> And let me also point out that this is how the United States government operates these days. It would be reasonable to assume some of our closest allies are engaged in similar activities with "terror suspects".
I don't think the British government are quite as shameless as the American one yet; in general, they have the "decency" to outsource torture to others, although they seem happy enough to want to use "evidence" gained from torture in trials in the UK.
Yes, but logic doesn't apply to political arguments. I pointed out the fatal flaw in RIP to my (Labour) MP: Any serious criminal, especially the drug-smuggling terrorist with a penchant for child pornography that is apparently threatening us, would keep the encryption keys to himself, and be out of jail in 8 months max.
But of course all I got back was a standard propaganda sheet. Oh well, she's out of office now, and with any luck, the rest of the useless rabble will be out by the next election, too. Unless by then it's a crime not to vote Labour - I wouldn't be surprised.
> 28 days. Thank fuck for MPs with a conscience. Yes. Where the hell has it been all these years?
> 70% of Mail readers is not 70% of the population.:P It was something I overheard on BBC News 24, so I don't think the sampling was quite that biased;)
But at least we live in the world's oldest democracy, where 1/3 of the votes give you a majority.... but I think we're on the same wavelength, so I'll stop preaching to the choir.
> All that matters is that everyone is a citizen of the Republic. That doesn't sound like such a bad principle, does it?
> And there will be no special treatment for anyone in respect of membership of any group. Again, not a bad idea, is it?
> And no mark of religious observance will be allowed in any school. This is why headscarves are banned. And that's when I have to say, "Monsieur, s'il vous plait, pull the other one, it's got bells on!". It's the stupid politicians again - do you REALLY think muslims will become more moderate if they can't wear a headscarf? And the policy is clearly directed against minorities; I've heard stories of Sikhs being affected, but I've not heard that nuns and priests have to change out of their habits, or that big crosses are confiscated.
>Might not the idea that the two immigrant hoodlums running from the police who accidentally killed "electrocuted" themselves, might have some what less credibility being that just a few months ago, the police stalked, chased down and gunned down a brazillian immigrant at a subway stop and initially covered it up and blamed the immigrant that allegedly was wearing a coat in summer and acting suspiciously and running away all of which turned out not to be true at all and in fact was a complete fabrication?
Good story, if slightly slanted reporting. WRONG COUNTRY! . I know we're all part of the EU now, and it's only a short hop across (or underneath) the channel, but France and the UK are still separate countries.
> Tell me why enforced secular humanism seems to be targeted primarily at the muslim community? Stupid politicians.
> Tell me about job prospects> and what the french have to do fix this problem. Change their macroeconomic policies for startes; hell is likely to freeze over before that happens.
> Tell me why the majority of people in french jails are muslim. Sorry, I don't believe that story. Quote 1: "Despite making up only 10 percent of the population, Muslims account for most of the country's inmates and a growing percentage of the prison populations in many other European countries." - make up scary facts. Quote 2: "While there are no official data on issues of race and ethnicity in much of Europe -- it is in fact illegal to keep such data in many places -- experts on prison populations agree on the new disproportion of Muslims." - admit that you don't actually know the facts. I'll be generous and just assume the reporter isn't numerate enough to understand the difference between a majority and disproportionate representation.
Why is the majority of US prison inmates black and hispanic? Probably because poor people tend to end up in prison way more often than rich people.
As to citizenship issues in Europe, yes, it's pretty fucked up. Germany & Turkey is a particularly stupid situation, and counterproductive; but AFAIK Turkey takes some of the blame in a) not allowing dual nationality and b) restricting inheritance to nationals. That's what I seem to recall, but I haven't looked at it in ages, so I may well be wrong. But I know plenty of people who have gained UK citizenship; and I don't actually think it's harder than US citizenship.
>I find it mortifying that we collectively do not have enough reflexitivity to go beyond the "they are not us, they are them and they hate us, they are foreign" mentality. And it is shameful. Amen.
>In Britain, anyway, we've always known the French like a bit of authoritarianism.
Unlike in the UK, of course, where there's no authoritarianism. I mean, locking people up for 90 days without charge is hardly authoritarian, is it? Although allegedly supported by 70% of the population. Detaining people indefinitely on the say so of the home secretary was another non-authoritarian British specialty; since it's plainly illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights, it's now been replaced by indefinite house arrest. Clearly much more civilised, which is why all civilised nations supported Burma when it locked up Aung San Suu Kyi. Shall I go on with the RIP act, illegal telephone taps, etc? I don't think I'll bother.
Pot. Kettle, Calling. black. Arrange to your liking;)
On the other hand, Britain is - comparatively - wonderful when it comes mixed races and religions. Far better than most other European countries, and certainly far more relaxed than the U.S.
> One last thought, 50 years ago Turkey was 50% Muslim, today it is over 95% Muslim.
Now where did you get that idea from? According to the CIA, it's actually "Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni), other 0.2% (mostly Christians and Jews)". But I see no reason why the proportion would have been significantly different 50 years ago.
What next, shock and outrage that Muslims are taken over Iran? Help, Saudi-Arabia is suddenly full of Muslims!
You can bet that Microsoft pays corporation tax in every country and state of the world where it sells its products. You can also bet that they try hard to optimize their tax burden as much as possible.
So no luck there. And anyway, it wouldn't be the programmers who are responsible, it would be the shareholders and management.
Of course you get the full benefit of their services; as an American abroad you are in fact the main beneficiary of all the bile and disgust their foreign policy generates.
If you want to opt out, you'd have to resign your citizenship. Apparently that's not easy, and also of highly dubious benefit since you could end up stateless. Also, since the UK has double taxation treaties with the US, you're most likely not actually paying more taxes, it's just that some of your tax goes to the US, and the rest to the UK.
a) It's hindsight, not hindsite, but that's a minor point
b) If you have downloaded the entire album already, would you pay to download it again? And even if you are honest enough to do that, do you think everyone else is? I don't.
> 3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
?This is just my two cents, but I belive the music industry executives to be complete and total morons. Quite possibly they are, on the other hand I've not actually heard of any major record label going bankrupt, so maybe they're not that stupid after all.
> When will they realize that people will not continue to buy your product when you're overcharging? Perhaps when enough people stop buying CDs because they find them too expensive. It hasn't happened yet.
> This is basic economics. If a dairy wanted to charge $20 for a gallon of milk, do you think anyone would buy it? No. Yes, actually. People pay considerably more per gallon for other drinks. But milk would possibly be considered a luxury rather than a staple. Of course, there is competition in the milk market, which there isn't in the same way in the music industry. If you want to buy the new FooBar CD, and one label is offering it for $20, there's no competitor offering it for $15 instead, is there?
> There are better ways to support the artist than buying their music. Steal the music, go to their concerts, but their t-shirts. Yeah.... right. Three easy steps. Such a shame most people stop after step 1.
> That isn't necessarily the poster's fault. It is the media's fault for not reporting everything
Ten years ago I might have agreed - getting decent media in Hicksville, Idaho might be difficult. But nowadays, aljazeera , BBC , Spiegel etc are just a click away.
Sorry to pick this up a week later - I was on holiday. It's an interesting discussion, though - so I'd like to continue it if possible.
> I don't support or condone terrorism, but you really do have to look at the context in which terrorism in NI. While not a legitimate way to deal with grievances, or further your cause, grievances and injustices are what led to that terrorism. And, the modern problems of Northern Ireland aside, Irish and those of Irish descent have a *long* list of reasons to believe that Irish interests would best be served by getting the British Crown *out* of this island (from Cromwell through to the Black and Tans after WWI)
I'm always somewhat suspicious of arguments that start with "I don't support terrorism, but...". But as you continue: This is not a legitimate way to deal with any grievances, real or imagined. I'm sure there are situations where violent action can be justified - some of the starkest examples are the assassination attempt on Hitler, the French resistance, Apartheid South Africa - but a society with even barely democratic means that's clearly not the case. As to the "Irish" interests - I couldn't give two figs what the Irish or British interests are, but it seems clear that the majority of the population in NI would benefit more from a cessation of sectarian activity than either side suceeding.
Of course Cromwell was more famous for chopping off crowned heads than supporting the British Crown, but that's by the wayside (Oh, and if you haven't read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle yet, go & get it! Wonderful reading, and tangentially related to the issue)
> If you try argue that deaths of innocents at hands of British Army are sort of inevitable due to the disturbed situation which existed in NI (indeed, "war"?), then you're making the same kind of collateral damage value judgements as the IRA did. No, I don't think I am. If there's a shootout between criminals and the police, and an innocent bystander gets killed, do you blame the police or the criminals?
> It was never taken from an Bunreacht na hEireinn, no. However we were supposed to have commisions and what not look at the matter in more detail after WWI, it never happened (the Unionists were pretty good at keeping the 6-county 'quicky' partition). Further there are counties which, even if you accept partitioning, should never have been part of Northern Ireland (eg Armagh). I'll take your word for it - you clearly know a lot more about NI history then I do. But it doesn't sound like a good reason to kill people, does it?
>> But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
> Sort of appealing to think this, but it's almost certainly never happened.
It was a whimsical thought....but you get the idea. I don't think the British government particulary wants to hang on to NI, seeing as it'd costing a lot of money and causing nothing but trouble. But they can't get rid of it for love nor money;)
I'll bow to your better knowledge of the situation.
>BTW, you havn't had republican bombs in London for a *long* time, have you? I had two fairly close misses with republican bombs....not talking about singed hair, but "if I'd gone two days earlier" type stuff. That's more than enough for me, thank you.
But I just don't get the whole point of the situation. THe place where I grew up changed ownership between "Germany" (i.e. various german king-/duke-/whatever-doms) and France dozens of times in the same timeframe, got ransacked by every Tom, Dick, Harry and maybe even Patrick in the 30 year war, and is an even split between Protestants and Catholics. What's the big deal about which side of an imaginary line you live on (given that both sides are in the EU and moving between them takes slightly less effort than reading/, )?
>Firstly: Irish Americans have been funding Irish Republicanism since long before the present troubles, dating back to late 1800s at least with the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Yes, and Irish Americans were happily funding a terrorist organisation in a western democracy all the way through its most active phase in the late 20th century. Imagine how well it would have gone down in the US if Britain had funded the weathermen, black panthers, or a band of die hard renegade royalists...ok, I made the last one up, but you get the point.
>The reason of course there are so many Irish in USA is cause the Brits[1] saw fit to let millions of us starve to death over the course of ten years, and millions more emigrate to USA (and all to avoid the price of grain falling. Ireland was an *exporter* of foodstuffs all throughout the famine.). Irish Americans, perhaps more than others, carry the famine in their cultural memory.
err.. "the Brits"? A few hundred people in power two a hundred and some years ago. Hardly a justification for blowing up completely unrelated people now.
>Secondly: Very few people died in London, or even mainland UK in total, compared to how many died in Northern Ireland during the troubles. *Far* more civilians died in NI at the hands of the UK state apparatus than British civilians did in UK mainland at hands of IRA. (See this for source).
According to your own source, far more people died at the hand of republican paramilitaries (1896) than at the hand of the government (Army 316 + UDR 10 + RUC 52 = 378). I can't see a breakdown for the mainland, but I don't think that killing people in NI is any more acceptable than on the mainland.
> Urg no. Give the province back to Ireland. We care more about Paisley et al than you mainland brits do anyway. (I do hope one day to see Paisley in Dail Eireinn, even if it's only Ian Paisley, Jr. Preferably as a TD.) An easier solution would be to get Britain to adopt the Euro and drop its schengen opt out; then you couldn't tell with the naked eye whether you were in I or NI.
As for "giving it back" - that's a fairly silly term to use in this context. It wasn't exactly taken from the Irish republic - and from what little I remember about the details I thought there was a referendum at some point. I may be wrong.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
BTW, I'm not british, I just happen to live in London and have a small, selfish interest in not being blown up. And it would be nice to have litter bins in train stations, too;)
Slashdot Mirror
> And let me also point out that this is how the United States government operates these days. It would be reasonable to assume some of our closest allies are engaged in similar activities with "terror suspects".
I don't think the British government are quite as shameless as the American one yet; in general, they have the "decency" to outsource torture to others, although they seem happy enough to want to use "evidence" gained from torture in trials in the UK.
Yes, but logic doesn't apply to political arguments. I pointed out the fatal flaw in RIP to my (Labour) MP: Any serious criminal, especially the drug-smuggling terrorist with a penchant for child pornography that is apparently threatening us, would keep the encryption keys to himself, and be out of jail in 8 months max.
But of course all I got back was a standard propaganda sheet. Oh well, she's out of office now, and with any luck, the rest of the useless rabble will be out by the next election, too. Unless by then it's a crime not to vote Labour - I wouldn't be surprised.
> 28 days. Thank fuck for MPs with a conscience.
:P ;)
Yes. Where the hell has it been all these years?
> 70% of Mail readers is not 70% of the population.
It was something I overheard on BBC News 24, so I don't think the sampling was quite that biased
But at least we live in the world's oldest democracy, where 1/3 of the votes give you a majority.... but I think we're on the same wavelength, so I'll stop preaching to the choir.
> Understand? You can state opinions ("France sucks!") but you can't try and get people to attack France
/ducks ;)
But it's okay to get people to attack Iraq?
Watch Bill O'Reilly, or indeed Fox News, and you'll soon understand why people don't like the Americans ;)
Just sniping at a few points:
> All that matters is that everyone is a citizen of the Republic.
That doesn't sound like such a bad principle, does it?
> And there will be no special treatment for anyone in respect of membership of any group.
Again, not a bad idea, is it?
> And no mark of religious observance will be allowed in any school. This is why headscarves are banned.
And that's when I have to say, "Monsieur, s'il vous plait, pull the other one, it's got bells on!". It's the stupid politicians again - do you REALLY think muslims will become more moderate if they can't wear a headscarf? And the policy is clearly directed against minorities; I've heard stories of Sikhs being affected, but I've not heard that nuns and priests have to change out of their habits, or that big crosses are confiscated.
>Might not the idea that the two immigrant hoodlums running from the police who accidentally killed "electrocuted" themselves, might have some what less credibility being that just a few months ago, the police stalked, chased down and gunned down a brazillian immigrant at a subway stop and initially covered it up and blamed the immigrant that allegedly was wearing a coat in summer and acting suspiciously and running away all of which turned out not to be true at all and in fact was a complete fabrication?
Good story, if slightly slanted reporting. WRONG COUNTRY! . I know we're all part of the EU now, and it's only a short hop across (or underneath) the channel, but France and the UK are still separate countries.
> Tell me why enforced secular humanism seems to be targeted primarily at the muslim community?
Stupid politicians.
> Tell me about job prospects> and what the french have to do fix this problem.
Change their macroeconomic policies for startes; hell is likely to freeze over before that happens.
> Tell me why the majority of people in french jails are muslim.
Sorry, I don't believe that story. Quote 1: "Despite making up only 10 percent of the population, Muslims account for most of the country's inmates and a growing percentage of the prison populations in many other European countries." - make up scary facts.
Quote 2: "While there are no official data on issues of race and ethnicity in much of Europe -- it is in fact illegal to keep such data in many places -- experts on prison populations agree on the new disproportion of Muslims." - admit that you don't actually know the facts. I'll be generous and just assume the reporter isn't numerate enough to understand the difference between a majority and disproportionate representation.
Why is the majority of US prison inmates black and hispanic? Probably because poor people tend to end up in prison way more often than rich people.
As to citizenship issues in Europe, yes, it's pretty fucked up. Germany & Turkey is a particularly stupid situation, and counterproductive; but AFAIK Turkey takes some of the blame in a) not allowing dual nationality and b) restricting inheritance to nationals. That's what I seem to recall, but I haven't looked at it in ages, so I may well be wrong. But I know plenty of people who have gained UK citizenship; and I don't actually think it's harder than US citizenship.
>I find it mortifying that we collectively do not have enough reflexitivity to go beyond the "they are not us, they are them and they hate us, they are foreign" mentality. And it is shameful.
Amen.
>In Britain, anyway, we've always known the French like a bit of authoritarianism.
;)
Unlike in the UK, of course, where there's no authoritarianism. I mean, locking people up for 90 days without charge is hardly authoritarian, is it? Although allegedly supported by 70% of the population. Detaining people indefinitely on the say so of the home secretary was another non-authoritarian British specialty; since it's plainly illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights, it's now been replaced by indefinite house arrest. Clearly much more civilised, which is why all civilised nations supported Burma when it locked up Aung San Suu Kyi. Shall I go on with the RIP act, illegal telephone taps, etc? I don't think I'll bother.
Pot. Kettle, Calling. black. Arrange to your liking
On the other hand, Britain is - comparatively - wonderful when it comes mixed races and religions. Far better than most other European countries, and certainly far more relaxed than the U.S.
> One last thought, 50 years ago Turkey was 50% Muslim, today it is over 95% Muslim.
Now where did you get that idea from? According to the CIA, it's actually "Muslim 99.8% (mostly Sunni), other 0.2% (mostly Christians and Jews)". But I see no reason why the proportion would have been significantly different 50 years ago.
What next, shock and outrage that Muslims are taken over Iran? Help, Saudi-Arabia is suddenly full of Muslims!
> Network President: And Executive Gamma, programmed to underestimate middle America.
You can't underestimate middle America.
"Globalisation doesn't just work for corporations importing cheap shoes, it works for you too."
and who benefits from the cheap shoes, if not the consumer?
You can bet that Microsoft pays corporation tax in every country and state of the world where it sells its products. You can also bet that they try hard to optimize their tax burden as much as possible.
So no luck there. And anyway, it wouldn't be the programmers who are responsible, it would be the shareholders and management.
Of course you get the full benefit of their services; as an American abroad you are in fact the main beneficiary of all the bile and disgust their foreign policy generates.
If you want to opt out, you'd have to resign your citizenship. Apparently that's not easy, and also of highly dubious benefit since you could end up stateless. Also, since the UK has double taxation treaties with the US, you're most likely not actually paying more taxes, it's just that some of your tax goes to the US, and the rest to the UK.
Why doesn't he just incorporate in Delaware, which IRC is how most companies get around the state tax issue in the first place?
> Sell your songs for 99 cents online. Pay your $20 hosting fee. Sell millions.
No, sells dozens, or hundreds if you're lucky. Or pay 94 out of the 99 cents on advertising, and sell a few more.
There are gazillions of bands out there, and to get noticed you have to have a publicity campaign. Which isn't going to be cheap.
a) It's hindsight, not hindsite, but that's a minor point
b) If you have downloaded the entire album already, would you pay to download it again? And even if you are honest enough to do that, do you think everyone else is?
I don't.
> 3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
Wow. 10/2005, and you've never heard of AMAZON?
> THOUSANDS of people.
Let's recap stats 101:
25,000 / 250,000,00 = 0.0001, i.e. 0.01%
Sure looks like a small percentage to me.
There's a shockwave-free link for at least some of them.
?This is just my two cents, but I belive the music industry executives to be complete and total morons.
Quite possibly they are, on the other hand I've not actually heard of any major record label going bankrupt, so maybe they're not that stupid after all.
> When will they realize that people will not continue to buy your product when you're overcharging?
Perhaps when enough people stop buying CDs because they find them too expensive. It hasn't happened yet.
> This is basic economics. If a dairy wanted to charge $20 for a gallon of milk, do you think anyone would buy it? No.
Yes, actually. People pay considerably more per gallon for other drinks. But milk would possibly be considered a luxury rather than a staple. Of course, there is competition in the milk market, which there isn't in the same way in the music industry. If you want to buy the new FooBar CD, and one label is offering it for $20, there's no competitor offering it for $15 instead, is there?
> There are better ways to support the artist than buying their music. Steal the music, go to their concerts, but their t-shirts.
Yeah.... right. Three easy steps. Such a shame most people stop after step 1.
> That isn't necessarily the poster's fault. It is the media's fault for not reporting everything
Ten years ago I might have agreed - getting decent media in Hicksville, Idaho might be difficult. But nowadays, aljazeera , BBC , Spiegel etc are just a click away.
Sorry to pick this up a week later - I was on holiday. It's an interesting discussion, though - so I'd like to continue it if possible.
;)
/, )?
> I don't support or condone terrorism, but you really do have to look at the context in which terrorism in NI. While not a legitimate way to deal with grievances, or further your cause, grievances and injustices are what led to that terrorism. And, the modern problems of Northern Ireland aside, Irish and those of Irish descent have a *long* list of reasons to believe that Irish interests would best be served by getting the British Crown *out* of this island (from Cromwell through to the Black and Tans after WWI)
I'm always somewhat suspicious of arguments that start with "I don't support terrorism, but...". But as you continue: This is not a legitimate way to deal with any grievances, real or imagined. I'm sure there are situations where violent action can be justified - some of the starkest examples are the assassination attempt on Hitler, the French resistance, Apartheid South Africa - but a society with even barely democratic means that's clearly not the case. As to the "Irish" interests - I couldn't give two figs what the Irish or British interests are, but it seems clear that the majority of the population in NI would benefit more from a cessation of sectarian activity than either side suceeding.
Of course Cromwell was more famous for chopping off crowned heads than supporting the British Crown, but that's by the wayside (Oh, and if you haven't read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle yet, go & get it! Wonderful reading, and tangentially related to the issue)
> If you try argue that deaths of innocents at hands of British Army are sort of inevitable due to the disturbed situation which existed in NI (indeed, "war"?), then you're making the same kind of collateral damage value judgements as the IRA did.
No, I don't think I am. If there's a shootout between criminals and the police, and an innocent bystander gets killed, do you blame the police or the criminals?
> It was never taken from an Bunreacht na hEireinn, no. However we were supposed to have commisions and what not look at the matter in more detail after WWI, it never happened (the Unionists were pretty good at keeping the 6-county 'quicky' partition). Further there are counties which, even if you accept partitioning, should never have been part of Northern Ireland (eg Armagh).
I'll take your word for it - you clearly know a lot more about NI history then I do. But it doesn't sound like a good reason to kill people, does it?
>> But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
> Sort of appealing to think this, but it's almost certainly never happened.
It was a whimsical thought....but you get the idea. I don't think the British government particulary wants to hang on to NI, seeing as it'd costing a lot of money and causing nothing but trouble. But they can't get rid of it for love nor money
I'll bow to your better knowledge of the situation.
>BTW, you havn't had republican bombs in London for a *long* time, have you?
I had two fairly close misses with republican bombs....not talking about singed hair, but "if I'd gone two days earlier" type stuff. That's more than enough for me, thank you.
But I just don't get the whole point of the situation. THe place where I grew up changed ownership between "Germany" (i.e. various german king-/duke-/whatever-doms) and France dozens of times in the same timeframe, got ransacked by every Tom, Dick, Harry and maybe even Patrick in the 30 year war, and is an even split between Protestants and Catholics. What's the big deal about which side of an imaginary line you live on (given that both sides are in the EU and moving between them takes slightly less effort than reading
>Firstly: Irish Americans have been funding Irish Republicanism since long before the present troubles, dating back to late 1800s at least with the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood.
;)
Yes, and Irish Americans were happily funding a terrorist organisation in a western democracy all the way through its most active phase in the late 20th century. Imagine how well it would have gone down in the US if Britain had funded the weathermen, black panthers, or a band of die hard renegade royalists...ok, I made the last one up, but you get the point.
>The reason of course there are so many Irish in USA is cause the Brits[1] saw fit to let millions of us starve to death over the course of ten years, and millions more emigrate to USA (and all to avoid the price of grain falling. Ireland was an *exporter* of foodstuffs all throughout the famine.). Irish Americans, perhaps more than others, carry the famine in their cultural memory.
err.. "the Brits"? A few hundred people in power two a hundred and some years ago. Hardly a justification for blowing up completely unrelated people now.
>Secondly: Very few people died in London, or even mainland UK in total, compared to how many died in Northern Ireland during the troubles. *Far* more civilians died in NI at the hands of the UK state apparatus than British civilians did in UK mainland at hands of IRA. (See this for source).
According to your own source, far more people died at the hand of republican paramilitaries (1896) than at the hand of the government (Army 316 + UDR 10 + RUC 52 = 378). I can't see a breakdown for the mainland, but I don't think that killing people in NI is any more acceptable than on the mainland.
> Urg no. Give the province back to Ireland. We care more about Paisley et al than you mainland brits do anyway. (I do hope one day to see Paisley in Dail Eireinn, even if it's only Ian Paisley, Jr. Preferably as a TD.)
An easier solution would be to get Britain to adopt the Euro and drop its schengen opt out; then you couldn't tell with the naked eye whether you were in I or NI.
As for "giving it back" - that's a fairly silly term to use in this context. It wasn't exactly taken from the Irish republic - and from what little I remember about the details I thought there was a referendum at some point. I may be wrong.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
BTW, I'm not british, I just happen to live in London and have a small, selfish interest in not being blown up. And it would be nice to have litter bins in train stations, too
Hey, the UK has been meddling in the affairs of other countries since before America was discovered! ;)
Are you calling George W a socialist? Careful, I think he'd take that as an insult, and surely insulting the president in a time of war is treason! ;)