"I have been in torture photos, too"

[Conghaileach]

I have been in torture photos, too
The Abu Ghraib images are all too familiar to Irish republicans

Gerry Adams
Saturday June 5, 2004
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

News of the ill-treatment of prisoners in Iraq created no great surprise in republican Ireland. We have seen and heard it all before. Some of us have even survived that type of treatment. Suggestions that the brutality in Iraq was meted out by a few miscreants aren't even seriously entertained here. We have seen and heard all that before as well. But our experience is that, while individuals may bring a particular impact to their work, they do so within interrogative practices authorised by their superiors.

For example, the interrogation techniques which were used following the internment swoops in the north of Ireland in 1971 were taught to the RUC by British military officers. Someone authorised this. The first internment swoops, "Operation Demetrius", saw hundreds of people systematically beaten and forced to run the gauntlet of war dogs, batons and boots.

Some were stripped naked and had black hessian bags placed over their heads. These bags kept out all light and extended down over the head to the shoulders. As the men stood spread-eagled against the wall, their legs were kicked out from under them. They were beaten with batons and fists on the testicles and kidneys and kicked between the legs. Radiators and electric fires were placed under them as they were stretched over benches. Arms were twisted, fingers were twisted, ribs were pummelled, objects were shoved up the anus, they were burned with matches and treated to games of Russian roulette. Some of them were taken up in helicopters and flung out, thinking that they were high in the sky when they were only five or six feet off the ground. All the time they were hooded, handcuffed and subjected to a high-pitched unrelenting noise.

This was later described as extra-sensory deprivation. It went on for days. During this process some of them were photographed in the nude.

And although these cases ended up in Europe, and the British government paid thousands in compensation, it didn't stop the torture and ill-treatment of detainees. It just made the British government and its military and intelligence agencies more careful about how they carried it out and ensured that they changed the laws to protect the torturers and make it very difficult to expose the guilty.

I have been arrested a few times and interrogated on each occasion by a mixture of RUC or British army personnel. The first time was in Palace Barracks in 1972. I was placed in a cubicle in a barracks-style wooden hut and made to face a wall of boards with holes in it, which had the effect of inducing images, shapes and shadows. There were other detainees in the rest of the cubicles. Though I didn't see them I could hear the screaming and shouting. I presumed they got the same treatment as me, punches to the back of the head, ears, small of the back, between the legs. From this room, over a period of days, I was taken back and forth to interrogation rooms.

On these journeys my captors went to very elaborate lengths to make sure that I saw nobody and that no one saw me. I was literally bounced off walls and into doorways. Once I was told I had to be fingerprinted, and when my hands were forcibly outstretched over a table, a screaming, shouting and apparently deranged man in a blood-stained apron came at me armed with a hatchet.

Once a berserk man came into the room yelling and shouting. He pulled a gun and made as if he was trying to shoot at me while others restrained him.

In between these episodes I was put up against a wall, spread-eagled and beaten soundly around the kidneys and up between the legs, on my back and on the backs of my legs. The beating was systematic and quite clinical. There was no anger in it.

During my days in Palace Barracks I tried to make a formal complaint about my ill-treatment. My interrogators ignored this and the uniformed RUC officers also ignored my demand when I was handed over to them. Eventually, however, I was permitted to make a formal complaint before leaving. But when I was taken to fill out a form I was confronted by a number of large baton-wielding redcaps who sought to dissuade me from complaining. I knew I was leaving so I ignored them and filled in the form.

Some years later I was arrested again, this time with some friends. We were taken to a local RUC barracks on the Springfield Road. There I was taken into a cell and beaten for what seemed to be an endless time. All the people who beat me were in plain clothes. They had English accents.

After the first initial flurry, which I resisted briefly, the beating became a dogged punching and kicking match with me as the punch bag. I was forced into the search position, palms against the walls, body at an acute angle, legs well spread. They beat me systematically. I fell to the ground. Buckets of water were flung over me. I was stripped naked. Once I was aroused from unconsciousness by a British army doctor. He seemed concerned about damage to my kidneys. After he examined me he left and the beatings began again. At one point a plastic bucket was placed over my head. I was left in the company of two uniformed British soldiers. I could see their camouflage trousers and heavy boots from beneath the rim of the bucket. One of them stubbed his cigarette out on my wrist. His mate rebuked him.

When the interrogators returned they were in a totally different mood and very friendly. I was given my clothes back, parts of them still damp. One of them even combed my hair. I could barely walk upright and I was very badly marked. In the barrack yard I was reunited with my friends and photographs were taken of us with our arresting party. For a short time other British soldiers, individually and in groups, posed beside us. Someone even videoed the proceedings.

We were to learn from all the banter that there was a bounty for the soldiers who captured us. According to them we were on an "A" list, that is to be shot on sight. The various regiments kept a book which had accumulated considerable booty for whoever succeeded in apprehending us, dead or alive. From the craic in the barracks yard it was obvious that the lucky ones had won a considerable prize.

So for some time we were photographed in the company of young, noisy, exuberant squaddies. I'm sure we were not a pretty sight. I'm also sure that they were grinning as much as the soldiers in the photographs we have all seen recently. Our photos were never published, but somewhere, in some regimental museum or in the top of somebody's wardrobe or in the bottom of a drawer, there are photographs of me and my friends and our captors. To the victor, the spoils.

· Gerry Adams is president of Sinn Féin and MP for Belfast West


(Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1232058,00.html))

[Invader Zim]

From a terrorist, I love it.

"Rightly or wrongly, I am an IRA Volunteer and, rightly or wrongly, I take a course of action as a means to bringing about a situation in which I believe the people of my country will prosper . . . The course I take involves the use of physical force, but only if I achieve the situation where my people can genuinely prosper can my course of action be seen, by me, to have been justified . . . I cannot complain if I am hurt, if I am killed or if I am imprisoned. I must consider these things as possible and probable eventualities . . . I have no one to blame but myself."

Gerry

[Conghaileach]

The quotation you pasted above was written under a pseudonym, and Adams has always denied writing it. I think he did, but I think the record needs to be set straight that Adams denies it.

And as for being a terrorist, well I hate to use a cliché but one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Was Che Guevara a terrorist?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:37 PM
The quotation you pasted above was written under a pseudonym, and Adams has always denied writing it. I think he did, but I think the record needs to be set straight that Adams denies it.

And as for being a terrorist, well I hate to use a cliché but one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Was Che Guevara a terrorist?
yeah but last time I checked Che didn't take a mother of 10 viciously beat her, chop off 4 of her fingers and then shoot her in the back of the head.

http://icnorthernireland.icnetwork.co.uk/n...-name_page.html (http://icnorthernireland.icnetwork.co.uk/news/local/content_objectid=13345841_method=full_siteid=91603 _headline=-Jean-McConville-Shot-in-Back-of-Head-name_page.html)

Unfortunatly this site doesnt give all the gory details, but you can take my word for it.

Isn't that a hell of a thing an IRA terrorist commenting on torture, the hypocracy.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:48 PM
yeah but last time I checked Che didn't take a mother of 10 viciously beat her, chop off 4 of her fingers and then shoot her in the back of the head.
Jean McConville was shot for being an informer. Name one country that doesn't carry out a death sentence against spies and traitors.

As for her being 'disappeared', that is something I disagree strongly with.


And as for Che never having people executed, well that's a blatant lie. The name Rene Cuervo springs to my mind. He wasn't the only one to have been executed on Che's command during the revolution.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by CiaranB+Jun 5 2004, 06:08 PM--> (CiaranB @ Jun 5 2004, 06:08 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 05:48 PM
yeah but last time I checked Che didn't take a mother of 10 viciously beat her, chop off 4 of her fingers and then shoot her in the back of the head.
Jean McConville was shot for being an informer. Name one country that doesn't carry out a death sentence against spies and traitors.

As for her being 'disappeared', that is something I disagree strongly with.


And as for Che never having people executed, well that's a blatant lie. The name Rene Cuervo springs to my mind. He wasn't the only one to have been executed on Che's command during the revolution. [/b]

Jean McConville was shot for being an informer.

At best she was a tiny unimportant pawn in the British espionage system.

Name one country that doesn't carry out a death sentence against spies and traitors.

Every country in the EU, including the UK, because its been banned by the EU human rights laws, and any death sentance within the EU would be overturned by the EU court of Human rights.

I'm sure there are others as well, but you know.


As for her being 'disappeared', that is something I disagree strongly with.

Its not her being "disappeared" thats important to this debate, the fact that she was plainly totured by the IRA before the executed her, just shows what a fucking hypocrit Jerry Adams is for accusing the british of it.

Cant you see everything he says is a pile of crap?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:15 PM
At best she was a tiny unimportant pawn in the British espionage system.
She put volunteers lives at risk by handing over information about them to British intelligence.



Every country in the EU, including the UK, because its been banned by the EU human rights laws, and any death sentance within the EU would be overturned by the EU court of Human rights.
Yes, that's true. But 32 years ago this law didn't exist. And many countries still execute spies, such as Cuba and the US.



Its not her being "disappeared" thats important to this debate, the fact that she was plainly totured by the IRA before the executed her, just shows what a fucking hypocrit Jerry Adams is for accusing the british of it.
The problem is that the story has changed so many times over the last 30 years about what happened to her. Firstly, she was shot dead at her door and dragged off. Then 12 men took her away and executed her. Then 12 men took her away, tortured her, and then executed her. As I recall, the latest story is that 20 men came to take her away, tortured her, then executed her.

I don't think it's obvious that she was tortured. If you want to point to her msising fingers, the forensics team said that they could have disappeared in the 30 years between her death and discovery.



Cant you see everything he says is a pile of crap?
I never said I trusted Gerry Adams. I'm not a supporter of his. I posted an article by him on the fact that people here know what it is that the Iraqi people are going through, what many people in an anti-imperialist struggle have went through. It was your immediate reply and decision to throw the word 'terrorist' around that led to this discussion, not whether or not I trust Adams.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by CiaranB+Jun 5 2004, 06:25 PM--> (CiaranB @ Jun 5 2004, 06:25 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 06:15 PM
At best she was a tiny unimportant pawn in the British espionage system.
She put volunteers lives at risk by handing over information about them to British intelligence.



Every country in the EU, including the UK, because its been banned by the EU human rights laws, and any death sentance within the EU would be overturned by the EU court of Human rights.
Yes, that's true. But 32 years ago this law didn't exist. And many countries still execute spies, such as Cuba and the US.



Its not her being "disappeared" thats important to this debate, the fact that she was plainly totured by the IRA before the executed her, just shows what a fucking hypocrit Jerry Adams is for accusing the british of it.
The problem is that the story has changed so many times over the last 30 years about what happened to her. Firstly, she was shot dead at her door and dragged off. Then 12 men took her away and executed her. Then 12 men took her away, tortured her, and then executed her. As I recall, the latest story is that 20 men came to take her away, tortured her, then executed her.

I don't think it's obvious that she was tortured. If you want to point to her msising fingers, the forensics team said that they could have disappeared in the 30 years between her death and discovery.



Cant you see everything he says is a pile of crap?
I never said I trusted Gerry Adams. I'm not a supporter of his. I posted an article by him on the fact that people here know what it is that the Iraqi people are going through, what many people in an anti-imperialist struggle have went through. It was your immediate reply and decision to throw the word 'terrorist' around that led to this discussion, not whether or not I trust Adams. [/b]
She put volunteers lives at risk by handing over information about them to British intelligence.

And she diserved to be tortured and then murdered right?

Yes, that's true. But 32 years ago this law didn't exist. And many countries still execute spies, such as Cuba and the US.

That doesn't make it right.



I don't think it's obvious that she was tortured.

the factthat she had a load of broken bones as well certainly suggests she was. The fact that four fingers were missing, as well as the IRA's very poor record in maiming and torturing people. By Knee capping them and beating them, and who knows what else.

If you want to point to her msising fingers, the forensics team said that they could have disappeared in the 30 years between her death and discovery.

They could have I suppose, but in conjunction with the broken bones and the hole in her head i'll draw my own conclusion thanks.

I posted an article by him on the fact that people here know what it is that the Iraqi people are going through,

You damn right they do, but the point is, Jerry Adams is in no position to accuse anyone of anything, because he's as bad if not worse than any US/UK soldier.

[renwan]

Spain doesent execute spies, so not every country in the EU does!!.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:09 PM
And she diserved to be tortured and then murdered right?
She deserved to be executed, as far as I'm concerned.



Yes, that's true. But 32 years ago this law didn't exist. And many countries still execute spies, such as Cuba and the US.

That doesn't make it right.
I never said it did, but you need to understand that in a war situation when someone is handing over information to an enemy force that will get your people murdered, something has to be done.



You damn right they do, but the point is, Jerry Adams is in no position to accuse anyone of anything, because he's as bad if not worse than any US/UK soldier.
Do you believe that someone in a guerrilla army can be compared to someone in a "regular" army, an army with all the resources of the state -money, technology, etc- at their disposal? Whether it be comparing the IRA to the British army (and there subsidiary military and paramilitary forces of the PSNI, UDA, UVF, LVF et al), the EZLN to the Mexican forces (with their US help), the ELN to the Colombians (with their own terrorist AUC, and of course the US aid)?

[PRC-UTE]

I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

I don't like or respect Adams - I think he's a sneaky punk. I don't personally agree with the execution of McConville, either.

But how is it not wrong that Adams was interred without trial and tortured? The question is, why does the world recoil at torture against one group of people but not another?

800 years of murder and torture should be condemned. But English people have great difficulty calling the war in Ireland what it is: terrorism and torture. But the Brits have no trouble condemning terrorism and torture if anyone else commits it. WAKE UP!

The great irony here is that if it had been done to the English by say, the Germans, I have no doubt Irish people would be fighting to liberate them.

[Wenty]

800 years of murder and torture should be condemned. But English people have great difficulty calling the war in Ireland what it is: terrorism and torture. But the Brits have no trouble condemning terrorism and torture if anyone else commits it. WAKE UP!

'English People' - what, the whole country? Everyone has great difficulty do they? Every single one of them? First of all, i don't think enough people even know what happened, let alone care about it. Moreover, I'm English and i condemn it (and i haven't studied the period at all).

American administrations are more experienced at the hypocrisy you're trying to point out here.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm English and i condemn it (and i haven't studied the period at all).


Then I commend you for it and call you Comrade!

I was not trying to insult English people. I have English Comrades and would like more. It's the only way to create socialism throughout the British Isles. After all we are neighbors.

But many English people I have met, including many on the left, have attempted to play down or justitfy the occupation or not 'call a spade a spade.' There are obvious exceptions. For example Orwell is probably my favorite author.


American administrations are more experienced at the hypocrisy you're trying to point out here.


True, but no one has continued an occupation longer than England. It has gone on since 1169.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 12:31 PM
I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

I don't like or respect Adams - I think he's a sneaky punk. I don't personally agree with the execution of McConville, either.

But how is it not wrong that Adams was interred without trial and tortured? The question is, why does the world recoil at torture against one group of people but not another?

800 years of murder and torture should be condemned. But English people have great difficulty calling the war in Ireland what it is: terrorism and torture. But the Brits have no trouble condemning terrorism and torture if anyone else commits it. WAKE UP!

The great irony here is that if it had been done to the English by say, the Germans, I have no doubt Irish people would be fighting to liberate them.
I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

Nope, your avoiding the issue, which is that Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation which uses both muder and torture among its tactics, and as such is as guilty as any British soldure, who is a member of an army which employs murder and torture in its tactics. They are the same, the IRA is exactly what it claims to fight.

But how is it not wrong that Adams was interred without trial and tortured?

I never said it was, you quote where I said it was. My point is, he is just as guilty, and as such is in no position to make any critisism of the British army.

800 years of murder and torture should be condemned.

By who? Its history, do you condem the Romans? Do you condem the the Vikings? Do you condem the Celts? Do you condem Cuchulain? I dont, you may as well condem the sky for being blue. Thats what history is the further back you go the more brutal it gets (certain exceptions of course). Sure you can look back and say how horrible these people were, but that was life get over it.

But English people have great difficulty calling the war in Ireland what it is: terrorism and torture.

On both sides, dont you see that? I dont think anyonwe denys it, the point is, boths sides are just as guilty as the other there is no getting away from it. The very fact that you come into this thread and preach about how evil the English terrorists are, shows that you are blind to this, and see the thugs in the IRA as some sort of Heros, and not what they actually are. Racketeering, mudering thugs, just like any other gang of petty criminals. The ionly differance is they have a once legitimate, but thoughrly abused cause.

The great irony here is that if it had been done to the English by say, the Germans, I have no doubt Irish people would be fighting to liberate them.

Actually the IRA supported Hitler and the Nazis. But now you mention it, 1/3 of the British army in the early 1800's was irish, and this is one of the more brutal times in the history of the war. Brutalised by your own people...

WAKE UP!

True, but no one has continued an occupation longer than England.

Bollocks, the Egyptian civilisation existed for over three thousand years, and you are trying to tell me that in all that time they had not captured a kingdom for less than a third of that time? It is also interesting to note that Palestine has been under one empire or another for the past 2000 years. Perhaps you should think a little harder before making sweeping statements.

Also their is no such country as "England".

Now that is irony, if anyone needs to be waking up its you, and start smelling what your saying.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:21 PM
Also their is no such country as "England".


Now you`re just being daft.

Also as far as I know the Romans and vikings have stopped occuping other countries unlike the english.

adams is no saint but going by your logic if he is in no position to critcize the british army then britain is in no position to criticize the IRA.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:38 PM
Now you`re just being daft.

Also as far as I know the Romans and vikings have stopped occuping other countries unlike the english.

adams is no saint but going by your logic if he is in no position to critcize the british army then britain is in no position to criticize the IRA.
You show me on the map the country called England, I can show you the United Kingdom, but their is no country called "England". Just as their is no country called Texas.

Also as far as I know the Romans and vikings have stopped occuping other countries unlike the english.

You have completely failed to understand my point, well done, perhaps I should use smaller words next time.

adams is no saint but going by your logic if he is in no position to critcize the british army then britain is in no position to criticize the IRA.

Nope, the British army is in no position to critisise the IRA, Britain and its people can critisise the IRA all they like, I as a British citizen have never tortured anyone, and I am not a member of a group who have. So I can critisise both th british army and the IRA all I like, without being a hypocrit, Gerry Adams and Lance Corpral Tommy Atkins on the other hand, have no such luxury.

[Frederick_Engles]

I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

Nope, your avoiding the issue, which is that Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation which uses both muder and torture among its tactics, and as such is as guilty as any British soldure, who is a member of an army which employs murder and torture in its tactics. They are the same, the IRA is exactly what it claims to fight.

Holy crap I forgot the part where the IRA killed off a third of all British people! God, that's stupid of me.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:57 PM

Holy crap I forgot the part where the IRA killed off a third of all British people! God, that's stupid of me.
Well your the only person who can remember that, because it never happened.

Maybe, your refering to the potato famine, but last time I checked, that wasn't caused by the English, perhaps the satanic bastards, prayed to some heathen god, and caused the famine... Maybe, the british held those poor potato's hostage, and demanded they get deseased... :rolleyes:


I also interested where you learned to count, it was obviously an inferior establishment. You see in the 1841 census the population of Ireland was 8.2 million, in the 1851 census it was 6.5 million, that is a drop of about 20%... not 33.3%. Also more people emmigrated from Ireland during the famine than died, so how you work out that the British killed 2.7 million people when the population did not even decrease that much, is rather an interesting piece of arithmatic.

If you are the future of ourmovment then I dispair, I really do.

[celticsocialist]

Don`t be stupid all your life Enigma. You really think that there is no such country as England? Britain is the name of the last part of Englands once vast empire.
Some people spend too much time reading and playing on the computer and have no real concept of life or the world. You have the cheek to say to someone else that if they are the future of our movement then you despair!

Grow up son :rolleyes:

Your point about the vikings,romans etc was fucking stupid.

If this kind of righteous, pedantic, smart arse attitude of yours is the future of our movement then we should all despair. :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:58 PM
Don`t be stupid all your life Enigma. You really think that there is no such country as England? Britain is the name of the last part of Englands once vast empire.
Some people spend too much time reading and playing on the computer and have no real concept of life or the world. You have the cheek to say to someone else that if they are the future of our movement then you despair!

Grow up son :rolleyes:

Your point about the vikings,romans etc was fucking stupid.

If this kind of righteous, pedantic, smart arse attitude of yours is the future of our movement then we should all despair. :angry:
Dont try and patronise me boy, firstly because i'm better at it than you can ever hope to be, and secondly because your wrong. England as a country does not exist anymore. There is no country called England, its a simple concept boy, simple as the sky is blue.

The reason is England did not conquer Scotland, they tried several times and failed. The reason the two states joined, is because a Scotish king inherited power in England, not because of some imperial conquest.

You want to repeat after me: -

England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country


You think you've got it now? Or are you still stuck in blissful ignorance?

our point about the vikings,romans etc was fucking stupid.

Better than any point you can ever hope to make, because mine is true and not bollocks.

If this kind of righteous, pedantic, smart arse attitude of yours is the future of our movement then we should all despair.

Just because you've been owned. You notice that you have just attacked me, and not bothered with one of my arguments. Logical conclusion, you've lost you know it, but now your covering your tracks.

Sod off and get an education, then maybe I will consider lowering my self to converse with you.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:26 AM
Sod off and get an education, then maybe I will consider lowering my self to converse with you.
Ah, the spirit of socialism:rolleyes:

Don`t be a mug all your life son.


When you leave school and get a job maybe then we can converse.

Speaking of getting an education, 2 t`s in Scottish. :lol:

I`ve always had my doubts about anyone who considers themselves british. You are a good example of why. :lol:

As for calling me boy :rolleyes: maybe 20 years ago at a push.

The Vikings and Romans? Great stuff wee man :lol: :lol:

[Wenty]

QUOTE
American administrations are more experienced at the hypocrisy you're trying to point out here.


True, but no one has continued an occupation longer than England. It has gone on since 1169.

What occupation are you talking about? Not Northern Ireland.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:01 PM
Ah, the spirit of socialism:rolleyes:

Don`t be a mug all your life son.


When you leave school and get a job maybe then we can converse.

Speaking of getting an education, 2 t`s in Scottish. :lol:

I`ve always had my doubts about anyone who considers themselves british. You are a good example of why. :lol:

As for calling me boy :rolleyes: maybe 20 years ago at a push.

The Vikings and Romans? Great stuff wee man :lol: :lol:
What I cant spell? No shit Sherlock! Shame I have destroyed your debate, so you resorted to just simply trying (and failing) to patronise me.

You criticise the point about Romans and Viking, yet give to explanation as to why it is a poor point... the typical response of an idiot who knows that they have lost.

Bugger off boy.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 07:21 PM
[800 years of murder and torture should be condemned.

By who? Its history, do you condem the Romans? Do you condem the the Vikings? Do you condem the Celts? Do you condem Cuchulain? I dont, you may as well condem the sky for being blue. Thats what history is the further back you go the more brutal it gets (certain exceptions of course). Sure you can look back and say how horrible these people were, but that was life get over it.

[
Ok heres the thing with your excellent Viking/Roman point. I`ll go slowly for you.

The Vikings,Romans and Celts are no longer involved in torturing people. The British army are. Therefore we can condemn them for it. If the Vikings dig out the old long boats and start invading countries and torturing their people then we can condemn them also. <_< I honestly thought that it was an obvious enough fault with your point but maybe vikings and romans are still on the go where you stay. :D

And for fuck sake calm down. You`ll send your blood pressure through the roof if you keep getting worked up like this. :blink:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:54 PM
Ok heres the thing with your excellent Viking/Roman point. I`ll go slowly for you.

The Vikings,Romans and Celts are no longer involved in torturing people. The British army are. Therefore we can condemn them for it. If the Vikings dig out the old long boats and start invading countries and torturing their people then we can condemn them also. <_< I honestly thought that it was an obvious enough fault with your point but maybe vikings and romans are still on the go where you stay. :D

And for fuck sake calm down. You`ll send your blood pressure through the roof if you keep getting worked up like this. :blink:
I`ll go slowly for you.

It doesnt matter how slowly you go, it will still be bollocks.

The Vikings,Romans and Celts are no longer involved in torturing people.

Try reading what I said again. I said its history, what the English not British army was doing 800 years ago doesnt mean shit. Its what they are doing now which is important. Hense the reason why condemning the English of 800 years ago is as stupid as condemning the Celts, the Romans etc.

The point still remains that Gerry Adams is in no position to critisise the British army as he is equaly bad if not worse.

Argue all you like, you&#39;ll still be just as wrong.

[The idealist]

:D Anybody else finding this mudfight incredibly amusing? If any of us (including yours truly) were ever to find our way into the house of commons all soap operas would be cancelled every time there was a debate.

Although your quips are often good, they have the same productivness as a nuke in house to house fighting. Trust me mates, the cool sarcastic repartee (not that I ever manage it) is much better than the Prejudiced, pumped up and I-am-pissed-off-or-just-plain-pissed egohoarding.
Leave prejudice to the reactionaries.

*dons radioactive suit and dives into bunker*

[Dio]

The reason is England did not conquer Scotland, they tried several times and failed. The reason the two states joined, is because a Scotish king inherited power in England, not because of some imperial conquest.

You want to repeat after me: -

England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country


I almost chocked when i read this. Read a history book man. Or look it up in a encyclopedia.

[The idealist]

Amazing how the clearances have evaded everyone&#39;s mind. Or coludden (sorry bout the spelling).

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:20 PM

Try reading what I said again. I said its history, what the English not British army was doing 800 years ago doesnt mean shit. Its what they are doing now which is important. Hense the reason why condemning the English of 800 years ago is as stupid as condemning the Celts, the Romans etc.

.
For fuck sake Enigma, the point is they are STILL torturing people. Its not the fact it started 800 years ago its the fact its still going on.
Keep up son.

[DaCuBaN]

You guys seem to be missing what I think is enigmas point:



England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country
England is not a country


He&#39;s right you know. Holding on to the belief that you&#39;re "english" or "scottish" or any other kind of nationality is so idiotic I can feel my blood boiling. England failed to become the empire it tried to be, as a Scots king did take unite the two countries. Look into the history of occupation under the British Empire and you&#39;ll see that the English are only as guilty as the Scots, Welsh and Irish

Face the music folks: you&#39;re british now and you&#39;re stuck with it.


I almost chocked when i read this. Read a history book man. Or look it up in a encyclopedia.

et touché


the point is they are STILL torturing people. Its not the fact it started 800 years ago its the fact its still going on

Indeed. I&#39;ll bet there are americans still torturing people - and I&#39;ll bet there are French tortuting people.

Hell, there are doubtless Cubans too. Find me a &#39;country&#39; that doesn&#39;t/hasn&#39;t...

[Dio]

STOP MAKING ME CHOKE&#33;&#33;&#33;

England is one of the countries in Great Britain/United Kingdom/Britain whichever&#33;&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

You&#39;re missing the point... these &#39;crimes&#39; aren&#39;t purpotrated by &#39;english wankers&#39; - they&#39;re purpotrated by british citizens - Scots, Welsh, Irish and english alike. There are many scots regiments for one that were used in India and Ireland (to name but a few more recent conflicts) and I&#39;ll bet there were unionist Irishmen and welshmen too.

[Dio]

Alright... but England is still a country.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 05:13 PM
Alright... but England is still a country.
Buy that a man a drink :D

Also I never used the phrase english wankers if that is aimed at me.

Of course Scots,Welsh and Irish were as guilty as English people of these crimes BUT a Scottish/Welsh/Irish government was not.
Lets not kid ourselves on here. British government = English government.
I grew up through the thatcher years and that was an English government. Scotland and Wales did not vote for it.

[DaCuBaN]

Also I never used the phrase english wankers if that is aimed at me.

No, I was actually quoting from the BBC show &#39;Bottom&#39; - I&#39;m sorry if it was misleading. Theres an episode where the main characters nick the car of a welshman, and the final line before the camera cuts is "You ignorant english wankers" in a thick welsh accent.

It was intended in good humour - I failed :lol:


I grew up through the thatcher years and that was an English government. Scotland and Wales did not vote for it.

We did vote in &#39;Tory Plan B&#39; however... ;)


Alright... but England is still a country.

I&#39;m glad you agree on the former... I still disagree on the latter :P
The English, Scots, Irish and Welsh are all in the same boat together - it makes sense to me that instead of trying to distance ourselves from them, we instead try to remove the few barriers we have.

[The idealist]

Culturally England is a country
Politically it is a region in the United kingdom.

The fact that England, Scotland, Wales and Eire were once independent countries is not a political fact, but a historical one. Thus being part of the British culture.

You are both right in that respect, but since this is a political forum I will have to agree with Enigma.

Repeat after me.

England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.
England is not a politically independent Country.

[PRC-UTE]

I&#39;m glad you agree on the former... I still disagree on the latter
The English, Scots, Irish and Welsh are all in the same boat together - it makes sense to me that instead of trying to distance ourselves from them, we instead try to remove the few barriers we have.

I agree, and to remove the barriers that exist we need to break down the imperialist relationship. Empires create division as James Connolly argued, and the solution is to seek political independence and worker unity.

It&#39;s an incredible insult and moral cowardice to write off or ignore 800 years of occupation by lamely stating &#39;everyone does it&#39;. No, Egypt didn&#39;t twice halve the population of its neighbor, the Celts did not institutionalize sectariansim, the Vikings did not create the concentration camp - the English did.

The ignorance on this board is astonishing.

England is not a country?

So is English not a language? What are people talking about when they speak of England? What&#39;s with the soccer teams? someone should tell Beckham (not that he&#39;d have more luck with penalties in a British team).

[PRC-UTE]

I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

Nope, your avoiding the issue, which is that Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation which uses both muder and torture among its tactics, and as such is as guilty as any British soldure, who is a member of an army which employs murder and torture in its tactics. They are the same, the IRA is exactly what it claims to fight.


The IRA and the Brit Army are the same?&#33;? That&#39;s an insane thing to say, even for a trendy lefty.

I don&#39;t support the IRA, but saying the IRA = British Army is still complete shite. Let&#39;s go down the list in comparisons.

The IRA did not invade England, set up watchtowers everywhere and allow their sectarian death squads to murder hundreds in front of their security cameras, did they?

The IRA did not ban the English language and arrest English children for speaking their native tongue.

The IRA did not set up a police force in England that is comprised of a community who define themselves upon their superiority and conquest of the natives.

The IRA did not take 1/3 of England&#39;s GNP as the Brits did by holding Belfast.

The IRA fought imperialism. The British Army is imperialist by nature.

The IRA never massacred English protestors.

The IRA did not occupy English football grounds and murder their players.

The IRA never instituted curfews on English working class neighborhoods, search them, tear them apart and intern thousands of Englishmen without trial.

The IRA never shot English children with plastic bullets.

If you don&#39;t see the inherent difference between an imperialist force of occupation who support an undemocratic one-party state and a local insurgent army who fight for independence you are either wilfully ignorant or an imperialist.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:36 PM
Buy that a man a drink :D

Also I never used the phrase english wankers if that is aimed at me.

Of course Scots,Welsh and Irish were as guilty as English people of these crimes BUT a Scottish/Welsh/Irish government was not.
Lets not kid ourselves on here. British government = English government.
I grew up through the thatcher years and that was an English government. Scotland and Wales did not vote for it.
are you trying to suggest that the english working class somehow had more stake in the thatcher government than the scottish and welsh working class?

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:29 AM
are you trying to suggest that the english working class somehow had more stake in the thatcher government than the scottish and welsh working class?
No, I`m saying the English nation did.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:08 PM

I almost chocked when i read this. Read a history book man. Or look it up in a encyclopedia.
You disagree? Then you are a dumbass, you show me the country "England" on a map, and I will show you the country the United Kingdom.

STOP MAKING ME CHOKE&#33;&#33;&#33;

You can find the capslock key located directly to the left of any standard keyboard, I suggest you turn it off.

England is one of the countries in Great Britain/United Kingdom/Britain whichever&#33;&#33;

Nope, England has no seperate parlimentary body, and is not recognised by any other nation as a seperate state... because its not. Again I suggest you get an atlas.

Alright... but England is still a country.

Nope, its not.

http://www.infoplease.com/images/muk.gif

Now you see the words written in Big Black Writing? It says Great Britain... it does not say "England", because thats not what the country is called. England is a part of the said country.

It&#39;s an incredible insult and moral cowardice to write off or ignore 800 years of occupation by lamely stating &#39;everyone does it&#39;. No, Egypt didn&#39;t twice halve the population of its neighbor, the Celts did not institutionalize sectariansim, the Vikings did not create the concentration camp - the English did.

The kind of crap I would expect for a 12 year old. Typical bollocks of course, it is bearly worth the reply.

800 years of occupation by lamely stating &#39;everyone does it&#39;.

The fact that you are trying to condem 60,000,000 people for the crimes of a disolved country 800 years ago, more over in an age where the term "every one" (as in countrys) was doing it is a very accurate statement, is ridiculous to the extream. You have completely failed to meet even the exceedingly low expectations I set for you.

No, Egypt didn&#39;t twice halve the population of its neighbor,

The country formaly known as England, has never in its history done that to Ireland. the nearest ever was the Irish famine, which I have already dealt with. You can continue digging yourself into this hole if you like... but I would advise against it.

the Celts did not institutionalize sectariansim

Err... yeah they did, all civilisations which conquer other nations and suppress them and their cultural identity do, by default.

the Vikings did not create the concentration camp

Alright, the term "concentraition camp" is not given to the standard slave camps where people were worked to death, but that does not mean they did not exist. The actual idea of a slave camp where people are forced to work is not an idea invented by the "English", the term concentraition camp" however was invented by the "British". It was invented during the Boer war. The act of Union was first signed in 1707, which was the practical end of "England" as a seperate state. The Boer was occured in 1899... England as a seperate independant nation certainly never existed in 1899.

So the English never actually invented the concentration camp. You inability to comprehend the difference between the "English" and the "British", though origionaly rather amusing, is now rather tedious.

So is English not a language?

Also spoken by Americans, does that Make the US part of England... off shit your argument collapses at the first hurdle. But just to rub salt into the wound, ever heard of Arabic? Is the entire Arab word one country? No... get a fucking clue.

What are people talking about when they speak of England?

A part of the UK, just as people talk of Texas as a part of the USA. Is Texas a Country?

What&#39;s with the soccer teams?

So what? Theres no English olympic team.Whats your point... ohh yeah you haven&#39;t got one.

Keep digging.

The IRA and the Brit Army are the same?&#33;?

Morally speaking. They both commit horrible crimes against civillians.

The IRA did not invade England, set up watchtowers everywhere and allow their sectarian death squads to murder hundreds in front of their security cameras, did they?

Not for lack of trying, or do you not remember any of the bomb attacks... ohh yeah you probably weren&#39;t even born then.

The IRA did not ban the English language and arrest English children for speaking their native tongue.

Nope, they didn&#39;t but they did plant bombs outside schools, because the school was in a protestant area...

The same goes for the rest, except: -

The IRA fought imperialism.

While supporting Racketeering, smuggling, torture, murder, to expand the nation of Ireland not that expanding the boundries of one country by force is imperialism... ohh wait.

The IRA never massacred English protestors.

Nope, they massacred anyone who was an easy enough target.

The IRA never shot English children with plastic bullets.

Nope just planted bombs to kill them...

[celticsocialist]

:rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 09:25 PM
:rolleyes:
Yes, the kind of reply I expect from someone who has been soundly thrashed on all counts, morally, politically and historically.

I suggest you keep your responses like that, less bullshit.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:51 PM
England is one of the countries in Great Britain/United Kingdom/Britain whichever&#33;&#33;

Nope, England has no seperate parlimentary body, and is not recognised by any other nation as a seperate state... because its not. Again I suggest you get an atlas.

What&#39;s with the soccer teams?

So what? Theres no English olympic team.Whats your point... ohh yeah you haven&#39;t got one.

Keep digging.
i don&#39;t want to make an issue out of this, but the United Kingdom is split a few ways

Scotland and Wales are each independant (to an extent), and have thier own legislative branches (the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales both est. 1999)

N. Ireland&#39;s branch (the Northern Ireland Assembly) has been suspended due to excessive quarrels over the whole peace/IRA issue. . .

Scotland, England, Wales, etc. are not seperate nations, they are more like a confederacy or coalition

obviously somebody is confused by how much freedom the U.K. gives it&#39;s citizens

- - - - - - - - - -
additionaly, the football teams representing Scotland and Wales in the FIFA World Cup is no legal indication of seperate nations whatsoever (even if by some miracle either qualify). . .Tibet has it&#39;s own team (Ranked like #200), but it is still very much occupied by China PR

[celticsocialist]

Enigma son, you`re fighting a losing battle. We all know about the UK and britain and great britain and whatever the fuck you want to call it but other than you everyone knows its a collection of nations/countries. England is not part of the same country as Scotland. Forget what the map says. Listen to your heart :lol:
We know about the act of union and the joining of the crowns etc but Scotland and England will always be seperate nations. Even if they both remain in the UK.
Even the queen is really an English queen Why else is she Elizabeth II.

And stop getting your breeks in a twist about this. Its getting embarrassing :ph34r:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:58 PM
Enigma son, you`re fighting a losing battle. We all know about the UK and britain and great britain and whatever the fuck you want to call it but other than you everyone knows its a collection of nations/countries. England is not part of the same country as Scotland. Forget what the map says. Listen to your heart :lol:
We know about the act of union and the joining of the crowns etc but Scotland and England will always be seperate nations. Even if they both remain in the UK.
Even the queen is really an English queen Why else is she Elizabeth II.

And stop getting your breeks in a twist about this. Its getting embarrassing :ph34r:
Forget what the map says.

Classic, I think that sums up your ignorance to such a perfect extent I may even use it in my sig.

We know about the act of union and the joining of the crowns etc but Scotland and England will always be seperate nations.

Then how do you account for the Scottish MP&#39;s in the commons? Making vital decisions regarding the laws of the combined states? How do you account for the fact that people from places like Scotland are a very large part of the British armed forces? How do you account for the fact that we share almost the exact same identical system of laws? You go up to any individual on the street and ask them if they have a stronger national identity with a Welshman, Englishman or Scot, than say a French man. You know what they will answer don’t you? But you just cant accept it. Your preaching utter bullshit in order to validate your completely ham fisted false argument. Its ok, you can be wrong its not a crime, just get over it. England as a separate nation does not exist, the very fact that you are telling me to ignore the map, proves that you know it too.

Now back on the issue, the crimes of the IRA regarding the torture, maiming and murder of people, completely invalidates any right of former or current members of the IRA to criticise the British army. You know why, because anything the IRA do is just as immoral as anything the British army do. If you deny this then you just go to show that you are a xenophobic prick, which is already amply demonstrated by your complete ignorance inability to distinguish between a dead country and the modern day UK.

Its getting embarrassing

No mate, you are embarrassing, people who support nationalist terrorists, who commit crimes as bad as any capitalist national army, in the name of a cause they have long abandoned. More over your an embarrassment because you have a complete lack of understanding of both History and Geography.

People like you discredit the left.

[Dio]

Although United Kingdom is a unison of 3 major formely-self governing nations such as England, Scotland, and Wales. All 3 are independant states.

The map you presented, only shows Great Britain in referance to the archipelago Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

England is a Nation/Country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:49 PM
Although United Kingdom is a unison of 3 major formely-self governing nations such as England, Scotland, and Wales. All 3 are independant states.

The map you presented, only shows Great Britain in referance to the archipelago Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

England is a Nation/Country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England)
All 3 are independant states.

Actually they are not. They do not have political, financial or social independance, the nearest is devolution, which I would like to point out covers minor issues, and as we have seen can be suspended. Ultimatly power reides in the union, not the individual former states. You can try and deny it all you like, but simply closing your eyes and ears doesnt change the facts.

I also suggest yuou try reading your own sources, because as you will see: -

England, as a significant political entity, ceased to exist with the Act of Union with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain.

It actually supports what I have been saying too you. England is no longer a seperate country.

[celticsocialist]

Why is the queen of britain known as Elizabeth II Enigma? I would like to know why you think this is the case as you are the top man on here. :unsure:

Would you consider Australia a country Enigma? Its power ultimately lies in the hands of the queen of England so I again would appreciate your view on this.

Also Scots law is not almost exactly the same as british law. Not by a long shot.

And how the fuck can I be xenophobic when it comes to the IRA. Never mind the fact I have never said I support them but I`m not Irish and have never lived there so it makes being xenophobic, in this case, very difficult.

Are people from Northern Ireland british when it is part of the UK but not britain?

I`m not disputing the existence of the UK or britain but shared government or not Scotland,England,Wales and Ireland(32 counties) will always be seperate nations with their own identities

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:27 PM
Why is the queen of britain known as Elizabeth II Enigma? I would like to know why you think this is the case as you are the top man on here. :unsure:

Would you consider Australia a country Enigma? Its power ultimately lies in the hands of the queen of England so I again would appreciate your view on this.

Also Scots law is not almost exactly the same as british law. Not by a long shot.

And how the fuck can I be xenophobic when it comes to the IRA. Never mind the fact I have never said I support them but I`m not Irish and have never lived there so it makes being xenophobic, in this case, very difficult.

Are people from Northern Ireland british when it is part of the UK but not britain?

I`m not disputing the existence of the UK or britain but shared government or not Scotland,England,Wales and Ireland(32 counties) will always be seperate nations with their own identities
Why is the queen of britain known as Elizabeth II Enigma?

because of her ancestoral heratige. Her title is not remotly relevant, as its ties are historical rather than political. Your clutching at straws... and badly at that.

I would like to know why you think this is the case as you are the top man on here.

The top man? Whats up son, dont like being proved wrong on all counts?

Its power ultimately lies in the hands of the queen of England so I again would appreciate your view on this.

Actually, no the Queen is head of state by historical title only, political power is held in the power of the Australian government. Scottish political power is held by politicians of the UK, just like England and Wales. You do know that the Queen of England is actually German? Seperate political power is what defines a nation, not obsolite historical ties.

Is Prussia an individual country? Is Hanover an individual country?

Also Scots law is not almost exactly the same as british law.

Try reading what I said, boy.

And how the fuck can I be xenophobic when it comes to the IRA.

Because you condemn one group of criminals the British army for crimes, and the English people from 800 years ago, yet when throw a hissy fit when its pointed out to you that the IRA do exactly the same shit. Your complete inability to understand that its the British rather than specifically "English", who have been jointly guilty for just under 300 years, shows that you have an obvious problem with the English people. Thus you are a xenophobic piece of shit, Scottish or Irish it makes no odds.

Are people from Northern Ireland british when it is part of the UK but not britain?

Great Britain refers to the island num nuts. After it was conquered by William the Conquerer, it was named Great Britain, as it was taken by people many of whome came from Normandy in what is now Modern day France.

Britain is used (inaccuratly) as a description of the UK, the reality however is it mearly is mearly the name of the Island. The actual country is the UK.

t shared government or not Scotland,England,Wales and Ireland(32 counties) will always be seperate nations with their own identities

Shared cultural identities, but for the past 300 years only very limited political identities. When refering to a country you refer largley to seperate political states, Scotland, Wales, England and NI are politically controlled from one place Westminister, every thing else is mearly lent power which as we have seen in NI, can be stripped if the powers that be wish it.


If you disagree, then explain why these seperate nations house their seperate government, to control their complete seperate soverign power? Ohh shit, it doesnt exist. :rolleyes: Would you just look at that&#33; Perhaps the syatem just runs it self without a state, some kind of magical anarchist system of government, which no one has noticed?

[Dio]

England, as a significant political entity, ceased to exist with the Act of Union with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain.


Actually that doesent at all imply that England as a nation doesent exist anymore. If you would just find a source that says England no longer exists, then i would believe you.

[pandora]

I&#39;ve been in torture photos of sorts.
Handcuffed on charges of LSd coming out of a dead show in NJ I was asked if I wanted out of the jail which was overcrowded in the winter with prisoners living in tents in the snow.
I was brought to headquarters and being a young attractive girl was handcuffed to a desk while the officers showed me naked pictures of themselves and took pictures of me.
Was torture of sorts, they were grotesque
I was scared they asked me if I wanted a sandwich, but the condition was to look at more naked photos so shook my head no.
After that I stayed in jail rather than come out

In a later time I was beaten badly and luckily was caught in an investigation of police brutality. The investigator took pictures of the bumps on my head and measured them with a ruler.
In a sense a torture photo, but in a good way

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:28 PM

Actually that doesent at all imply that England as a nation doesent exist anymore. If you would just find a source that says England no longer exists, then i would believe you.
Actually that doesent at all imply that England as a nation doesent exist anymore.

Err.. yeah it does. Perhaps you should look up what a kingdom is, then try reading that statement again.

If you would just find a source that says England no longer exists

I never said that England didn&#39;t exist Sherlock, I said it was no longer an independant country, nation state, sovereign kingdom, or whatever else you want to call it. The Country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland".

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:45 PM
Why is the queen of britain known as Elizabeth II Enigma?

because of her ancestoral heratige. Her title is not remotly relevant, as its ties are historical rather than political. Your clutching at straws... and badly at that.

I would like to know why you think this is the case as you are the top man on here.

The top man? Whats up son, dont like being proved wrong on all counts?

Its power ultimately lies in the hands of the queen of England so I again would appreciate your view on this.

Actually, no the Queen is head of state by historical title only, political power is held in the power of the Australian government. Scottish political power is held by politicians of the UK, just like England and Wales. You do know that the Queen of England is actually German? Seperate political power is what defines a nation, not obsolite historical ties.

Is Prussia an individual country? Is Hanover an individual country?

Also Scots law is not almost exactly the same as british law.

Try reading what I said, boy.

And how the fuck can I be xenophobic when it comes to the IRA.

Because you condemn one group of criminals the British army for crimes, and the English people from 800 years ago, yet when throw a hissy fit when its pointed out to you that the IRA do exactly the same shit. Your complete inability to understand that its the British rather than specifically "English", who have been jointly guilty for just under 300 years, shows that you have an obvious problem with the English people. Thus you are a xenophobic piece of shit, Scottish or Irish it makes no odds.

Are people from Northern Ireland british when it is part of the UK but not britain?

Great Britain refers to the island num nuts. After it was conquered by William the Conquerer, it was named Great Britain, as it was taken by people many of whome came from Normandy in what is now Modern day France.

Britain is used (inaccuratly) as a description of the UK, the reality however is it mearly is mearly the name of the Island. The actual country is the UK.

t shared government or not Scotland,England,Wales and Ireland(32 counties) will always be seperate nations with their own identities

Shared cultural identities, but for the past 300 years only very limited political identities. When refering to a country you refer largley to seperate political states, Scotland, Wales, England and NI are politically controlled from one place Westminister, every thing else is mearly lent power which as we have seen in NI, can be stripped if the powers that be wish it.


If you disagree, then explain why these seperate nations house their seperate government, to control their complete seperate soverign power? Ohh shit, it doesnt exist. :rolleyes: Would you just look at that&#33; Perhaps the syatem just runs it self without a state, some kind of magical anarchist system of government, which no one has noticed?
So how can there be a Elizabeth II of britain but not Elizabeth I? I see you chose to ignore that completely and instead tell us all about how clever you are.

If the queen is only historically the head of state in Australia then perhaps you could explain the Gough Whitlam situation. I doubt it.

And what you said is that we share almost the exact same systems of law. We don`t.

If you stopped trying to tell every one how clever you are and how uneducated they are then perhaps you wouldn`t come across as a middle class school boy socialist. Then again you are what you are eh Kitten? :D

[celticsocialist]

So who decides what makes a country? Is it merely where its politicians sit?
Personally I think theres a shit load more to it than that. You might be british but not me son.
Theres no fu**er going to tell me I`m not Scottish.



And Enigma, don`t call me son, son. get your own patter Kitten.

Sooner the schools go back the better.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:55 PM
I&#39;ve been in torture photos of sorts.
Handcuffed on charges of LSd coming out of a dead show in NJ I was asked if I wanted out of the jail which was overcrowded in the winter with prisoners living in tents in the snow.
I was brought to headquarters and being a young attractive girl was handcuffed to a desk while the officers showed me naked pictures of themselves and took pictures of me.
Was torture of sorts, they were grotesque
I was scared they asked me if I wanted a sandwich, but the condition was to look at more naked photos so shook my head no.
After that I stayed in jail rather than come out

In a later time I was beaten badly and luckily was caught in an investigation of police brutality. The investigator took pictures of the bumps on my head and measured them with a ruler.
In a sense a torture photo, but in a good way
pandora, would these charges of LSD have been justified by any chance? :blink:

[Invader Zim]

So how can there be a Elizabeth II of britain but not Elizabeth I?

Try picking up a history book and finding out. I suggest you start by reading about Mary Queen of Scots, and her offspring, then the act of Union of 1707. it is an incredibly simple concept, the fact that you still fail to grasp it, speaks volumes.

Quit clasping at straws and face the issue.


I see you chose to ignore that completely and instead tell us all about how clever you are.

Ignore what? A fallacy,. well your quite right, i don’t answer it because its not worth the effort, to correct your dumb statement, but as you insist: -

Its power ultimately lies in the hands of the queen of England

Lizzy is not Queen of England, that is not her title it is a common misconception among fools, her title is: -

&#39;Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.&#39;

Do you see "England" in that sentence?

If the queen is only historically the head of state in Australia

I never said that son. try reading again, and fill in the words you missed out.

We don`t.


On the contrary we do. The only differences in law are the product of devolution, and as we have seen in NI, that can be withdrawn. Therefore what few differences in law are only superficial.

If you stopped trying to tell every one how clever you are and how uneducated they are then perhaps you wouldn`t come across as a middle class school boy socialist.

I dont tell anyone how clever I am, but your right your lack of education does raise eyebrows.

So who decides what makes a country?

Would you like an in depth answer ranging from 1919 to the present day, because the League of nations certainly did for a period. Now the UN to an extent does, ohh and the international community as a whole. After all how many English embassies do you see when you go abroad? Answer = Nil, but I think that you will find British embassies are rather common.

Is it merely where its politicians sit?

No son, that’s called parliament.

Personally I think theres a shit load more to it than that.

Well as we have already seen your an idiot, your dumb opinions don&#39;t count for very much at all.

You might be british but not me son.

That’s nice, boy.

Theres no fu**er going to tell me I`m not Scottish.

How interesting, a "leftist" who promotes segregation of the working class by Bourgeois boundaries. Personally I consider my self above that shit.

And Enigma, don`t call me son, son.

What’s up boy? Your getting pissed? Well its OK, go tell mommy, and she&#39;ll kiss it better.

Sooner the schools go back the better.

Wrong again... quite a habit your getting here son, perhaps you should ask for your handle to be changed to "wrong", it suits you far better than "Celtic Socialist". I stopped attending compulsery education years ago, son.

[Conghaileach]

Here&#39;s another map of Britain, from the Ordnance Survey website:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/...ps/outlineb.gif (http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/images/userImages/misc/outlinemaps/outlineb.gif)

Notice the thick black lines separating England, Scotland and Wales?

"Great Britain" is a political entity made up of the countries of England, Scotland and Wales.

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is made up of the former three countries as well as the state formed from the continued occupation of six Irish counties.

The map thing seemed to form a big part of Enigma&#39;s argument. He simply used some random map. The map linked to above, as stated, comes from the Ordnance Survey website.


I&#39;ll see about repsonding to some of the points raised thoughout the thread as soon as I can.

[celticsocialist]

[QUOTE]b]So how can there be a Elizabeth II of britain but not Elizabeth I?

Try picking up a history book and finding out. I suggest you start by reading about Mary Queen of Scots, and her offspring, then the act of Union of 1707. it is an incredibly simple concept, the fact that you still fail to grasp it, speaks volumes.

Quit clasping at straws and face the issue.[/B]
Why won`t you answer the question Enema? I know all about the act of union but I`m asking why there has never been an elizabeth I.

[If the queen is only historically the head of state in Australia

I never said that son. try reading again, and fill in the words you missed out.Do you admit the queen has the ultimate power in Australia or not? How about the Whitlam situation that you chose to ignore?
[
. The only differences in law are the product of devolution, and as we have seen in NI, that can be withdrawn. Therefore what few differences in law are only superficial.Bollocks&#33; Scots law has always been different to the laws of England. Not just since devolution.
[

And Enigma, don`t call me son, son.

What’s up boy? Your getting pissed? Well its OK, go tell mommy, and she&#39;ll kiss it better.You can call me anything you like Kitten, just don`t copy my patter. And Mommy? Where the fuck are you from?

[ I stopped attending compulsery education years ago, son.Don`t worry Enema. It shows :lol:

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:21 PM
I think Enigma is avoiding the issue.

Nope, your avoiding the issue, which is that Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation which uses both muder and torture among its tactics, and as such is as guilty as any British soldure, who is a member of an army which employs murder and torture in its tactics. They are the same, the IRA is exactly what it claims to fight.
Actually, Adams has never admitted being a member of the IRA - which I posted above. Perhaps you are avoiding the issue?


I never thought I&#39;d hear a "socialist" say that a guerrilla army is just as bad as the imperialist army it faces. I guess then that the July 26 Movement in Cuba were just like Batista and his mafia? That the Nepalese communists are just as bad as the imperialist-supported oligarchy? That the Chavistas are just as bad as the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, backed as they are by the CIA and AUC? That the Palestinians are just as bad as the Zionists?

Or maybe these revolutionaries are safe to support because they aren&#39;t so close to home? Christ, this entire discussion puts me in mind of Irish trendy lefties.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:06 PM
Maybe, your refering to the potato famine, but last time I checked, that wasn&#39;t caused by the English, perhaps the satanic bastards, prayed to some heathen god, and caused the famine... Maybe, the british held those poor potato&#39;s hostage, and demanded they get deseased... :rolleyes:
Try English capitalism. There was enough food in the country to feed the entire population, but the English bourgeoisie had it shipped off to England, under armed guard, for their own profit, leaving the Irish poor to starve.



I also interested where you learned to count, it was obviously an inferior establishment. You see in the 1841 census the population of Ireland was 8.2 million, in the 1851 census it was 6.5 million, that is a drop of about 20%... not 33.3%.
Wow&#33; Only 20% of those poor Paddy bastards were offed by English economic policy, not 33% - that makes so much difference&#33;

Edit: I just rechecked those figures, and considering that the Irish population by 1851 should have been over 9 million, the population actually dropped by nearly 28% (which happens to be closer to 33% than to 20%).



If you are the future of ourmovment then I dispair, I really do.
I was going to post, "If you are the present of our movement, then no wonder it&#39;s a joke", but I try not to stoop so low as to make personal attacks (unless I&#39;m really annoyed by the nonsense I read).

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:26 AM
The reason is England did not conquer Scotland, they tried several times and failed. The reason the two states joined, is because a Scotish king inherited power in England, not because of some imperial conquest.
Actually, the reason the two states were "joined" (it should be noted that this was not, and is not, a symbiotic union - but a parasitic one) was that the Act of Union was signed in 1707 by a group of Scottish traitors who had been sold out for English gold.

The famous Scots poet Robbie Burns wrote an excellent song about it called "Such A Parcel Of Rogues".

The same thing happened to Ireland in 1801. A group of Irishmen (mainly of the Protestant Ascendancy) sold out the parliament for money. What the Irish, and Scottish too, got in return for the dissolution of their respective parliaments was a token representation in the English one.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 06:20 PM
Try reading what I said again. I said its history, what the English not British army was doing 800 years ago doesnt mean shit. Its what they are doing now which is important.
Including the continued role of 15,000 British soldiers on Irish soil (and then of course you have 16,000 in the paramilitary RUC/PSNI on top of that).



The point still remains that Gerry Adams is in no position to critisise the British army as he is equaly bad if not worse.
There&#39;s a big fucking joke if ever I&#39;ve read one.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 1 2004, 02:10 PM
Culturally England is a country
Politically it is a region in the United kingdom.

The fact that England, Scotland, Wales and Eire were once independent countries is not a political fact, but a historical one. Thus being part of the British culture.
I disagree. See above posts for clarification.

And what exactly is "British culture"? Is there a British language? (And I don&#39;t mean the ancient Celtic language from which Welsh, Cornish and Breton derived.)

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:51 PM
the Celts did not institutionalize sectariansim

Err... yeah they did, all civilisations which conquer other nations and suppress them and their cultural identity do, by default.
Did you even understand the point being made?

There was a reason why there were no martyrs for Christianity in Ireland, because the Pagan Celts were not as barbaric as some would have us believe.



The IRA did not ban the English language and arrest English children for speaking their native tongue.

Nope, they didn&#39;t but they did plant bombs outside schools, because the school was in a protestant area...
When?



The IRA fought imperialism.

While supporting Racketeering, smuggling, torture, murder, to expand the nation of Ireland not that expanding the boundries of one country by force is imperialism... ohh wait.
...Said the man from the Daily Mail.



The IRA never shot English children with plastic bullets.

Nope just planted bombs to kill them...
I never knew they planted bombs in schools or playgrounds. As opposed to the Brit security forces, who deliberately targetted Irish children and killed them.

[Dio]

This discussion now degraded so much you guys are not even making sense anymore, even though you were making little to begin with.


The monarchy of the United Kingdom is symbolically shared with 15 other sovereign countries that are known as Commonwealth Realms, although Britain has no political or executive power over these independent nations, it retains influence, through long-standing close relations.

* Antigua and Barbuda,
* Australia,
* The Bahamas,
* Barbados,
* Belize,
* Canada,
* Grenada,
* Jamaica,
* New Zealand,
* Papua New Guinea,
* Saint Kitts and Nevis,
* Saint Lucia,
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
* The Solomon Islands,
* Tuvalu, and
* The United Kingdom, also considered a Commonwealth realm.

England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, hold some sort of political authority.

[Invader Zim]

Actually, Adams has never admitted being a member of the IRA - which I posted above.

Actually you never: -

"The quotation you pasted above was written under a pseudonym, and Adams has always denied writing it. I think he did, but I think the record needs to be set straight that Adams denies it."

And do you really believe that he would admit it now he&#39;s become a bourgeois politician?

Not to mention that an IRA car bomber Dolours Price, named Adams as her boss. Ohh and on Ol&#39; Bobby Sands 19th "death day" told worried republicans, that its quite alright, the IRA isn&#39;t gone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/739856.stm

For someone who isn&#39;t a member and has no active affiliation, thats quite a statement.

Not to mention that he once carried the coffin of an IRA bomber, that’s quite some camaraderie for someone he never fought with.

Ohh and one last thing, he&#39;s head of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA. That in its self is pretty well damning.


Perhaps you are avoiding the issue?


Well considering that the issue was originally about torture, and Jerry Adams complete hypocrisy in for slating the British army, I rather think that i&#39;m trying to get this topic back on track. No thanks to you or your 12 year old mate.

I never thought I&#39;d hear a "socialist" say that a guerrilla army is just as bad as the imperialist army it faces.

It depends on what context your talking about. Cause is irrelevant if the context is method, as Adams was attacking method rather than cause, how nasty the wicked "English" were for invading Ireland well over 30 generations before my Grandfather was even born is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is the tactics used by both the IRA and the British army, which are as we have seen not a stones throw away from each other.

I dont think that supporting a terrorist organisation which maims and murders workers, and uses torture as a method of "teaching a lesson" (however well disserved) can ever get the support of real socialists over anybody.

Ohh and in answer to your statement I draw your attention to the peninsular war, however bad the French were to the Spanish peasantry, they were nothing compared to the peasant guerrilla (interestingly enough where the term originated) army. One of the more famous Guerrilla leaders was called El Castrado (sp?). Now i&#39;m sure that you can work out how he got his nick name.

Ohh and would you say that Alpha 66 is better than Castro?

I guess then that the July 26 Movement in Cuba were just like Batista and his mafia?

You know I&#39;ve read a fair bit into the Cuban revolution, and have heard how capitalist criminals were executed for their crimes against the people. I never read how a mother was brutally tortured and then executed, for giving the authorities what was very minor information, simply as a lesson to others who may get similar ideas. Though do tell me if i&#39;m wrong, and I will critise them as much as I do the IRA.

Or maybe these revolutionaries are safe to support because they aren&#39;t so close to home?

And that they don’t torture people, and sell out their cause to deal arms with eastern European dictatorships, etc. Ohh and smuggle drugs with Columbian terrorists. Ohh and set up huge protection Rackets. Ohh and just generally act like the bunch of sorry criminals they have become, and yeah it does scare me that my home town gets bombed because the poor sods who live their happen to be unfortunate enough to have English parents.

Try English capitalism.

Dont forget Scottish, Welsh and indeed Irish capitalists, who were just as much to blame, in fact why not just blame capitalism in general? Or is it impossible for the underdogs to ever have the capitalist cancer? Are they immune from capital? Does unfairly earned money immediately fall through a hole in every Irish mans wallet? Shit looks like i&#39;m going to have to knee cap my mates, and bomb my street, kill the cancer, you know?

Only 20% of those poor Paddy bastards were offed by English economic policy, not 33%

Well now your twisting what I say, a clever tactic. If all else fails try to discredit the opposition with emotional bullshit, which you know perfectly well they never said or implied. Sorry mate, I’ve argued with you before, I&#39;m well versed in your dishonest methods, try again.

that makes so much difference&#33;

Yep your right about 1,066,000 people, as I work it out. But then again, history was my strong point at school not maths.

but I try not to stoop so low as to make personal attacks

Since when?

:rolleyes:


was that the Act of Union was signed in 1707 by a group of Scottish traitors who had been sold out for English gold.

Alright answer an honest opinion, do you really think that could ever happened in an England and Scotland which weren&#39;t ruled by a Scottish (and Dutch) royal family? Your honest answer now.

What the Irish, and Scottish too, got in return for the dissolution of their respective parliaments was a token representation in the English one.

Economic benefits of being from being pert of what would later become the largest empire to ever have existed, is of course such a curse. :rolleyes:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why won`t you answer the question Enema?

I have son shine; perhaps you should learn to read. If you would like me to say it for you again, I suppose I can waste my time. Elizabeth I was a Tudor, her successor a Stuart was a Scottish King. There you have the first political ties, then in 1707 the act of Union was declared, and the individual nation states of Scotland and England were replaced by the nation of Great Britain, etc. Would you like me to draw you a time line? Or perhaps a join the dots puzzle? Or maybe use words of just one syllable?

Do you admit the queen has the ultimate power in Australia or not?

No, she doesn’t have any power, just as she has no practical power in this country, and I very much doubt she ever will again. Its called a constitutional monarchy, perhaps you should learn some basic politics as well as history.

Bollocks&#33; Scots law has always been different to the laws of England. Not just since devolution.

Yes i&#39;m sure that minor differences is income tax, school curriculum’s and the like are such a huge difference. The fact that your elected representatives sit in Westminster is a complete none issue.

You can call me anything you like Kitten

:rolleyes:

And Enigma, don`t call me son, son.

Hell you cant even make a coherent statement without contradicting your self, its pathetic.


Don`t worry Enema. It shows

A bit more self contradiction, what’s up son? Not falling to pieces on me, are you? Hell, I was just starting to like you.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:28 PM
Actually, Adams has never admitted being a member of the IRA - which I posted above.

Actually you never: -

"The quotation you pasted above was written under a pseudonym, and Adams has always denied writing it. I think he did, but I think the record needs to be set straight that Adams denies it."

And do you really believe that he would admit it now he&#39;s become a bourgeois politician?
So you acknowledge that you read my post? But still, for whatever reason, you wrote that "Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation". Hm.



Ohh and on Ol&#39; Bobby Sands 19th "death day"
What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[PRC-UTE]

Enigma,

You have insulted almost everyone who disagrees with you. What does that gain anyone?

You accuse me of using 12 year old arguments (when I was actually using historical arguments) and yet you call others "num nuts". :D

Dodging the issue of Anglo-Saxon imperialism with silly logic puzzles like "England doesn&#39;t exist" is avoiding the issue. You&#39;re behaving in the manner which I have come to expect in British chuavinists.


FYI, England halved Ireland&#39;s population at least twice.

The first time was the Cromwellian reconquest of Ireland after the English Civil War. Cromwell only killed a hundred thousand, but his scorched earth policy caused a famine which killed over half of what was left of the pop. Ireland.

The second was An Gorta Mor/The Great Hunger, which was triggered when the potato crop failed and England continued to export food - according to most historians, there was enuf food to feed most of the population.

As far as destroying Eire&#39;s population, we could also mention how 1 our of ever 2 people born in the Irish Free state have been forced to emigrate. Not for "natural" reasons but because England intentionally destroyed Ireland&#39;s economy during and since the Elizabethan conquest.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:28 PM
Only 20% of those poor Paddy bastards were offed by English economic policy, not 33%

Well now your twisting what I say, a clever tactic. If all else fails try to discredit the opposition with emotional bullshit, which you know perfectly well they never said or implied. Sorry mate, I’ve argued with you before, I&#39;m well versed in your dishonest methods, try again.

Dishonest? You&#39;re the one who&#39;s been reduced to making personal atatcks against those who disagree with your arguments.



but I try not to stoop so low as to make personal attacks

Since when?

:rolleyes:
Perhaps you could give me a list of incidents?



Alright answer an honest opinion, do you really think that could ever happened in an England and Scotland which weren&#39;t ruled by a Scottish (and Dutch) royal family? Your honest answer now.
I honestly wouldn&#39;t know, as "what ifs" are extremely tricky to anyone who tries to seriously delve into the issue. But would the Scottish bourgeoisie (or Irish or English or any, for that matter) care more about wealth or national pride?



What the Irish, and Scottish too, got in return for the dissolution of their respective parliaments was a token representation in the English one.

Economic benefits of being from being pert of what would later become the largest empire to ever have existed, is of course such a curse. :rolleyes:
An empire built on slavery and plunder. The plunder of the national resources of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as many other countries "lucky" enough to have been part of the empire.

And let&#39;s not forget that Cromwell had 50,000 Irish men, women and children sent to the Carribbean as slaves and indentured servants. That he carried out a policy of ethnic cleansing, forcing Irish peasants to the West coast where the soil was poorest. Then in Scotland you had the likes of the Highland clearances.

But I suppose I should have expected a comment like that from an apologist for British imperialism.

[DaCuBaN]

So how can there be a Elizabeth II of britain but not Elizabeth I?

Actually she&#39;s incorrectly titled Elizabeth II - She holds the crown to all the states she rules, but is only Elizabeth II of England, and Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. Any power she once had is almost utterly diminished in the UK of course: It&#39;s only a matter of time until she holds no power at all.

My feelings on national identity are of course known to be somewhat scathing at any rate, but if anything I think life would be just a little bit simpler if NI was cut loose. Most of us here are fighting for some kind of unity, and accept that culturally we are going to be different. I just don&#39;t understand why we should seperate when we are already joined - irregardless of the circumstance of the unions nor the actions before us.

We are here, this is now and all that bollocks.

[James]

I find it ironic that the accusations of "nationalism" and "imperialism" are thrown out by, evidently, the most nationalistic contributers to this thread&#33;&#33;

Such as "the issue of Anglo-Saxon imperialism": what on earth is that on about?? What anglo saxon imperialism?


An empire built on slavery and plunder.

Unlike the scots though eh? I mean like, they didn&#39;t have an empire either did they&#33; They wouldn&#39;t stoop to "Englishness".

Interestingly enough most of the top brass in the British empire were not English: the Royal Family - Scotish, then later on they became Dutch, and then of course the gorgeous germans.
Top military commanders - Duke of Wellington; doing his bit for Ireland.
Even now - we have to have a scotish prime minister&#33; We went into the war "because of scotland"&#33;


Then in Scotland you had the likes of the Highland clearances.


I&#39;m aware that in fact this was later done simply as it was done in England - for the same reasons. Enclosure.
Thats not nationalism - its capitalism.

+ + +

We have different cultures - a nation is just a collection of cultures, often sharing a language, and "official history" (local history wasn&#39;t as "big" in the old days, thus its not seen "as" important).

Come on guys, i was restricted for supposed nationalism, simply because i wanted a presence in iraq (an opinion formed after the invasion and occupation had begun) for humanitarian reasons. But some of you people&#33; You are being VERY nationalist. What happened to "there are no borders"?
This is a classic example of how scot and irish can be very more nationalistic than the english: if i, as "an englishman" started saying the equivalent, i&#39;d be restricted for being a right winger&#33;

The problem here isn&#39;t race - it is simply capitalism, and the age old "fearing difference" (between different cultures/languages).

[celticsocialist]

<span style='font-family:Arial'>[/b]Actually she&#39;s incorrectly titled Elizabeth II - She holds the crown to all the states she rules, but is only Elizabeth II of England, and Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. Any power she once had is almost utterly diminished in the UK of course: It&#39;s only a matter of time until she holds no power at all.</span>[/font][/FONT][/FONT]

This is the point I was making. she is Elizabeth II of England. Enema why do you have to keep on with your ""read the act of union" answer when its fuck all to do with this.

The other thing you keep ignoring, In 1975 the queens representitive/ governer general Sir John Kerr kicked the then prime minister of Australia Gough whitlam out of power. Perhaps you should learn some basic politics as well as history :rolleyes: Hardly no power is it ?

And look up Scots Law. Its not about income tax and schools curriculums and the like. Or been invented since devolution.

And Oglach is right. A man of your calibre shouldn`t need to insult people so much :huh:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:12 AM
So you acknowledge that you read my post? But still, for whatever reason, you wrote that "Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation". Hm.



What exactly is that supposed to mean?
you wrote that "Adams is an admitted member of a terrorist organisation".

he has admitted it, just because he now chooses to deny writting it...
Not to mention the fact that everyone knows he was a member, you dont get to a position like that in Sinn Fein without having extrodinary influence in the IRA.


What exactly is that supposed to mean?

The 19th aniversary of Bobby Sands death, his "deathday", rather like a morbid birth day.

You have insulted almost everyone who disagrees with you.

From you I find this most rich indeed: -

The ignorance on this board is astonishing.

That&#39;s an insane thing to say, even for a trendy lefty.

you are either wilfully ignorant or an imperialist.

So I rather thing that you should be asking your self the question you just addressed to me: -

What does that gain anyone?

You accuse me of using 12 year old arguments

Yep.

when I was actually using historical arguments)

Really? I could have sworn that you were chatting utter crap.

Dodging the issue of Anglo-Saxon imperialism with silly logic puzzles like "England doesn&#39;t exist" is avoiding the issue.

Considering that the discussion is the morality of the IRA (or more accuratly, the lack of) and its similarities to the equily unpleasant British army, the very fact that you lot brought up medival history is dodging and avoiding the issue.

FYI, England halved Ireland&#39;s population at least twice.

Nope, thats not true.

You&#39;re behaving in the manner which I have come to expect in British chuavinists.

At least your able to distinguish between "British" and "English" now, a might improvment upon your so far very poor performance. ohh and BTW how many, as you so delectaly put it, "British chuavinists" do you know critisise the British army as much as the IRA? I rather think that as usual your chatting a heap of shit... very typical of most patriotic nationalists I have the displeasure of conversing with.

Cromwell only killed a hundred thousand, but his scorched earth policy caused a famine which killed over half of what was left of the pop. Ireland.


Well if you expect to be taken remotly seriously I suggest you actually provide a source which gives census records, because what you claim, as we shall see very shortly doesnt exacly invite belief.

The second was An Gorta Mor/The Great Hunger, which was triggered when the potato crop failed and England continued to export food - according to most historians, there was enuf food to feed most of the population.

Well as I have already said... twise, the Irish famine never killed 50% of the population, anyone who trys to tell you otherwise is a liar.

As far as destroying Eire&#39;s population, we could also mention how 1 our of ever 2 people born in the Irish Free state have been forced to emigrate.

Another one of your facts? I cant wait to see the evidence... should be good for a laugh.

When?

http://members.tripod.com/~Ulster_01/civilrts.htm

Though how accurate that is...

I never knew they planted bombs in schools or playgrounds.

Sinse when do you need to plant a bomb outside a school to kill a kid? Howabout planting one on a buisy manchester shopping street?


Hell whpo even needs bombs to kill kids? Ever heard of Thomas McDonald?

...Said the man from the Daily Mail.

I wouldn&#39;t know, I dont read that rag... clearly unlike you, who apparently has much experiance of rightwing newspapers... wonder how that could be.

[PRC-UTE]

The IRA never shot English children with plastic bullets.

Nope just planted bombs to kill them...

Damn funny thing for a Loyalist to say, as I&#39;ve NEVER heard of the IRA planting a bomb at any school, but Loyalists do it all the time&#33; Look at the now world famous events at Holy Cross, where self-described "socialists" of the PUP were hurling pipe bombs at preteen school girls&#33;



Oglachmcglinchey:
You have insulted almost everyone who disagrees with you.

enigma:
From you I find this most rich indeed: -

The ignorance on this board is astonishing.

That&#39;s an insane thing to say, even for a trendy lefty.

you are either wilfully ignorant or an imperialist.


You used the juvenile term "num-nuts". I did offer insults, but they were criticisms of your politics - you defend imperialism.


the discussion is the morality of the IRA (or more accuratly, the lack of) and its similarities to the equily unpleasant British army

That&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m talking about here.

I don&#39;t approve of the IRA myself, but to equate a few hundred insurgents (who have decommissioned almost all their armory) to what was last estimated (in Ireland) at just under 15,000 personnel is absurd.

Especially since the Brits are still severly beating non-combatants, attacking protestors with CS gas, invading nationalist neighborhoods, arresting former paramilitaries and their judges have just decreed that evidence gained through torture is admissable in court.

It is the duty of ever communist to opposse their own nation&#39;s imperialism, and what&#39;s going on in Ireland is obviously imperialism, the Brits themselves say they are still at war.


Cromwell only killed a hundred thousand, but his scorched earth policy caused a famine which killed over half of what was left of the pop. Ireland.


Well if you expect to be taken remotly seriously I suggest you actually provide a source which gives census records, because what you claim, as we shall see very shortly doesnt exacly invite belief.


I didn&#39;t think you&#39;d question that, or the massacres attributed to a man who said "nits make lice" in his defence of murdering Irish babies. Or who slaughtered 3,500 ppl at Drogheda. Also, no historian denies that he sold 40,000 Irish women into slavery to Barbados.

Don&#39;t have the time to look it up on the net, but you could check out the books by Seamus Metress Phd or the excellent "Story of the Irish Race" by Seamus McManus.

PS - I love that your "evidence" is a loyalist website. . . made by Canadians&#33;&#33; :P

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;m not a religious man, but christ almighty&#33; Can I get some help here to remove the heads from arses?


Damn funny thing for a Loyalist to say

Enigma is not a Loyalist - stop trying to pigeonhole people, it doesn&#39;t work. He simply thinks as little of cultural loyalism compared to political loyalism (I think - that&#39;s certainly my perspective) I can totally sympathise with both your positions here, but to think we are somehow proud of being british is absurd. We are here, this is now - get over it. We all want to move further left, we&#39;re all based in the british archipelaego - why seperate?

Do you really intend to hold us accountable for the actions of idiots from both sides of the argument that started hundreds of years before we were born? Do you really think we condone the killing of innocent civilians?

Do you?

[PRC-UTE]

Enigma is not a Loyalist

I didn&#39;t say he was until he provided a link to a loyalist website to back up his arguments. What else would that suggest?


We are here, this is now - get over it. We all want to move further left, we&#39;re all based in the british archipelaego - why seperate?

As the song says, "Go on home British soldiers, go on home. . . " I&#39;m talking about ending the occupation, smashing the Orange state and creating a Workers Republic; what do you mean?


Do you really intend to hold us accountable for the actions of idiots from both sides of the argument that started hundreds of years before we were born? Do you really think we condone the killing of innocent civilians?

Only if you are an active imperialist or one of their lackies / apologists.

The IRSP has a lot of contacts in England, Wales and Scotland so it&#39;s not as though we are isolationists&#33; We&#39;re internationalists, but true int&#39;lism comes from cooperation, not imperialism.

[DaCuBaN]

I didn&#39;t say [Enigma was a loyalist] until he provided a link to a loyalist website to back up his arguments. What else would that suggest?

That he uses google to find information on beliefs he holds? This of course makes him loyalist scum and your enemy, right?


As the song says, "Go on home British soldiers, go on home. . . " I&#39;m talking about ending the occupation, smashing the Orange state and creating a Workers Republic; what do you mean?

Thanks for the rhetoric of course, but I&#39;m well aware for what you stand for (a 32 county irish republic, if I&#39;m not mistaken). Ireland is a different concern to both Scotland and Wales - you&#39;re not phsyically attached to the rest of the UK. I&#39;ve already stated that I often feel that cutting NI loose would save a lot of hassle, but I simply do not understand why the people of ireland cannot let bygones be bygones.

We all wish to see imperialism crushed - but destroying the work done unifying states when we can harness it for the benefit of all is utterly counter-productive in my eyes.


The IRSP has a lot of contacts in England, Wales and Scotland so it&#39;s not as though we are isolationists&#33; We&#39;re internationalists, but true int&#39;lism comes from cooperation, not imperialism

I agree that the actions from both the loyalists and republicans in this conflict leave somewhat to be desired, but given that we&#39;re all opposed to imperialism, why do you want to cut yourself off from us? Irish republicanism is, at least within my circles, considered to be a case of abandonment. Why is it so important to you that the bastards who run the place do so from Dublin/Belfast rather than Westminster (although somewhere like York would make more sense geographically for the UK)?

The point is that they are bastards regardless - you are expending all this energy propogating independance when it will most likely lead back to capitalism and ergo imperialism. Why not stay within the enforced union and help enact change with these comrades you speak of within the rest of the UK?

To me, this smells of isolationism, and at the least national pride.

[PRC-UTE]

That he uses google to find information on beliefs he holds? This of course makes him loyalist scum and your enemy, right?

well, would you use arguments from reactionaries?


I&#39;m well aware for what you stand for (a 32 county irish republic, if I&#39;m not mistaken)

we are fighting for a 32 county Worker&#39;s Republic. Not to nitpick but we regard it as a big difference.


I simply do not understand why the people of ireland cannot let bygones be bygones.

Because the conditions are sadly very much the same as they have been for the last 400 years. It&#39;s not as though the Irish are obsessed with history; they are living it.

Things have changed only a little. Until only a few years ago, children and adults were regularly harrassed and arrested, sometimes held in gaol indefinitely for speaking their own language, Gaeilge. Now that&#39;s not very common.

Yet the NI gov&#39;t is now run by the most reactionary elements in Ireland. Ian Paisley and his group have links to neo-nazis and white supremists like c18.


we&#39;re all opposed to imperialism, why do you want to cut yourself off from us?

We&#39;re talking about making the soldiers withdrawal and destroying the Orange-clerical puppet state. It&#39;s not chuavinism; we aim for a Workers Republic.

As Marx and Engels argued, a liberated Ireland could help set off a chain of events in the British Isles. As long as English/Scots/Welsh workers are welded to imperialism social change is unlikely.


Why is it so important to you that the bastards who run the place do so from Dublin/Belfast rather than Westminster (although somewhere like York would make more sense geographically for the UK)?

The point is that they are bastards regardless - you are expending all this energy propogating independance when it will most likely lead back to capitalism and ergo imperialism. Why not stay within the enforced union and help enact change with these comrades you speak of within the rest of the UK?

The last thing we want is capitalist rule from Dublin. The last Volunteer to die on AS was killed by Gardai, the Guards of the 26 county state. We hate those bastards far more than we could ever hate the brits.

We want to break the Union because we regard it as the source of division in the Irish working class. It has retarded working class politics to an extreme degree, most especially in the north.

[DaCuBaN]

well, would you use arguments from reactionaries?

I&#39;ve been known to.... :ph34r: :lol:


we are fighting for a 32 county Worker&#39;s Republic. Not to nitpick but we regard it as a big difference

Indeed it is - but it doesn&#39;t stop people jumping on your bandwagon and perverting your ideas. The fact that a large part of the movement is based on nationalism doesn&#39;t worry you? I certainly know that I&#39;ve rescinded my support for the SSP in Scotland because they advocate breaking the union.

Again, this is here and now. The UK is not a big enough block to stand on it&#39;s own without outside influence, and Scotland, Ireland, Wales and so on are no different. Why make life harder ? Why not try propogating a British workers republic?

What difference does it make that the republic is "Irish"?


the conditions are sadly very much the same as they have been for the last 400 years

Indeed - and this is one of the reasons I agree that it would make sense politically to release NI from the union. Unfortunately, it&#39;s not that simple - there are too many partisan loyalists for this to be a realistic option. With this in mind, why not capitulate that small demand to help propogate the greater - that of a workers republic.


Things have changed only a little. Until only a few years ago, children and adults were regularly harrassed and arrested, sometimes held in gaol indefinitely for speaking their own language, Gaeilge. Now that&#39;s not very common.

Wasn&#39;t it just absurd that people were persecuted for their language? These people are not &#39;british&#39; or any specific nationality - that&#39;s just a generalisation. These people exist throughout all cultures.

Even if independance was achieved, these people would still exist, and would find another excuse.


We&#39;re talking about making the soldiers withdrawal and destroying the Orange-clerical puppet state. It&#39;s not chuavinism; we aim for a Workers Republic.

I do not doubt your intent - I&#39;d have been considerably more aggresive if I did ;) My point is that your goal is a dangerous one, as it&#39;s primarily based on Nationalism - whether this is your own primary driving concern is not especially relevant, though if it was I must admit I would be concerned.

Socialism is more important than nationalism, I&#39;m sure you agree.


As Marx and Engels argued, a liberated Ireland could help set off a chain of events in the British Isles. As long as English/Scots/Welsh workers are welded to imperialism social change is unlikely

The south is technically liberated and nothing has fundamentally changed. I agree it takes only macro sized events to change the course of history, but to assume that independance from the UK would kick-start social change throughout the UK is a dangerous presumption. As long as the UK government retains the support of the police and armed forces, social change is next to impossible. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts in my mind.


The last thing we want is capitalist rule from Dublin. The last Volunteer to die on AS was killed by Gardai, the Guards of the 26 county state. We hate those bastards far more than we could ever hate the brits.

Things are never this simple. Fighting for a 32 county workers republic of ireland is a noble cause in itself, but it will lead to a 32 county capitalis republic first.

We have that now in the UK - to me it amounts to a sidewards step.


We want to break the Union because we regard it as the source of division in the Irish working class. It has retarded working class politics to an extreme degree, most especially in the north

Whether under rule from westminster or Dublin, this would not change.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:48 AM

Damn funny thing for a Loyalist to say, as I&#39;ve NEVER heard of the IRA planting a bomb at any school, but Loyalists do it all the time&#33; Look at the now world famous events at Holy Cross, where self-described "socialists" of the PUP were hurling pipe bombs at preteen school girls&#33;



You used the juvenile term "num-nuts". I did offer insults, but they were criticisms of your politics - you defend imperialism.



That&#39;s exactly what I&#39;m talking about here.

I don&#39;t approve of the IRA myself, but to equate a few hundred insurgents (who have decommissioned almost all their armory) to what was last estimated (in Ireland) at just under 15,000 personnel is absurd.

Especially since the Brits are still severly beating non-combatants, attacking protestors with CS gas, invading nationalist neighborhoods, arresting former paramilitaries and their judges have just decreed that evidence gained through torture is admissable in court.

It is the duty of ever communist to opposse their own nation&#39;s imperialism, and what&#39;s going on in Ireland is obviously imperialism, the Brits themselves say they are still at war.



I didn&#39;t think you&#39;d question that, or the massacres attributed to a man who said "nits make lice" in his defence of murdering Irish babies. Or who slaughtered 3,500 ppl at Drogheda. Also, no historian denies that he sold 40,000 Irish women into slavery to Barbados.

Don&#39;t have the time to look it up on the net, but you could check out the books by Seamus Metress Phd or the excellent "Story of the Irish Race" by Seamus McManus.

PS - I love that your "evidence" is a loyalist website. . . made by Canadians&#33;&#33; :P
Damn funny thing for a Loyalist to say,

:rolleyes:

Now I realise that you obviously find logic very hard to grasp butlets run through this, do you really think that a person who critisises the British army, and calls them as bad as the murderous IRA scum is a loyalist? Now you think about that... even though it will hurt.

as I&#39;ve NEVER heard of the IRA planting a bomb at any school

The IRA have planted bombs on school routs before, and when this fake ceasefire ends I have no doubt they will again.

I did offer insults, but they were criticisms of your politics

If you notice they were hurled at me long before i bothered to reply in kind. If you dont want to engage in flame, then dont fucking start it.

I don&#39;t approve of the IRA myself

Sorry but you clearly do, the way your going on about their noble cause, and basically dumbing down their countless crimes, yet actually inflating the crimes of the "English", makes it rather obvious.

Especially since the Brits are still severly beating non-combatants, attacking protestors with CS gas, invading nationalist neighborhoods, arresting former paramilitaries and their judges have just decreed that evidence gained through torture is admissable in court.

Which is all nothing compaired to what the IRA are still doing. Ohh and as for arresting former paramilitaries, good fucking riddance. Just because you murdered someone 20 years ago are you any less of a murderer?

It is the duty of ever communist to opposse their own nation&#39;s imperialism

Indeed, you however dont bother with your own nationalism and imperialism.

and what&#39;s going on in Ireland is obviously imperialism,

Hardly, the British for nearly a century have been playing a game of managed retreat, I hasten to add if the IRA had actually stopped their activities Ireland would probably be united by now. But that would be bye bye to the IRA&#39;s profit and power.

the Brits themselves say they are still at war.


Actually they dont, they say that the troubles in NI are over.

I didn&#39;t think you&#39;d question that, or the massacres attributed to a man who said "nits make lice" in his defence of murdering Irish babies.

I dont, I question your hugley inaccurate figures, and your idiotic attempt to blame it on the "English" working class.

we are fighting for a 32 county Worker&#39;s Republic.

I am for a united world workers state, fuck republics, fuck Ireland, fuck the UK, and fuck you and anybopdy else who wants to create still more boundries for the workers of the world. Your fucking worse than any capitalist, your a nationalist, and scum like you should be stamped on.

[Conghaileach]

That does it. I&#39;m closing this thread. The initial post offered a chance to seriously discuss the situation in Ireland and especially as regards the occupation in comparison to countries like Iraq. I hoped this could happen maturely. Unfortunately Engima had to reply instantly by spouting the garbage propaganda of Brit state institutions. I understand many would have liked a proper discussion, but this thread has quickly degenerated into a series of offensive comments only strenuously linked to the original topic.

In conclusion, whatever the IRA&#39;s crimes may be, they can&#39;t possibly match those of British imperialism. Trying to impose a moral equivalency on the two will only lead to further antagonisms between members. And that is not what this board is about.


Enigma, I&#39;ve mentioned your name calling habits to you once. But you had to tell OglachMcGlinchey that "scum like you should be stamped on". For this you&#39;re being warned again.