Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: derry lad on 16 June 2010, 15:54:18
-
all 14 murdered declared innocent,a great relief for the families,but you have to ask,what took them so long?
-
all 14 murdered declared innocent,a great relief for the families,but you have to ask,what took them so long?
admitting that our forces murdered unarmed innocent civilians, lied and covered it up is never easy :(
truth always finds a way through tho.......eventually
-
I think it's quite sad that all the years of conflict were for what, the last corner of the Great British Empire. England should have and still should pull out and return the land back to Ireland.
But that's just my opinion.
-
I think it's quite sad that all the years of conflict were for what, the last corner of the Great British Empire. England should have and still should pull out and return the land back to Ireland.
But that's just my opinion.
It is up to the people who live there
-
I think it's quite sad that all the years of conflict were for what, the last corner of the Great British Empire. England should have and still should pull out and return the land back to Ireland.
But that's just my opinion.
Seems a simple enough idea R, but where would British citizens who live there go?
-
all 14 murdered declared innocent,a great relief for the families,but you have to ask,what took them so long?
admitting that our forces murdered unarmed innocent civilians, lied and covered it up is never easy :(
truth always finds a way through tho.......eventually
Irrespective of whatever many people would like to think, this is not a black and white issue - the following is a modified post I made on another thread concerning this matter;
The use of the army in response to what was, for the most part, a civil problem was always going to cause difficulties - but then it was necessary at the time as the civil police (Royal Ulster Constabulary) had lost the support of a sizeable section of the nationalist population(and control of the areas they inhabited)
When the army was being tasked for Operation Banner, aid to the civil power, in 1969 I seem to remember Jim Callaghan (the then Home Secretary) saying that it would be easy to send troops there but not so easy to bring them back, and so it proved.
The incident in Londonderry was one waiting to happen and a consequence of having armed soldiers on the streets at a time other than during open war and furthermore a, natural consequence of a cynical republican movement and its desire to foment conflict with British forces by using any means possible - including such demonstrations.
The army personnel concerned were doing their duty as soldiers that day and to have expected them to have done anything else would have rendered their presence there as being unnecessary - which it most certainly was not during a time of generalised murder and mayhem.
-
I'm not saying that they have to go anywhere.
If you look at a map of England, NI is part of it. Clearly this isn't the case. There isn't a piece of land in Scotland that remains part of England, or for that matter any in Wales either. Or indeed in any other country that was part of the Empire.
Is it right for England to still lay claim to part of an Island that clearly is not English?
-
I'm not saying that they have to go anywhere.
If you look at a map of England, NI is part of it. Clearly this isn't the case. There isn't a piece of land in Scotland that remains part of England, or for that matter any in Wales either. Or indeed in any other country that was part of the Empire.
Is it right for England to still lay claim to part of an Island that clearly is not English?
Many British citizens presently living there would disagree with you R I'm sure and, being as they consider themselves to be British rather than Irish, would this idea not cause more than a few problems?
-
Being British, and part of the British Isles is one thing, but the land it self belongs to Ireland, not England.
I'm not suggesting it would ever happen, or be easy, or anything such like, just merely adding to the discussion.
English troops, government or anything else would not have been there or be there now if Ireland wasn't seen as yet another commodity or something else that the English could just take because they could. Bfor the spread of religion or for whatever reason the reining King of England at the time thought.
-
Being British, and part of the British Isles is one thing, but the land it self belongs to Ireland, not England.
I'm not suggesting it would ever happen, or be easy, or anything such like, just merely adding to the discussion.
English troops, government or anything else would not have been there or be there now if Ireland wasn't seen as yet another commodity or something else that the English could just take because they could. Bfor the spread of religion or for whatever reason the reining King of England at the time thought.
Whilst history teaches us that there are consequences to actions taken, these actions must be judged using the criteria used by those engaging in such activity at the time - whether it was right or wrong.
There are many 'what if's' but these should logically pass into irrelevance because we must deal with the present. In this context, the people who are presently living in Northern Ireland and consider themselves to be British must surely own the land they reside on or have a claim to it at the very least.
That is of course if land, in terms of nationhood, can really be owned by anyone, I would have thought that having stewardship of it would be the best anyone could hope for.
-
Northern Ireland is not part of England or part of the map of England :-/ :-/ :-/ it is not "ruled" by England, England has no claim to it, other than to uphold the democratic wishes of the people who live there.It has exactly the same status as Scotland and Wales - one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
The land itself doesnt belong to Ireland for two reasons
1. There is no such country as Ireland, ther are two countries on the Island of Ireland - Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland.
2. In Democratic Western Europe a land doesnt belong to one country or another , it belongs to (for [political purposes at least) the people who inhabit it, and the majority of the people who inhabit the country of Northern Ireland very much wish to remain an integral part of the U.K. ;)
Northern Ireland is in no way a commodity, quite the reverse actually, in monetary terms it has cost British taxpayers huge amounts of money and if Westminster politicians could have found some way off getting rid of it quietly, they would have done so by the early/mid 70,s.
"English" soldiers - presumably speaking of the British army(English/Welsh/Scottish/N.Irish) didnt invade Northern Ireland btw. Their presence was actually reqeusted by the Catholic/Republican community.
Back to the Bloody Sunday issue - it was beyond belief that the enquiry took over 12 years and cost something like £180million to come to its conclusions. Apparently at least 17 lawyers have become millionares out of it.
I do hope that the families concerned can now have closure on the matter and it has now been put to bed so to speak, and the media and lawyers will have no more mileage out of it.
-
Hmm OK, possibly a little bad wording on my part to say 'part of England' however as you state, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and as such, this is what I meant and shows up in certain cituations, like this:
(http://international.uiowa.edu/study-abroad/images/UK-JR-UKmap.gif)
The Island of Ireland or any part of it was never part of the UK, until some time around the 1800's. A simple quote from Wiki if I may:
"A Norman invasion in the Middle Ages gave way to English domination by the 1500s. In the 1600s, a system of Protestant English rule was designed to materially disadvantage the Roman Catholic majority and Protestant dissenters, and was extended during the 1700s. In 1801, Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom. A war of independence in the early 20th century led to the partition of the island, creating the Irish Free State, which became increasingly sovereign over the following decades. Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom and saw much civil unrest from the late 1960s until the 1990s."
That is my point, the whole Island of Ireland was never part of the UK, until after occupation by the English and much tom foolery by Oliver Cromwell etc. He used land to pay his troops (commodity). English occupation and religious differences eventually led to the to the Island being divided into Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Calling Ireland or Eire "no such country" is being a little pedantic I feel. The Island of treland only came about after the division of the country in the first place.
What was it before it was invaded by the Normans and then the English? I think you will find by definition, it is a country:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/country
-
Rufus, with respect, under your reasoning, it could be said that Australia belongs to the Aborigines, New Zealand belongs to the Maoris and that the USA belongs to the Native Americans... Now, all this may be theoretically, morally - and even legally - true, but what happened in the 1800s is irrelevant in 2010.
My own view is that digging up the past is rarely a solution. It tends to cause more disquiet, not less.
We live in the present.
;)
-
Hmm OK, possibly a little bad wording on my part to say 'part of England' however as you state, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and as such, this is what I meant and shows up in certain cituations, like this:
http://international.uiowa.edu/study-abroad/images/UK-JR-UKmap.gif
The Island of Ireland or any part of it was never part of the UK, until some time around the 1800's. A simple quote from Wiki if I may:
"A Norman invasion in the Middle Ages gave way to English domination by the 1500s. In the 1600s, a system of Protestant English rule was designed to materially disadvantage the Roman Catholic majority and Protestant dissenters, and was extended during the 1700s. In 1801, Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom. A war of independence in the early 20th century led to the partition of the island, creating the Irish Free State, which became increasingly sovereign over the following decades. Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom and saw much civil unrest from the late 1960s until the 1990s."
That is my point, the whole Island of Ireland was never part of the UK, until after occupation by the English and much tom foolery by Oliver Cromwell etc. He used land to pay his troops (commodity). English occupation and religious differences eventually led to the to the Island being divided into Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Calling Ireland or Eire "no such country" is being a little pedantic I feel. The Island of treland only came about after the division of the country in the first place.
What was it before it was invaded by the Normans and then the English? I think you will find by definition, it is a country:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/country
I suppose it's very much a case of ‘if your grandmother had been blessed with balls she would have been your grandfather', if you forgive my freedom R - it's largely irrelevant to what's hiding under her drawers presently.
Whatever has gone before, the incontrovertible fact is that there are two countries presently occupying that landmass to the west of the British mainland: Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland - both members of the EU of course.
-
Hmm OK, possibly a little bad wording on my part to say 'part of England' however as you state, Northern Ireland is part of the UK and as such, this is what I meant and shows up in certain cituations, like this:
(http://international.uiowa.edu/study-abroad/images/UK-JR-UKmap.gif)
The Island of Ireland or any part of it was never part of the UK, until some time around the 1800's. A simple quote from Wiki if I may:
"A Norman invasion in the Middle Ages gave way to English domination by the 1500s. In the 1600s, a system of Protestant English rule was designed to materially disadvantage the Roman Catholic majority and Protestant dissenters, and was extended during the 1700s. In 1801, Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom. A war of independence in the early 20th century led to the partition of the island, creating the Irish Free State, which became increasingly sovereign over the following decades. Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom and saw much civil unrest from the late 1960s until the 1990s."
That is my point, the whole Island of Ireland was never part of the UK, until after occupation by the English and much tom foolery by Oliver Cromwell etc. He used land to pay his troops (commodity). English occupation and religious differences eventually led to the to the Island being divided into Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Calling Ireland or Eire "no such country" is being a little pedantic I feel. The Island of treland only came about after the division of the country in the first place.
What was it before it was invaded by the Normans and then the English? I think you will find by definition, it is a country:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/country
Not in the least pedantic.Just stating a simple fact. Ireland is an island (geographical entity) on which there are two countries (political entities), you may think that there shouldnt be, but that doesnt alter the fact that there is.
Believe me Rufus I dont need any Irish history lessons from wikipedia, but as others have said, The situation or status of the country in the past doesnt really bear relevance to its current status.the situation has been for almost 100 years that Northern Ireland is a country and is recognised as such in international law etc. To change the staus of that country would require the consent of its citizens and that is unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.
The logic you use to say that both of the countries on the Island of Ireland should cease to exist and there should be one country called "Ireland, would also surely dictate that England, Scotland and Wales should also cease to exist and be replaced by one country - presumably called Great Britain ? :-/
Northern Ireland came about as a result of a deal thrashed out between the British government , and the then leadership of the IRA. ;)
If you look back at the history of almost any country you will usually find that at some point it was conquered /invaded by another country - thats the way the world use to work- it doesnt mean that you should always turn back the clock and put it back how it was, this is often impossible anyway. The only sensible thing to do is to asess where you are now , and decide on the best course of action to move forward from that point. :y
-
regardless of where northern ireland is,the murder of 14 innocent unarmed civillians is tragic,and to wait almost 40 years on an apology and admission of guilt is unacceptable and shamefull. >:(
-
regardless of where northern ireland is,the murder of 14 innocent unarmed civilians is tragic,and to wait almost 40 years on an apology and admission of guilt is unacceptable and shamefull. >:(
I agree that it was indeed a terrible episode and it is shameful that it has taken so long for the facts to be established.
Mind you, while we're on the subject, it is shameful that the IRA has not apologised for its murders over the period. Shameful, too, that McGuiness holds office, IMHO. :(
-
Its bad but, I personally don't care.....its before my time and similar atrocities sadly occur every year the world over.
Humans are not infallible and mistakes will be made.....that will always be a fact of life.
What I do care about is spending such a stupid amount of money on an inquiry.
-
Rufus, with respect, under your reasoning, it could be said that Australia belongs to the Aborigines, New Zealand belongs to the Maoris and that the USA belongs to the Native Americans... Now, all this may be theoretically, morally - and even legally - true, but what happened in the 1800s is irrelevant in 2010.
My own view is that digging up the past is rarely a solution. It tends to cause more disquiet, not less.
We live in the present.
;)
Irrelevent, far from it. We are what we are today because of what happened. Australia is what it is today because of the British colonizing and taking the land from the indiginous people, as with America, New Zealand etc etc. Yes all this land does belong to the native people. Of course only a dreamer would imagine land ever being returned, but you cannot say otherwise, these great countries that they are today because of how Europeans rampaged around the globe taking what they wanted from where they wanted.
You are right, digging up the past is no solution, but that doesn't mean we should allow future generations to forget what costs were incurred along the way.
My statement was simple, if the land was returned to the Irish, the troubles of Northern Ireland wouldn't exist. An impossibility nowdays I guess, but true none the less. Should I or anyone else feel guilty for what happened 200/400 years ago, of course not that is just stupid.
Our kids should be tought about what went on in our pasts, our past is not irrelevent in the slightest. How many of your kids have learned of Oliver Cromwell at school? But I bet they never come home telling of how he decimated the Irish. Or indeed the great Sir Francis Drake, pioneer, explorer, pirate and slave trader.
Would Hitler's campain been so irrelevent had he succeded? I think not, but the English are quick enough to condem and hate for what he tried to do, but not quick enough to remind ourselves that we were doing just the same a few hundred years earlier.
Probably gone slightly off topic there I guess. My parents were both Irish, their parents, theirs before them, on and on so perhaps a little of the original Irish man is in me and cannot let go. But one thing I am not doing is 'giving Irish history Wiki lessons :y
And perhaps the IRA feel that their terror campain, is today, irrelevant. Hense no appology.
-
So, what the British did 200 years ago is very relevant, but what the IRA did 20 years ago isnt relevant at all? :-/ :-/
-
I'm not saying that, but perhaps the IRA have the same views as Nickbat?
It's all in the past and irrelevant?
-
I'm not saying that, but perhaps the IRA have the same views as Nickbat?
It's all in the past and irrelevant?
Huh? :-?
I merely said that what happened 200 years ago is irrelevant, a point upon which we seem to agree when you say "...if the land was returned to the Irish, the troubles of Northern Ireland wouldn't exist.... An impossibility nowdays I guess". Indeed! If it is an impossibility, as you say, then it shows that no amount of arguing about the distant past can have any effect on matters as they currently exist. If they have no effect, then their relevance must surely be questionable.
I assume that you believe, as most would, that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry was relevant, given that the event occurred only 30 years ago. If you believe that, then logically you must believe that an admission of guilt/apology by the IRA would be similarly relevant.
-
Maybe not too many U2 fans on here but this is worth persevering with just too hear the speech at 3.45, it brought tears to my eyes the first time I heard it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9c4lLnY0rA[/media]
-
Any chance of an enquiry,and sincere apology for the other Bloody Sunday, it doesnt seem to get as much publicity as the first one for some reason.
http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/enniskillen.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/northern_ireland/2001/provisional_ira/1987.stm
-
regardless of where northern ireland is,the murder of 14 innocent unarmed civillians is tragic,and to wait almost 40 years on an apology and admission of guilt is unacceptable and shamefull. >:(
I can certainly see that DL and accept your position. Perhaps the political carrot of 'the hand of history' ensured that the Saville enquiry was eventually ordered by Mr Blair, however the outcome won't bring any of those back.
It's tragic that anyone had to die during the course of these 'troubles' but die they did - in their droves.
Personally I'm not looking for an apology from any one for the injuries I received during my time there or for the horrific deaths of many of my colleagues - it was a job, albeit a dangerous one, that simply had to be done otherwise mayhem would have ensued.
It is important to remember however that Northern Ireland at the time was a country as close to civil war as we're likely to see for a long time in Western Europe and in helping to prevent that I certainly don’t have anything to apologise for.
-
I, the same as many others, did as I was told (ordered) without question or complaint. However, it is my considered opinion that had I and all the others NOT been there in NI in the time we were, then total mayhem (as Zulu said) on the streets would have resulted, and My role as far as I was concerned, was "peace keeper", not adversary to the Northern Irish people, who were for the most part lovely , kind, people, who I have visited a few times since and become good friends with. Yes, there were the exceptions, a few hard hearted, opinionated, ruthless people who only wanted to cause pain and suffering, but these were in the minority, and most were caught, or known about, or even thwarted in their attempts to kill or maim innocent people.
"Bloody Sunday" was wrong for a lot of reasons, but you really needed to be there to appreciate the futility and sometimes confusion of the armed forces, when the bullet with your name on it could arrive at any time from the most trusted of sources, or the most safe places, and you were told "you may not fire back unless your life is in direct risk, or you are given permission to do so by a superior officer".
The supposed "shoot to kill" policy was complete rubbish. Many times you were under fire and COULD not fire back, because you were not allowed to.
Sorry, maybe you shouldn't debate this argument so fully unless you had been there, it puts a real spin on your opinion then.
May I also state that this is only my opinion, and I am not trying to stop any other person having theirs, or criticising them for doing so.
-
Rufus, with respect, under your reasoning, it could be said that Australia belongs to the Aborigines, New Zealand belongs to the Maoris and that the USA belongs to the Native Americans... Now, all this may be theoretically, morally - and even legally - true, but what happened in the 1800s is irrelevant in 2010.
My own view is that digging up the past is rarely a solution. It tends to cause more disquiet, not less.
We live in the present.
;)
Irrelevent, far from it. We are what we are today because of what happened. Australia is what it is today because of the British colonizing and taking the land from the indiginous people, as with America, New Zealand etc etc. Yes all this land does belong to the native people. Of course only a dreamer would imagine land ever being returned, but you cannot say otherwise, these great countries that they are today because of how Europeans rampaged around the globe taking what they wanted from where they wanted.
You are right, digging up the past is no solution, but that doesn't mean we should allow future generations to forget what costs were incurred along the way.
My statement was simple, if the land was returned to the Irish, the troubles of Northern Ireland wouldn't exist. An impossibility nowdays I guess, but true none the less. Should I or anyone else feel guilty for what happened 200/400 years ago, of course not that is just stupid.
Our kids should be tought about what went on in our pasts, our past is not irrelevent in the slightest. How many of your kids have learned of Oliver Cromwell at school? But I bet they never come home telling of how he decimated the Irish. Or indeed the great Sir Francis Drake, pioneer, explorer, pirate and slave trader.
Would Hitler's campain been so irrelevent had he succeded? I think not, but the English are quick enough to condem and hate for what he tried to do, but not quick enough to remind ourselves that we were doing just the same a few hundred years earlier.
Probably gone slightly off topic there I guess. My parents were both Irish, their parents, theirs before them, on and on so perhaps a little of the original Irish man is in me and cannot let go. But one thing I am not doing is 'giving Irish history Wiki lessons :y
And perhaps the IRA feel that their terror campain, is today, irrelevant. Hense no appology.
This is all very laudable Rufus but like most intellectualising your argument clings to the theoretical at the expense of the practical.
Of course history is there to teach us many things - but the lessons are seldom heeded because of the 'hear and now'
To attempt to suggest that there would have been no conflict in Northern Ireland had the land been returned to the Irish is illogical, as no one could possibly say that with any degree of conviction without having powers that allowed them to see what may have been.
Ireland was a tribal nation split into four provinces each having autonomy in terms of leadership. It was a bellicose country as a whole throughout history the citizens of which frequently fought each other; it didn't require intervention from others to excite the natives
When you muse over the return of the 'occupied' lands to the Irish you should also consider that there would be a number of people who would object - whatever the period in time - at this transfer. In this context your assertions are invalid as you, or anyone for that matter, can't second guess history.
Finally you shouldn't forget that there was a civil war in Ireland - amongst the native Irish and those simmering tensions are reflected to this day in the political structures and sentiments found in the Republic of Ireland.
-
I`d like to ask is the I.R.A. gonna hold an inquiry and apologise for all the innocents they killed?? Warrington,Belfast,Birmingham.... >:( >:(