I find the situation in N. Ireland very interesting. Not only is it a sectarian conflict based on ideological difference, but also one of ethnic descent, religion and State. I find it extremely difficult to condemn the IRA, to be honest. I mean, in the same way that I can condemn the LCN or the Hell's Angels.
I also find with these guys its very hard to find objective opinions that are not mired in propaganda from both sides of the argument. The Brits have a storied history of down playing the Republican movement and the Irish right to sovereignty in the North. And sort of act like she should simply be grateful for Britain "giving" the Irish the south.
The IRA often act like martyrs whose unfortunate civilian killings were an acceptable tragedy of a legitimate war against an oppressive state. But then again, there really are a lot of descendents of british protestants living in the North that fear marginalization and violence at the hands of Catholic republicans - Although I understand that there are also protestant republicans and catholic unionists, though rare.
I'm just very itnerested to see what happens int he british isles over the next ten years. it could be we are seeing the last vestiges of a British empire on the verge of a final collapse. If it can't hold on to Scotland (they have a referendum coming up relatively soon IIRC), how can it hold onto Ireland?
Okay so now LA has become majority Hispanic does that give them the right to tear down the flag of the USA?
The British Parliament conceded Ireland's right to independence and it was only Unionist and Brit aristocrats threat of terrorism home and abroad that led to partition and the implementation of a gerrymandered majority in an Irish state.
There are muslim majorities in East London. Can they now vote for partition and wave the flag of Pakistan in East London now as if they own the place?
Britain have always been an occupying force in Ireland what right does an illegally occupying force to have to selectively partition off the most financially lucrative parts of a country when the democratic majority overwhelmingly voted for independence and freedom which was also democratically ratified by the British Parliament until threats of bloodshed of violence were allowed to override democracy and install a fake British state.
Can this happen in any country then? In that case why wasn't autonomy given to the south after the civil war? A minute, pitifully tiny minority wanted Ireland to remain British but in a true democracy the majority's verdict is right.
They could have still waved their Union flags there have never been any attacks on Anglican Church Of Ireland followers in the South. They live in peace in Ireland to this very day but th injustice of British occupying six counties has even been conceded by the British crown.
There are parts of London where there are more Russian than brits perhaps they should be allowed to declare South Kensington Russian or better still Brighton Beach?
The Brits were illegally occupying a country and never complied with democracy so why not allow Russia to do what they like in the Ukraine then? It was good enough for the Brits
'So I say, “Live and let live.” That’s my motto. “Live and let live.” Anyone who can’t go along with that, take him outside and shoot the motherfucker. It’s a simple philosophy, but it’s always worked in our family.'
