Shades of "What have The Romans ever done for us? " LOL
I would like to know if the "Irish" Sun shares the same view as its English version-would not clean my arse with that rag
Agreed Sammy
It is hard imagine the Sun denouncing a film on account of it being too 'pro-British'.
I was just talking about this with a friend last night in the pub. The Brits need to take a good hard look at themselves and, in many cases, read up on their own shameful history.
(Britain) has no reputation worth saving ...!
Let it go, Chris. Those were our grandfathers' problems. The problem of our age is breaking old pre-cast attitudes. Britain's a grown-up nation now, and even PIRA has stopped butchering people. BU.
Britain's a grown-up nation now
Yes they have now decided to butcher Iraqi's instead.
Really grown up!
Chris, do you know when it will be released here?
Not sure
Its UK release is scheduled for the 23rd of June.
But one has to produce a British passport to be allowed to view it 
I'm a big fan of Loach's films and I'm looking forward to seeing this one. His 1990 film Hidden Agenda deals with N.I. in a way that probably wouldn't make Unionists terribly happy.
Chris
Not content with giving great publicity for Crossmaglen. Andrew Mc is now giving Balrog some publicity in his own inimitable style.
He's a loser!
Better watch what you say, they have a habit of threatening to (shoot) not let you have your say.
To be fair he cracks me up on occassion, and can be refreshingly funny at times. An unconscious comedian.
Terribly rascist and not at all suprising waffle from Gaskin.
I could go on about the second world war and the cozy relationship his party had with Hitlers mob, but it would be just as formulaic and wooden as the comment that Britain has 'blood flowing from its fingertips after centuries of war, injustice and colonisation.'
Boring, yawn, yawn, yawn - next!
I think the Loach Picture make him look like he could be the love child of Spike Milligan and Lily Savage.
AMcC and Madradin Ruad must be the same person. They never seme to disagree on anything. It is quite possible that the lad with the mick surname is a paranoid schizoprenic. His alter ego appears to have an oirish name also!
Are you saying Britain doesn't have centuries of "war, injustice, and colonisation"? I thought that was sort of a given historical reality.
AMcC and Madradin Ruad must be the same person. They never seme to disagree on anything. It is quite possible that the lad with the mick surname is a paranoid schizoprenic. His alter ego appears to have an oirish name also!
See what happens when a plastic paddy trys thinking ? it just doesn't work out, they aren't equipped for it 
A Tangled Web is not a bad site, actually. Although I visit less often than Andrew McCann claims to visit Balrog. The two guys who run it are articulate, amusing, and highly intelligent, but both are probably barking mad. The 'probably' part is debatable.
TD - It's probably more beneficial if people visit "the other side's sites" rather than stick with their own - It's why I enjoy browsing this site , even though I know it's run by two reprobates
--It has no reputation worth saving FFS!--
You're far too intelligent to be saying things like this.
First, the Irish and Brits I know are past that kind of palaver
Second, the statement is not true.
And neither are some of the other comments. I'm well aware of some of the awful misdeeds done in the name of Empire, and the Black and Tan era is an ugly one. I will see this film as soon as its available in NYC.
But lets get real about first India/Pakistan. How the hell do we know what that situation would have been like had the British never set foot in Asia? How do you know it would not have been worse? The smaller kingdoms there might have existed to this day --I doubt it-- or France or some other big power might have taken it over instead...why do you think the results would have been different?
Gandhi and most Hindus wanted to live in a multidenominational state. The Muslims wanted no part of that. Which Briton made the Muslims so unwilling to share the larger subcontinent?
Israel? The Jews wanted a homeland of their own. Any Irish Republican worthy of the name should respect the right of the Jews to have a spot of land to call their own. And if not in their ancestral homeland, where Jews have always lived, then where? Madagascar? The establishment of Israel was a good thing, an act of historic justice.
If you think that Irish reunification will be a good thing, it is simple logic to think that Israel's reincarnation was a good thing. To the extent that the British aided this good thing, they should be applauded, not pilloried. If the Arabs refused to make a bit of room for the tiny state, then whose fault is that? I can't blame the Jews for wanting to reenter their own land, and I cannot blame the Brits for not keeping them out.
Ireland? Entirely different story, bro. See you at the movies.
Phantom,
What is 'historic justice'? Its creation was either just, or it wasn't. I don't think it was particularly just for the 700,000 Palestinians who were made refugees as a result.
I still think McCann is an Irish nationalist/liberal taking the piss. Surely he's not real?
He's a top bloke Reg. A few more like him and we would still have our empire !
He's a top bloke Reg
ROFL!!
Even you don't believe that MR
you are just jealous 'cos he's not on your side !
"you are just jealous 'cos he's not on your side !"
As per my earlier comment - are you sure he's not!!
He's doing more good for my side the way he is MR lol
Chris,
If you end up going to London to study...You will find out that the vast, vast, vast majority of 'mainland' Britons are an accepting, respecting people, who denounce all forms of Historic Imprialism. You will find you can wear you GAA top in the street with-out any bother, you can express your Irish identity to the extreme without 'offending' anyone. Britian is not some horrible, world grabbing nation. To believe that is to live in your own narrow minded world.
A bit of reality? We are taught all about the evils of colonialism in our schools.
Blood flowing?
I find this a bit rich coming from a Republican. While most Britons would support a united Ireland, they are totally opposed to armed Republicansim. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Until people renounce the armed conflict in Ireland, then they should not critize Britian for hers.
well thats just my thoughts,
I can't wait to see the film.
Will it be on general release or will it be a job for the qft? I hope the latter, the seats are better and you can drink beer while you watch the film!
People in glass houses should not throw stones
People who occupy other countries can expect to get theirs bombed.
If you don't want to get bombed don't occupy a land that isn't yours.
Pretty simple really!
Until people renounce the armed conflict in Ireland, then they should not critize Britian for hers
LOL, you don't understand. It is because of your involvement in Ireland that there was an armed conflict.
Take your head out of your ass!
Hugh Green
If not in Israel, where should the Jewish state have been? Nowhere? Should they have continued to be wandering, stateless?
The Irgun and others on the Jewish side commmitted their share of injustices against the Arab population. But the principal cause of the refugee problem is the complete rejection of the Arabs of any Jewish state on " Arab land " regardless of how small it was.
Chris: It makes me laugh when people say things like "don't occupy a land that isn't yours".
Don't fool yourselves kids, the soil under your feet belongs to no-one, you're just borrowing it for a little while.
Anyway, haven't commented here in a little while - hope you're keeping well!
Phantom,
If not in Israel, where should the Jewish state have been? Nowhere? Should they have continued to be wandering, stateless?
This is irrelevant to the matter at hand. You characterise the establishment of Israel as a matter of 'historic justice'. I am asking you how the 700,000 Palestinian refugees fit in with your concept of 'historic justice'.
Phantom
Well, somewhere in Europe would have been more "just", surely.
Europeans have been behind the majority of anti-semitic persecution rather than Palestinians.
(I know about the Grand Mufti, but his actual effect on WWII was very limited). Therefore Europeans should have found space for the Jews..
Admittedly finding somewhere without an existing people there would be hard - but that was the same problem with Palestine.
Andy
But Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, where Jews have always lived. They were chased out. This means that they can never return?
Understand that there were real issues with the local Arab population--not blowing that issue off. But this is where the Jews came to be as a people, and where they never abandoned hope of returning to --their home.
And the dispersed Jews were very persecuted in the Arab and Muslim world, and they moved to Israel in large numbers. The myth of Muslim tolerance of Jews is very substantially that -- a myth. They came from Egypt, Yemen, and many other places. I work with a young woman of Jewish background whose family escaped from Iran, to escape persecution there.
The Arab Muslims never had a Final Solution, but they sure as hell had a talent of making Jews disappear over time. Won't see many synagogues in Saudi Arabia, which once had Jews.
A population exchange has taken place. Peace will come when the Arabs can accept this hard fact.
Hugh Green
Understand that there is a refugee issue. The fact that the Arabs in 1948 would not countenance a Jewish state was no small factor in this. The fact that Jordan and Lebanon would not allow " Palestinians " -- a freshly minted term at the time -- to integrate into their societies was also a factor.
Turn this around--where should the Jewish state exist? Or should one exist?
But Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, where Jews have always lived.
Not according to the Bible surely - they took it by force themselves ?
Phantom
Thanks for responding. However I don't really buy the ancestral homeland right of return. It doesn't work in the rest of the world - having ancestors who left a place over a thousand years ago doesn't really entitle you to citizenship, right of abode etc, and so I can't see how it possibly overcomes the rights of the in-place Palestinians).
I'm not sure of the extent of pre- Israel anti-semitism in the Arab World. I know it happened, but I have not read anything about it being along the scale of European pogroms, and certainly not the holocaust (I appreciate you mention this). Therefore as the creator of the most harm Europe should have most responsibility for righting it.
Post- Israel anti-semitism is wide spread in the Arab world of course. The short-sightedness of this course of action never fails to amaze me - surely if they wanted to reduce the flow of Jews to Israel they should.. actually be nice to their own Jewish populations.
Laters
MR
Well, they'd say it was given to them by God, or as some would say, g-d.
That's different from having always lived there
I don't have the right to return to a house I lived in 30 years ago - whether I owned it then or rented it then - and say that because I used to live there by rights I should be able to evict the current residents. If one accepts this business of the gaels/celts, does Ireland have the right to settle and create a homeland in that part of Europe from whence the "Celts" came - because in the past Celts 'always' lived there ?
Well, when I hear that request from the Celts, I'll think about it. Don't want to devote my intellect to purely hypothetical things.
Here, we have a real thing.
Should a Jewish state have been created in 1948 and if so where?
There is a Jewish state now. Should it continue to exist as a Jewish state, or should it cease to exist?
Please answer carefully.
Well, when I hear that request from the Celts, I'll think about it. Don't want to devote my intellect to purely hypothetical things.
That's a cop out - if your rationale for supporting Israel is valid, it should work for other situations.
MR
No its not. The Celts live where they want to live and there's no point in getting into a how many angels can dance on the head of a pin argument.
Should Israel exist? Should a Jewish state exist? Or should they be deprived of a state of their own, unlike the Irish, the British, and the people of Nauru, should they not have a spot on this earth that is their own.
Even one square mile. One square inch. Is there room anywhere for them, and if so where? Thats all I want to know. Please put an end to the MR-Gaskin Axis of Evasion and answer the question, Counselor.
Phantom - I'm not discussing the whole Israel question with you - I'm merely reacting to what was an incorrect claim you made. You wrote "But Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, where Jews have always lived."
That is untrue.
Because I want to point out that Jews have NOT always lived there does not mean that I disagree with Israel existing or that I am anti-semitic.
MR
To clarify:
The Jews have been present in the land of Israel on a continuous basis since there have been Jews.
They'd been there for at least 3,400 years before Allah gave his revelations to Mohammad.
They were there for thousands of years before the Irish or English or British people came to be, to say nothing of the Canadians.
They were there for milennia before the people that today call themselves Palestinians.
All archeological and historical records show this.
The Jews were there first, Israel was there first, albeit with a slight interruption. They never lost hope, any more than the Irish, for ultimate and full independence.
The Jews were there first,
That's not so according to the bible - there were peoples there before them.
OK, let me make it really easy for you.
Of the peoples that live in that region now, they were there first.
Dispute that.
It's not a question of making it easy - it's a question of accuracy. I don't know enough to say whether or not any of the descendants of the people displaced by the Jewish People are still in the region.
Well, seeing as the two parties that are contesting it are the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs, intellectual rigor might insist that we limit the scope conversation to them.
The Druse are fun to chat about, but they're not players here.
Of the two groups that are contesting the issue, and who together comprise almost the entire population of the land in question, it is the Jews who were there first, by a very long shot, beyond all debate.
The fan dance has ended, and the Axis of Evasion has continued to evade. Such as simple question, too, asked of those who are so full of certainty on the other national questions. But when it comes to the Jews, the tongues get tied very quick.
Of the two groups that are contesting the issue, and who together comprise almost the entire population of the land in question, it is the Jews who were there first, by a very long shot, beyond all debate.
I don't know enough about the origins of the Palestinians to comment.
Phantom,
Should Israel exist? Should a Jewish state exist?
The fact is that it does exist. The problem is that the 'right' of any state to exist can not be used to deny the fundamental human rights of any person or group. Everyone has the right to a nationality, but, for instance, if I was to decide that the Celts (whoever the hell they are) have a right to their own state, this does not mean that I can drive other people from their homes through terror and make them refugees -trampling their basic human rights- in order to enact this.
Of course, some people get round this basic moral problem by saying you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs - is this what you think?
So, returning to my original question, which you still haven't answered, why do you call the establishment of Israel 'historic justice'? What is 'historic justice', and to whom should it apply?
"The Jews were there first, Israel was there first, albeit with a slight interruption." - The Phantom
So, consistency would decree that you support the displacement of Americans by Native-Americans, on the grounds that Native-Americans "were there first" or is that standard applicable only if it displaces Palestinains (and rendered void when is displaces Americans) and returns the land back to those whose residency pre-dates Americans? The British were also there before the Americans but after the Native-Americans, so I assume you would also declare the American Revolution to be theft of property from others?
"Should a Jewish state have been created in 1948 and if so where?"
Not all Jews were Zionists in 1948, speaking as a Jews whose family are for the most part anti-Zionist. The horror of the Holocaust converted the greater number to believe that Zionism (a Jewish state for a Jewish people) was the only way that Jewish people would be free from the discrimination (and the pogroms) that plagued their settlement in various countries. Jews, of course, never had a nation state. They originated in the region they now mostly occupy, but they lived among other faiths. The mythical "Land of Israel" was a biblical myth - often confused with a historical state. So there is no 'restoration' of historical national rights in Zionism - just creation of them.
Should a state have been created for a particular religious group? No, enlightened minds separate church and state, not unite them. If a state was to be created for a religious group, should it have been a Jewish state created bang-smack in the middle of an Arab heartland by displacing Palestinians? Sure, it you wanted to create a situation of permanent conflict in that region. Franchising one group at the expense of another isn't just stupid, it's criminally stupid.
Incidentally, historically, Jews were the victims, the persecuted, and the disenfranchised. The Irish nationalists saw parallels with them and bonded - and James Joyce made one a protagonist in his magnum opus at a time when Jews were a European underclass. Since Israel came into being, Jews went from being victims to being victimisers posing as victims. The roles changed. With that change there came their abandonment by nationalists and their subsequent embrace by unionists, who now saw parallels to the new reality of Jew as oppressor. With the Irish, the role once held by Jews of sympathetic victim was then transferred to the Palestinians and the Jews took of the role of oppressors as per the old historical parallels. That's why you will notice that nationalists now support the Palestinians and unionists support Israel.
"There is a Jewish state now. Should it continue to exist as a Jewish state, or should it cease to exist?"
Israel isn't going anywhere as long as it is the only power to hold nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That is why the west doesn't want any state other than Israel to have nuclear weapons. Eventually, however, it will cease to exist - history sorts all the messes out.
Hugh Green
If the Palestians would stop sending suicide bombers into schoolbuses of Jewish children, there could have been peace ages ago.
The first duty of any state is that of self-defense. Israel has had to act with a firm hand towards its Arab population. Had they not done so, the death toll would have been vastly higher than at present.
The creation of the Irish Free State was an act of Historic Justice. It was an incomplete victory because of Partition, and the injustice involved in that, but Ireland had its deserved seat at the world's table.
Similarly, with the establishment of the state of Isreal, the Jews had their long-denied seat among the world's nations. Their stateless status was an injustice, as was Ireland's status as a political non-nation, a part of Great Britain.
The lack of a state for the Kurds today is a similar injustice. They deserve a state. If they obtain one, that will be third case of historic justice-- of a longstanding injustice against one of the world's peoples corrected at last.
The Dubliner
You had a bit of fun with your second to last post. OK, allow me to crush your silly statement. The Indians --have-- sovereign status and self-rule for large portions of the US landmass --right now--. For a larger portions of the US land area than Israel has of the Arab world landmass.
The Dubliner
-- No, enlightened minds separate church and state, not unite them.--
Oh put a sock in it. The Jews are both a religion and a people. They didn't teach you this in school? Probably a majority of Israelis, incl the vast majority of Tel Aviv, are totally secular. But they, as a people, want a home of their own. Where they don't have to live at the tender mercies of Arab or European overlords.
--Eventually, however, it will cease to exist - history sorts all the messes out.--
The existence of a Jewish state is a " mess "
No,history does not necessarily sort anything out, nor does it necessarily repeat itself, to quote another cliche. Your statement is awful.
Phantom.
I agree with many of the points that you are making, this though is a bit unclear.
The Jews are both a religion and a people.
Did you mean the original hebrew people when you mention this?
My understanding is that a large percentage of eastern European Jews, and certainly the majority
of former soviet Jews were Khazeri. As most of the Jews who subsequently emigrated to N. America were from eastern Europe and the Tsarist Russia. I would imagine most of them would be descended from the Turkic Khazars as well, who converted to Judaism in large numbers.
This poses the question about just where the Jewish homeland should be, the middle-east or the Ukraine?
I have provided a wee bit of research underneath, I do realise this stuff may be used by those opposed to the idea of Israel, I am not one of those.
http://www.khazaria.com/
http://www.geocities.com/jewishw...ors/
khazar.html
"You had a bit of fun with your second to last post. OK, allow me to crush your silly statement." – The Phantom
Err, don't mistake "crushing" for a limp flick of your wrist in the general direction of the argument!
You argued that the Jews were entitled to complete national control of the territory now known as Israel because they "were there first." I pointed out that your "first come, first served" argument would mean that the Native-Americans were entitled to the same control of America. So, if you advance that argument to entitle Israel, then you must also advance it to entitle Native-Americans or run the risk of advocating inconsistency borne of expediency, rather than sound argument borne of valid principles of nationhood.
"No, enlightened minds separate church and state, not unite them." - The Dubliner
"Oh put a sock in it. The Jews are both a religion and a people. They didn't teach you this in school? Probably a majority of Israelis, incl the vast majority of Tel Aviv, are totally secular. But they, as a people, want a home of their own. Where they don't have to live at the tender mercies of Arab or European overlords." - The Phantom
If the subject here were horseshit, then I would yield to your superior knowledge. However, Israel is not a secular state, it is a Jewish state for a Jewish people. Now, this “Little House on the Prairie” nonsense you spew and "wanting a home of their own" is easily dismissed as sentimental hogwash by pointing out that said "argument" entitles all religious groups to a nation state, including Moonies and Scientologists. Further, the vast majority of Jews have "a home of their own" outside of Israel. Are the 5.5 million Jews in America homeless? According to you, they are. Most Jews wouldn't touch Israel with a one thousand foot pole.
Tony, don't waste your time of that "Jews are a race" crap. If they are a race, which race is it? The Phantom has obviously never heard of black Jews.
Dubliner
I'm not fighting your statement on the Indians, and have pointed out that they have self-rule on the reservations with what is probably a greater percentage of the USA's land than the Israelis have of the Arab World's total land mass.
--Israel is not a secular state, it is a Jewish state for a Jewish people--
Of course it is, what else should it be? This tiny country is the only state for the Jews, where they are the majority. Other people live there, other religions are freely practiced.
Please compare with Saudi Arabia, where the practice of other religions openly is prohibited. Or Egypt or the other huge Arab/Muslim countries, where the Christians are persecuted and decline every year, and the Jews have very substantially been hounded out by now.
--Moonies and Scientologists--
These cults are not a people, and they have never identified themselves as such. Please grasp at a firmer straw that that fragile reed. But maybe Tom Cruise does need a state of his own.
--Are the Jews of America homeless?--
They are not. Once again, we're confused. Jewish Americans who live in America are not homeless. Nor are Irish Americans.
But the Irish are a people, with origins in a specific place. That would be Ireland. And the Irish people, the Irish nation, has a state. namely Ireland.
The Jewish people also have origins in a specific place, namely Israel. They too have their state, namely Israel.
While Israelis, Arabs, Irish, and Chinese can choose to plant roots in America and become part of the American nation, that does not mean that their doing so means that Israel, Ireland, China, or the very large number of Arab nations don't have the right to exist.
Every nation deserves a homeland right? Or should some peoples not have that right?
Phantom.
What about my point.
The Phantom, I accept the sincerity of your views and your forthright expression of them. I've already given my views in respect of the points in your last post. We don't agree here and we won't agree here, so why argue points that neither of us will shift on? To be honest, I think I’ve done too much commenting on Blogs and have mislaid the original purpose of the exercise somewhere along the virtual way.
Good old Black and Tans! Bring them back! Teach those provos a lesson
Tony
Your links to Khazaria are really interesting. I will do more research on this at the end of the week, maybe in the weekend. I will be traveling midweek.
The Jews, like the Arabs, certainly intermarried a lot.
The Jews were forced to leave Israel, and would have brought some new bloodlines with them when they returned.
There were so many invasions of historic Palestine/Israel, that the modern Palestinians would have been formed not just from some of the non-Jewish inhabitants back in the day, but from Kurds, Egyptians, Iranians, whoever.
Interesting contribution.
Dubliner
Comprende.
Catch you later.
Phantom
Commenting by HaloScan
