you don't sit down to talk with people who have guns in their back pockets.

according the 'sceptic's logic, we can't talk to the police, anyone with a mate in the army, the MOD.. oh and a good proportion of USAns carry arms by right of their constitution, um... and our government has taken us to war with them, (and Bush, holders of the biggest nuke stockpile on earth....) or is it somehow different if the negotiator is irish?
not if they are protestant/loyalist, there are plenty negotiating for that side with links to armed thugs...
(not) funny how indigenous resistance in the oldest british colony is still subject to such prejudice!

Like the British Army.

If you wish to nitpick, okay.

But political processes should go by that quaint notion, democracy. Democracy does not mean shooting your way to the ballot box.

If we are to talk about where N Ireland should be part of a united Ireland, then I think you should respect the wishes of the people there, and at the moment the majority of the people do not want that. Odd thing, democracy. That principle was applied in East Timor, and I don't think many on this forum would disagree with that case. Or in the case of the Czechs and the Slovaks. Or the Albanians in Kosovo. And so on.

Sceptic...first, just on a bit of a historical note, strategically creating a 'province' to make sure that the majority allowed into it are those that agree with you(as i'm sure you know the british did when they created n.ireland)and then asking what does the majority want in that area doesnt sound much of a democratic idea to me...the wishes of the people (that you talked about) were not respected then, an odd thing indeed democracy, as you said....Ok,but that was long ago, so closer to the present...If you are not going to talk to anyone holding guns or even just not to those ones holding them 'illegally' (as you seem to make that difference) then, you are never going to sort n.ireland's or many other conflicts..and then again in n.ireland those who are so 'principled' about no talking with sinn fein or ira, such as ian pasley, have supported an armed force and police terrorising half of a population for 3 decades and have supported loyalist armed groups,remaining silent about sectarian loyalist killings and public forces abuses,when not encouraging them..and what about the more than proven now collision between loyalist paramilitaries and the ruc?..no, sceptic...if you are not gonna talk to anyone using arms 'illegally' in n.ireland(and remmeber that includes ruc and b.army)then there is just not point on talks at all....

and not, n.ireland is not like kosovo or even less like czechoslovakia...

just to finish,i'm not encouraging shooting your way to the ballot box (among other things, coz parlamanetary democracy doesnt deliver either)...but i believe that when people take such drastic steps they have tried other options first, such as starting social movements to gain their rights, as it was the case of the civil rights movement in n.ireland (where people tried peacefully to get their rights recognised and were killed by british soldiers for doing so under what you will call a democracy)...a civil rights movement which by the way, ian paisley opposed vigorously at the time,as you may remember...

sara

If we are correct in saying that American imperialism is a paper tiger, i.e., that it can ultimately be defeated, and if the Chinese Communists are correct in their thesis that victory over American imperialism has become possible because the struggle against it is now being waged in all four corners of the earth, with the result that the forces of imperialism are fragmented, a fragmentation which makes them possible to defeat -- if this is correct, then there is no reason to exclude or disqualify any particular country or any particular region from taking part in the anti-imperialist struggle because the forces of revolution are especially weak there and the forces of reaction especially strong.

As it is wrong to discourage the forces of revolution by underestimating their power, so it is wrong to suggest they should seek confrontations in which these forces cannot but be squandered or annihilated. The contradiction between the sincere comrades in the organization -- let's forget about the prattler -- and the Red Army Faction, is that we charge them with discouraging the forces of revolution and they suspect us of squandering the forces of revolution. Certainly, this analysis does indicate the directions in which the fraction of those comrades working in the factories and at local level and the Red Army Faction are overdoing things, if they are overdoing things. Dogmatism and adventurism have since time immemorial been characteristic deviations in periods of revolutionary weakness in all countries. Anarchists have since time immemorial been the sharpest critics of opportunism, anyone criticizing the opportunists exposes himself to the charge of anarchism. This is something of an old chestnut.

The concept of the "urban guerrilla" originated in Latin America. Here, the urban guerrilla can only be what he is there: the only revolutionary method of intervention available to what are on the whole weak revolutionary forces.

The urban guerrilla starts by recognizing that there will be no Prussian order of march of the kind in which so many so-called revolutionaries would like to lead the people into battle. He starts by recognizing that by the time the moment for armed struggle arrives, it will already be too late to start preparing for it; that in a country whose potential for violence is as great and whose revolutionary traditions are as broken and feeble as the Federal Republic's, there will not -- without revolutionary initiative -- even be a revolutionary orientation when conditions for revolutionary struggle are better than they are at present -- which will happen as an inevitable consequence of the development of late capitalism itself.

To this extent, the "urban guerrilla" is the logical consequence of the negation of parliamentary democracy long since perpetuated by it very own representatives; the only and inevitable response to emergency laws and the rule of the hand grenade; the readiness to fight with those same means the system has chosen to use in trying to eliminate its opponents. The "urban guerrilla" is based on a recognition of the facts instead of an apologia of the facts.

The student movement, for one, realized something of what the urban guerrilla can do. He can make concrete agitation and propaganda which remain the sum total of left-wing activity. One can imagine the concept being applied to the Springer campaign at that time or to the Heidelberg students' Cabora Bassa Campaign, to the squads in Frankfurt, or in relation to the Federal Republic's military aid to the comprador regimes in Africa, in relation to criticism of prison sentences and class justice, of safely legislation at work and injustice there.

The urban guerrilla can concretize verbal internationalism as the requisition of guns and money. He can blunt the state's weapon of a ban on communists by organizing an underground beyond the reach of the police. The urban guerrilla is a weapon in the class war.

The "urban guerrilla" signifies armed struggle, necessary to the extent that it is the police which make indiscriminate use of firearms, exonerating class justice from guilt and burying our comrades alive unless we prevent them. To be an "urban guerrilla" means not to let oneself be demoralized by the violence of the system.

The urban guerrilla's aim is to attack the state's apparatus of control at certain points and put them out of action, to destroy the myth of the system's omnipresence and invulnerability.

The "urban guerrilla" presupposes the organization of an illegal apparatus, in other words apartments, weapons, ammunition, cars and papers. A detailed description of what is involved is to be found in Marighella's "Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla." As for what else is involved, we are ready at any time to inform anyone who needs to know because he intends to do it. We do not know a great deal yet, but we do know something.

What is important is that one should have had some political experience in legality before deciding to take up armed struggle. Those who have joined the revolutionary left just to be trendy had better be careful not to involve themselves in something from which there is no going back. The Red Army Faction and the "urban guerrilla" are the that fraction and praxis which, because they draw a clear dividing line between themselves and the enemy, are combated most intensively. This presupposes a political identity, presupposed that one or two lessons have already been learned.

In our original concept, we planned to combine urban guerrilla activity with grass-roots work. What we wanted was for each of us to work simultaneously within existing socialist groups at the work place and in local districts, helping to influence the discussion process, learning, gaining experience. It has become clear that this cannot be done. These groups are under such close surveillance by the political police, their meetings, timetables, and the content of their discussion so well monitored, that it is impossible to attend without being put under surveillance oneself. We have learned that individuals cannot combine legal and illegal activity.

Becoming an "urban guerrilla" presupposes that one is clear about one's own motivation that one is sure of being immune to "Bild-Zeitung" methods, sure that the whole anti-Semite-criminal-subhuman-murderer-arsonist syndrome they use against revolutionaries, all that shit that they alone are able to abstract and articulate and that still influences some comrades' attitude to us, that none of this has any effect on us.

I'm not for a moment defending the past. But we should be concerned with the present and the future. Violence on the part of one side of a community inevitably leads to violence from the other side.

Whilst democracy has its faults, and while other systems may have theoretical advantages, it is the best practical and working system of government that has evolved so far.

In a system of full adult suffrage, there is no justification for the use of guns and bombs. Once one group has claimed the right to use them, then they have implicitly granted others to right to use them.

"Once one group has claimed the right to use them, then they have implicitly granted others to right to use them."

Yeah. Apart from if that one group is the British Army. Or cops. Or loyalist paras, backed by one or both of the above.

It all sounds so simple, when you don't live here.

If you are going to have a rule of law, then there has to be some way of enforcing it. That means a police force and/or army.

No bombs and no Armalites means no justification for an Army presence. If the IRA were to disarm - and show they have disarmed - then policing could return to normal peacetime/mainland levels.

One of the sadder aspects of the IRA bomb campaign on the mainland has the acceptance among the general population for greater security. The killing of the likes of the Parry boy did not help, nor did the indiscriminate bombing of pubs.

Oh yes, "the rule of law". I've heard of that. As if your uniformed thugs actually help to bring that about.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2955941.stm

...and much, much more that the BBC would never report.

It's not the simplistic choice between the armed IRA and the armed British state enforcers that you seem to think it is.

When things go wrong we get an inquiry into it. That's part of what you might call law and order.

Mind you, if the IRA hadn't been going round murdering people, the problem wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now think: why were the Unionist paramilitaries formed? Could it be to do with Unionists being murdered? Like the workmen in the minibus? Like the Inniskillen bombing? Like the ethnic cleansing of Protestant farmers near the border? Then you're surprised the Unionists form their own paramilitaries?

Sceptic, you're not addressing the`point that the British army and the security forces are not fundamentally different to those who do not wear uniforms when they kill people. What grants these forces legitimacy? The fact they wear uniforms and were the strongest militiary force in the province.
By that logic, the French Resistance should not have resisted the Nazis. The Algerians should not have resisted the French. The problem is, you can only see 'our boys' as being completely honorable and well-behaved, and 'the others' as being fundamentally wrong because they are different.
It is not like that.
The British army and security forces in Northern Ireland have committed terrible acts there since, well, the occupation of Ireland. The fact they wear a uniform when they do this does not change anything. The fact we're a 'democracy' does not change anything.

The US was supposedly a democracy during the civil rights struggle, when black people were subjected to a terrible apartheid regime.

If you cannot see the IRA as having as equal a right to arms as, for example, the British army, then you don't understand their position. They have given their word they are disarming, and this has been verified by independent witnesses. But they don't have to provide photographs, because they do not feel they did anything wrong in having these weapons, it was legitimate resistance to occupation. Why is it not enough for you that they are disarming? Why do you seek to undermine their pride and dignity as well?

What grants these forces legitimacy? I'll tell you what grants them legitimacy. The votes of some tens of millions of people. The people who elect the Government.

Look at your own argument. The French resistance? Hardly fighting an elected democratic Government now, were they?

The American Civil Rightsd movement did not go around shooting people, did they? Isn't that what Martin Luther King was honoured for - peaceful protest?

The security forces are no different? Well, they don't go around randomly planting bombs with the aim of killing as many people as they can do they? They don't stop minibuses full of workers and shoot them on the basis of their religion, do they?

Pride and dignity. Ah, yes, these are the people who must have a lot of pride in the way they've used their guns. Shooting the kneecaps of those who they don't like. Excuse me, sonny, just hold still while I put this bullet thru your leg. Pride? It's medieval and barbaric. There is nothing to be proud of in that. The pride and dignity of those who hide in unmarked graves the bodies of those they shot by mistake. Then deny they did it. Bodies? What bodies? Oh, those bodies, you mean.

Of course, that sort of thing is poor public relations these days. So let's not shoot teenagers through the limbs any more. Let's just break them with baseball bats.

People on this forum complain about ASBOs. Quite right too. Let's invite McGuinness - who wants to be a minister - over, and cripple the kids instead.

Who are the independent witnesses? Hands up, anyone?

And look at the way the argument is pitched. You won't let us into Government because we have guns? Oh, well, we'll get rid of them. Photos? WHat? You want photos? How dare you! What impertinenence! Well, if you want photos, it's off then. No, not photos. Excuse us while we just go and shoot a few more pople.

"I'll tell you what grants them legitimacy. The votes of some tens of millions of people. The people who elect the Government."

Pardon? There are only 1.6 million people in Northern Ireland. Under the ludicrous system you're referring to, someone in the Isle of Wight is allowed to vote on N. Ireland affairs, but someone in Dundalk a few miles south of the artificial border is not. Thus your claims of "grants of legitimacy" are absurd. Granted? By whom?

The present boundaries were artificially set by the occupying British forces to guarantee support for a regional British government in "free and fair elections". Well, yes, they're free and fair, but only for the people allowed to vote in them. A bit like Israel/Palestine, really.

The wishes of the deliberately-engineered "minority" of existing residents north of the border who would prefer to be part of the Republic, and kick your "legitimate" troops out can thus be legally ignored.

and in exactly the same way, people in Dundalk can vote on U.K. affairs.

People in Edinburgh can vote on matters that affect Cornwall. Dublin is closer, but Dublin people can't vote on Cornish matters.

The border may be artificial, but a plebiscite would of the people in N Ireland would support rentention.

If you think it's there because the Government in London wants it, you're wrong. I would think most Government officials consider N Ireland as a millstone. But a proposal to remove the border would lead to a revolt by the Unionists - as Paisley so clearly demonstrates.

All land borders are artificial. But while the nation state exists, we're stuck with them.

If you want to change borders, do it by political means. If the majority of the people in N Ireland want to join Eire, then so be it. But they do not, as in exactly the same way the people of East Timor did not want to be part of Indonesia, nor the people of the Ukraine want to be part of Russia, nor the people in Slovenia part of Yugoslavia, and so on.

>>Now think: why were the Unionist paramilitaries formed? Could it be to do with Unionists being murdered? Like the workmen in the minibus? Like the Inniskillen bombing? Like the ethnic cleansing of Protestant farmers near the border? Then you're surprised the Unionists form their own paramilitaries?<<

If you had ever read anything other than the Daily Telegraph on this, then you might already know that Edward Carson's original UVF were formed as a military vanguard against the (British) Liberal government's plans for Irish home rule (with money and guns from the British Conservative party) in 1914, and the old IRA formed as a reaction to this. Many of the civilian massacres that you refer to (the Miami showband etc.) were run by MI5/RUC Special Branch as black ops. And outside of the spooky realms of the secret state, the modern IRA could never have functioned without the community support for it that was engendered by the Orange State's ridiculous over-reaction to Civil Rights demands for such mad Marxist items as a vote and a job, resulting in the burning out of whole streets in pogroms rarely seen (at the time) since anti-semitic Tsarist Russia.

Sceptic, you're going around in circles. I asked who gave these occupying forces legitimacy, and you said the votes of 10 million British people. But the opinion of millions of Irish people just next door to Northern Ireland have no say in this.

It's like saying, let's go occupy Normandy, then have a vote on it's sovereignty here in Britain, but not in France. Or it's like Israel-Palestine. Let's occupy someone elses country, ethnically cleanse the indigenous people out of the land, then hold a vote. Wow, what a surprise, the people have voted for Ariel Sharon!!! All praise the only democracy in the middle-east.

Anyway, if the votes of millions of British people count in this, why not have a referendum, Britain and Ireland included, whether we want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK or not. I never voted for British troops to occupy Northern Ireland. I never voted for British troops to occupy Iraq. How has my vote given these thugs in uniforms legitimacy?

Let's have a vote on this!!! Let's vote on Northern Ireland and Iraq.

Oh, why not? I thought we were a democracy. Ah, but some issues are just to complicated for ordinary people to understand, right. We just don't have the intelligence to understand the political subtleties, and look how many people have been taken in by this ridiculous left-wing propoganda. We couldn't possibly hold a vote, not until enough people have been brought around to the correct way of thinking, in any case.

Sceptic, open your eyes for Christ's sake...or at least be honest with yourself and us as to why you support the opinions you do. Is it because you believe in 'democracy'? I don't see much democracy involved in what is happening in the world at the moment.

Sure, you might not have voted for troops in N Ireland, or in Iraq. What do you suggest - we have nationwide referendum on every issue going? In a nation of 60 million people, there will be literally milions of opinions of everything under the sun. SO what do we do? If you could suggest a method of accomodating this, fine. But no one has yet come up with such a system.

We do need a central government to take decisions nation wide - on roads, railways, police forces, and hosts of other issues. How are we going to choose that Government? The present method may be crude indeed. But having chosen that method on the basis of one person one vote, you have to live with its decisions. If its decisions are too outrageous, they'll be voted out.

You might not like the idea of British troops in Iraq or in N Ireland, but the Government has chosen to send them there. You're free to campaign against the idea. But you can't expect them to be withdrawn on the basis that you personally object. You and a majority of the rest of the pople - yes.

As to the particular issue of N Ireland - we have two communities which cannot be reconciled. A very substantial number would prefer to be in one country, others another country. What do we do? Say - oh well, some on those people came over a couple of hundred years ago so we'll ignore their opinion?

ANd it's odd that in a forum that supports the free movement of people around the world, and opposes deprotmtation of foreigners from the UK, that it should be implicitily suggested that the Unionists are somehow second class citizens who should be sent back.

" and in exactly the same way, people in Dundalk can vote on U.K. affairs."

No, people in Dundalk cannot vote on UK affairs. Dundalk is in County Louth, in the Republic of Ireland. Have you ever set foot here? Crack open an atlas then, for crying out loud.
 http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=-700000&Y=7200000&width=500&height=300&coordsys=mercator&scale=2000000&multimap.x=233&multimap.y=223

It's easy to see how you made the mistake though: Dundalk is just a few miles from the partition line, about 10 minutes drive. Yet its people have no vote in N. Ireland affairs, while voters all over the British mainland do. The British loyalist bombers who bombed a pub in Dundalk have still not been brought to justice, 30 years on. This is largely because the British government still refuses to cooperate with the attempted private enquiry, let alone have a public enquiry.

"The border may be artificial, but a plebiscite would of the people in N Ireland would support rentention."

But if the border is artificial, then what possible use would a plebiscite be of people who are artificially fenced-off? A plebiscite of all the people of Ireland would certainly not support retention.

"When things go wrong we get an inquiry into it."

Yes, except for when we don't, which is most of the time. A few of the highest-profile cases have finally been dragged into court by a combination of determined survivors and international pressure, after years of strenuous opposition from Britain. These cases are the tip of the iceberg. If the rest of the cases ever make it to court, at this rate both victims and perpetrators will be long dead and buried first. Justice delayed is justice denied.

"That's part of what you might call law and order."

That's part of what YOU might call law and order, and the rightwing British press too, but not a lot of us who actually live here.

into IRA atrocities?

LOL

And since the IRA have never conducted enquiries into their atrocities, then why should the British government conduct enquiries into theirs?

What a keen grasp of Irish politics you have. Well, it's been lovely chatting with you.

I think these days a majority of the people do want the troops back. And it's not like war in Iraq is a little issue, like the building of a school or something. It is something that affects the lives of millions of people. Also, it is not the members of the government who are risking their lives out there, it is the men and women of the army. I think we should all be able to vote on something as fundamental to us all as that, no?

Also, I don't believe the Unionists should be treated as second class citizens. I believe they should be treated as equals with the the Catholics. For years one group were essentially second class citizens. Now they oppressor is adopting the language of the persecuted 'They want to drive us out of our own country', even though they essentially hold so much power. Psychologically, this is called insecurity. It was the same with the Whites in South Africa.

Actually, the better part of me thinks it's all completely stupid. Why fight to belong to either the UK or Ireland? But actually, it does highlight the flaws of Democracy in an interesting way. If Northern Ireland were part of the rest of Ireland, then the views of the Protestant community would not hold as much sway as the views of the Catholic majority, and essentially they have less control over their destiny. If it remains part of the UK, then the situation continues that the Catholic minority have their views essentially over-ridden by the Protestant majority.

And the ridiculous thing is it all depends on where you place the borders.

So maybe the solution to these problems lies on a more macroscopic approach, and realising that the whole system in which both these communities is embedded is flawed. Democracy may be the best thing we have at the moment, but it is reaching it's breaking point in a globalised world, where if you took it to it's extreme, well, we should all be ruled by China.
So we need to think of how to progress together...

..who should get out of public life...but nevertheless it remains a fact that..

The Church of Rome is a ...

SICK-NESS

And what pray tell were these christian pyscopaths doing liasing with communist actors in South America?

And why are you silly idiots using the red star in your 'liberation' posters and flyers around the place?

Do you actually wish for Irish Tribal Soverignty, or are you just some kinda jokers type agent provacators?

Sort yourselves out.

AND DON'T FUCKING WELL GIVE THE BRITISH ALL THAT HARD WON GEAR. (just give 'em some rubbish). You have ground to air devices. NOW FUCKING WELL USE THEM AGAINST THESE FILDTH.

Blessed be The great mother Witch Danna!

King Amdo.

Irish Tribal Soverignty!