Ex-IRA commander Martin McGuinness WILL be a guest of the Queen at Windsor Castle

D

Do you even understand what the word referendum means? If the British government was as you claim then why have the Scots been given a referendum on independence? Surely those 'imperialistic gerrymanders' as you so imaginatively call them would have denied them a vote.

An equivalency would have been if the referendum was carefully restricted to known unionist areas within Scotland.

What a weak example.
 
You Americans seem to have a view of Ireland as some kind of bucolic paradise especially back in the earlier part of the 20th century. I blame films like the Quiet Man for that, the reality was actually far different. .

ThreeDee said:

Northern Ireland would have deserved it for conspiring against their fellow Irishmen all of those years.

I don't see how you take away from that statement that he harbors a bucolic view of Ireland as a paradise.

It's a non-sequitur.
 
This is where you really show your ignorance, Northern Ireland is a full member of the UK, it is not a colony. If you went there you'd realise that pretty damn quick. There isn't even a border these days, for fuck's sake!!

Uh, you think I don't know that Northern Ireland is a full member of the UK?

Did you know that Bobby Sands was an MP?

Everything you just said above is again non-sequitur to what's posted. Somebody here posts something, then you change the subject and call them "ignorant."
 
Uh, you think I don't know that Northern Ireland is a full member of the UK? Did you know that Bobby Sands was an MP? Everything you just said above is again non-sequitur to what's posted. Somebody here posts something, then you change the subject and call them "ignorant."

Regarding changing subjects so far you've talked about Redcoats, imperialism, India and now Bobby Sands. There was a 1973 referendum which showed that an absolute majority of 57.5% of the electorate in Northern Ireland did want to continue the link to Britain, as expected, but the referendum was boycotted by Nationalist voters. Ask yourself why that was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973
 
Last edited:
Uh, you think I don't know that Northern Ireland is a full member of the UK?

Did you know that Bobby Sands was an MP?

Everything you just said above is again non-sequitur to what's posted. Somebody here posts something, then you change the subject and call them "ignorant."

True dat.
 
Regarding changing subjects so far you've talked about Redcoats, imperialism, India and now Bobby Sands. There was a 1973 referendum which showed that an absolute majority of 57.5% of the electorate in Northern Ireland did want to continue the link to Britain, as expected, but the referendum was boycotted by Nationalist voters. Ask yourself why that was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973

I didn't bring up India, and the discussion moved to broader areas of British military atrocities, so it was all absolutely on topic.

Unlike your frequent outbursts of Tinker Pride, which I fully admit that I was ignorant of the existence of Tinker Pride. For that I thank you.

The Nationalists would naturally boycott such an election because it was not a "national" referendum, but rather a gerrymandered and limited one. I think that's been established quite a few times already. Is that really a difficult concept for you to understand?

Try to imagine border areas stretching from Texas to the Pacific Ocean where there are Mexican-American majorities, holding referendums to rejoin those areas to Mexico. And suppose the remainder of the USA was excluded from those referendums. Would that be a valid national referendum?

Northern Ireland is an illegitimate entity, and if all of the Irish people were permitted to vote on the matter, and practice their own self-determination, it would not exist.
 
Last edited:
I didn't bring up India, and the discussion moved to broader areas of British military atrocities, so it was all absolutely on topic.

Unlike your frequent outbursts of Tinker Pride, which I fully admit that I was ignorant of the existence of Tinker Pride. For that I thank you.

The Nationalists would naturally boycott such an election because it was not a "national" referendum, but rather a gerrymandered and limited one. I think that's been established quite a few times already. Is that really a difficult concept for you to understand?

Try to imagine border areas stretching from Texas to the Pacific Ocean where there are Mexican-American majorities, holding referendums to rejoin those areas to Mexico. And suppose the remainder of the USA was excluded from those referendums. Would that be a valid national referendum?

Northern Ireland is an illegitimate entity, and if all of the Irish people were permitted vote on the matter, and practice their own self-determination, it would not exist.

Oh I see you think the referendum was illegitimate because the South didn't vote. That is just crazy and you know it, why would you ask the people of Northern Ireland if they wanted to unify and then allow Eire a say? England is not having a vote in the Scottish referendum, should they be allowed a say? IF that happened then I'm sure that a majority in England would vote to get rid of the Scots.

Apparently you would have been more than happy for a full scale civil war to have broken out in Northern Ireland just so your distorted and ignorant ideas would be allowed full rein. Maybe when that happened the US could have moved in and show us all how to really fuck up. As for Tinker pride, what the fuck does that mean?
 
Last edited:
I didn't bring up India, and the discussion moved to broader areas of British military atrocities, so it was all absolutely on topic.

Unlike your frequent outbursts of Tinker Pride, which I fully admit that I was ignorant of the existence of Tinker Pride. For that I thank you.

The Nationalists would naturally boycott such an election because it was not a "national" referendum, but rather a gerrymandered and limited one. I think that's been established quite a few times already. Is that really a difficult concept for you to understand?

Try to imagine border areas stretching from Texas to the Pacific Ocean where there are Mexican-American majorities, holding referendums to rejoin those areas to Mexico. And suppose the remainder of the USA was excluded from those referendums. Would that be a valid national referendum?

Northern Ireland is an illegitimate entity, and if all of the Irish people were permitted vote on the matter, and practice their own self-determination, it would not exist.


British military atrocities pale into insignificance set alongside the US military's various forays and political skullduggery down the years, that you studiously avoid that fact is telling in both your parochialism and partisanship. There have been so many down the years that it is hard to know where to begin.
 
Oh I see you think the referendum was illegitimate because the South didn't vote. That is just crazy and you know it, why would you ask the people of Northern Ireland if they wanted to unify and then allow Eire a say?

So your question is: Why allow the Irish to vote on a national Irish issue?

Interesting perspective. What would you do about Cyprus?

In 1974 Turkey invaded the island nation and ethnically cleansed the Greek Cypriots out of the northern 1/3 of the island. No country on the planet recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except for Pakistan, who only recognize it for reasons similar to why it recognized Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Do you think a referendum vote on Northern Cyprus rejoining Cyprus would be a legitimate national referendum if only the north were allowed to vote?
 
So your question is: Why allow the Irish to vote on a national Irish issue?

Interesting perspective. What would you do about Cyprus?

In 1974 Turkey invaded the island nation and ethnically cleansed the Greek Cypriots out of the northern 1/3 of the island. No country on the planet recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except for Pakistan, who only recognize it for reasons similar to why it recognized Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Do you think a referendum vote on Northern Cyprus rejoining Cyprus would be a legitimate national referendum if only the north were allowed to vote?

Again I see that you are choosing to avoid the elephant in the room, if the South had voted in 1973 there would have been a full scale civil war probably involving the whole of Ireland. I am sure that you know that really but like Bill Clinton you seem to have the ability to compartmentalise opposing views in your own head. Of course it is very easy to pontificate when you didn't live through it and only ever thought about it when the Noraid collection boxes came round the New York pubs and clubs.
 
So your question is: Why allow the Irish to vote on a national Irish issue?

Interesting perspective. What would you do about Cyprus?

In 1974 Turkey invaded the island nation and ethnically cleansed the Greek Cypriots out of the northern 1/3 of the island. No country on the planet recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except for Pakistan, who only recognize it for reasons similar to why it recognized Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Do you think a referendum vote on Northern Cyprus rejoining Cyprus would be a legitimate national referendum if only the north were allowed to vote?

Why haven't the English and Welsh been allowed a vote in the Scottish referendum?
 
Nothing to say about Cyprus? Didn't think so. A rather uncomfortable analogy, izzinit?

So who would have started this civil war? The privileged minority who gets to oppress the majority in a carefully gerrymandered area?

Oh, and in case you're confused, I'm talking about Ireland now, not Cyprus :rolleyes:
 
Why haven't the English and Welsh been allowed a vote in the Scottish referendum?

lol.... because the question of the referendum is whether or not Scotland should be independent. Not whether they should be booted out of the union, which is what would happen. :awesome:

Now the next logical question is; if all Scots are allowed to vote on their referendum, why not all Irish?
 
Last edited:
There's a simple solution: John Bull, git yer nose outta Ireland.

Against democracy, are you? The UK's been desperate to get out for years, but the majority in the Six Counties don't go along (who wants to be bullied) and the Irish Government has accepted that fact. Do you think they want a million-plus freedom-fighters in their Papal State? Come ON!
 
Against democracy, are you? The UK's been desperate to get out for years, but the majority in the Six Counties don't go along (who wants to be bullied) and the Irish Government has accepted that fact. Do you think they want a million-plus freedom-fighters in their Papal State? Come ON!

I don't see how allowing everyone to vote is "against democracy." :rolleyes:

And yes, the Republic wants an Irish Republic.
 
It is quite gratifying to see the sheer terror in unionists at the notion of them becoming a minority, the possibility of being treated as one, and having to resort to the resistance tactics they themselves have decried for decades.
 
Yet you never been to Ireland and are trotting out predictable stereotypes based on fallacies perpetuated by Hollywood. I have seen Ireland throughout several decades from the sixties onwards. If it was such a wonderful place then why are virtually all my relatives over here? It has become a great place in the last few years but that was due to the EU doling out economic aid which ironically came in no small measure via the UK and Germany. Of course that all went sour when they joined the Euro and discovered the downside of that policy. Guess who bailed them out of that crisis? I might also remind that Eire has been an independent country since 1922, so you need to look to incompetent American bastards like de Valera to understand why Ireland was so backward for so many years. You might also ask why the Irish have never needed visas to enter the UK even during the height of the Troubles or during WW2.

I can't imagine why so many people would leave a place that had been brutalized and drug through the mud, either. Hard to imagine that such a place was stagnant economically until the 90s...
 
So your question is: Why allow the Irish to vote on a national Irish issue?

Interesting perspective. What would you do about Cyprus?

In 1974 Turkey invaded the island nation and ethnically cleansed the Greek Cypriots out of the northern 1/3 of the island. No country on the planet recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except for Pakistan, who only recognize it for reasons similar to why it recognized Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Do you think a referendum vote on Northern Cyprus rejoining Cyprus would be a legitimate national referendum if only the north were allowed to vote?

The only country on Earth that recognizes Northern Cyprus is Turkey, for obvious reasons. Pakistan was extremely hostile to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, the largely Pashtun regime presented them with border friction, due to Pakistans own sparsely populated western Pashtun regions which Afghanistan disputes with them. Pakistan never recognized Northern Cyprus, where the hell did you invent that fiction? Why would Pakistan have any interest in that conflict at all? God you're a fucking ignorant bigoted moron.

The Greek Cypriots ethnically cleansed the Turks just as much as vice versa. The Greek Cypriots were also the ones that were attempting to launch a coup and forcibly annex the entire island to Greece, against the wishes of the Turkish residents of the islands. Given that, Turkey's action was perfectly justified. It was Turkish self defense against Greek aggression. The whole past two centuries has been nothing but constant western supported Greek aggression against the Turks.

tl;dr: Do you know anything?
 
Back
Top