NationStates Jolt Archive

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz

The Brits have already invaded Ireland.

we didnt do it right though we left them with running water shelter hygienic conditions and an economy... basically they have an infra structure. how gay are we at invading

Just call your American buddies. They know how to thoroughly take out any kind of infrastructure.

invading is a sin...

lol *ahem* ireland should just kick those terrorists out 'cause war is bad and being wussies are good at some point and may safe the lives of many soldiers/marines...

why would we want to save life, this is a war on terror this is great cos we can pretty much attack and kill anyone spain has terrorists france greece thailand sri lanka japan phillipines come on we can take a scenic tour of the world and the best part is there wont be any of those annoyin locals left talkin funny languages cos we'll kill em all

Well Afganistan actually harbored those who attacked us so basicly its been return fire for them. Iraq was suspected to have WMDs not to mention one horrible dictator so was seen as a threat. Ireland is no threat to us so we will just have to wait until the Brits come up and ask us. Chances are if we do go into another war its either a small one with Iran or a world war with North Korea since they got the chinese to help them. Now if we wait about a decade to go into north korea while china is becoming capitalistic and democratic then nortrh korea seems like a better target. So it looks like Iran is next to me. Hopefully Bin laden is there.

so this sint a war on terror like i was told it was damn lyin politicians i was ready to go to war for them and they lied... more to the point if we aint offin all terrorists and only ones who threaten american then why the f*** our are people off fightin in iraq why the f*** do our families and friends have to die
ur threatened

ur the ones who kicked us out of your country so why are we helpin...

im sorry just im all pissed off if we aint invadin ireland i was really lookin forward to killin ppl called patrick

The creator of this thread is so completely out of it, that I cannot even think of an appropriate response.

why would we want to save life, this is a war on terror this is great cos we can pretty much attack and kill anyone spain has terrorists france greece thailand sri lanka japan phillipines come on we can take a scenic tour of the world and the best part is there wont be any of those annoyin locals left talkin funny languages cos we'll kill em all

now you're talking about genocide...

there's no such thing as funny languages, it's just how you hear them... i'm thinking we should kill those annoying locals, and not the people with the "funny" languages just because they are different...

The creator of this thread is so completely out of it, that I cannot even think of an appropriate response.

he is...

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz

1. Try reading about American history from 1960-present. You could use the education.
2. When was the last time the IRA attacked Americans, here or abroad?
3. Wake up.
4. Grow up.

My name's Patrick, and I'm Irish, wanna try your luck with me?

Iraq was suspected to have WMDs not to mention one horrible dictator so was seen as a threat.

Did anyone catch the story about N Korea sending a dud nuke into Alaska to test it's range while Bush was talking about WMDs being a good excuse to go pursue a family vendetta in Iraq? Probably not, it wasn't given much press. If it was about the WMDs then why not go after the folks who are shooting them at us?

EDIT: BTW, I don't think we should invade Ireland :)
I wouldn't mind all the Guiness though. I would however, be upset at the rise in Guiness prices during the invasion. The rise in prices, of course, being due to artificial inflation by the collective brewers expecting a drop in the market after the invasion.

1. The IRA disbanded four years ago.
2. The IRA never attacked Americans, only the English.
3. America was one of the first countries to recognize Ireland as an independent nation.
4. Too many people in the US would oppose it because a larger percentage of Americans are of Irish heritage (primarily located on the east coast).

The Brits have already invaded Ireland.
Damned right they have.
The creator of this thread has no right to GO to Ireland calling the IRA "terrorists".
The British invaded and Occupied Ireland strictly for Imperialistic motives.
Ireland was no "threat" to the Empire.
I understand your point about Bush.
However you can piss off comparing the Irish who sacrifice them selves against hundreds of years of oppression and occupation to plane hijacking suicide bombers.
Who attacked the States over Ideology, not occupation.
!!Tiocfaidh Ar La!!

What? North Korea didn't send anything to Alaska. The CIA said that they had the capabilities to, but that's it. And, in cause you haven't heard, we ARE on North Korea's ass about their nuke program.

now THIS is a location where americans have a strategic interest

beer and pubs!

CHEAP BEER FOR AMERICANS!!

when can we invade??

Did anyone catch the story about N Korea sending a dud nuke into Alaska to test it's range while Bush was talking about WMDs being a good excuse to go pursue a family vendetta in Iraq? Probably not, it wasn't given much press. If it was about the WMDs then why not go after the folks who are shooting them at us?

Heresay, unless you can provide proof.

lets get something straight i am irish and as an irish person i find this insulting we fought off the english and we will fight off anyone one else even though we are still missing a chunk of our country i dont agree with what the ira do they have killed many people but thats no reason to invade a country thats trying to attain peace but if you still have to invade just try it this is a responce to that guy going on about commiting geniside calm down the irish havent done anything wrong and most irish people would be deeply insult by this most of us arent terrorists.

I pity the poor soul that comes to Ireland with intentions of invasion...
Erin go bragh!

i apologise it was generally a joke to start with, im sorry it got worse with alchol. the original point was were invadin countries willy nilly it seems and the rest of us are expected to fight along side the americans for no reason, when it was the americans who for decades funded the irish attacks on the uk. i apologise whole heartedly to all irish ppl i even work wioth 3 of u and ur all stamd up ppl who buy there share of rounds and help a guy out when he needs it

however to the yanks u funded them and helped them attack us they killed our ppl and u never blinked an eye, nd if u want to talk about the ira being all nice and fighting for a cause they are the biggest importers of drugs into ireland they kill anyone not just the british but anyone who opposes there criminal activitites

PS the person who called me an idiot ands said the ira disbanded 4 yrs ago THEY DIDNT they just stopped attackin they stioll exist they still smuggle they still have all there guns that isnt disbanding and why are we fighting if all were fighting is those the americans oppose what about the rest of the world whos helping dont we get a say or do we deal with our own problems ourselves

1. The IRA disbanded four years ago.
2. The IRA never attacked Americans, only the English.
3. America was one of the first countries to recognize Ireland as an independent nation.
4. Too many people in the US would oppose it because a larger percentage of Americans are of Irish heritage (primarily located on the east coast).
Well Al-Qaeda only attacked America not England, don't see England funding Al-Qaeda like the US has funded the IRA in the past though, leading nicely into number 4 of your points. America funds terrorists when its good for their own ends or when they have a bias towards a particular country such as Ireland or Israel. Thats why this so-called "War on Terror is so hypocritical. I say invade America because no election will put any semblance of a brain in the White House. Only a regime change can do that.

Q: WHen do we invade Ireland?

A: When Ireland has some geostrategic importance and the IRA goes Islamic.

Well Al-Qaeda only attacked America not England, don't see England funding Al-Qaeda like the US has funded the IRA in the past though...
In the Past...America has funded the Ira AND Al-qaeda..

al qaeda offered to leave us alone if we left iraq why oh why we didnt take the offer i dont know

by us i ment england

You honestly think they would quit? All leaving would do is show that you fear them, encouraging them to continue because in their eyes you would be weak. You think a bully will quit pickin on a kid because that kid gave the bully his lunch money on the first day?

1. The IRA disbanded four years ago.

No it didn't. The IRA has been inactive for a long time now. The PIRA ("Provos" which I think you are thinking of), declared a cease fire. However this caused it to split, with the Real IRA forming. Which has further split creating the Continuity IRA.

What will probably is splits will continue until you have one lone terrorist attempting to throw the 'English' out.

i apologise it was generally a joke to start with, im sorry it got worse with alchol. the original point was were invadin countries willy nilly it seems and the rest of us are expected to fight along side the americans for no reason, when it was the americans who for decades funded the irish attacks on the uk. i apologise whole heartedly to all irish ppl i even work wioth 3 of u and ur all stamd up ppl who buy there share of rounds and help a guy out when he needs it

however to the yanks u funded them and helped them attack us they killed our ppl and u never blinked an eye, nd if u want to talk about the ira being all nice and fighting for a cause they are the biggest importers of drugs into ireland they kill anyone not just the british but anyone who opposes there criminal activitites

PS the person who called me an idiot ands said the ira disbanded 4 yrs ago THEY DIDNT they just stopped attackin they stioll exist they still smuggle they still have all there guns that isnt disbanding and why are we fighting if all were fighting is those the americans oppose what about the rest of the world whos helping dont we get a say or do we deal with our own problems ourselves

Frankly I busted a lung laughing at your first post and consequent posts... I can't believe anybody took you seriously.

Wasn't that too obvious sarcasm?

A fwe points. The original IRA stopped being active in the 1960's, when the provos split and became larger and carried out many terrorist attacts and nasty stuff such as drug dealing in order to buy weapons. It is this Provisional IRA which was behind all the republican side of the troubles, it is these people who are linked to Sinn Fein. They are most definitly still active, although they have a cease fire. They refuse to decommision their weapons and are involved still in dealing and there is evidence that they have planned kidnap, spying and teaching bombing techniques to Colombian terrorists.

Now sadly America did fund much of there activities during the troubles and sadly didn't seem to care much aboutit until they felt the mindlessness of terrorism on 9/11.

And the divisions in Northen Ireland are in y opinion more based on religion than nationality. Sadly the extremists on both sides seem to be gaining support in recent elections.

And finally in reply to some point made by Someone who said no one had any right to call the IRA terrorists? WTF are they then? They don't use peacfull methods they use violence. They have been responsible for the deaths of many inocent people, and have set of car bombs indiscriminiatly. If that is not terrorism what is? If Mexicans started bombing Americans claiming back the land they lost to American during the 1800s whould they also be freedom fighters?

when the english have left

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz

Since when were there terrorists in Iraq? Bush went to war, claiming there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaida. There wasn't. Bush went to war, claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There wasn't.

Damned right they have.
The creator of this thread has no right to GO to Ireland calling the IRA "terrorists".

Maybe not, but that's what they are now -- along with the INLA, the UVF, the UDA and all the other squalid little bands of killers/criminals who infect the life of Ulster. Try telling a teenage boy with bullet holes in his knees that the IRA aren't terrorists. Or the woman who has the temerity to object to the gable end of her house being daubed with a ham-fisted mural showing lumpy cross-eyed blokes in balaclavas waving badly-drawn armalites. Please.

The British invaded and Occupied Ireland strictly for Imperialistic motives.
Ireland was no "threat" to the Empire.

If you're going to get so obsessed with history, please get it right. The "British" did NOT invade Ireland; that was the Anglo-Normans under Henry II in the 12th century, some considerable time before the British Empire was ever conceived of (unless, by any chance, you were talking about the Angevin Empire? No? Didn't think so.)

I understand your point about Bush.
However you can piss off comparing the Irish who sacrifice them selves against hundreds of years of oppression and occupation to plane hijacking suicide bombers.
Who attacked the States over Ideology, not occupation.
!!Tiocfaidh Ar La!!

The IRA of the early 20th century and the IRA of the late 20th century are two entirely different beasts. The current lot have their own ideological obsessions, not least the Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist split between the IRA and INLA (always amusing to think about the tearful Plastic Paddies of Boston and New York handing over cash and guns to Communists).

Tiocfaidh ar la indeed, but killing people won't bring it any closer.

on of the original reasons he looked at iraq was because of there involvment in previous terrorist attacks on the west the iranian embassay terrorists were all passed through iraq just before there attack (i believe) and i remember there being a hostage situation on a plane in the 80's where they proved that saddam had both supplied them with equipment but also facilities to train such as a plane to use as a mock location... they also believed saddam was channeling was transfering funds to al-qaeda

now some1 rip all these statements apart please as they are only half memories of things ive read in papers and news documentaries (so basically biased sources who only represent half of a story and never present enough information to support any argument)

Maybe not, but that's what they are now -- along with the INLA, the UVF, the UDA and all the other squalid little bands of killers/criminals who infect the life of Ulster. Try telling a teenage boy with bullet holes in his knees that the IRA aren't terrorists. Or the woman who has the temerity to object to the gable end of her house being daubed with a ham-fisted mural showing lumpy cross-eyed blokes in balaclavas waving badly-drawn armalites. Please.



If you're going to get so obsessed with history, please get it right. The "British" did NOT invade Ireland; that was the Anglo-Normans under Henry II in the 12th century, some considerable time before the British Empire was ever conceived of (unless, by any chance, you were talking about the Angevin Empire? No? Didn't think so.)



The IRA of the early 20th century and the IRA of the late 20th century are two entirely different beasts. The current lot have their own ideological obsessions, not least the Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist split between the IRA and INLA (always amusing to think about the tearful Plastic Paddies of Boston and New York handing over cash and guns to Communists).

Tiocfaidh ar la indeed, but killing people won't bring it any closer.

Here here! I'm Irish and this is the first post I had the pleasure to agree with whole-heartedly!
On a humourous quip when somebody said the US would only invade Ireland if it was of geostrategic importance or turned islam, you forget to mention a third point - it'd also invade if we had sizeable oil resources - don't kid yourselves about WMD's or terrorism - just propoganda - you can believe the americans are making out big time on the Iraq invasion

Here here! I'm Irish and this is the first post I had the pleasure to agree with whole-heartedly!


hold it ur irish and not offended at me and wanting my blood for this, it was a joke honestly my sarcasm just has a sick side sorry n all

Why don't the PIRA just disband and piss off back to the holes they came from. I'm not from there myself but I think its safe to say that the people of Northern Ireland are sick to death of the drug dealing, extortion and general criminality which is being peddled by IRA "freedom fighters" as well as the UDA/UVF (who are also involved in "defending their communities" by putting firebombs through the houses of ethnic minorities). Besides the improvement in quality of life, the people of NI would finally get the stable political situation that they deserve. Having said that, its a real shame that the most popular party amongst NI's nationalists is a party full of 'ex' and 'reformed' terrorists.

Its my opinion that religion is over-rated as the cause of division in NI. The rate of church attendance is much the same as on the mainland UK, i.e. low. Religion is just another way for the different communities to divide themselves and kick layers out of each other. If you took away religion, politics, skin colour etc then the people with blue eyes would fight the people with brown eyes.

I think the threadstarter was trying to allude to the irony of the American people condemning terrorism against American people and interests and fighting islamic fundamentalist terror abroad, whilst supporting (and indeed funding) terror against British (and Irish) people and interests.

Its my opinion that religion is over-rated as the cause of division in NI. The rate of church attendance is much the same as on the mainland UK, i.e. low. Religion is just another way for the different communities to divide themselves and kick layers out of each other. If you took away religion, politics, skin colour etc then the people with blue eyes would fight the people with brown eyes.

Very true. The weekly rituals that keep them going have more to do with Ibrox and Parkhead than church and chapel. Plus all the marching about the streets with bands thinking how important they are. Wankers, the lot of them.

Very true. The weekly rituals that keep them going have more to do with Ibrox and Parkhead than church and chapel. Plus all the marching about the streets with bands thinking how important they are. Wankers, the lot of them.

Good point..the parades the Orangemen do are nothing short of provocative.. a constant reminder of the defeats Catholic armies had at the hands of the Protestants...add to the fact they insist on marching either into or right alongside Catholic neighborhoods or communities and it's the unending thorn that the Protestants refuse to remove.

The UK controls a part of Ireland and we are friends with Tony Blair.

Ireland ownz all j00...well it really does i mean we have managed to stay out of all major wars and piss off every one else its cool

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and sozWe aren't invading Ireland because according to dubya (through actions, not words) there are no white terrorists, only arab.

My name's Patrick, and I'm Irish, wanna try your luck with me?

As someone wrote in his thread the brits already invaded Ireland, and still have troubles. F*** the british army! :sniper:

Did anyone catch the story about N Korea sending a dud nuke into Alaska to test it's range while Bush was talking about WMDs being a good excuse to go pursue a family vendetta in Iraq? Probably not, it wasn't given much press. If it was about the WMDs then why not go after the folks who are shooting them at us?


Really? I would like to see an article on it (but I could not find ANY press on it) seems more like rumor then fact

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm

In regards to the N Korean Nuke in alaska. Check it out. Of course there was no press on it, it would have made the idea of invading Iraq seem really silly at the time!

Que collons passa! Els valencians, contarem en ajudar als irlandesos quan calgui contra els britanics!!*!!
Free Ireland, Free Catalan Countryes!!*!!

Good point..the parades the Orangemen do are nothing short of provocative.. a constant reminder of the defeats Catholic armies had at the hands of the Protestants...add to the fact they insist on marching either into or right alongside Catholic neighborhoods or communities and it's the unending thorn that the Protestants refuse to remove.

To be honest, most of the people involved in this tribal nonsense are neither Protestant nor Catholic. Although you have to attend church regularly to be a member of the Orange Order, most of the greetin-faced hangers-on who trail after the marches, pushing their ugly weans along in buggies, haven't seen the inside of a church of any denomination since they were last out looking for something to rob. The same applies to the various Republican parades and their pea-brained attendants.

Ways to wind up an Orangeman: remind him that William of Orange was not only homosexual, but moreover had the blessings of the Pope. His army even carried a Papal banner at the battle of the Boyne (politics: doncha love it?). If that doesn't wind him up, try crapping in his bowler hat.

Alternatively, follow the examples of some admirable folk in Govan in Glasgow some years ago: on the night of the 11th of July, sneak into the stables where "King Billy's" horse is kept and paint green hoops round its body. :)

Alternatively, follow the examples of some admirable folk in Govan in Glasgow some years ago: on the night of the 11th of July, sneak into the stables where "King Billy's" horse is kept and paint green hoops round its body. :)
Painting Horses is not going to get you anywhere.

Painting Horses is not going to get you anywhere.

Tell that to George Stubbs. :)

i know my opinion doesnt matter to anyone, but i say england should just give back northern ireland. peacefully. the brits have held onto it for a long time, and for what purpose? what use does northern ireland hold for them? can someone tell me? because i honestly dont know a whole great deal about englands fascination with that region of another nation's land. the days of imperialism are dead, so why hold onto it when you can give it back and please not only the irish, but british citizens as well? i'm sure they're sick of all this IRA nonsense

Up the Revolution! Down the British!

Who exactly do Irish terrorists mess with? Eachother, right.

Who exactly do Irish terrorists mess with? Eachother, right.

not quite well actually just a full up no, they mess with anyone and everyone they are a law unto themselves u see as long as NI and ireland stay seprate neither police force can enforce the law on the others territries so all they do is skip across the border do what they want to whom they want which generally seems to involve takin ppl out and knee cappin em and if they cant find them then there family will suffice or failing that the first person who comes along, also they all use illegal revenues to fund there actions they run drugs, cigerette smuggling, extortion rackets, prostitution and in the past 2 decades have expanded into much higher more sophisticated crimes, in short they hurt anyone who opposes them every law abiding citizen or anyone they want to make a message out of.

So come on people for the cost of the iraqi war we could have hired out a P&O liner shoved our boys on it sent it over run through the country turning it into an unstable mess and still had change to send the entire british army out for a slap up meal and a few bevvies to say ty, why fight a war half way round the world when we can do it in our backyardi say

i know my opinion doesnt matter to anyone, but i say england should just give back northern ireland. peacefully. the brits have held onto it for a long time, and for what purpose? what use does northern ireland hold for them? can someone tell me? because i honestly dont know a whole great deal about englands fascination with that region of another nation's land. the days of imperialism are dead, so why hold onto it when you can give it back and please not only the irish, but british citizens as well? i'm sure they're sick of all this IRA nonsense

First of all, "England" and "the Brits" are two entirely different things. When dealing with sectarian and nationalist idiocies it pays to get the terminology exactly right. Say the wrong phrase or whistle the wrong tune in the wrong place and I can't be held responsible for the consequences. :)

Secondly, the majority of the population of Ulster did not, and does not, wish to become part of the Irish Republic, for reasons that are now too tedious and stupid to go into but which frankly in the 1920s made quite a bit of sense to a lot of them. That said, Ulster is indisputably part of Ireland, and it is a bit of a democratic stretch to say that one subsection gets to decide for itself. Then again, the numbers of pro-British Ulstermen and their potential for violence was so great in the 1920s that the Republic was not terribly upset to leave them out (although they were probably quite keen to get hold of the shipyards and industries which were mostly based in the North).

The rest of Britain would gladly see Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland: unfortunately, most of Ulster's population are literally violently opposed to the idea. And now that the Republic is quite well off and the North is somewhat impoverished and ravaged, I'm not convinced that there is a huge desire among Irish people to acquire a mass of criminalised unemployment blackspots -- at least not until Britain has returned it to a fit state, which won't be happening any time soon.

not quite well actually just a full up no, they mess with anyone and everyone they are a law unto themselves u see as long as NI and ireland stay seprate neither police force can enforce the law on the others territries so all they do is skip across the border do what they want to whom they want which generally seems to involve takin ppl out and knee cappin em and if they cant find them then there family will suffice or failing that the first person who comes along, also they all use illegal revenues to fund there actions they run drugs, cigerette smuggling, extortion rackets, prostitution and in the past 2 decades have expanded into much higher more sophisticated crimes, in short they hurt anyone who opposes them every law abiding citizen or anyone they want to make a message out of.

So come on people for the cost of the iraqi war we could have hired out a P&O liner shoved our boys on it sent it over run through the country turning it into an unstable mess and still had change to send the entire british army out for a slap up meal and a few bevvies to say ty, why fight a war half way round the world when we can do it in our backyardi say


This is completely untrue. Northern Ireland is indeed a place full of crimes (I live there) but the police do not get involved in such antics. The problem is much more complicated than everyone here seems to realise. The british and the republic of Ireland do not squabble over Ulster. it is the sectarian groups that are the problem. indeed the description provided by Me Myself and AI is really quite similar as to how you would describe sectarian groups such as the UDA UFF etcetc.

I am disgusted by your attitude towards this matter and would advise you to look up what you are talking about before starting a thread.

I beleive that there will never be peace in Ireland, no matter what happens.
The people from Northern ireland are sick of these things happening but no matter what the police or army does, these thngs will always continue to happen. Bush is a complete ejit but he isn't stupid enough to send troops into ireland.

all im sayin' is that if we have to invade a country that has never done anything to us, lets invade one worth having

whats in iraq? sand. heat. camels. women you cant see.

whats in ireland? grass, cool sea breezes, pubs, beer, handsome men and pretty women

and its close by, AND lots of our soldiers have family there that they could finally visit.

seems like a no brainer choice to ME.

The rest of Britain would gladly see Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland: unfortunately, most of Ulster's population are literally violently opposed to the idea. And now that the Republic is quite well off and the North is somewhat impoverished and ravaged, I'm not convinced that there is a huge desire among Irish people to acquire a mass of criminalised unemployment blackspots -- at least not until Britain has returned it to a fit state, which won't be happening any time soon.

Dammit you pipped me to the post! But I can corroborate your theory: Yes britain would love to get rid of Northern Ireland and that as an Irish person and many people I know, know it'd be an economic and social nightmare to get Northern Ireland back.

Getting past the idealism of a "nation once again" the unemployment and criminal rates and associated social problems in Northern Ireland make it an economic sink. On a more opinionated note, this is the land where Ian Paisley comes from. Anywhere that can create such venomous evil bigoted people (I know there are just as many on the republican side as on the loyalist but he's just an example) is not a place I'd like to be part of. And if bigots like that get enough support to enter parliament, well then excuse me for making the assumption that their supporters must be bigoted also, and if that's the case I don't want anything to do with them and would vote accordingly.

I am not saying that the majoriy of N. I. is bigoted - far from it, but that the circumstances that promote the growth of bigotry are alive and well in N. I. and I hope are dying out in Ireland. I have many friends from Northern Ireland and they're grand people, some protestant, some catholic, some neither. The uniting bond in them is that they're sick to death of talking about, hearing about and dealing with "the troubles" and would like nothing more than for it to end.

Lastly on the point of idealism, it is ironic and naive to want Ireland "whole again". The first time it was so was after being conquered by the Britons. They united Ireland as a colony. Before then it was an island shared by constantly feuding kingdoms and clans.

Toward cleaning up the mess of bigotry that is the Northern Ireland problem, it has to be through education and better services available to poorer areas, urban and rural.

Think of it this way - Britain is currently holding a disputed territory that has been polluted with nuclear waste. They now want to give it to the other disputee Ireland as it is no longer an economic asset, in fact it is an economic drain. Ireland are interested but the area wants a major clean-up operation and they're not willing to pay for it. Maybe in a few decades when some of the pollution has gone, but not right now

I'm not entirely sure what would happen to me if I went to N.I. A British Catholic who supports the UK keeping NI? I bet that would really confuse the terrorists.

It also depends on your point of view. A terrorist and freedom fighter are the same, depending on whose side you're on. Myself, I much prefer either the Ghandi approach, or the plain army approach - seems a much more decent way to fight a war. And we'd know what flag to put over the coffin. Sounds kinda callous, but it sickens me when the IRA or whoever kill civilians, like in Omagh when they killed 3 generations of a family in one fell swoop, and say it's in the name of freedom. The Good Friday Agreement was voted on and approved by the people of Northen Ireland, so when terrorists and you other people continue to demand the British withdraw, you are actually going against the concensus! I admit that may have been a vote for peace as opposed to anything else, but it was still ratified.

The rest of Britain would gladly see Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland:
I bet they would.
Extermination of Irish lineage and culture they would enjoy too.

I admit that may have been a vote for peace as opposed to anything else, but it was still ratified.
Removal Act 1830
was the equal to Genocide but hey they ratified it so that makes it OK.

Ratified September 1935
The Blood Protection Law, proclaimed on the same day, forbade all sexual relations between Germans and non Germans, based on citizenship. This effectively forbade marriages between Germans, Jews and Nonwhites alike.
14 July 1934, the German government passed the law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, also known as the Sterilization Law.
Yeah ratify it, and everybody should just go along.
You bet.
I could go through a list of things that should be resisted to the death, for every country on the planet.
Just because ignorance and injustice are ratified doesnt change the fact that they are ignorance and injustice.

I bet they would.
Extermination of Irish lineage and culture they would enjoy too.
I don't think so! Most a the rest of Britain does not give a monkey's chuff about the bog trotters! As long as they stop killing children, pregnant women and anyone foolish enough to want a job working for the government in one of the nation unemployment black spots.
Is the posting advocating invading Eire too unite it with Ulster under British control, now there's and idea that would result in another few decades of murder.
Funny, how democracy is ignored when it suits. The vote has always been to stay in the UK, end of story. Or do we ignore the democratic process when the US does not understand or agree with the outcome?

I'm with Jeldred on this. It always amuses me in a bitter way when I see US portrayals of the Oirish as Guinness-swilling, fiddle-playing party animals that aarr onder the tum av de english ohpressor, begorrah. There's no denying that the Irish have suffered greatly at the hands of the Brits, etc. However, the situation now is that we have a province divided by religion politics and national identity, plus umpteen armed groups still waiting for the chance to shed some blood. yet the Oirish Americans keep sending the money to their 'brethren'.

My family's a mongrel mix of Catholic & Protestant, English & Irish. The end result? Not one of us gives a flying feck any more.

i know my opinion doesnt matter to anyone, but i say england should just give back northern ireland. peacefully. the brits have held onto it for a long time, and for what purpose? what use does northern ireland hold for them? can someone tell me? because i honestly dont know a whole great deal about englands fascination with that region of another nation's land. the days of imperialism are dead, so why hold onto it when you can give it back and please not only the irish, but british citizens as well? i'm sure they're sick of all this IRA nonsense

When will you bloody Americans realise that the Loyalists are in the majority in Northern Ireland and that was the whole reason for keeping it: The majority of people in Ulster wanted to remain part of the UK because of their British heritage, no matter how many centuries their forefathers had lived in Ireland. Just because Gibraltar is nearer to Spain, it doesn't mean we should hand it over to the Spanish: The majority of people there, as shown by a referendum, want to remain part of Britain.

You Yanks give the example of the parts of Mexico you conquered, but you didn't really conquer them, did you? They have representation in your Senate and Congress, just Scottish, Irish and Welsh National parties have seats in Parliament. The only time we stepped in with a military presence in Northern Ireland was when the Troubles started.

And anyway, why do us English really care about the IRA? They've never killed more than a handful of us, you just here more about. If you've ever seen or read the play 'Across the Barricades' you'll see what I mean- Bomb goes of in Belfast, it's a minor news item just before the weather, bomb goes off in London, stop the presses. This is the whole thrust of the IRA's strategy, make the Loyalists too scared to oppose reintegration. Why would the Northern Irish want reintegration? Do they think they'll keep their devolved government?

I am against invading ireland. Well, the east coast anyway. Bags I get Tralee. Just leave Dublin, Dundalk, Wexford et al for the Irish (and the Corrs are in Dundalk so I am NOT invading that particular area just yet!)

The rest of Britain would gladly see Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland
I bet they would.
Extermination of Irish lineage and culture they would enjoy too.

Yes, that's right. Most British people would like to see Ulster become part of the Republic of Ireland, and exterminate Irish lineage and culture. All Brits are evil and every misfortune ever suffered by the Irish anywhere is their fault. Faith, it would bring a tear to a glass eye, would it not? I think I'll go off and listen to me Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly album, where he extolls those uniquely Irish virtues of drinking, puking, fighting, hatred and incest. Let's all sing along to "Spit on the Brits"; "The Crack We Had the Day We Died for Ireland"; and of course the sorrowful "The Potatoes Aren't Looking the Best".

(and the Corrs are in Dundalk so I am NOT invading that particular area just yet!)

Too right. The thought of being engaged in close caombat with those screeching snipers' nightmares is just too frightening to contemplate.

"Nuke it from orbit. It is the only way to be sure."

Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly


"I said ooooohhh-aaahhhhh, up the 'RA"

I think we should invade Africa and kill all the niggers. All they do is swing from vines, and eat each other. I think we should bombard with watermelons. After this we should take the survivors and hang then up by nooses. Those black sons of bitches should all die. They never were any good at slavery and now all the do is flap their big lips and cause trouble. To weaken them we must take out their food supply. This would mean destroying all KFC's. There are a lot of niggers to be killed and this will take a lot of effort. The enemy may be numerous, but at least the enemy is really stupid.

"If it white, then it ain't right"

All niggers must hang.

http://www.pomperaug.com/socstud/stumuseum/web/mushcloud.jpg

MODERATED

Was that Dundalk, Myrth? Quick work...

Was that Dundalk, Myrth? Quick work...

As long as the entire Corrs bloodline was taken out as collateral damage, I'm happy.

Somewhere in the north-east of Ireland, a lone Corr stumbles through the woods. Face scratched and bleeding, eyes bulging and desperate, clothes in rags. He stops for breath, leaning against a tree.

"Seamus Corr?"

He flinches fearfully at the booming voice.

"Um, uh, no... I think you have the wrong person."

He gazes pleadingly at the figure in the shadows. After a pause that seems to take an eternity to pass, the stranger steps forward. He holds a flamethrower.

"I'm sorry, Seamus. It's the only way we can be certain."

Seamus's screams are drowned out by the roar of fire.

And the hunt goes on...

We won't invade Ireland. They don't have oil.

We won't invade Ireland. They don't have oil.

Ah yes, but we have peat - think of it as a long-term investment.

Ah yes, but we have peat - think of it as a long-term investment.

A good point.

I'm asking your for an apology Ecopoeia... The Corrs are brilliant!

Why not invade Ireland and install the brother as President?

Well Afganistan actually harbored those who attacked us so basicly its been return fire for them. Now if we wait about a decade to go into north korea while china is becoming capitalistic and democratic then nortrh korea seems like a better target. So it looks like Iran is next to me. Hopefully Bin laden is there.
I don't think China is becoming more democratic. More capitalist, yes, but they're not the same thing. China, in my opinion, is becoming the world's #1 Corporate Police State.

In response to the thread, the Irish government has not harboured terrorists for at least 80 years. Unless you count those Bretons. Still a long time ago.

Now I know that the Iraqi gov't didn't harbour terrorists either, but it's believable that they would. Nobody would believe Ireland to be doing it.

Save The Corr Bloodline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well Afganistan actually harbored those who attacked us so basicly its been return fire for them. Iraq was suspected to have WMDs not to mention one horrible dictator so was seen as a threat. Ireland is no threat to us so we will just have to wait until the Brits come up and ask us. Chances are if we do go into another war its either a small one with Iran or a world war with North Korea since they got the chinese to help them. Now if we wait about a decade to go into north korea while china is becoming capitalistic and democratic then nortrh korea seems like a better target. So it looks like Iran is next to me. Hopefully Bin laden is there.

I don't know if anybody else said anything, i didn't read all replies, but China would most likely be on our side vs. North Korea. They are just as threatened of them having Nuclear Weapons and a massive military. Hell, they more threatened, because share a boarder with them!

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz
That is very illogical. Remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and not Afghan or Iraqi. Besides, most countries have terrorists in them. You can't go and attack every country. In Northern Ireland (which is part of Britain seeing as some of you don't know) there are terrorists, but I hardly think we'd see America invading the UK for that reason.

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz

This is what is wrong with Britain - racists, anti-europeans (PROTECT 0u7 SOVERIEIGNTY!!!@$1ONE!!), bigots, america lovers and patriots.

You name 'em, we got 'em here in Britain.

Damned right they have.
The creator of this thread has no right to GO to Ireland calling the IRA "terrorists".
The British invaded and Occupied Ireland strictly for Imperialistic motives.
Ireland was no "threat" to the Empire.
I understand your point about Bush.
However you can piss off comparing the Irish who sacrifice them selves against hundreds of years of oppression and occupation to plane hijacking suicide bombers.
Who attacked the States over Ideology, not occupation.

Please god tell me that this is some sort of sick joke you're playing on us. You are actually trying to justify the IRA in their terrorist actions, and at the same time condemning the islamic terrorists fighting against the US. How idiotic can you possibly be? both of these groups are fighting for the same reasons, religious oppression and imperialist intentions by a foreign power. I believe they are both wrong, both in the idea of taking the lives of innocents to further a cause, and in the idea that any sort of violence will bring about real change against a far superior power. I am welsh by origin and there is now a nationalist movement going on in that country, but they are conducting themselves in the proper way, non-violent advancement of their ideal. If you think you can justify terrorists of any sort, be it IRA, Al Quaeda, or the KKK, get a grip, or get out.

The IRA had justification for attacking British Troops, not for attacking civilian areas(though they had an understandable reason for doing so), but definately for attacking British Troops. I also don't like the way people attack The Irish, they had a bloody hard time under the British that no one can understand but them. We had a similar situation in Cyprus with the freedom fighters of EOKA, this is why many Cypriots are sympathetic to the Irish cause.

As for your comments about no terrorist organisation having justification, do you honestly believe that the only reason they attack us is because of the 'they hate freedom' rhetoric expressed by Bush so much?

The IRA had justification for attacking British Troops, not for attacking civilian areas(though they had an understandable reason for doing so), but definately for attacking British Troops.

What do you think their justification was? For the recent troubles (1968 onwards) anyway. What was it that necessitated shooting and bombing? Given, for example, the example set by the US Civil Rights movement, do you not think that the Catholic/Nationalist cause in Northern Ireland might have been better served by peaceful protest?

The soldiers had been deployed to what I consider an occupied area, you Americans are quite prepared to kill Iraqis without any hesitation, even though most of the 'enemy combatants' were men force drafted into the army.

The IRA's use of weapons upon civilian populace was not acceptable but it had reasoning behind it, however attacks against military targets were acceptable.

The soldiers had been deployed to what I consider an occupied area, you Americans are quite prepared to kill Iraqis without any hesitation, even though most of the 'enemy combatants' were men force drafted into the army.

The IRA's use of weapons upon civilian populace was not acceptable but it had reasoning behind it, however attacks against military targets were acceptable.

Man, you're the second person today to accuse me of being American. Let me put it this way:

Ah. Cumfy. Glesga.

You consider Northern Ireland to be an occupied area? I agree, it was occupied and colonised -- mostly by my fellow-countrymen, and often by the worst ones -- in the 17th century. By that token you might as well declare the whole of America, Australia and New Zealand to be "occupied countries". Or demand that the English be repatriated to northern Germany, and give the Welsh their country back. Anyhoo, the point is: the majority of the population of Northern Ireland did not, and still do not, wish to become part of the Irish Republic. More fools they, but they are entitled to their opinion.

I can assure you, as someone who is regularly woken from my blissful weekend slumber by Orange Walks going by, I have little to no sympathy for the Unionists. But I ask again: do you not think that the Catholic/Nationalist cause in Northern Ireland might have been better served by peaceful protest, given the example of the US Civil Rights movement? The Provisional IRA and their various splinter factions did more damage to the cause of a united Ireland than anything else.

I think the issue relative to peaceful protesting, and using examples to demonstrate it, is a dangerous game to play, this is because I believe - along with others - that reactionary movements have many sides.

For example - your use of the Black Civil Rights protests is largely innacurate, there were many accounts of violence and murder against whites, and, inevtiably vice versa. The main 'face' of the Black civil rights reaction is of course the peaceful element (mostly because it is media friendly), but the point I am trying to make is that there was also a well developed violent reaction as well. However, this does not make thier points any less valid, or the reasoning for their actions defunct does it?

You also use very dated historical counter-arguments to my claims that Northern Ireland was during the time of the 80's, an occupied state. An example you use is the: "you might as well declare the whole of America, Australia and New Zealand to be "occupied countries.""

Well firstly let me deal with America - I think the issue here is without argument, it was an occupation, as the Native Americans living there were stripped of all manner of rights, this is not up for debate. But the issue is whether, (now that the Native Americans have been assimilated into 'American' culture) the issue still stands that America is an occupying force on its own land. I would argue that it is not, but, quite simply - it does not right the wrongs of the 19th Century. Nor does it make the issue today any less valid.

Australia pretty much follows the same example - although this time manifested in the form of British Colonialism, and the subsequent parralels between American occupation concerning the issues of forced land resettlement and removing of rights.

As for New Zealand - I really cannot comment as I have never studied that particular part of History.

And finally:

"The Provisional IRA and their various splinter factions did more damage to the cause of a united Ireland than anything else."

I would argue against this - it inevitably brought pressure to the British Government and forced them to reconsider their overall Ireland Policy, though, this does not make thier methods any more justifiable.

Its basically 2 Issues. The reasoning behind a groups actions, and then whether the actions the reason ellicits are justifiable (in my mind abiding by basic morality).

The reasoning behind the terrorist attacks was there, but the attacks themselves were not justifiable, though they were understandable.

I think the issue relative to peaceful protesting, and using examples to demonstrate it, is a dangerous game to play, this is because I believe - along with others - that reactionary movements have many sides.

For example - your use of the Black Civil Rights protests is largely innacurate, there were many accounts of violence and murder against whites, and, inevtiably vice versa. The main 'face' of the Black civil rights reaction is of course the peaceful element (mostly because it is media friendly), but the point I am trying to make is that there was also a well developed violent reaction as well. However, this does not make thier points any less valid, or the reasoning for their actions defunct does it?

There was indeed a violent element in the Civil Rights movement. However, because violence was never allowed to gain control, it was far easier for the central arguments to be successfully advanced in a surprisingly short space of time. Not that the process is finished yet, but I believe it's got a lot further and with a lot less bloodshed than an entirely or even mostly violent protest would have done. Reactionary forces need something to react against. There's nothing they love more than cracking down on and demonising armed resistance. But -- in a democracy at least -- they can't sustain that for long against non-violent protest.

You also use very dated historical counter-arguments to my claims that Northern Ireland was during the time of the 80's, an occupied state. An example you use is the: "you might as well declare the whole of America, Australia and New Zealand to be "occupied countries.""

Well firstly let me deal with America - I think the issue here is without argument, it was an occupation, as the Native Americans living there were stripped of all manner of rights, this is not up for debate. But the issue is whether, (now that the Native Americans have been assimilated into 'American' culture) the issue still stands that America is an occupying force on its own land. I would argue that it is not, but, quite simply - it does not right the wrongs of the 19th Century. Nor does it make the issue today any less valid.

Australia pretty much follows the same example - although this time manifested in the form of British Colonialism, and the subsequent parralels between American occupation concerning the issues of forced land resettlement and removing of rights.

As for New Zealand - I really cannot comment as I have never studied that particular part of History.

I use dated arguments because the occupation/colonisation of Ulster happened a bloody long time ago, i.e. mostly in the 17th century, during the reign on James VI and I. Protestant families were shipped out of southern Scotland and northern England, where they had been fighting and feuding and thieving for the best part of three hundred years, and dumped in Ulster -- producing a majority population in Ulster who were Protestant and who managed to keep the fires of religious bigotry burning long after the rest of the world had ceased to care.

I agree that America, Australia and New Zealand are made up of territory expropriated from the original inhabitants: but I'm suggesting that some sort of statute of limitations be placed on past crimes. If America is not an occupying force on land stolen barely 100 years ago, then why do you regard Ulster as "occupied territory" when the (majority) Unionist population's ancestors arrived there around 400 years ago?

And finally:

"The Provisional IRA and their various splinter factions did more damage to the cause of a united Ireland than anything else."

I would argue against this - it inevitably brought pressure to the British Government and forced them to reconsider their overall Ireland Policy, though, this does not make thier methods any more justifiable.

Its basically 2 Issues. The reasoning behind a groups actions, and then whether the actions the reason ellicits are justifiable (in my mind abiding by basic morality).

The reasoning behind the terrorist attacks was there, but the attacks themselves were not justifiable, though they were understandable.

The IRA brought pressure on the British government to crack down on the IRA and the Nationalist agenda in general. The British troops sent in to Ulster in the 60s were originally there to protect the Catholic/Nationalist minority from attack by Unionist/Loyalist thugs. The involvement of the IRA only created a military target for a military force. Worse, it warped the whole movement -- a process made worse by the extremist political views beyond Irish unification held by most of the IRA and INLA -- and crippled and criminalised the economy of Ulster to the extent that I doubt if most of the population of the Irish Republic want the British to return it.

I can agree that the actions of the IRA were understandable -- i.e. I can comprehend why they did what they did -- and I also agree with you that they were not justifiable. I further think that they were on a basic level deeply stupid, that they unquestionably damaged the cause of Irish reunification, and that they probably set it back by at least two generations.

As for your comments about no terrorist organisation having justification, do you honestly believe that the only reason they attack us is because of the 'they hate freedom' rhetoric expressed by Bush so much?

No I do not believe bush's anti freedom rhetoric, I do understand that they are fighting for freedom, their own freedom, and in many cases I can sympathise with the goals and motivations of the groups, bloody sunday anyone? however I do not, and will never, believe that this can justify attacks on civilians. In my view, attacking civilian targets on purpose, pretty much makes me discard any respect I have for the groups in question, whether I understand/agree with their motivation or not.

Damn, where to begin on this one.....
right the question of wether the IRA are terrorists. Well, unfortunately its a value judgement, falls into roughly three camps.
These groups are often called terrorists to express dissaproval, guerillas by those who are more neutral, or freedom fighters by their supporters.
The worlds foremost authorities in political studies do not try to refute this. Lets not either.

Next up, someone somewhere said violence never produced results for the IRA. On the contrary, it has brought the British to the table on numerous occasions. Not that that makes it a worthy tool, but its a point that needs to be made.

Another person asserted that the Iridh Government has not harboured terrorists since 1924. Thats a slightly sticky one. Certainly both the Free State and the Republic contained terrorists. Its also suspected that the Gardai (Irelands domestic police force/ onetime secret police/intel outfit) aided and abetted during the Troubles, most notably in transporting explosives to the Border, just as Northern security forces are suspected of aiding and abetting Loyalist paras.

On the nature of PIRA (provisional IRA, split from IRA early on, basically THE IRA) attacks, far and away what was targetted was political, military and economic entities. True there were civilian deaths but do not for a second think that had the IRA the will to to inflict debilitating civilian casualties upon Protestant/Unionists, they would have, they certainly had the means. Remember Manchester? (http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/buildings/bombing.html) Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to whitewash civilian deaths here, but for the large part attacks were not aimed at civilians. (Thats bombings though, PIRA had an array of tactics for civilians; shootings, maiming, beating etc etc)

OK. As for re-unification, pray it never happens. Currently it requires a majority vote north and south of the border. Sinn Fein are planning to have a majority in the North by 2016, optimistic and possibly ill timed (hundred year anniversary of Irish "independence", expect riots and killings people), but do any of you think for one moment that the Loyalist (now minority will sit down and accept this? No, another semi civil war will ensue.

Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to whitewash civilian deaths here, but for the large part attacks were not aimed at civilians. (Thats bombings though, PIRA had an array of tactics for civilians; shootings, maiming, beating etc etc)

I agree when you say "for the large part", but let us not forget that under the PIRA's definition the meaning of civilian was blurred somewhat - civilian contractors such as caterers or builders working for the British Army were defined as being 'legitimate targets' and lost their civilian status according to the Provos.

OK. As for re-unification, pray it never happens. Currently it requires a majority vote north and south of the border. Sinn Fein are planning to have a majority in the North by 2016, optimistic and possibly ill timed (hundred year anniversary of Irish "independence", expect riots and killings people), but do any of you think for one moment that the Loyalist (now minority will sit down and accept this? No, another semi civil war will ensue.

I express extreme doubt at your claim that SF will somehow have a majority in the North by 2016. I am aware that it is not you, as such, that are claiming this, but instead are repeating claims about SF from elsewhere.

Wouldn't 2021 rather than 2016 be the 100th anniversary of Irish independence?

No I do not believe bush's anti freedom rhetoric, I do understand that they are fighting for freedom, their own freedom, and in many cases I can sympathise with the goals and motivations of the groups, bloody sunday anyone? .

Calling up Bloody Sunday as an example here is not the most helpful, unless you also explain what you believe to have happened on that day. It remains obscure exactly who initiated the violence.

The Brits have already invaded Ireland.
Yes, but it was no reason for the Socialist IRA terrorists to set off bombs and kill many men (including one of the men who started the Guinness Book of World records :(). Take note I am of Irish descent myself.

[I]Damned right they have.
The creator of this thread has no right to GO to Ireland calling the IRA "terrorists".

Sure as hell he has a right, I do not agree with the creator of this thread's opinion, but he has a right to call the IRA terrorists. Because they are! I would call campaigns of fear and death and bombs terrorism.

Calling up Bloody Sunday as an example here is not the most helpful, unless you also explain what you believe to have happened on that day. It remains obscure exactly who initiated the violence.
Bloody Sunday is a good song though.

Yes, but it was no reason for the Socialist IRA terrorists to set off bombs and kill many men (including one of the men who started the Guinness Book of World records :(). Take note I am of Irish descent myself.

The fact that McWhirter was pretty much a fascist by anybody's definition make it hard for me to feel any sympathy for him or his brother.

Yup, got my lines mixed up, I was thinking 1919, the Ra claim that as their independence (convening of the First Dail Eireann)

2016 still isnt an auspicious date though. Theres already plans for huge festival/remebrances for the dead of the Rising.
And no, for the record, I dont think we'll see a SF majority anywhere near that soon. Towards the end of the century maybe, but people are going to wake up and realise soon that SF are simply the killers from a couple of decades ago.
they need a few more decades in the public eye to get further than being a small party. At least in the south anyway.

And as for invasion not being a reason for paramilitary attacks, of course it is, just not a terribly god one.
If thats what you meant, say that.

*mutters about so many misunderstandings and arguements on this forum being because people dont read and think before they post.

I doubt it since the IRA isn't as active as al-Qaeda, plus, the IRA doesn't attack any American interests.

Yup, you guessed it, I'm another Northern Irishman wanting a piece of this.

Outline one: Dispelling certain myths. The conflict is purely territorial; you can ignore now any connotations of religion you might hear here. The terms Catholic and Protestant are at their very best ceremonial, describing two sides of a polarity that are so astoundingly similar that they're bound to hate each other with extreme prejudice. This hatred is almost entirely due to inheritance, but where it festers most strongly is in the horrendous working class conditions. You ever hear of the Shankhill and Crumlin roads? The places are practically falling apart, and I'd place that as a reason rather than an outcome for the fighting.

In fact, you can probably forget about the Ireland/UK issue too. As has been said, those in charge of "Affirmative Action" (by which I mean blowing up people on the other side) don't care that their decisions are detrimental to the relations with the country they claim to represent. It's all about groups of people wanting to claim a bit of land for their own; rather like gang-lords in Afghanistan at the minute. PIRA, UVF, LVF, whatever, all are fighting for Posession as opposed to claim for a cause, and if more people saw it, the groups would be less successful in getting away with it all.

And whoever said stuff about the Police engaging in this is out of touch. The RUC, formerly widely believed to be siding with the Unionists, was forced to disband as part of the 1998 Good Friday agreement and replaced by a more neutral force; the PSNI.

Part Two: Personal opinion. I'm fortunate enough to have been raised in a Middle class environment. I'm not personally Christian, but have experience from both sides of the church: There's a place in the western district called the Fellowship church, which is integrated Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox (though there aren't many of those) and non-denominational, and it's where I grew up. The faith aspect of the division, I've come to realise, can take a running jump; Atheists or Buddhists are as likely to be targetted as active protestants if they live in certain areas of Belfast.

Everyone's becoming more radical here. The two leading parties in the recent European elections were Sinn Fein and the DUP: "Democratic" Unionist Party, both of whom would like nothing more than the complete removal of everyone associated with the other party. And this is who the public are voting for. Remove the Terrorists? Well, I'd call it regime change, but we're currently in the state Iraq would be if the coalition left tomorrow anyway. You know what radicalisation is a good sign off - unhappiness with one's lot. The reason for the support is as much a social and economic issue as it is a political one. It's this: Life for the average Joe here is appallingly squalid. "And why shouldn't it be, if it all might get blown up tomorrow anyway?" 'tis a vicious spiral. The more fighting, the more people see the need to fight.

Looking to Ireland and Britain isn't going to help any. Neither of them want anything to do with us; we're a black smear over their governments' records. We have to pull ourselves out of this one, since the one thing you can get from every NI citizen is a dislike for President Bush (we loved Clinton, apparently, and we're still bitter at his removal). I suppose what really needs to be done is for someone to get off their arse and actually sort out the standard of living around here. Or better yet, have a neutral party to actually rule the damn place. Like the Alliance party. Or an SDLP-UUP coalition. Anything to re-establish law and order and get the quality of life for those in the backstreets sorted out. That way, everyone calms down, leading to enough co-operation with the police to crack down on the remaining sectarianists.

In fact, invading Ireland might be the only way to bring both sides of the debacle together. Sure, it would be against the Americans, but the internal conflict would stop for a while. Maybe.


One more thing. Someone slap Michael Moore. I just picked up a copy of Stupid White Men from the library and his section on the NI issue is single-sided, misinformed and condescending to a degree that completely ruined the book for me.

I agree that Michael Moore was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off target with his 'analysis' of the Troubles. Really disappointing concidering the strengths of the book in question.

Shit, I don't know if it's going to get any better in NI. The problems as I understand are much as detailed by Kamsaki. Unfortunately, politicians seem to have neither the courage or the desire to make a difference.

Oh, and _Susa_, the 'socialist' nature of the IRA is irrelevant with respect to their acts of violence.

I keep wondering why the PSNI doesn't just crush the criminals from the IRA, UDA etc. They know who the UDA Brigadiers and IRA Leaders are, why don't they just arrest them for membership, money laundering, drugs offences, tax evasion or whatever they can stick to them to put them in jail. Having said that, its likely that the Sinn Fein leadership are still members of the IRA, arresting Adams & McGuinness probably wouldn't be the best advised measure to try and solve the political problems.

With regard to Kamsaki's post, we very rarely hear anything at all about Northern Ireland on the news (I live in England but come from Scotland). Having said that, it is the same for Scotland and Wales. I get all my news from Scotland and NI from websites. A child disappearing in London gets 24hr news coverage, but a child disappearing in Northern Ireland or Scotland gets a page on teletext, if your lucky. I would suspect that many of my peers in England have forgotten that Northern Ireland even exists.

Ecopoeia: I agree with Michael Moore's political stand (left-liberal, anti-corporation, anti-Bush etc), but I have only read one of his books (Stupid White Men) and it put me off ever touching another Moore book. I wouldn't call his chapter on the Troubles 'analysis', but it was downright offensive. He can't have thought about that before he wrote it. If he thought it was a worthwhile political comment, he is a total idiot, and if he thought it was humourous, he needs a really good slapping.

I just picked up a copy of Stupid White Men from the library and his section on the NI issue is single-sided, misinformed and condescending to a degree that completely ruined the book for me.

Couldn't agree more.

We will invade Ireland when Ireland has oil.

I keep wondering why the PSNI doesn't just crush the criminals from the IRA, UDA etc. They know who the UDA Brigadiers and IRA Leaders are, why don't they just arrest them for membership, money laundering, drugs offences, tax evasion or whatever they can stick to them to put them in jail. Having said that, its likely that the Sinn Fein leadership are still members of the IRA, arresting Adams & McGuinness probably wouldn't be the best advised measure to try and solve the political problems.



I think one of the reasons might be that the PSNI/the Brists prefer to be dealing with known quantities: thus if the current heads of the various paramilitary groups are basically keeping a lid on their operations, then it is seen to be better than reamoving them from their postions of power and introducing loose cannons and unknown quantities into the equation.

It is also not a given in Northern Ireland that merely putting someone behind bars will curtail their operations as heads of organisations: strong communciation networks exist between those inside and outside the prisons.

Having said that, the establishment was more than happy to create an entirely new crime - "directing terrorism" - purely in order to put Johnny Adair behind bars, but this was at the time when he was head of the UFF and was acting so as to polarise opinion against the 'peace process'.

In the end it all comes down to political expediency, rather than a desire to punsih the guilty. It may very well be that the best way to protect the innocent is to leave certain figures at large.

we attacked afghanastan cos the terrorists were there, we invaded iraq cause the terrorists were there too. so wehn do we invade ireland the ira are terrorists they are in ireland so im guessin dubya has ireland in his sights. that and ireland is home of the real black gold, guiness. just imagine when hundreds of thousands of us marines will be landin on the emerald isles coast + id really like to see an armoured column of abrahams rollin through that green lush countryside... that and i have to go on holiday there soon for a weddin and i dont want to get sent to guantanamo (sp) as a sympathiser.

ps i may have just posted this in the wrong forum oops and soz
You forgot one thing: you're only considered a terrorist if you have brown skin.

You forgot one thing: you're only considered a terrorist if you have brown skin.

Actually, it's completely different in Ireland. Terrorists are about the only names the Irish general public (by which I mean the extremists within it) don't call minority groups. It's pretty much accepted that the big thing African-americans, Asians, Indians, Mexicans or whatever don't do is blow other people up; that's reserved for the whites.

Apparently, we're so racist, they can't even be terrorists.

Actually, it's completely different in Ireland. Terrorists are about the only names the Irish general public (by which I mean the extremists within it) don't call minority groups. It's pretty much accepted that the big thing African-americans, Asians, Indians, Mexicans or whatever don't do is blow other people up; that's reserved for the whites.

Apparently, we're so racist, they can't even be terrorists.


Recently certain groups - such as the UVF/UDA - have spoken out against the attempts to organise by the BNP here, and were also responsible for ...ahem... 'asking' ... a cell of Combat-18 organisers to relocate themselves out of Northern Ireland.

Recently certain groups - such as the UVF/UDA - have spoken out against the attempts to organise by the BNP here, and were also responsible for ...ahem... 'asking' ... a cell of Combat-18 organisers to relocate themselves out of Northern Ireland.

Well, after long enough, chances were they'd do something right eventually. ^^;

Still, there've been a few anti-racial sentiments floating around the place for a while. Just this morning, even, a chinese restaurant got blown to bits. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3544088.stm)

If anyone starts a thread for discussing the political situation in NI then please post here to let me know. Mind you, any thread started in this forum would get hijacked by these stupid American IRA supporters that sadly seem to litter forums such as this one.

Explosion destroys restaurant


It is understood one person sustained an injury to their hand
An explosion has destroyed a Chinese take-away in Londonderry.
Police and other emergency services searched rubble to make sure there was no-one trapped beneath the debris of the building.

The explosion took place at a Chinese take-away restaurant at Strand Road in the city at about 0930 BST on Saturday.

It is thought it was caused by a gas leak.

An Indian take-away and a bar on either side of the Chinese take-away were also badly damaged.

Fire Service search and rescue teams were sent from Belfast.

This being a very busy street, we are thankful there doesn't appear to have been people walking past on the footpath at the time of the explosion

Trevor McKeown
PSNI Inspector

It is understood one person sustained an injury to their hand and two people suffered shock.

People evacuated from nearby buildings were taken to the University of Ulster's Magee campus.

Inspector Trevor McKeown said he was thankful more people were not injured.

"The explosion went right across the street and has damaged premises opposite," he said.

"The actual Chinese restaurant, and premises on either side of it, have received quite substantial damage as well.

"This being a very busy street, we are thankful there doesn't appear to have been people walking past on the footpath at the time of the explosion."

The scene of the explosion is in the heart of the university area.
Where in that article does it say this was an atack, never mind a racially motivated one?
Dont mis associate like that.

Mind you, any thread started in this forum would get hijacked by these stupid American IRA supporters that sadly seem to litter forums such as this one.

Ah yes, but showing how hideously ill-informed they are can be quite empowering.

a few points.
who trains or has trained most terrorist groups around the world (Including ETA - the spanish ones - and FARC - the colbumbian ones, and possibly al Quaeda as well)? IRA
who developed the mortar bomb, the car bomb (used with such skill and panache by ETA, guys in Iraq, al Quaeda etc etc etc)? IRA
so basically, the IRA have alot to answer for. as well as trying to force the views of a minority on the majority.

oh, and what country is mostly responsible for the funding of all of the above? the USA