sh0ck3r on 19/3/2009 at 19:05
I’m pretty sure Macha can think for himself. Anyway, I’ve made my case already but just to close by throwing out a few ideas:
There is no widely agreed upon definition of terrorism, but to me it involves the largely unforeseen use of violence against civilian populations for political ends. Ergo, attacking the military or police is not terrorism. There was an element of terror to the attacks on the Antrim base because they injured the food delivery men, but this might have been collateral damage. The PSNI man who died by sniper was not technically terrorism in my opinion. Of course, the IRA has a clear history of undisputed acts of terrorism, but remember that terrorism is also used by loyalist paramilitaries (who have colluded with security forces) to keep the island separated, so how can this be justified? These paramilitaries also had a clear record of targeting a much higher proportion of civilians than republicans did.
As for democracy “supplanting the plantations,” I already addressed this and I think it is somewhat overrated. Of course I am a proponent of democracy, but democracy alone has clearly failed as a cure-all, c.f. Hamas. The existence of powersharing indeed implies that democracy has serious shortcomings. Democracy in Northern Ireland even three decades ago was an abject failure and fraud in fact, with excessive gerrymandering and disproportionate Protestant voting power. This was one of the catalysts of the Troubles began. Ask yourself: if the United States forcibly annexed Canada, planted hundreds of thousands of pro-America settlers in Ontario but later in the face of resistance withdrew from the country, except for Ontario because of the large support base they installed there, would not Canadians question this democracy? Is it really justified to create a chaotic situation through undemocratic means and then appeal to democracy to justify preserving what you have? Are the Protestants merely democrats to everyone above them and aristocrats to everyone below them?
I am quite positive the Republic would accept the six counties if given the unprecedented opportunity, notwithstanding the challenges this would introduce. True, they never belonged to the Republic originally since the Republic only dates to 1948, but at the time of the Anglo-Norman invasion in 1171, Ireland was one. Also, drawing a clear distinction between the six vs. twenty six counties is problematic, especially considering the fact that 3 counties of Ulster belong to the Republic, and it’s not like these counties weren’t subject to plantation as well. And finally, the only all-island election in history was in 1922 and Sinn Fein overwhelmingly won. But apparently this democracy wasn’t good enough for England.
demagogue on 19/3/2009 at 22:55
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
Ask yourself: if the United States forcibly annexed Canada, planted hundreds of thousands of pro-America settlers in Ontario but later in the face of resistance withdrew from the country, except for Ontario because of the large support base they installed there, would not Canadians question this democracy?
Not sure if that's the best example, or maybe it's interesting you bring it up, since what you described is pretty much just what happened. Where do you think the entire English-speaking Canadian population came from? They were all British-loyal Americans kicked out and overtaking the French.
Under your logic, Quebecers would be the only "legitimate" Canada (or, *shudder*, the native population), and the great majority invaders that need to return to the US, since after all they are historically Americans. But add a few 100 years to any situation and it's amazing how people's perceptions change. Now it's Quebec that seem like the "outsiders", and could it be that when 100,000 Americans invade Canada, wait 200 years, they are now legitimate Canadians and the farthest thing from American? Call a Canadian an "American" and see what happens!
I'm not saying the analogy has to apply to Ireland. I'm just saying it's interesting you brought up that example to make your point about what kind of democracy is "legitimate" ... Every argument seems to have its twist.
Edit: P.S. I recently learned (or relearned, since I learned it in high school but didn't catch its sigificance then) that my home state, Texas, was overtaken almost entirely by illegal immigrants into Mexico that suddenly declared an independent "democratic" Republic. How's that for irony!
june gloom on 19/3/2009 at 23:00
I know exactly what happens.
"I hate America and everything it stands for."
"But aren't you wearing American shoes?"
"Yes."
"And those are American bands you're listening to on your iPod?"
"Yeah..."
"And you watch movies made in America, right?"
"And yet you hate America."
"Sure do. C'mon, let's go watch some CSI."
"Isn't that an American show?"
"... you're not my friend anymore. Shut up and let me take my medicine."
"Bought in America, right?"
"Fuck you."
Scots Taffer on 19/3/2009 at 23:14
The product of a society is not inherently bound by the political attributes of a society.
sh0ck3r on 19/3/2009 at 23:30
Oh God. Canadian history? I was born and raised there. Anyway, there were certainly Anglo-Canadians in Canada before the Revolution. And British North America had begun its depredations against the French well before it (e.g. Plains of Abraham). St. John's, Newfoundland, a non-French city, is actually the oldest city. Nowadays Anglo appeasement of Quebecors is even quite high, so much that Quebec is called a “nation within Canada” by the government. While there have obviously been Anglo settlers in Quebec, including some with anti-Franco sentiment, there was never a massive Plantation that secured a vehemently pro-Anglo substratum within Quebec that still exists. Quebec is a poor analog to Northern Ireland, as you probably recognize, and perhaps I should have used a different example than North America. Anyway, Quebec vs. British North America could be called a conflict in “secondary” colonialism. Spain, France, England, they were all screwing over the aboriginals anyway. That's not to say I don't sympathize with the Quebec plight, but they have plenty of breathing space, I can assure you.
R Soul on 19/3/2009 at 23:56
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
There is no widely agreed upon definition of terrorism
That's why it's probably a better idea to call it murder, but not just for the purposes of definition. We all know the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", so when the T word is used by one side, the FF words will be used by the other. Murder on the other hand is much less ambiguous.
june gloom on 20/3/2009 at 00:38
One man's murder is another man's justice.
demagogue on 20/3/2009 at 00:58
You guys are talking about politics, people's perceptions, but law doesn't have as much of a problem with terrorism.
"Murder" won't work because it can't capture 99% of a terrorist organization, just maybe the one low-level guy that pulls the trigger. It's usually under the heading of "conspiracy" and works like conspiracy crimes (where you have to "agree" to be a member, be somehow "contributing" to the criminal part of it, and it's "under way" to actually doing criminal things).
The big debate a few years ago was when the Bush administration wanted to take it out of criminal law into the law of war, or actually a hybrid criminal-military category they made up for the occassion, so then they could lock up terrorists potentially indefinitely as POWs and prosecute them under more forgiving military law, but not have to deal with some of the protections POWs get (like freedom when hostilities were over). That's where you got all the uproar about disagreements over definition and fuzziness. Terrorism has some features that are war-crime like and some that aren't. But a hybrid approach runs into crazy problems of definition and conherence, and at least in the US the Supreme Ct hasn't let them do it and basically pushed it effectively back into criminal law.
And it's usually pretty straightforward, when you have a killing like this, whether it's "criminal", to be handled under criminal law, or "military", by a soldier in an armed conflict to be handled under the law of armed conflict. I mean, the rules are very clear about which is which, and where the line is -- is he wearing a uniform, attacking a valid military target, in the context of an "armed conflict", member of a military organization that respects the law of war and of a recognizable political organization (i.e., they're acting on behalf of people, a constituency, actually politically empowering them to act). On that last one, the fact that these guys have been disowned by the constituency they claim to represent and are acting as unauthorized mavericks (would have to look into the details of that) right off takes them right out of "soldier" contention and into "criminal" behavior. But it would have been different if there had been some political decision made to officially start an armed conflict, and this was part of that conflict.
Kyloe on 20/3/2009 at 21:40
When I visited Ireland I was surprised how English she was. Given that, from my perspective as an outsider, it would seem ridiculously pointless if NI became part of the republic. We're talking about Ireland, not France, for God's sake.
What would change? The head of state changes every couple of years? Big deal to the MITS. Restrictive abortion law? Would probably not be extended over NI as a concession to the Protestants. The Euro? They could have that now.
Somebody please explain to me what difference it really makes if NI is part of Ireland, Britain or an independant region within the EU.
East Massachussets has a certain je-ne-sais-quoi.
sh0ck3r on 21/3/2009 at 01:19
You introduce a broad question of no special relevance to Northern Ireland -- whether a nation is merely the sum of its domestic policies, or if there in fact also exist other, less quantifiable variables on top. You take the former view, some take the latter.
Race, nationalism, history... I'm not an apologist for them. I can't explain why they exist.
