Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (16492)	1/15/2002 2:44:30 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Catholics felt that they were getting the short end of the stick in terms of access to everything from civil service jobs, education, to treatment by police. The conflict went on for hundreds of years. Eventually the majority got their way, despite the better technology and economy of their enemy. At some point, the Catholics changed their goal from driving the Protestants into the sea to getting a fair deal. If the Palestinians (and the neighbors!) were ever to make that transition, then I too would bet on their getting their way.

To: Bilow who wrote (16492)	1/15/2002 6:23:17 PM
From: BigBull	Respond to of 281500

If staying power and determination were the main criteria for eventual victory, then the "Jews" must be head and shoulders above the Irish, eh? The celts of Ireland survived many an onslaught, it is true. But goodness gracious - the Ites (Amalakhites, Jebusites, etc etc.) the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians couldn't finish them (the Jews). The Romans and the Nazis came the closest. And yet there still is and Israel? Surely that kind of will must count for something in your analogy. Who has the ultimate claim to that pile of rocks? From time immemorial the answer has always been the same - the ones who are strong enough to keep it. WRT population growth; I think you may be overly discounting the large Jewish diaspora still extant across the globe whilst overweighting Arab birthrates. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your analogy can work both ways, depending on who plays the role of "The Irish." :o} Btw I am of Irish descent and eschew all religions that emanate from the Levant. ALL of them. Give me Greek syncretism ANY DAY.

To: Bilow who wrote (16492)	1/15/2002 6:55:21 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Bilow, Big space in the time line. I really am surprised the source (even if pro IRA) missed it. i.e what about the time between 1939 and 1945? We jump from 1939 to 1949. users.westnet.gr In 1939 the IRA began a bombing campaign in English cities. This was effectively over by 1941, with relatively few attacks having occurred. With internment without trial introduced in both states in Ireland the IRA was at a low ebb during this period. In 1949 in response to the British government's Ireland Act which reinforced partition all parties in the Irish parliament declared their unanimous opposition to partition. The same year the IRA issued an Order which forbade military action against the forces of the 26-County state. The fact is WW2 was a big opportunity for Ireland to become united. Chamberlain have given Ireland back all her sea ports as part of his appeasement policy, Churchill would have given anything to get access to them to help defeat the U boats. Lots of sailors from this country died as a result. Lots of food and munitions got sunk too. The ill feeling in this country towards Irish intransigence was very strong indeed. Churchill never forgave De Valera, in fact during his victory speech, he had a special mention for him. (note: 1st two links don't seem to work, rest do) Message 16605618