Northern Ireland Thread

[Badunk]

Of course it failed to defeat the IRA. Why is there a big to do about that?

I think they did. The IRA quit, the goal of a United Ireland wasn't achieved, Sinn Fein was bought off and we've since discovered that loads of top republicans were informers who were being run by the Brits. The Brits won.

 

[Stick]

No I didn't, I just stated to me it is not a hugely courageous act.

And there is always a choice. Don't talk nonsense.

It's interesting that you feel this way and where you work. A lot of trouble came from the British stand point on not fully understanding the Irish mentality when it came to certain aspects in this dispute.

In the 1916 rising the rebels had virtually no support in Dublin with a lot of families having lads in the British army fighting in France and for some the perspective was "these eejets," went out and occupied buildings and disrupted their daily life. It wasn't until the powers that be executed them and created martyrs of them that "A terrible beauty was born."

I think feeling not fully represented by Britain and that not being understood is part of the reason as to why most of Ireland rebelled against the crown but there are tonnes of other factors to consider such as the land question and agitation from the US with the Irish abroad. It really is a massive issue for the Irish but not really for yourselves on the mainland. I don't think there is any blame to issue and I hope I'm not romanticising anything and I think the troubles were terrible but I think we all need to see all sides of an argument and be sensitive in the wording we use.

 

[Stick]

I think they did. The IRA quit, the goal of a United Ireland wasn't achieved, Sinn Fein was bought off and we've since discovered that loads of top republicans were informers who were being run by the Brits. The Brits won.

I think the death toll on boths sides shows the futility of violence and also shows that there are no winners in conflict just those of us left to pick up the pieces and build our communities again.

 

[Eyepopper]

.

Then again, this thread wouldn't be this thread if someone who wasn't Irish wasn't being slated for daring to have an opinion different to the masses.
.

If you read my post carefully again you'll see that I'm agreeing with you so pull the victim shirt off.

We're the things the IRA did wrong? On a humanistic level they were but from their perspective in the situation at the time they seemed justified in doing what they were doing. The exact same can be said of British actions at the time.

Using words like amateur and cowardly in my view is only to score points? Who honestly gives a shit how well each side was trained? What's it got to do with anything aside from a 'my dicks bigger than yours' competition.

Anyway I'll leave you too it lads.

 

[TheReligion]

If you read my post carefully again you'll see that I'm agreeing with you so pull the victim shirt off.

We're the things the IRA did wrong? On a humanistic level they were but from their perspective in the situation at the time they seemed justified in doing what they were doing. The exact same can be said of British actions at the time.

Using words like amateur and cowardly in my view is only to score points? Who honestly gives a shit how well each side was trained? What's it got to do with anything aside from a 'my dicks bigger than yours' competition.

Anyway I'll leave you too it lads.

I honestly don't get why alot of people have taken issue with this.

In my opinion planting bombs in rather cowardly, especially in shopping centres and built up areas. I am amazed anyone would disagree with that in fairness. There is certainly no courage in an act like that to me. Perhaps you see it differently, then again I would struggle to see how.

As for the amateur part, that term was used when describing them against the SAS earlier in the thread. Again, I am baffled that anyone would take issue with this as it is a fact.

Perhaps it is point scoring to some of you as you seem to have taken the knock about it. I personally don't need or want to point score as it isn't even debatable in my opinion.

 

[TheReligion]

It's interesting that you feel this way and where you work. A lot of trouble came from the British stand point on not fully understanding the Irish mentality when it came to certain aspects in this dispute.

In the 1916 rising the rebels had virtually no support in Dublin with a lot of families having lads in the British army fighting in France and for some the perspective was "these eejets," went out and occupied buildings and disrupted their daily life. It wasn't until the powers that be executed them and created martyrs of them that "A terrible beauty was born."

I think feeling not fully represented by Britain and that not being understood is part of the reason as to why most of Ireland rebelled against the crown but there are tonnes of other factors to consider such as the land question and agitation from the US with the Irish abroad. It really is a massive issue for the Irish but not really for yourselves on the mainland. I don't think there is any blame to issue and I hope I'm not romanticising anything and I think the troubles were terrible but I think we all need to see all sides of an argument and be sensitive in the wording we use.

Good and interesting post.

I see both sides of the Republican and Unionist argument but neither of the extreme elements of either side have coveted themselves in glory over the years.

I think the Republican movement in general would have got alot more support and sympathy here if they had decided not to carry out bombings such as Manchester, Docklands, Harrods, Baltic Exchange etc.

 

[Stick]

Good and interesting post.

I see both sides of the Republican and Unionist argument but neither of the extreme elements of either side have coveted themselves in glory over the years.

I think the Republican movement in general would have got alot more support and sympathy here if they had decided not to carry out bombings such as Manchester, Docklands, Harrods, Baltic Exchange etc.

I agree with that. I think that extremists got to grips with certain nationalist and unionist organisations in Ireland following certain high profile executions and violence was deemed the way forward to getting world attention. It has now shown to be flawed as we are now trying to rebuild communities torn apart by this violence and the trust is very slowly returning.

This is where your stance on a hunger strike confuses me simply because if more people took to non violent protests for a cause it could negate the cowardly acts of violence.

 

[TheReligion]

I agree with that. I think that extremists got to grips with certain nationalist and unionist organisations in Ireland following certain high profile executions and violence was deemed the way forward to getting world attention. It has now shown to be flawed as we are now trying to rebuild communities torn apart by this violence and the trust is very slowly returning.

This is where your stance on a hunger strike confuses me simply because if more people took to non violent protests for a cause it could negate the cowardly acts of violence.

I commented that to me there was nothing overly courageous about a hunger strike. That is just my view as I have a different interpretation of it in my own mind.

Obviously, as you have touched on, peaceful protest is far better than cowardly acts of violence. Look at the support generated in Lybia, Syria and Egypt for instance and the overall outcomes.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I seem intent on point scoring? Oh dear, either you haven't read this all particularly well or you have neglected to read what a large number of Irish posters have written, alot of which epitomises point scoring from the first page of the thread.

Then again, this thread wouldn't be this thread if someone who wasn't Irish wasn't being slated for daring to have an opinion different to the masses.



Exactly Jake. A massive difference. This point seems lost on a few people though.

1) Point scoring from page1? I suggest you go and read page 1 before you spout more of your bullshit. It's not all non-Irish who are being slated, it's just you and the reason is that you spout unadulterated crap and then skew peoples replies or just completely make stuff up such as the post I quoted.

2) No-one fails to see the difference. The point stands that the Terrorists in NI on both sides are not the only ones to inflict grievous pain and suffering on complete innocents. Every time that's pointed out to you, you refuse to acknowledge it and instead make some wise crack. Your nation is responsible for the deaths of countless complete innocents throughout the years in Ireland. Starvation and cold blooded murder where two of your particular favourites. No-one here in this debate in recent days has once tried to defend the murders the IRA committed and we have all condemned them. That's something that you seem unwilling to do about your countries past.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I commented that to me there was nothing overly courageous about a hunger strike. That is just my view as I have a different interpretation of it in my own mind.

Obviously, as you have touched on, peaceful protest is far better than cowardly acts of violence. Look at the support generated in Lybia, Syria and Egypt for instance and the overall outcomes.

IIRC, you're reply was a laughing smiley which IMO was massively disrespectful.

Other peaceful protests where tried here, and one of those peace marches in Derry ended in the slaughter and proceeding cover up of the murder of 13 innocents. That murder was the catalyst for the widespread troubles that followed.

 

[Stick]

I commented that to me there was nothing overly courageous about a hunger strike. That is just my view as I have a different interpretation of it in my own mind.

Obviously, as you have touched on, peaceful protest is far better than cowardly acts of violence. Look at the support generated in Lybia, Syria and Egypt for instance and the overall outcomes.

Fair enough and to be fair the Irish for years went for Home Rule similar to what Scotland have now via parliament but the bills way was unfortunate in its timing as they kept getting the bill vetoed by the lords or wars got in the way and even some political scandals put paid to it and then unfortunately the extremists took charge for a time.

 

[Stick]

IIRC, you're reply was a laughing smiley which IMO was massively disrespectful.

Other peaceful protests where tried here, and one of those peace marches in Derry ended in the slaughter and proceeding cover up of the murder of 13 innocents. That murder was the catalyst for the widespread troubles that followed.

Irwin I think TR made his opinion on hunger strike clear in the last post. He feels it isnt courageous and that's his call. The SAS comment is purely based on the fact that they are a professional organisation and the opposition wasnt. If it was on paper they really would have gone in and set up internment camps and sought to root our all opposition but that could never have happened as the Irish in the US would have created all manner of noise and the British govt are far more open minded and democratic than they were painted by some in the conflict. I think TR was speaking purely from a logical "On Paper," sense.

Edit:

Sorry TR not trying to put words in your mouth but I think that is what you meant.

 

[TheReligion]

1) Point scoring from page1? I suggest you go and read page 1 before you spout more of your bullshit. It's not all non-Irish who are being slated, it's just you and the reason is that you spout unadulterated crap and then skew peoples replies or just completely make stuff up such as the post I quoted.

Give it a rest, if you can't debate without throwing silly insults around then you simply make yourself look daft. You are a decent guy so take a time out or something

2) No-one fails to see the difference. The point stands that the Terrorists in NI on both sides are not the only ones to inflict grievous pain and suffering on complete innocents. Every time that's pointed out to you, you refuse to acknowledge it and instead make some wise crack. Your nation is responsible for the deaths of countless complete innocents throughout the years in Ireland. Starvation and cold blooded murder where two of your particular favourites. No-one here in this debate in recent days has once tried to defend the murders the IRA committed and we have all condemned them. That's something that you seem unwilling to do about your countries past.

I think it perhaps comes across that way from reading the thread on the outside. I certainly know I am not the only one to get that opinion. Atrocities have been committed by armed forces all over the world, non more so that the British Army during the days of the Empire. These methods were not "my favourites" as you so loving put it, and there is certainly nothing I can do about it now in 2013.

IIRC, you're reply was a laughing smiley which IMO was massively disrespectful.

Other peaceful protests where tried here, and one of those peace marches in Derry ended in the slaughter and proceeding cover up of the murder of 13 innocents. That murder was the catalyst for the widespread troubles that followed.

Yeah Bloody Sunday was tragic and should not have happened. I don't think you will get anyone over here saying otherwise to be honest, as much as you might like to think otherwise. That certainly doesn't mean peaceful protest isn't the way forward though, as proved recently in other countries.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Another half baked effort at getting out of conceding a simple point. Again with the seemingly intentional misinterpretation of a post. "your favoutrites" clearly wasn't directed at you in the singular but you as a nation in the past participle

If you can't debate without twisting peoples words then maybe you should give it a break.

 

[Grinner]

What exactly do you Irish think the British Govt. should have done in the late 1960's in response to the increase in tension?

 

[TheReligion]

Another half baked effort at getting out of conceding a simple point. Again with the seemingly intentional misinterpretation of a post. "your favoutrites" clearly wasn't directed at you in the singular but you as a nation in the past participle

If you can't debate without twisting peoples words then maybe you should give it a break.

It is not me getting all worked up by it all. If you make such sweeping generalisations expect to receive frustrating replies!

Listen, I like you Irwin (whatever you might think of me) and I have tried on a few occasions to lighten the mood but you continue to be insulting in every single one of your responses.

I appreciate the topic is emotive to some, but this is a thread on a pubic forum so some debate and opinion that you disagree with is always going to come about. That doesn't mean to say everyone is wrong or not entitled to air their thoughts without facing abuse and belittling.

 

[PhilipB]

Yeah Bloody Sunday was tragic and should not have happened. I don't think you will get anyone over here saying otherwise to be honest, as much as you might like to think otherwise. That certainly doesn't mean peaceful protest isn't the way forward though, as proved recently in other countries.

I often wonder if peaceful protesting would have worked here or if the Catholics would all have been beaten down/slaughtered and then given up. I mean they did try to peacefully protest but it was made virtually impossible.

 

[Randall Flagg]

TR uses the word cowardly for all the Republican acts but cannot bring himself to say it in relation to Bloody Sunday.

 

[Eyepopper]

Peaceful protest is definitely preferable.

What was it Churchill gave Collins as an alternative to signing the treaty again?

 

[buckooo1978]

I often wonder if peaceful protesting would have worked here or if the Catholics would all have been beaten down/slaughtered and then given up. I mean they did try to peacefully protest but it was made virtually impossible.

there were peaceful protests in Northern Ireland - a group tried to mirror the Civil Rights movement in the US and it included Catholics and Protestants

I remember one of my lecturers - an English guy told me about the Civil Rights marches in the 60s that were peaceful and were attacked by crowds including off duty police

 

[PhilipB]

there were peaceful protests in Northern Ireland - a group tried to mirror the Civil Rights movement in the US and it included Catholics and Protestants

I remember one of my lecturers - an English guy told me about the Civil Rights marches in the 60s that were peaceful and were attacked by crowds including off duty police

Yea I know, that's what I was saying. It started out as peaceful protesting but was made impossible due to them being attacked.

 

[Rooney24]

TR uses the word cowardly for all the Republican acts but cannot bring himself to say it in relation to Bloody Sunday.

Amateur could also be used to describe the British Army actions on that day. And there was certainly nothing courageous about it either.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

It is not me getting all worked up by it all. If you make such sweeping generalisations expect to receive frustrating replies!

Listen, I like you Irwin (whatever you might think of me) and I have tried on a few occasions to lighten the mood but you continue to be insulting in every single one of your responses.

I appreciate the topic is emotive to some, but this is a thread on a pubic forum so some debate and opinion that you disagree with is always going to come about. That doesn't mean to say everyone is wrong or not entitled to air their thoughts without facing abuse and belittling.

Sweeping generalisations?? You asked to debate a few pages ago and you fail to reply to any single point I have made and instead put posts like this one. I have no issue at all with a difference of opinion. Some of the posters on here that I interact most with have been Unionists and they couldn;t have a more opposite opinion than mines. The difference is that in general they have debated properly answering points instead of trying to score them.

So the post that you mainly avoided (just to avoid sweeping generalisations) had three main points that you have ignored. If you want to debate then without straying from them can you reply to each of them.

1) You said the Irish posters were point scoring from page one. I asked you to read page one again and see of you are correct.

2) Find where I slate anyone who doesn't share an opinion with me or anywhere in this thread where I have been even anyway insulting to a poster other than you.

3) You say the point on innocent deaths being different to combative ones are lost on some of us here. I ask you do you acknowledge that two sides where both causing completely innocent deaths and a hell of a lot more recently than "the days of the empire"!

 

[moses]

What exactly do you Irish think the British Govt. should have done in the late 1960's in response to the increase in tension?

There is not one answer, but the Civil Rights issues should never have been let go the way they were.

The onus wasn't in us to come up with a solution to the post colonial feck up the British government had on their hands, it's a little unfair to strip us of our economy and language, divide the country and then and expect us to plan a neat exit. We have no experience of post colonial withdrawal.

The individual troops may feel like they weren't the cause of the problems, but over time they were. For all of our condemnation of the IRA, they too were restricted in choices and if the Civil Rights issues were dealt with the support for the IRA wouldn't have been as automatic as it was.

 

[moses]

Sweeping generalisations?? You asked to debate a few pages ago and you fail to reply to any single point I have made and instead put posts like this one. I have no issue at all with a difference of opinion. Some of the posters on here that I interact most with have been Unionists and they couldn;t have a more opposite opinion than mines. The difference is that in general they have debated properly answering points instead of trying to score them.

So the post that you mainly avoided (just to avoid sweeping generalisations) had three main points that you have ignored. If you want to debate then without straying from them can you reply to each of them.

1) You said the Irish posters were point scoring from page one. I asked you to read page one again and see of you are correct.

2) Find where I slate anyone who doesn't share an opinion with me or anywhere in this thread where I have been even anyway insulting to a poster other than you.

3) You say the point on innocent deaths being different to combative ones are lost on some of us here. I ask you do you acknowledge that two sides where both causing completely innocent deaths and a hell of a lot more recently than "the days of the empire"!

You are wasting your breath Irwin, it's obvious Irish and English blood have different worth to him.

 

[Grinner]

There is not one answer, but the Civil Rights issues should never have been let go the way they were.

The onus wasn't in us to come up with a solution to the post colonial feck up the British government had on their hands, it's a little unfair to strip us of our economy and language, divide the country and then and expect us to plan a neat exit. We have no experience of post colonial withdrawal.

The individual troops may feel like they weren't the cause of the problems, but over time they were. For all of our condemnation of the IRA, they too were restricted in choices and if the Civil Rights issues were dealt with the support for the IRA wouldn't have been as automatic as it was.

Like most of these issues there were no good solutions, only bad and less-bad options.

 

[moses]

Like most of these issues there were no good solutions, only bad and less-bad options.

I don't disagree, but that was mainly due to the previous decades and centuries, which again were the actions and will of the British elite. So any soldier landing in NI, was just the latest in a long line under the same flag. An army needs to stand together in battle so there is no point in drawing arbitrary lines when it comes to the politics and admin.

So you ask what the Britsih options were, over the centuries they had many many chances to sort the situation, we didn't have any. They took the Irish part in creating the mess away, by taking their sovereignty. Ireland was Britain's mess, and so it was up to Britian to sort it and not claim to be victims of circumstance. That's harsh, but logical no?

 

[Grinner]

Yes, but they did try. They just did it in a way that made everybody unhappy. Expecting pre-WW2 Britain to act magnanimously is not exactly realistic though.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Like most of these issues there were no good solutions, only bad and less-bad options.

Britain are in a terrible situation of their own making now. They've been damned no matter what they did from one side or the other for decades. Some of the decisions made though since the sixties have compounded to whole thing. When troops where first brought onto the streets I think at that time it was the only thing to do, but all too often Tory Governments pandered to the Unionists none more so than when they relied on their support in Westminster, and that pandering only allowed a worsening of the situation in NI. (this is going back a while when I say that)

I think going forward the solution will have to come from within and hopefully the road we are on now is the one that will lead us there. Relations between Ireland and 'The Old Enemy' have improved hugely recently and an overwhelming majority of people I know harbour no resentment or ill will towards the ordinary English people or even the majority of Soldiers who patrolled in the north. I'm actually good mates now with an ex-Para who served in the North.

 

[moses]

Yes, but they did try. They just did it in a way that made everybody unhappy. Expecting pre-WW2 Britain to act magnanimously is not exactly realistic though.

But they didn't try with the civil rights issues, at all. And that was the only option open to anybody at the time.

To be honest Grinner, on this island expecting Britain at any point to act magnanimously was never realistic. If you look at the history books Ireland gave Britain every chance. The history books are struggle after struggle, with alternate means, parliamentary and violence. The violence was the only thing that ever brought Britain to negotiate, so the IRA are Britain's Pavlov's dogs. By ignoring all of our movements Britiain showed Ireland that violence was the only way to get her attention.

So yes it's a difficult siutuation, but being proud of Britain's miltary history, which Britain is, on one hand and shrugging your shoulders at the countries it destroyed along the way on the other is not really realistic.

So while you can draw lines as in pre and post WW2, from an Irish perspective it's been one long occuptaion, enforced with a gun.

And if you ask most of the lads here to name the 5 worst acts by Britain in Ireland, I'd wager they'd be almost all post WW2, so not all that much changed for Ireland.


disclaimer - None of this btw takes any of the horror away from events like the death of the two signallers. Undefendable and still shocking 25 years on. It's just context.

 

[narnar]

There was a programme on called '14 days' on the BBC2 last night which was very very good. It covered the two weeks the IRA members were killed in Gibraltar through to the killings of the two soldiers through father alec reid's perspective.anyone else see it? Should be on the iPlayer.

 

[An Irish Red]

I commented that to me there was nothing overly courageous about a hunger strike. That is just my view as I have a different interpretation of it in my own mind.

Then you don't understand the horrors that your body goes through on hunger strike. Regardless of the politics of those who are carrying it out, a hunger strike is a completely courageous act that requires determination, bravery and conviction.

I'd imagine you would have a very different view of hunger strikes if the topic was about, say, the Suffragettes.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I wonder where the monks in Vietnam that doused themselves in petrol and set themselves alight not courageous either?

 

[Stick]

Peaceful protest is definitely preferable.

What was it Churchill gave Collins as an alternative to signing the treaty again?

War and terrible war I think.

 

[moses]

There was a programme on called '14 days' on the BBC2 last night which was very very good. It covered the two weeks the IRA members were killed in Gibraltar through to the killings of the two soldiers through father alec reid's perspective.anyone else see it? Should be on the iPlayer.

No, will check it out. Ta for the heads up.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

I wonder where the monks in Vietnam that doused themselves in petrol and set themselves alight not courageous either?

Self-immolation has been an Eastern expression of protest for centuries. Some would call it courageous, some would call it crazy and some would call it stupid.

 

[moses]

Self-immolation has been an Eastern expression of protest for centuries. Some would call it courageous, some would call it crazy and some would call it stupid.

Both courageous or crazy could be applied to taking a wage and fighting in another country.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Both courageous or crazy could be applied to taking a wage and fighting in another country.

A country they may not have been able to pick out on a map before being sent.

You are a good in this thread Moses.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Both courageous or crazy could be applied to taking a wage and fighting in another country.

Only by a giddy liberal. It is standard human behaviour throughout history and to the present day. Setting yourself on fire is rare and extreme behaviour. Blindly fighting for your country is a little crazy to me though, which is why I would never sign up.

Personally I do not feel any embarrassment about Britain's empirical past. In those times command and conquer was the done thing. The British Empire was relatively benign to many empires that came before and have been since. Most of our former territories are now democratic states, we gave birth to some of the worlds most affluent and desirable democracies: America, Canada and Australia are three that spring instantly to mind. There were many atrocities perpetrated by the English but the world was a more savage place in those days. To judge those actions by todays moral standards is misleading.

England's history with Ireland is unfortunate and complex. I think that most English people would be more than happy to see Ireland unified, as I would. I am sure that most English people would like to see the soldiers who committed atrocities on bloody Sunday brought to justice, as I would. I understand Irish anger with the English and I don't know what the solution is. If Ireland is unified there will still be a large 'British' population in the North, what happens then?

 

[moses]

Both courageous or crazy could be applied to taking a wage and fighting in another country.

Only by a giddy liberal. It is standard human behaviour throughout history and to the present day. Setting yourself on fire is rare and extreme behaviour. Blindly fighting for your country is a little crazy to me though, which is why I would never sign up.

Initially I thought it was me you were calling a giddy liberal, but it was actually you. Well done.


Anyway which is morally worse, killing or willing to be killed for beliefs or taking a wage and doing it where you are told?

Personally I do not feel any embarrassment about Britain's empirical past. In those times command and conquer was the done thing. The British Empire was relatively benign to many empires that came before and have been since. Most of our former territories are now democratic states, we gave birth to some of the worlds most affluent and desirable democracies: America, Canada and Australia are three that spring instantly to mind. There were many atrocities perpetrated by the English but the world was a more savage place in those days. To judge those actions by todays moral standards is misleading.

Maybe initially, but there's a couple of hundred years of post enlightement atrocities here. The Rights of Man is a fairly old document too. To think no-one knew right from wrong until recently is misleading.

England's history with Ireland is unfortunate and complex. I think that most English people would be more than happy to see Ireland unified, as I would. I am sure that most English people would like to see the soldiers who committed atrocities on bloody Sunday brought to justice, as I would. I understand Irish anger with the English and I don't know what the solution is. If Ireland is unified there will still be a large 'British' population in the North, what happens then?

This thread is difficult enough without the complexities of unification. It's not a possibility as things stand anyway.