referred to in two of the deleted comments) won't allow us. "the peoples' front of judea" and all that.

Return to this page. and follow the next riveting
comment of the Mo Mowlam saga.

there are now approximately 28,000 words on this visible page an obituary record. If you're an archivist you better be well paid. compare the ronald reagan one now.

by Shipsea Thu Aug 25, 2005 00:19

What a relief to read your perspecitve written up as an articulate argument.

Your analysis of Mowlam's role in Northern Ireland is viewed entirely through your particular and extreme perspective. You read into her actions a desire to wrong the nationalist community - thats not true. Hers was one of the most difficult political jobs in the world. Unlike you, she had to be sympathetic to every view - that necessarily involved decisions that sometimes went against what you would have wished for. At the same time she was lambasted for appearing to cosy up to Sinn Fein/IRA. Its not a tightrope many people would walk without making some mistakes and enemies but she did it better than a lot before her and certainly better than some since. She may not have delivered the exact outcome you wanted but thats different from saying she didnt do a good job for the main part. Is NI a better place for her involvement? The consensus is that it is. There isn't going to be a United Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The injustices that rightly gave rise to the civil rights movement no longer exist. Everyone knows the British have behaved disgracefully and murderously at times - but it is impossible for them simply to walk away knowing that carnage will ensue. That's part of the colonial legacy and it requires us all to use our brains about how to retrieve the situation without more bigotry, opression or violence. Sorry to say but nationalists and unionists alike are each pining after countries who actually dont give a damn about them. Sure, people in the south will say in the abstract that a united ireland would be fun but if it comes with the sort of carnage that you say is justifiable, you will not only have the unionist community in the North to contend with but the vast majority of Irish people in the South too. Anything that interferes with the daily routine, house prices, business or the cost of fish will take priority over any ideal of a united Ireland. There is certainly no romantic longing for a united Ireland by the corporate thugs who run the republic in any case and you sure as shit had better not get in their way! I once met a senior Army officer in England who told me that many within British intelligence and in the British Army regard the die-hard unionist/loyalist communities as the crux of the problem when all is said and done. But they are bloody saddled with them and have to work this situation with the least amount of death and destruction now. Maybe your dream will come about some day but it will never, ever be achievd by violence.

by Barry Thu Aug 25, 2005 05:20

Firstly Id like to repay the compliment of both posters and thank them for approaching this subject in an honest , mature and polite manner .

However ( and unsurprisingly ) Id take major issue with a number of their points . Firstly , with shipsea . I did not identify Mo Mowlams inherent dishonesty simply because I believed she was out to do northern catholics a bad turn for some strange genetic reason . Such an argument would be both sectarian and utterly illogical . It would carry no intellectual or moral basis whatsoever .

What I pointed out was that Mo Mowlam was a duplicitous British politician who was quite prepared to shaft catholic and Orangeman alike in order to further British interests . Not that she had any bias against any religious grouping , simply that as a careerist British politician she looked after the British establishments and her own interests and not those of any section of the Irish people . She had no fucking interest in the Irish peoples welfare to begin with , Orange or green .

Like any other British politician she put Britains interests first which I believe is a fair assessment . She is after all being eulogised as a "rebel" who loved us , who broke the mould , Westminsters version of mother Theresa . I have no more dislike towards her than any other British ruler . There are no real differences between her and any of her predecessors as from 1976 onwards they all had the same ideological agenda - Ulsterisation , Normalisation and Criminalisation of Irish POWS . Making some form of British rule acceptable to Irish nationalists . This was as much Thatchers agenda as it was Mowlams . It remains British "realpolitik" today . Thats a fact , not an extremist viewpoint . I merely pointed out Mowlam was a con woman better able to sell British war as Irish peace to Irish fools because of her homely , chummy persona .

This is a realistic point and not an " extremist" one . If you and anyone else can point out a single difference between what Mo Mowlam and Margaret Thatcher advocated as British policy in Ireland Ill gladly digest it and debate it with you . What was/is the difference in policy ? Please spell this out in a coherent manner that doesnt concern wigs , rumored spliffs and saying "fuck" like its a big deal . Asking answers to a question like this does not make you an extremist .

As regards Northern Catholic , my views on the right to wage war are far from partitionist . What I merely pointed out was the fact that many of those in the south , including political activists that id agree with almost 99% of the time have never been in a situation where the British state engaged in armed , aggressive military operations against them , their family homes or their locality as Irish citizens - i.e ACTS OF WAR !! . I clearly pointed out the question " what is/was your alternative ?" . far from being partitionist I recognise that the staunchest most ideologically committed republicans have almost always come from south of the border , extending to many still imprisoned in Portlaoise and English jails today .

If a person from Cork or Dublin has their street burned down or their family murdered by British forces , as happened in the past , they dont need my permission to to resist those forces . I dont need theirs either . That is definitely not partitionist . International law says all people have a right to resist foreign aggression and to defend their sovereignty .

I have simply put the question " what is/was your alternative to armed struggle " ? That is not partitionist or extremist either . Surely Irish citizens should not be made accept a foreign government who murdered them as policy as a legitimate one ? Do you agree we should accept British rule and the 100s of state sponsored murders which went with it as legitimate ? Does a foreign government which engages in terrorist atrocities for decades have a right to rule Irish citizens ? If you believe so please spell this out clearly . If not please spell out your non violent alternative . Ill be happy to debate it .

Westminster policy as regards Ireland is both clear and constant . The Irish people as a whole have NO RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY , no right to nationhood and we never had no matter what the lelction results . We are not and never will be a sovereign people as for as they are concerned and as the historical and political evidence makes abundantly clear .That is Westminster realpolitik . That is a fucking fact whether you like it or not . Britain is a hostile , belligerent and occupying force and has always acted as such .

We are not a sovereign people in British eyes . All political life , North and South is most definitely subordinate to this central British interest . All politics practiced on this island are by necessity subordinate to this central theme . Therefore , all politics practiced on this island are BRITISH POLITICS whether you like it or not .. They are predicated upon British demands and British interests in the first instance . Irish interests come a distant second or even third . Just ask yourself why the Dublin Monaghan bombings have been covered up for 30 years in Dublin ? why were dozens of other murders of Irish citizens in the 26 cos by British agents hushed up too ? Why are the states most ardent defenders utterly pro- British and unionist also ?

I apologise to absolutely no-one for my belief that Irelands sovereignty and its citizens should be defended against British aggression and occupation . All countries have this right . I refuse to allow myself or my locality to be a British imperial possession without a fight or argument . That would be an utterly dishonourable , weak and spineless position to take and I wouldnt expect anyone south of the border to put up with it either .

Its time for me to go to bed . This post has been lengthy enough and Ill discuss the perennial bluff of Orange scorched earth policy tomorrow . Safe to say it is , and has always been , a pile of utter nonsense and hysterical bollocks with utterly no historical or intwellectual basis at all . Bogeyman stuff that needs critical analysis rather than emotional scaremongering . Time for bed . Night night .

by Sharon. - Individual. Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:02

You regretted the fact "...that we can't really up the insult stakes, the guidelines (referred to in two of the deleted comments) won't allow us... " .

-- Would you not do better to try and answer a posters comment rather than seek to "up the insult stakes" against that poster ?

Is it a case that if you cannot deal with a posters comment , you see it as 'fair game' for you to "insult" the poster ?
Blame the messenger ... ?

Sharon .

by northern catholic Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:20

Barry - I appreciated your post. I don't agree with it, of course, but it is good to have your arguments clearly articulated so they can be debated. You say you will deal later with the issue of whether the Protestants will fight a united Ireland and show what a load of bollocks etc it is. I am looking forward to your views here, which to me are the key. Even if we accepted all your arguments about your right to wage war (and, obviously, neither I nor most people on this island do), they fall to naught IF there is serious prospect of sustained armed Protesnat resistance.

I will be amazed if you can argue your way out of that one. I recall 1972, for example, when tens of thousands of Protestants joined the UDA and paraded around the streets - I am sure you do too. Hundreds of Catholics died, were kidnapped, brutally tortured, and had their bodies dumped on the back streets of Belfast. And this was only a beginning!!!! This scarcely seems like scaremongering, and I am sure that had the British ever issued their famous declaration of intent to withdraw then it would have been worse.

You see, Barry, you are absolutely determined to fight to the death for your vision of Irish sovereignty - no matter how paltry an objective that looks like to many outsiders. I am very curious as to why you are so committed to your cause - but imagine that Protestants would not be equally committed to theirs. Are they, perhaps, made of lesser stuff than Northern Catholics? I don't really think so, nor I am sure do you. Still, we'll see what you say - to me, it sounds like a wish fantasy, rather than a realistic appraisal of what really awaits you out there. And remember, if you are wrong, if a million of them decide to fight, you cannot achieve your ends - I should think that is obvious. They can hold their terrotory indefinitely.

For that reason too, I balk at the contrast between the importance of your aims and your methods. Truthfully, now, a united Ireland isn't really worth all the mayhem that you propose to put us through to get it. Most Catholics in the north were very exercised by the need for civil righst in 1968 and in following years keen to dismantle the apparatus of discrimination. This has been generally accomplished, and what little remains can be campaigned for politically. Truthfully, now, most do not think that getting rid of the border would be worth a civil war, or anything close to it - and I am with them. There is a disproportion bertween the value of your aims and the awfulness of your methods that is very striking. In short, we all have better things to worry about than precisely where the line on a map is drawn. In politics, as in all aspects of life, a sense of proportion goes a long way....

by Shipsea Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:42

Thanks, Barry for your considered reply. I didn’t identify your position as extreme because you don’t like Mowlam, I think its extreme because you are advocating a reunification of Ireland by means that are not acceptable to the majority of the people with whom you share this island (North, South or both). You effectively say you know what’s best for the rest of us and are, in theory at least, prepared to take lives to achieve your goal. That’s extreme, I think and its certainly a minority view.
You say Mowlam pursued the interests of the British state exclusively and that she was not sectarian . I agree she was not sectarian. The label ‘Catholic’ is and was used, wrongly I admit, to connote those who identify themselves as Irish and ‘Protestant’ for those who align themselves with Britain. So if my post was misleading in that sense then I’m correcting that here. But your perspective on what Mowlam was doing and on her motivation is so coloured by your sense of injustice (much of it quite justified) that you seem unable even to conceive the difficulties she faced as a British (and its not a crime to be British) politician. She wasn’t there to represent the Irish, for God’s sake – we had our own representatives at the table. When you say she shafted Orange and Nationalist alike, what you are really saying is that she walked the line as fairly as she could.
The British state functions like all Western states do: profit and economical interest before everything. They are no more or less intrinsically evil than any other. This is not just a semantic point: we need to stand back and ask ourselves, honestly, given the same advantages and strategic relationship that the British have to us, would we really behave very differently? Why was Dublin so anxious to cover up the bombings in Monaghan and Dublin? Because it would bugger up business, that’s why and the majority of Irish people in the South were just as happy to keep it that way. In other words, we are not better people nor are we victimised in ways that we are incapable of ourselves. We’ve certainly played our part in the imperialist colonisation of third world countries with the relentless drive to ‘convert’ other people to our religious practice. And Sinn Fein are even now busily embracing Private Finance and PPP in the North while down South they are selling themselves as the soul of socialist integrity because that’s where they’ve spotted the gap in the political market. Virtually every last one of your ‘free Ireland’ politicians and activists would do exactly the same if they got within whispering distance of power or influence.
The sense of outrage on both sides has got to be put to one side if there is to be any possibility of reconciling people to their shared humanity. We’ve got to accept that people have behaved as people always do. This is not to be complacent about the horrific things that have happened but to GET PAST IT. And galling though it may be, so far as nationalism is concerned, we lost the war against Britain a long time ago. In the current world climate, the US haven’t a notion of ‘allowing’ a united Ireland. Oh no! Frankly, I don’t give a toss what the name of my country is so long as I am free to live without oppression and the threat of violence, to practice reasonable cultural preferences (and to respect others) and go about my business in a way that is respectful towards my neighbours and the community generally. I agree that where people are under immediate threat of physical attack they must use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves. That does not include murdering a child in Warrington, kneecapping teenagers, setting off bombs to kill and maim entirely innocent, hard-working people in London or Belfast who have as much to contend with from the British government as you or I, in many ways. Murder in retaliation for murder gets us nowhere. Had I lived in a street in Belfast which came under attack from British forces, I would have fought too.

As for duplicitous, Gerry Adams and Martin McMguiness leave everyone else standing where that quality is concerned. What riles me about the treatment being doled out to Mowlam is that she is coming in for personal invective in a way that no male politician ever would. There is a sort of venomous and personal hatred directed at her and an eagerness to overlook her skills and ability – which were not exclusively defined by her time in Ireland. It would be interesting to see what the obits for Peter Mandelson would be like. A reptile if ever there was one. To answer your question, the difference in policy was the beginning of a dialogue between people who were previously killing each other. That’s no small point.

You say: ’If a person from Cork or Dublin has their street burned down or their family murdered by British forces , as happened in the past… ‘. That’s what makes the situation different now, it is in the past, at least for the time being and the objective is to keep it that way. Nothing in what I’ve said in any of these posts has been intended to imply that British atrocities are less significant than others – far from it. The alternative to the armed struggle is the pursuit of the peace process – however frustrating and time-consuming. As for accepting foreign governments, all governments are foreign governments, in fact. There is hardly a nation state in existence that hasn’t involved the murder of innocent people in order to establish itself, including Ireland. The important point is, are we being oppressed now? Before the Vikings came, Ireland was mired in endless internecine warfare over territorial claims between different clans. Horrific things were done. The only thing that united them was a common enemy and even then, they weren’t that bloody united.
‘Do you agree we should accept British rule and the 100s of state sponsored murders which went with it as legitimate ? Does a foreign government which engages in terrorist atrocities for decades have a right to rule Irish citizens ? If you believe so please spell this out clearly . If not please spell out your non violent alternative . Ill be happy to debate it.’
I don’t believe we should ever accept murder as legitimate and the Unionist and British position is at least as compromised as the Republican one in this respect – more so. That’s a different question from whether or not you can force the majority of your fellow citizens to accept a united Ireland. You can’t write their wishes off in this way. You have to engage with what people actually want and believe at some point. Regardless of who killed who, how, when or where, they don’t want to be Irish and you don’t want to be British. So what, then? Kill each other until the problem has been cancelled out?

’Westminster policy as regards Ireland is both clear and constant . The Irish people as a whole have NO RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY , no right to nationhood and we never had no matter what the lelction results . We are not and never will be a sovereign people as for as they are concerned and as the historical and political evidence makes abundantly clear .That is Westminster realpolitik . That is a fucking fact whether you like it or not . Britain is a hostile , belligerent and occupying force and has always acted as such .’
And I don’t give a damn about it – let them think what they like - so long as no one is being murdered or oppressed any more. That circumstance has largely been brought about now. We lost the war. There it is. I don’t care about borders and nations – they only engender idiotic, emotional responses such as ‘my country right or wrong’, ‘tomorrow belongs to me’, ‘rule Britannia’, ‘war on terror’ and ‘a nation once again’ amongst a gullible and pliable populace. It’s all sickening because it was always about the protection of resources for the pursuit of profit while ensuring ‘cannon fodder’ if the interests of the elite came under threat. Wars are always about money. People should be free to come and go as they please. It should be a world of regions and communities melding into one another at their edges much like they used to. It wouldn’t stop fighting but it would ensure that, generally, it was kept on a smaller scale. On another thread someone has posted about the work of Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said – those are the sort of people who can help us all to get over this obsession with nationality. I don’t ask you to apologise for your beliefs at all – only to realise that you have no right to impose them violently on the majority against their beliefs and wishes, however right you think you are. That would make you exactly the same as the British, wouldn’t it? By all means, discuss, debate and berate if need be, but put down the gun, please.

by Northern catholic Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:58

I enjoyed Shipsea's very sensible contribution. I am also glad that Barry is dealing with various points - it is a refreshing change from the one sentence little jibes of Sharon. The latter calls to mind a quote from Hegel: 'From nothing, through nothing, to nothing.'

Another point occurs to me, and it indicates I think how Barry and Republicans in general often confuse two entirely different things as being the same. Barry declares that for example people whose homes are being attacked in Belfast don't need permission from people in Dublin to resist and defend themselves. (This is in response to my suggestion that most people in Ireland oppose anything like a new IRA campaign.) Of course, he is right - if my home or anyone's hoem is under attack we are quite entitled t odefend ourselves.

But, Barry, there are multiple problems with what you proceed to infer. Of course, no one needs permission to defend their homes from attack! But we are talking about much more here. We are talking not about 'permission' for self-defence, we are talking about the opposition of the Irish people, including most northern catholics, to an offensive, not defensive, war - a war not designed to protect homes from attack, but one to erase the border. Don't you see the difference???? You have no right to make a declaration of war for political purposes on behalf an Irish nation which is a bit lukewarm about your objectives, and is in any event utterly opposed to your means. Any political leadership which declares war against the active hostile feelings of its own people usually loses - eg the US in Vietnam.... and perhaps soon in Iraq, with the mood in the US turning very much against that. If a major armed power can't win a war when its own people turn against it, a small urban guerrilla force has even less chance.

The main point is that the tactic failed!!!! 30 years of war, and it ends with a whimper - because it was not working. It never could. And if it ever resumed, God help us, you would still founder on the armed resistrance of Northern protestants, and the complete opposition of most people in Ireland, north and south. No war waged under such conditions could ever succeed. So - maybe time to give it up, move on, and try somethin gelse? Perhaps that thing called politics.

by By Any Means Necessary Thu Aug 25, 2005 15:13

Was there not an RUC mutiny in 1996, where the cops told the British that they would not follow the order to disperse loyalist demonstrators assembled at Drumcree and their supporters who had been rioting through out the North in the days preceeding July 12th.

In this one real political situation Mo Mowlam succumb to the will of the loyalists and sent the RUC / Brits into nationalist areas with a free range to subdue opposition to Orangemen marching through Drumcree.

So in respect to any obituary to Ms Mowlam, she went down the same road as every other direct ruler,, so what's the fuss, she did what it says on the label, lots of posturing and pr events but when it comes to facing down the supramacists and secrocrauts not a chance.

by iosaf Thu Aug 25, 2005 15:34

I'd like to add a suffix to the obituary I wrote a week ago the following lines-

"no one has forgotten the wig, everyone has a different version of her role, no one seems interested in her 98 visit to the maze, no-one is interested in cannabis now, teh GFA is still a source of bitter division, not many people care to comment on the anti- Iraq war wing of the british labour party now.

some people might remember her for this or that but many others will not, what is important is "Who" will remember her so and "Who" will not remember so especially if their votes or future politicisation is considered to be relevant, if not then one page of indymedia sadly has never changed an iota of history"

I'd also like to thank all the contributors:
Sharon, stripey cat, Fed up, Fitz, Anarcho, Michael, Rooster, Fintan Lawlor, observer, shipsea, baiting, non nationalist, amused, also amused, also also amused, another effort, by any means neccesary, wha, statistics, Barry, biting the bridle, donegal 11%, not amused, northern catholic ex ira supporter, hochwasserlage,

who_ together_ have made this thread an interesting if not longwinded read, which might approach a cross section of Irish opinion, and to note that the quality of writing has improved, practise makes perfect.
It is curious that the death of Mowlam which prompted my little article and deliberately used linguistic style bytes and non specific quantifiers brought so many people to want to discuss their opinions on the Irish/British Question, and has in the process clocked up more comments than any recent thread not related to the bolsheviks.

I haven't addressed this comment to any of the 25 author names above. I'm just commenting on the thread and adding a suffix - coz its got my name at the top, and google bring people who read my CV here if they bother.
:-)

by Northern Catholic Sat Aug 27, 2005 14:34

Seems to have run its course this one. But I do note that neither Barry nor Sharon responded to the points I last made (see above) - I won 't summarise them here. Seems that once you move them on from 'we have the right to do this' - to the questions of whether that means it is sensible or likely to work, they have nothing to say....

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 27, 2005 17:44

I considered this thread to have ran its course , too ; apparently not !
I made a fair few comments and raised a few points myself on this thread , 'NC' , to which you never replied . Does that entitle me to say ,as you have done - "Seems that once you move them on from 'we have the right to do this' - to the questions of whether that means it is sensible or likely to work, they have nothing to say...." ? Why do you believe it gives YOU that right ? Were any of your "points" addressed to me ? No ? Yet you appear surprised that I 'failed' to answer a question which was not put to me !
Far from having "nothing to say " , I have plenty to say . You need only ask . I do not read minds .

Sharon .

by Northern Catholic Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:58

Sharon, your umpteenth little contribution here no more resembles a coherent argument than any of your previous posts. Now, I had assumed that you shared the views of Barry - whose arrival in this polemical landscape you welcomed, rather liek a drowning woman clutching at straws. He articulated his views at length - I consider them semi-fascist nonsense - but he at least outlined them in a manner that all could understand. I did pose some issues that I think he overlooked - they are just a few posts up above.

The main point is that even if you were granted the right to wage the war you are so keen on, that doesn't mean that it is sensible to do so, or that you in with a realistic chance of victory. (I am assuming some sense on your part and his - ie that you wouldn't like to engage in a brutal war you know in advance you won't win, just for the sheer blood-lust of it. Or would you?) In particular, what to do with all those pesky Prods who feel as strongly about their goals as you do. You can read this in more detail above, if you feel so moved. But, Sharon, if you do share Barry's views perhaps you would like to defend them and address these vital points. He rather seems to have given up, and moved on to rant elsewhere, this time against Gerry Fitt (who it seems should have been shot for having the temerity to disagree with SF's position during the hunger strikes, while Gerry Adams should be shot now for advocating the peace process. So many traitors all around you - life must be very hard in your fundamentalist little enclave. But never mind, when all your enemies are disposed of you can have it to yourself....)

If you can't deal with these fundamental objections to Republicanism of the miltary kind (and they are detailed above - without any riposte from Barry or you), more hot air won't lift aloft the bursting balloon of your rather feeble rhetoric.....

by Sharon. - Individual. Sat Aug 27, 2005 22:48

Why , 'Northern Catholic' - you do seem to be annoyed ! It actually had to be pointed out to you that you had , in fact , never addressed a question/comment/point in my direction despite your rather poor attempt to insinuate otherwise . That would annoy me too , I suppose ... !

You have "assumed" that I share the views of Barry because I agreed with one post he made - that's a large 'assumption' on your part , 'NC' - why not take it to its logical conclusion and "assume" that I must therefore AGREE with all the posters whose comments I do NOT argue against here ?

You say you posted some points that Barry overlooked - what is your point in telling me that ? I have posted comments on this thread that posters "overlooked" , but I do not expect you to do anything about that . Why should I ? Why should you expect me to deal with your alleged unanswered comments to Barry? Do you feel unable to approach him in a comment on this thread , or are you simply too lazy to do so ?

No one is "keen on war " - I stated in an earlier post on this thread that we all want peace . But 'peace' , as I understand it , is not just the absence of war . Regards your "pesky Prods" comments - Republicans do not view that section of our population as "pesky" : you can answer for yourself on that one - if you are able too !

Your "rather feeble" attempt to draw me in to a discussion you had with another poster has failed - I say again : if you have any questions to put to me , then do so . Don't be so lazy ... !

Sharon .

by Niorthern Catholic Sun Aug 28, 2005 00:10

I can only assume that Sharon dissociates herself from Barry's posts earlier. She certainly seems unwilling to defend them, develop them, or respond to any critique of them. A series of logfical qwuestions is met with nothing more substantial than: ya, boo. Interesting insiggt there into Republiucan politics. Outside the sound of bombs and guns she seems incapable of comrpehending anything.

Absence of argument duly noted. Nothing to be said on some crucial points made against a political position you defend., Wise guy comments (again) - but no sustained argument. Rather typical of militant armed Republicanism for 30 years, I am afraid.

Over and out!

by Sharon. - Individual. Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:04

You "assume" , again , that I "disassociate" myself from "Barrys posts earlier... " : in your previous post to me you "assumed" that I supported Barry ! Which is it ? Barry made a lot of posts - try and be specific , please , if it's not too much to ask !
I asked you to post here , on this thread ,any points/comments/questions you wanted to put to me - you have not done so . Therefore , I can only 'assume' that you are not a genuine poster re the issues concerning this thread - you are simply 'trolling' because you have nothing else to offer .

Sharon .

by Socialist PArty Sun Aug 28, 2005 14:33

Socialist Party archives: Added May 27th 2004.


Provisional IRA strategy will not defeat imperialism
The crisis developing in the catholic ghettoes of Northern Ireland after the pogroms of 1969 was the pretext on which the Provisional IRA leadership emerged in January 1970. Because of the failure of the Official republican movement to provide adequate defence for the Catholic workers of Belfast and Derry from the invading B-Specials, RUC and UVF mobs the previous August, big sections of the Catholic youths joined the Provisionals.

After this pogrom, in which Catholics were shot and their homes burned, the appeal of the Provisional IRA to many young workers in the afflicted areas was great. The sight of the British army occupying the Falls and the Bogside, coupled with rising unemployment and deplorable housing and the reluctance of the unionist government to introduce reforms was an even bigger incentive.

The courage shown by many of the Provo rank and file in fighting the British army will not be forgotten. Never again will there be a repetition of August 1969, when half a dozen brave men were left to defend all the falls against the rampaging B-specials and their allies.


Irish workers divided
In the last two years, however, many developments have taken place. The worst of all these is the unprecedented extent to which Irish workers have now been divided. The only movement truly uniting Catholic and Protestant workers - the ICTU - is being torn asunder by sectarianism. The result of this is that the Trade Union's two political wings, the Irish Labour Party and the Northern Ireland Labour Party are being left at the mercy of liberals like David Bleakley and Conor Cruise O'Brien.

The responsibility for this development must, to a certain extent, rest with the leadership of the Provisional IRA for deserting its links with the Labour movement. In the only advice the September issue of An Phoblacht recommends to Trade Unionists is to gaelise their unions. In the present social and political conditions, such advice is not only trivial, but also downright sectarian.

This article is primarily addressed to those members of the Provisional IRA who may now be questioning the usefulness of some of the tactics advanced by the leadership to be used in fighting against British Imperialism, and also to all those socialists and republicans who think that only through the use of the bomb and the gun will James Connolly's ideal of a Socialist Republic of Ireland be realised.


IRA Split
In December 1969, when Ruairi O Bradaigh, Sean MacStiofain and others walked out of Sinn Fein, they did so on the grounds that the aim of building a Socialist Republic of Ireland and all it entailed (i.e. ridding the nation of our own bosses as well as the foreign ones) was not in keeping with their own traditional nationalism of the Arthur Griffith type. "We reject the atheistic Marxism propagated by the Goulding-McGiolla clique", said a Provisional IRA statement in the October issue of An Phoblacht. The ideals of the Officials were too "extreme" for the Provisional leadership.

So instead, they proceeded to give their allegiance to the ideals of Blaney, Boland and Haughey. Realising that this Green Toryism was insufficient to maintain for themselves any long-lasting foothold in the north, they then displayed over their reactionary nationalism a thin veneer of socialism. However, this façade has been broken many times by the leadership themselves. Joe Cahill, when in America, admitted that the provisional were fighting for a republic without "any socialist or communist" ideals, and MacStiofain declared in an interview with The Observer that he was violently anti left wing.


Sectarianism of Provisionals
However mush they may deny it, the leadership of the Provisionals have given their allegiance to the sectarianism of the right-wing Fianna Failers. In the November issue of An Phoblacht there is published an article by Father P F Malone who, in reference to Protestant loyalists in the north, declares that by "refusing to join the South, these British citizens should then be treated as refugees and transplanted to the UK where they can fly the Union Jack and worship Her Majesty to their hearts content."

The military policy of the Provisional IRA leadership bears out their bigoted sectarianism and proves their indifference to the working class as a whole, Catholic and Protestant. Their attacks upon Protestant workers can only be seen as an attempt to provoke Protestant reprisals and civil war. The aim of such tactics is, in the long run, to make the stay of the British army so expensive that the British government would be forced to withdraw it.

In other words, instead of overthrowing British Imperialism through the use of political and industrial activities of the working class, the leadership are attempting to overthrow it militarily. "On the military front, our role has changed from a defensive role…to an offensive campaign of resistance in all parts of the occupied area", said Sean MacStiofain at the recent Ard Fheis of the Provisionals.

Martyrdom, instead of disciplined mass action, is the basis of such tactics. They arise from a fundamental lack of confidence in the potential of the working class to recognise the need to get rid of British Imperialism, to struggle against it and overcome it. They express a certain amount of political and social defeatism.

The leadership of the Provisionals is anti-democratic and elitist because it takes upon itself to make all decisions concerning the oppressed without their conscious participation. They seek to replace the political and social activities of the workers with a "duel in the dark" between themselves and the British army.

Instead of raising the consciousness of the working class as a whole, the tactics of the Provisionals have tended only to make the mass of Catholic workers less active (note the deplorable attendance at the Falls Park rally on January 2nd) and to drive Protestant workers further into the camp of Unionism.


Adventurist tactics
Such tactics are adventuristic, because they try to compensate for the backwardness of the mass movement and the weakness of its leaders with violence. They are self-defeating, because not only do they need informers and provocateurs, but also because they play into the hands of British Imperialism and its agencies by enabling them to shift the responsibility for violence from themselves to the mass movement and thereby further increase repression.

Of course it is true to say that these tactics have introduced a certain amount of confusion into British Imperialism, but this confusion is only temporary, and when the British government finds its 'solution' and begins to implement it, the much deeper confusion introduced by the Provisional IRA into the ranks of the working class will leave them defenceless.

The only way to fight British Imperialism is through class unity in a mass movement, and the only guarantee of long-term success is the Trade Union and Labour movement. But for this movement to be effective in the struggle to build a 32 county Socialist Republic of Ireland, socialists and republicans must fight for the ideals of James Connolly and Liam Mellows inside the Labour Parties, north and south of the border.

It would of course be wrong to call on the Provisional and Official rank and file to just lay down their arms and leave the catholic areas defenceless again. But the individual terror campaign must end, and a start made organising a trade union defence force as the only real defence of both Catholic and Protestant workers.

Militant, January 1972

by iosaf Sun Sep 04, 2005 18:07

I thought to return to one the lines in the original obit. the attitude of the Late Mo Mowlam to the Iraq war and the Blair administration.

Here is the text of the last article she published in the commercial press, on her desire to see a "hung parliament" elected at the last UK & NI westminster elections which were celebrated on the 5th of May 2005.
**************************************************

"This country needs a hung parliament"

Voters do not trust Blair, they do not like Howard, and Kennedy is just not credible as a prime minister
05 May 2005

This is the first election for a long time that I have been able to observe from a distance, being no longer an MP. In the past year, what's more, I have moved from my constituency home in Redcar in the North-east of England, and from my place in London, out to Sittingbourne in Kent.


I am now living in the Labour marginal held by Derek Wyatt. I hope he wins it, not only because he is Labour, but also because he is a very good MP for his constituents. Despite my new position, I cannot help feeling that this election is unlike the ones in which I participated in the past. Even in a marginal seat, it is hard to know there is an election going on. There are few posters, there is little buzz. It is not the subject on everybody's lips.


There is a malaise in politics, much pointed to by our political commentators, who often go on to suggest that the election is boring. If turn-out is low, they will feel confirmed in their view. I think this is wrong. As an avid watcher of elections, I am finding this one far from boring. I cannot go along with the view, held by so many professional political journalists, that the opinion polls are right and that the Blair government is set for a 50-100 majority.


First, we should remember that, even when there is an even swing across the country - the type of thing that opinion polls are there to judge and predict - they can be wrong. Pollsters always use the caveat of a 1-2 per cent possibility of error; but remember 1992. A week before the election, Labour was ahead in some polls. Many thought we could not lose, until we woke up to the John Major government that was to prove so memorable for sleaze, Black Wednesday and the traffic-cone hotline.


This election could result in just as an unlikely event. Not because we will see a sudden shift, as we experienced in 1992 - history rarely repeats itself exactly - but because there are many different local elements that could affect the outcome.


In my old constituency of Redcar, before the election was called, many of my most loyal Labour supporters were now vowing that they could not vote Labour again until Tony Blair went, primarily because of the Iraq war. When I spoke to them again recently, I discovered that they are going to do what some columnists are recommending: holding their noses and voting Labour.


In Sittingbourne, I am sure that the Tories' message on immigration has a great resonance. Tough immigration positions play well in Kent, a predominantly white county through which so many immigrants pass. But that must be set against the qualities of the local MP. I would not like to predict the result here.


My gut tells me that on the morning of 6 May we will see some oddly contradictory results, and I would suggest that we could be facing a hung parliament. This, I feel, is what the country wants as it confronts three party leaders, none of whom gives them a reason to vote for them with any enthusiasm. They do not trust Blair, and I am sure that most of them believe Michael Howard when he calls him a liar. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. They do not like Michael Howard. They cannot warm to him. "Something of the night" still haunts him, despite what I would judge an unpleasant but professional campaign.


Charles Kennedy is just not credible as a prime minister, and although many will vote Liberal Democrat as a protest vote, most would be alarmed if they saw him with his wife and baby son on the steps of Downing Street on 6 May. This is the first election I have known when almost everyone will have reservations about whoever they vote for. There is just no enthusiasm.


Despite being a lifelong Labour supporter, I have believed for a long time in the need for proportional representation. As an alternative socialist approach to economics has disappeared, we are seeing increasing convergence between the two main parties, and as both parties have to be bland to accommodate their broad churches of support, politics has increasingly lost its passion; and without passion, why should people join parties or even vote? It is all too easy to say, what difference does it make? Remember that even on something as contentious and unpopular as the Iraq war, the Tories voted with the Government.


The sad truth is that we cannot move on to a new politics where the views of the electorate can be more clearly delineated through proportional representation except by having a hung parliament and a Liberal Democrat leadership that sticks to its guns on this issue to give parliamentary support. I know Kennedy has said he will not form a coalition with any party, but there are ways that these things can be sorted out if the prize is good enough.


The writer was
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 1997-99,
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1999-2001
and died August 19th 2005

Rest in Peace.
I remember you for Iraq and smoking dope.