'IRA' violence is back

[flip]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was never a part of the Republic of Ireland. After the War of Independence, the English signed a treaty with the Irish Republicans and Nationalists.

Northern Ireland CHOSE to recede from the Republic.

I'm familiar with Irish history. But it is hard to judge the decisions they made based on the fact they were fighting for scraps from the British. However you aren't taking into account the time of this treaty. If it was signed in 1220 you might have a point. It wasn't it was signed in 1920 IIRC.

Look at it this way. Are the Scottish happy that they are still part of the UK? Maybe. It has worked out reasonably well for them recently, they have been getting more and more independence in the last 10-20 years, so have the Welsh.

Would they want to up and leave the UK? Not sure. Bottom line is that they don't want to be British subjects, neither do the Irish want N Ireland to be British subjects.

Bring up treaties all you want but that is BS. Pretty sure anyone would have chosen treaty after 1000 years of occupation. It was the lesser of two evils that is all.

[BavarianHorde]

The issues of Northern Ireland have always perplexed me.
When the IRA were at their peak, you would always hear it is a fight between Catholics and Protestants. In reality it had far more to do with British / Irish relations then it did with theological issues. As a believer God and the Lord Jesus Christ, it is obvious that it is not true believers who are doing battle. If it were, there would be no fighting, it would be forgiveness and love. Instead it has been eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It has been warring out of vengence and the innocent are caught in the middle. That is not true love, that is not the gospel.

I have a cousin who was born in Northern Ireland, in Belfast. He grew up there, and said that a lot of the things you hear in the news is overblown. He said the violence was usually isolated in a few spots. He never was directly affected.

In the end, the IRA were and are on the right track. They are working for political peace, and I think that eventually lead to peace because that is the will of the people.

This skirmish by terrorists, by people who call themselves IRA, won't be tolerated for very long. The will of the people will crush that.

Flip, I pray that any family you have back there are safe, and I pray for peace for Northern Ireland. I think it will happen, it is just not going to happen over night.

Peace.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by flip

Bring up treaties all you want but that is BS. Pretty sure anyone would have chosen treaty after 1000 years of occupation. It was the lesser of two evils that is all.

And about the treaties, what was their choice? Not sign it and face full assimilation?


A treaty signed under duress is like a confession being beaten out of suspect. Neither should be admissible.

It's such an outdated idea. No one in the free world does business like this today. It pretty much amounts to extortion on a politcal level.

[icarus]

A 17-year-old has been arrested in connection with the police shooting. No further details yet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7935734.stm

[Bagor]

I lived through the troubles, was raised outside Derry in a very Republican area and studied and lived in Belfast in the late 80's early 90s. I've seen a fair bit and like everyone else in the 6 counties have lost family members (1st cousins), as well as knowing countless other victims of the violence including a best friend father where the Police was recently taken to task for failing to bother to investigate the murder despite multiple witnesses and evidence being available. Couple that with the collusion of the Police and the army with Loyalist gunmen and you don't have a very trusting society.

I still have a lot of family there as well as some propery and land snapped up at the height of the crap for buttons and go back every summer.

Northern Ireland to me always has and always will be a direct reflection of what was and what is now in South Africa in that the war/aparteid maybe over but it is still a very segregated society.

Why? There are few integrated education schools and Catholics and Protestants don't even play the same sports (Catholics = Gaelic Football and Hurling, Protestants = Soccer and Rugby). People don't mix until they are at least 16-18 years old unless it's to try and kick the crap out of each other.

There is no doubt whatsoever that 2 of the biggest recruitment eras for PIRA was post Bloody Sunday and the Hunger Strike. The first was a well we've tried the peaceful route and it obviously isn't working, the 2nd was a result of the pig-headed stubborness of Thatcher that put the place back 10 years which resulted in a propoganda coup.

Anyways, thankfully them days are well gone. The main issue IMO was always that of civil rights, i.e. equal housing, equal jobs, equal employment and equal education. Over the last 10-15 years these issues have been largely resolved and people have been more content. Happier people generally tend not to fight as much.

As for the reforendum question, I believe the ratio is about as close now as 51/49 protestant and might even be closer if you consider the recent influx of Poles.

Do I care about the border? I used to when I was young and rebellious and idealogical but truth be told there's no checkpoints there anymore and even when there were it was easy to get around them with a bit of back road knowledge. Besides the army were always good value for teenage riots and abuse.

At the end of the day however, even though I was living in what was politically speaking a British colony I always felt Irish and was free to play my technically superior and more competitive Irish sports, listen to skiddery eye music, and head down South whenever I wanted, not to mentiontaking advantage of 2 different currencies as they fluctuated (If you ever go to Ireland you'll note there aren't many bad houses around the border ).

What am I trying to say in all this rambling? Times were cr@p, bad stuff happened, civil rights issues have been addressed and people are happier. The perpeutrators of these latest murders have minimal support. They won't survive. It's a generation thing. It's only getting better.

I will say this though. There's only one thing that I miss from the days when Loyalist and Republican factions were on the streets and that's picking up the paper and reading about a drug dealer being found in a hedgerow with a hole in the head. Ceasefire has had loads of benefits but the rapid influx of drugs sure isn't one of them.

And Jagger, correct me if I'm wrong but you're referring to the little boys in Warrington. I agree it was a tragedy but I refuse to apologize for something I had no part of or supported solely of where I'm from just as I wouldn't expect you to apologize for any of the Army's shady goings on when they were active in the North.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Even if people live in relative peace, if you're occupied, then you're second class. You will always have that hanging over your head.

IMO, that issue has been resolved. Some of the top busness men and landowners in the North are Catholic. There is a fair employment and equal opportunities act.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think there is a reasonable fear on the part of Protestant Loyalists that if the British left there would be substantial Catholic reprisals.

No offence but that is just a pure ignorant statement.
Reasonable fear? You honestly think Catholics are sharpening the pitchforks?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by icarus

Hence the 'IRA'.

I missed the quote marks until you pointed them out ... thanks. Speed reading trips me up again.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Anyways, thankfully them days are well gone. The main issue IMO was always that of civil rights, i.e. equal housing, equal jobs, equal employment and equal education. Over the last 10-15 years these issues have been largely resolved and people have been more content. Happier people generally tend not to fight as much.

Great post, I read the whole thing but just wanted to comment on this part.

From my understanding, prior to the global economic crisis, The Republic of Ireland was a strong economy. I'm not sure how it is holding up now, but I know that Britain is being hit pretty hard (like the U.S.). If the British controlled parts of Ireland see an economic collapse that the Republic of Ireland does not see, do you think it's possible that public opinion will turn towards the North unifying with Ireland? As history shows us, wars and conflict often become enflamed during times of economic hardship. Quebec separation is stronger during recessions, and just look at what happened in Europe during the 30s.

For a current European example, look at Latvia. Prior to the economic meltdown, they were considered a poster child for Eastern European countries on the rise. Relations between Latvians and Russians living in Latvia left over from the Soviet Union were pretty good as there was a lot of wealth to go around. Now that things have changed, there have have been riots and anger towards Russians who many still look at as occupiers, even though Latvians have been accumulating some wealth lately.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by Bagor

And Jagger, correct me if I'm wrong but you're referring to the little boys in Warrington. I agree it was a tragedy but I refuse to apologize for something I had no part of or supported solely of where I'm from just as I wouldn't expect you to apologize for any of the Army's shady goings on when they were active in the North.

Of course there would be absolutely no reason for you to apologize and I wouldn't expect you to. Those events in Warrington did shape my feeling about this whole conflict and I am completely biased because of them. I'm not apologizing for that either.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

From my understanding, prior to the global economic crisis, The Republic of Ireland was a strong economy. I'm not sure how it is holding up now, but I know that Britain is being hit pretty hard (like the U.S.). If the British controlled parts of Ireland see an economic collapse that the Republic of Ireland does not see, do you think it's possible that public opinion will turn towards the North unifying with Ireland? As history shows us, wars and conflict often become enflamed during times of economic hardship. Quebec separation is stronger during recessions, and just look at what happened in Europe during the 30s.

The Irish economy or the Celtic Tiger as it was known in the EU fell into recession faster than any other EU country.

To be honest, IMO ... No. Ireland is tiny. When the South was booming (and it was bigtime) people would just migrate down south for work and their piece of the pie and return at the weekends.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Bagor, as someone who lived there during the times do you harbour resentment towards either side?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

Bagor, as someone who lived there during the times do you harbour resentment towards either side?

Honestly and I'm not just trying to be PC, No. But having said that I've never had a Protestant friend. Most people by the end of it all were just sick of the whole thing which pushed it along.

If I was to resent any side in the whole thing it would be the police and their sneaky underhanded dishonest ways. At least you knew where you stood with the rest of them including the army.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Honestly and I'm not just trying to be PC, No. But having said that I've never had a Protestant friend. Most people by the end of it all were just sick of the whole thing which pushed it along.

If I was to resent any side in the whole thing it would be the police and their sneaky underhanded dishonest ways. At least you knew where you stood with the rest of them including the army.

thanks for you honest informed opinion........BTW, Rugby is not technically inferior....

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Honestly and I'm not just trying to be PC, No. But having said that I've never had a Protestant friend. Most people by the end of it all were just sick of the whole thing which pushed it along.

I'm Protestant, I guess. I went to C of E churches etc. but was never overly religious tbqh. However, my wife is Catholic and my kids have all been baptized Catholic too. There are so many similarities in their church services it's not even funny, that's what makes the whole Orangie/Left footer*** conflict so bizarre to me. The fervour that the Orange Lodge feels about this conflict, which dates back centuries, and their Catholic counterparts is just incredible to me. As I said though I'm not really religious so this makes it an entirely simplistic viewpoint of mine.

***Polically incorrect of course and not something I would actually say, just another sign of ridiculous religious slurs that are bounced around. The Left footer one is crazy. I'm a left footer and, like I said, I'm not catholic!

[rubecube]

The pilgrims of Newry part of me wants to join up with flip, while the Lords of Nottingham in me just want to plow his wife on his wedding night.

[ikaris]

Wow, I thought there were only Muslim terrorists.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's a big difference between fighting a war and mounting a campaign of terror.

There's a huge difference between being a soldier and being a thug with a gun or a murderer.

The concept that the IRA or any of those groups was fighting a war of independance is laughable at best, mainly because they went after soft unarmed civilian targets.

They were fighting a vendetta, nothing more. They're no better then the thugs that took the planes into the World Trade Center.

They're not soldiers fighting a heroic battle, they're death dealers blowing up pubs and shooting teenagers.

I agree with the theme of your post, but I do disagree with some of the statements. There were two sides to this conflict. The PIRA was not the only group to use terrorism or to go after soft unarmed civilian targets. What about the Ulster Volunteer Force? What about the atrocities of the Ulster Freedom Fighters? Especially the Shankill Butchers, where random civilian Irish Catholics were severely beaten and tortured before having their throats slashed.

Are the British Forces heroic for shooting Innocent people in the back on Bloody Sunday? For terrorizing and destroying innocent civilians property during the Falls Curfew? The PIRA did kill hundreds of innocent civilians much like their paramilitary loyalist opponents. Still over 700 British soldiers were killed as well so not all of the PIRA paramilitary actions were solely against protestant civilians. There were atrocities and terrorist tactics used by both sides.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I agree with the theme of your post, but I do disagree with some of the statements. There were two sides to this conflict. The PIRA was not the only group to use terrorism or to go after soft unarmed civilian targets. What about the Ulster Volunteer Force? What about the atrocities of the Ulster Freedom Fighters? Especially the Shankill Butchers, where random civilian Irish Catholics were severely beaten and tortured before having their throats slashed.

Are the British Forces heroic for shooting Innocent people in the back on Bloody Sunday? For terrorizing and destroying innocent civilians property during the Falls Curfew? The PIRA did kill hundreds of innocent civilians much like their paramilitary loyalist opponents. Still over 700 British soldiers were killed as well so not all of the PIRA paramilitary actions were solely against protestant civilians. There were atrocities and terrorist tactics used by both sides.

I didn't put all the names in to my post and I agree with you, none of the above mentioned acted like freedom fighters or hero's or soldiers. Even in this case the soldiers that bought about the slaughter during the bloody sunday event.

I just simplified my post, but I'm well aware of these other groups and actions.

Put simply, I have respect for no one that deliberatley targets civilians to make a political point. In war civilian casualties do happen and its tragic, but a professional soldier doesn't go out of his way to cause that kind of pain and suffering, these people do or did.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Put simply, I have respect for no one that deliberatley targets civilians to make a political point. In war civilian casualties do happen and its tragic, but a professional soldier doesn't go out of his way to cause that kind of pain and suffering, these people do or did.

I agree with you, but how about this particular case? The victim wasn't a civilian.

While good soldiers/police don't go out of their way to hurt civilians, the fact of the matter is, some do. Wars and conflicts are littered with examples where military or other security forces commiting atrocities or abuses against civilians.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree with you, but how about this particular case? The victim wasn't a civilian.

While good soldiers/police don't go out of their way to hurt civilians, the fact of the matter is, some do. Wars and conflicts are littered with examples where military or other security forces commiting atrocities or abuses against civilians.

Are we still talking this case where two teenagers were shot?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are we still talking this case where two teenagers were shot?

No, I meant the original post where dissidents killed a police officer.