Im not SD, but I can elaborate. Essentially, the problem is there is a significant population in Ulster who are still pro-British and pro-Union. These are the Loyalist factions you often hear about. For that reason, it would be difficult to just "give" northern Ireland away. Quite frankly, the Republic of Ireland isn't that interested in having to take on that region of the country either, given the history of violence and economic issues it suffers. Equally, on the other side, you have the republicans, such as the IRA, who want the British out.

At the moment, The Republic of Ireland is free and independent country and has been for nearly a century. Northern Ireland is still under British rule, but there is the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, where much power has been devolved to.

Because the IRA negotiated with the UK, hardline Republicans consider them traitors to the cause, and are looking to reignite the Troubles. So far, the British establishment isn't biting, however.

Perhaps your original premise isn't entirely correct.
According to one definition: So you are in favor of granting the wishes of those who would bomb or otherwise terrorize others?

Thanks Zhuge Liang. I appreciate your response.

Perhaps the Brits and the Republic of Ireland should just allow Northern Ireland to be independent then and let them form their own country and government. I mean, if that's where all the trouble is coming from, and if a majority of the people want independence, just give it to them. Let them see if they can make can make it on their own.

Yup thats a great plan lets just give all the terrorists whatever they want? Are you serious?

All I have to say is let's look at the name: Northern Ireland.

As Zhuge has already pointed out, though, the Loyalist community don't want independence, they want to remain a part of the UK. They consider themselves British, subjects of her Majesty.

Add to that the complicated matter of parliamentary politics and it becomes very messy. There's many an English government has been held up during difficult votes by support from Loyalist Irish MPs. Also, up until very recently (like the last couple of years) it was a safe bet to say that any Prime Minister or Party that presided over the handing back of Northern Ireland, would have consigned themselves to the political wilderness in doing so.

How is that contradictory to what I said? And I would add that, who the terrorist is depends on which side you're on. In other words, to some Iraqis, WE are the terrorists, to the Palestinians, the Israeli govt is the terrorist. People don't generally start out using terrorism as a tactic, they generally use it when their voices aren't being heard and they don't have the resources (like an army) the other side has. Terrorism usually is a result of actions others have taken - or an effect of a cause. (cause and effect. Every action has consequences. When people take actions they know are controversial and likely to cause trouble, then can we really be surprised when the shit hits the fan?)

I think, when dealing with these kinds of situations, it is extremely important to try and understand where the other side is coming from, something we rarely do in this country (or something the more powerful rarely do). What is their beef? What is it they really want? What are they after? Why have they resorted to these kinds of drastic actions? Try to put yourself in their place, and see how you would feel. See if there is common ground that can be met by both sides. It really is about power: one side has it, the other one doesn't. If we could get out of these heirarchical, patriarchal social structures of power-over, and move into structures of shared power, or power-with, the world would be a much better place.

I honestly do not believe most people want to live in a state of war. I believe most people want peace. When you have a situation where people have been fighting for SO long, it's easy to demonize one side over the other. Well, maybe the "demons" have resorted to doing abhorent things out of necessity. If we don't try to understand their point of view and what they want, we will never solve the problem of terrorism.

And I have to add, I find it very hypocritical that some people support military wars that create terror for the people in the countries where they fight, no matter how noble they believe their purpose might be, and then demonize the other side for actually fighting back. We kill thousands of innocent people in airstrikes and such, we call them collateral damage. So why is it OK when we do it, but not when others target innocents? We may not be targeting innocents, but we know they are there, and we strike anyway. They are still dead.

Having said all of that, I want it to be understood that I do not condone the actions of terrorists. I do understand why some of them do it. Understanding the psychology of something doesn't mean you believe it is right.

Well put.

I agree it's a very messy prospect, considering the people of Northern Ireland are divided themselves. I honestly don't have the answer. I only think that, until those who oppose it are given a voice at the table and some power to help solve the issue, things will likely continue to get worse.

You really are a socialist, sugah. Thats ok, I'm just sayin.

Thank you Dana. I usually get creamed for my opinions about this issue.

hey classic, I've admitted to being somewhat of a socialist. :D Where you been?

I agree with the principle of some of that. I did just take a look at this document

Its a long read, but worthy if for nothing more than to gain some insight on the thoughts of those who wrote it.

The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles.

It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen...

When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace.

The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door.

These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.

I read somewhere that the most common age of IRA members range from 15 to 18 years old. If that is true, this is an extremely important aspect to be looked into more deeply since the reason for children to be joining the IRA and not adults can mean many different things.

Since Northern Ireland is very divided, I honestly don't think peace is possible unless one side completely takes over the other or they come together under a single value. Especially as of lately, I have been really convinced that peace and true democracy can not exist in a heterogenous population (I can explain this in further if needed) and violence and sometimes terrorism can almost be an inevitable result of decentralized power in a centralized state setup.

Well of course but I feel your logic is flawed. If terrorism is the result of a oppressed population finally putting their voice out to the world it is much different then a group of radicals that are fighting for their own unpopular ideological aims as DanaC suggests. In one situation, it would be benificial for the oppressor state to give up amounts of power while in the second situation, it would not since the the terrorists do not represent the "voice" of the population.

For example, if blacks in the 1950's used violent instead of non-violent protests, is their situation any different? Obviously the tactic would produce different results but the fact that they were oppressed and deserve equal rights does not change.

Each situation has to be looked at differently since the movement behind the acts of terrorism are completely different as well. In this situation, it seems that the IRA does not represent the population and the fact that it is made up of 15-18 years olds really shows the lack of maturity in the movement.