today the ira agreed to de-militarise. to cease military and criminal functions and turn to political means. it's a huge step and could be seen as the end of the 36 year war.
so what are your thoughts on this, the war and the ira in general?
Printable View
today the ira agreed to de-militarise. to cease military and criminal functions and turn to political means. it's a huge step and could be seen as the end of the 36 year war.
so what are your thoughts on this, the war and the ira in general?
HURRAY! I hope it lasts and goes smoth like.
It's about time, but they couldn't really continue in this climate of devolution and the collapse of their american support.
at least someone sees sense and thinks everyone should join up and defeat terrorism first and then all live happy happy
i hope someone else will learn about the power of diplomatic ways...
The IRA weren't terrorists. They were freedom fighters. If they are terrorists then the Marque during WWII were terrorists, the Americans who fought for independance were terrorists too. You need to watch who you label as terrorists as history itself is calling you a hypocrite. For a long long time they were the only army fighting for us Catholics here. Protecting us. Their motives were always pure but admitedly not always the right way to do things.
As for the end of military actions, it would have came years ago had not the Unionists continually demanding surrender. We were never going to surrender, we were undefeated.
The IRA seem to be the ones making all the right moves while the Unionists don't budge an inch & the Loylists keep killing us, eachother, burning catholics homes, attacking Catholic churches. The resolve the leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann have shown to, despite all of this, still make this statement, is unparallelled in history.
It's now in the Unionists & Loyalists Court. The only Loyalist Group we have any form of respect for is the UVF the rest are drug dealing unruly pricks. I believe if they don't move an inch, even after this we could stare down a civil war. We have bared our souls here & if there is no return we will give our souls.
They attacked civilians.
They didn't have the majority support.
They used tactics of fear
The IRA are/were massively involved with the drug trade
They were terrorists.
don't even try to draw childish parrallels between the americans and "marquis"
Maybe I dont know enough about the subject but I wouldnt have thought there was much difference. I've heard both words used for the same thing more than once. Was the IRA responsible for the Omagh bombing? In which a young mother and two unborn twins died along with others? If that was the IRA then Id definitely consider them terrorists.Quote:
The IRA weren't terrorists. They were freedom fighters.
Edit: I checked. 29 died.
actually omagh was commited by the real ira. they werea splinter group who refused to sign the good friday agreement with the rest of the ira. the continuity ira are also in the same boat with them.
one has to remember that the war wasn't all one sided. the unionist had some quite nasty habits and the army did some nasty things as well half the time.
and while we are drawing paralels to american.s america and noraid actually happily funded the ira. so meh.
and do we class mandella as a terrorist?
yes killing civillians is bad at the best of times but....... you cannot scapegoat them when they were only half of the problem.
Not once did the PIRA target civilians. There were premature bombs & misguided information. The IRA targeted military, police & commerce. You need to get your facts right before you look an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
Every army uses tactics of fear, what planet are you on?
After Bloody Sunday they had the popular support of the majority of Catholics. Sinn Fein are the second biggest party here. I think my case can be rested.
The IRA ARE NOT and never HAVE been involved in drugs. The Loyalists are heavily involved but IRA are not. Now, they have been known to dip into contraband (tobacco & alcohol) but stayed away from drugs. They shot drug dealers. Again, get your facts right.
These 'childish parallels' you claim are indeed parallels a 6 year old can grasp yet escape your clouded, blinkered logic. I've seen your type before, I've witnessed your type get your half-truths, mix them & end up with a gun ready to kill any Catholic. Don't sit there with your selfrighteous attitude & claim the higher ground, you dopn't deserve it. You don't live here. I have seen a Protestant friend of mine get shot dead infront of my eyes because the Loyalists 'presumed' he was Catholic. This situation was deeper than right and wrong and you haven't even seen enough of the iceberg to validate a judgement on this.
No civilian was deliberately killed by the IRA. I can name hundreds deliberately killed by people on your side of the fence.
The PIRA did not target civilians. The PIRA are the largest IRA unit, the CIRA and RIRA are small time operations compared to the PIRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
The PIRA targetted economic and military targets, and where famous for it. They gave warnings on thier bombs, that is no terrorist, that is a freedom fighter, my freedom fighter. They where never involved in drug trades. Punishment beats are mainly carried out by the CIRA (I should know, they control my area), because the police did not do thier job. The loyalist forces however are heabily in the drug trade and have been tracked down by mi5 for it, including the majority of thier members also members of the National front and other such groups.
The British army war crimes are lists long. The most famous is probably bloody sunday. Loyalists forces busting into catholic or republican homes and shooting dead families in thier sleep is terrorism. Not to mention the police and British army have been linked to helping Loyalists (michael stone for one).
Cuchulainn basically posted everything I was going to say. I've lived here all my life, I've had British army soldiers walk my streets and raid houses when I was a kid, I can bet not a lot of people here who say the IRA are terrorists have seen that.
I'm quite sure young children, women and innocent men do not stand in anyone's path to freedom - so killing them to achieve said 'freedom' (or various other selfish goals) has a name - terrorism. Had they targeted only military targets, then they would've been legitimate, a guerilla force fighting the occupying British army. But that's not all they did, is it?Quote:
The IRA weren't terrorists. They were freedom fighters.
Aye right. If any side is a terrorist in that case it was the British army with thier Shoot to kill policy, it was the Loyalists paramilitarys that would bust into republican and/or catholic (not every republican is catholic) homes and shoot everyone in thier sleep, something the PIRA did not do. The PIRA where very ruthless against military and SAS targets, which earned them a bad name automatically by the BBC, which only told half arsed stories to the British people (in which I do have some examples)
So yes, Freedom fighters, for a united Ireland, not terrorisom.
The loyalist paramilitarys were terrorists
So where the IRA, all factions and sub sections.
If you say so. Live and grow up here and you would say different.
As far as I know, he's a Brit, meaning he experienced at least a few of the IRA's actions, if not on his own flesh, then on the national level.Quote:
Live and grow up here and you would say different.
:rolleyes2 of course he did...Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Nothing compared to what happened here. What the IRA done was nothing to what the British army have done here. Did you know there are still more soldiers in Northern Ireland than there is in Iraq ? Probably not but it's true. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
?... Is that REALLY true? Because it sounds extremely unlikely. You mean there are several hundreds of thousands of British troops just in Northern Ireland?Quote:
Did you know there are still more soldiers in Northern Ireland than there is in Iraq ? Probably not but it's true.
Yes, it's true. They just don't walk the streets anymore.
It's not extremely unlikely at all. Northern Ireland costs Britain a lot of money, by just existing, there are more British soldiers in Northern Ireland than there is in Iraq right now.
Edit: Although now that the IRA gave thier recent statement, there should be a planned British army pull out, or at least I hope, since they no longer have an excuse to hang around.
"I'm quite sure young children, women and innocent men do not stand in anyone's path to freedom - so killing them to achieve said 'freedom' (or various other selfish goals) has a name - terrorism."
one of the greatest freedom fighters of out time also did this. mandella, praised a hero, won the nobel peace prize and all round good guy freedom fighter.
oh and one more thing and very sorry for double posting. the ira did attack civillians.
lets not forget the guildford woolwich and birmingham pub bombings, the manchester bomb, bloody friday, edbury bridge road, the wimpy in oxford street, bombs in harrods, enniskillen, victoria station, london bridge railway station, 30 st mary axe, sussex arms, bishops gate, shankill road, mortaring heathrow, South Quay DLR station, charing cross, aldwych, Jean McConville, Ross McWhirter, Robert Bradford, the 1990 northern ireland bombing campaign, Ian Gow, 8 builders in 1992 near omagh, warrignton,
You can use the edit/delete button. --foa
How many where killed by the PIRA however?
Originally the PIRA formed for quite the opposite, they protected catholics being burned out from thier homes by loyalists from 1969 onward because the police done smurf all.
But don't get me wrong, I don't agree with a lot the IRA have done, namely the CIRA and the RIRA however. The shankill road chip shop was also bomed because the upstairs room was used as a loyalists meeting room, how many catholics and republicans had thier fate decided there?
the pira killed 909 military and police and 497 civillians, 1706 in total. do not ask me where the other 24 come from.
tha shankhill bomb killed 2 children and the bomber.
Both the loyalists and British army have killed countless others aswell, no side are angels, and to place the blame on the PIRA over the years is not fair at all. Propaganda still runs strong.
Deaths on all sides in the end is bad, but it also cannot be helped. My freedom fighter is your terrorist, but anyone who says "terrorist" should at least have experienced what they blame, I can bet you haven't had another countries soldiers march through your streets from you where no age, having them hide in your garden and bust down you and your neighbours door because you are accused of helping these "terrorists". Protection of the privilaged it was.
Hope the unionists take heed of the IRA's disarming and wise up, and actually attempt for once with peace talks, they have no more excuse to ignore it, which was a smart move by the IRA and can only benefit my country as a whole.
No, your freedom-fighter is my terrorist when it targets and kills civilians. It will not be a terrorist, if all it does is target military targets. Guerilla warfare is legitimate - terrorism isn't.Quote:
My freedom fighter is your terrorist
my point was that "The PIRA did not target civilians." was a mistake. they did, frequently.
i'm neither a fan or critic of the ira. yes they fought for some stuff and weren't just doing it cos they felt like it. but it was all done the wrong way.
the ira also had a nasty habit of punishment beatings and kneecappings.
it was a nasty vicious war which noone should take pride from.
but the unionists know also need to disarm and end their side of the war.
Let me reiterate this one more time as it is clearly not hitting home. The IRA never DELIBERATELY targeted civilians.
At times, coded messages were not passed on, bombs went off prematurely (in the case of the Shankill Bomb). Their target was commerce & military. Killing civilians was not part of the plan, namely because it is/was bad for their support.
A lot of the said 'civilians' listed were unrecognised Loyalists. It helps demonise by releasing half-truths.
However, the fact that the bombs were not intended for civilians does not make bombing the commercial heartland of Britain a viable target. The bombing campaign was something not all volunteers were comfortable with, and indeed many supporters. You need to understand bombings were an attention getter.
Yes civilians died at the hands of the IRA, civilians have died at the hands of Britain, America, Israel, France, Germany...infact open your Atlas and read off the countries from 'A'. Britain calls it 'Collateral' when they do it & 'Murder' when someone opposing them do it. Let us not forget how the IRA escilated in numbers & support. A certain Sunday in Derry when 13 unarmed people were shot dead by the British Army. Lets not try to differentiate freedom fighter to terrorist to Army by civilian deaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimsour
I was going to leave this alone due to the fact that obviously some people have such differing views on the subject that they'd never agree, but i must point out that
A. British troops are on British territory, my hometown has an army base of 4000, so i'm fairly used to seeing soldiers on the streets it isn't that horific.
B.The army's "excuse" to be in Ulster was not because of the IRA it was to protect catholic republicans from increasing attacks and civil disorder from Prodestant Loyalists as it were.
Note: i don't consider policemen combat targets.
"The IRA never DELIBERATELY targeted civilians." i would like to know how placing a 3,300 lb bomb in the centre of manchester was not meant to kill any civillians? putting bombs in pubs and a wimpy?
these places were filled with civillians. or would i be right in claiming that 9-11 was an attack on commerce in the wtc rather than civillian targets?
Defeinatley a step toward resolving all of this. I am glad to see it happen personally. Good tidbit!
Bipper
Don't talk bollocks mate. The army's excuse does not pretect on catholic republican. Now if you had any idea about the history of this country you would automatically know that the PIRA started in 1969 in protection of the Catholic and Republican people because of British army, Police and Loyalist colaberation. They have no excuse to stay now that the "threat" (the IRA) is gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
Your hometown has an army base of 4000 for an army of your own country, yes? Picture it being another countries army, you wouldn't be very happy about that, would you?
I do consider policemen who colaberate with Loyalists a target, I do not consider police who do thier job correctly and unbiasedly a combat target. Remember, not every republican agrees with bomb campaigns, not every republican agrees with the end of armed struggle, either.
Thats what warnings are for. The Al Qaeda are 100 times more ruthless than the IRA, who don't recognize civilians from military personel.Quote:
these places were filled with civillians. or would i be right in claiming that 9-11 was an attack on commerce in the wtc rather than civillian targets?
Stop getting your answers from half arsed news reports. Live through it and see the "terrorism" with your own eyes.
"Thats what warnings are for." what use is a warning? it never worked. that's why 207 were injured in manchester. it was not enough.
The difference is indeed the warnings given prior to detonation. As I've said they weren't always enough but if deliberately killing as many civilians is your goal why in HELL give a warning 3 hour prior?
Again i stress, the killing of civilians, deliberate or not is not the element that differentiates a terrorist from an Army.
A. British troops are on British territory as much as them being in India was British territory.
B. The Army's excuse was to protect Catholic civilians, initially this was true, and Catholics welcomed them, made them food, tea, homed them. Then the B Specials influenced them, Catholic support waned a bit, then Bloody Sunday flipped everything up. It was that moment that they stopped getting welcomes in Catholic Estates.
And Policemen are combat targets if they kill & act in combatant ways, as thew RUC frequently done. If they collude with Loyalists, as they frequently done, if they discriminate, as they frequently done.
This situation was complex and dirty on all sides & not ONE side has blood free hands. You would do well to try & understand that.
why was commerce a legitimate target anyway? why was blowing up harrods acceptable? the canary wharf bomb? manchester? it doesn't seem a correct target.
It was an attempt to cripple Britain's economy to the point where holding on to Northern Ireland was a liability stronger than their economy could handle. Interviews with British Diplomats showed it was starting to work. Bombs were also a statement. A big exclimation mark. They were often done after something bad on the Republican side. I.E. Hunger Striker deaths, collapse of the first ceasefire, bloody sunday etc. Bombs were the 'reply'.
Britain during WWII obliterated Dresden to the point were hundreds of thousands of lives were lost....for the same reasons IRA did it.
but i don't think that can be true justification.
i'm in two minds about the ira. i can't make up my mind.
We don't ask or expect anyone to agree 100% with everything that has been done on our side. We ask for you to understand why it all started, why we felt the need for it's existence & why it had the popular support of Catholics. There are a lot things unjustified here, the things done on the British governments side may well never be held accountable. The things done on our side are held accountable each & every day we live under the Union Jack.
I don't blame English or Britons for their views, one can only know what one finds out. I do, however, take exception to people demonising one side without properly studying their own side's actions. Dismissing without proper study the mere notion that the Queens Forces would do anything outside Geneva. Every action has a reaction & there was a lot of both here for over 30 years.
The IRA, publically, had little support, privately they had the strong support of the Catnholic people. They were the only ones fighting for us. Even the Irish Republic disowned us. The Catholic people here are good people. People pressed to unimaginable actions by unimaginable hardships. The lack of equal rights was not an invention. The Police discrimination & Loyalist collusiuon was not an invention. The Police, Army & Loyalist murders were not invented. It helps Briton's sleep easy to believe you were fighting demons. But, we have come a long way, and for that, I'm thankful.
If Britain would just get the hell out of NI the IRA wouldn't even need to exist.
The problem isn't the IRA's existence (an organisation to free Northern Ireland from British occupation), but their actions, which are unlawful mass and individual killings of innocent targets.Quote:
If Britain would just get the hell out of NI the IRA wouldn't even need to exist.
hmm yes if the world was simple and a majority of the people in NI weren't British.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
British occupation of NI is a vestige of the British Empire and there's no reason short of pride that Ulster should remain part of Britain when it very clearly should be part of Ireland. Whether or not a large number of Brits live there is really irrelevant. A lot of Brits lived in every occupied territory before independence. They'll get over it or move back.
You want to tell over a million people to either accept Irish rule or move back?
if you live in Ireland you should accept Irish rule.
Eest basically owned all your arguments which leave me but one point.
Find me one armed force that hasn't killed innocent people without batting an eyelid. I'll give you a clue, definately DON'T start looking at your own first. Happy hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
I could, possibly. However, it'd be much easier to find many armed organisations that do not TARGET civilians. And yes, planting bombs in commercial centres and what-not is considered targeting civilians targets. A stray shell from a cannon isn't.Quote:
Find me one armed force that hasn't killed innocent people
Oh, but I always do. And no, I wouldn't want to get into THAT issue with someone that appearently supports terrorism.Quote:
I'll give you a clue, definately DON'T start looking at your own first.
Please find me one, I'd love to know. I'm not talking about 'stray cannon shell', what is this? The Napoleonic Wars? I'm talking evaluating an attck, knowing civilians will die & going ahead with that attack for the 'greater good' or at worst, deliberately attacking civilians in a concentrated & deliberate effort. Go on, it'll be your little quest for the weekend, prepare to bck up your answers with fact or I will find the BS and call you on it with fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Excuse me? Lets not start making judgment calls on people, you don't know me & know little of what you label terrorism either. You can demonise what you like but just so you know, Israel's hands are bloodstained too. I know you hold on to this sleep-easy illusion that your country & it's forces are a pillar or good light that are totally blameless in this terrible war against terrorist demon-like halfbreeds. Sadly the only one you are fooling is yourself. People who have the ability to read and aren't afraid to utilise that ability know a bit more. You have this ability to post on a topic, ignore all points made by anyone killing your argument, repeat your blinkered argument with quotes you can make snide comments & repeat to fade. That hasn't gone overlooked either. Terrorist is just a word, it doesn't explain anything except tell people the organisation is not government run or official. Guerrilla's, Freedom Fighters, Partisans etc etc, each word explains the same label & the choice of word very much depends on the views of the brain behind them.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
You say I support terrorism, I could stoop low and say you support a blood thursty, sanctimonious, murdering satellite army of the United States...but I don't.
Don't label me, or us, or even the Protestant population, you don't know enough, nor are you willing to learn enough. The bubble you call home just might pop.
*ignores all personal attacks on his country and people that have zero relevance to this discussion*
Right, now.
Again, wrong. Except 'freedom fighters', these aren't buzz-words. They have a distinct meaning. A guerilla force is a non-governmental force that fights against an organised army to achieve certain goals, almost always political (such as independence). A terrorist organisation often strives for the same goals, but tries to achieve them in different methods - a terrorist organisation targets and hits civilians, in order to create pressure on the opposing government and\or people. The IRA does that, as far as I know (care to prove me wrong on this?).Quote:
Terrorist is just a word, it doesn't explain anything except tell people the organisation is not government run or official. Guerrilla's, Freedom Fighters, Partisans etc etc, each word explains the same label & the choice of word very much depends on the views of the brain behind them.
I never attacked anyone, I merely stated what I could have said if i stooped as low as you in your 'you support terrorists' statement. Don't attack and then play the victim when someone counters with a stronger attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Certainly, give me an example where the IRA deliberately targeted civilians in an effort to simply kill civilians, i'm not ignorant enough to believe it could never have happened so give me one & I'll look into it. Don't ignore my quest either, you are missing my whole point by doing so. Every military organisation, legal or illegal has killed civilians. I'm not talking about accidental death or such. I'm talking either a calculated collateral or direct, deliberate attacks. Again, don'tm ignore this point, you seem to be doing so, so I've reitterated it.
Lastly, your overtly simplistic view on Terrorism & Gurrillas is complwtely off centre and wrong. Terrorist & Guerrilla Warfare stretch way beyond the spheres of Freedom Fighting alone. There are many reasons for both. There are Guerrillas in Colombia, Indonesia, Chile etc who's aim is drug related, political or even tribal. You cannot simplify those words to mere 'Freedom Fighters'. Lastly Al Queda, they are not freedom fighters, the PLO were, they aren't.
Don't say I'm wrong, please, I back up every word I say, you generalise in obne sentence answers explaining nothing about fact. Everything you say is mere un-learned view point, care to prove me wrong on that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRAQuote:
give me an example where the IRA deliberately targeted civilians in an effort to simply kill civilians,
"IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,706 people... This figure represents 48.4 percent of the total fatalities in the conflict. 497 of the casualties were civilians, 638 of the casulaties were from the British army"
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/chronmaj.htm
This here is a list of major violent acts during some 30 years of struggle. It lists quite a few killings by many organisations, including the IRA. Plantings bombs in hotels, restaurants or in the middle of a street is what I'd consider the targeting of civilian targets.
I don't have links to virtual memorials for members of a terrorist organisation in my signature.Quote:
I merely stated what I could have said if i stooped as low as you in your 'you support terrorists' statement.
I didn't say it didn't. However, the fact remains 'terrorism' stands for the targeting of civilians, while 'guerilla' stands for the targeting of military targets, both by un-governed organisations\forces. This is all there is to it, really.Quote:
Terrorist & Guerrilla Warfare stretch way beyond the spheres of Freedom Fighting alone.
The IRA fights for the freedom of Northern Ireland from the British occupation. This is fine. However, the IRA's methods are not legitimate (or were not legitimate, since it's no longer active, hopefully). Had it only killed British soldiers, even by the thousands, it'd be fine and legitimate, since they are soldiers and death is part of their work. Civilians shouldn't die because of politics.
They don't they live in Ulster.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
i listed a whole list of attacks the ira committed which targetted civillians. giving warnings does not repel guilt. it's not an excuse. 207 people in manchester were injured even though a warning was given.
The whole point of these very small organizations is to create a sense of ear to accomplish there goals. Which they are pretty much being successful in the fact that we all had to change our daily lives due to these attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Firstly that is mere statistics on Wikipedia (a dubious source at best, as anyone with any slant can basically write what they want). It's hard to argue against unlabeled numbers now isn't it. Numbers can fool, anyone who knows politics will tell you this. Let's just say those numbers are correct. Does it tell you how many of the 497 were Loyalist Terrorists? IRA killed a large number of them. Then there's the Informers & Supergrasses. This undoubtedly leaves a number of innocent people called 'collateral' or 'murder victims' pending on who did it. Let me say most lives that were lost here were a tragedy, loses on both sides. But be aware, both sides lost innocents, by freedom fighters, terrorists, British Army...It was a war and both sides lost counts of people. Personally I've lost people close to me, the fact you overlook the other side's crimes because they are not labeled 'terrorists' is quite mad indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Here we have a list. Notice the very first entry, the spark. Tell me, who was it targeting innocent civilians? (British Army killed 13, IRA 1) Then the second, who was it? You got it, the Loyalists, 15 Catholics dead, then the explosion of the third, the straw that broke the camels back, if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Sunday 30 January 1972
‘Bloody Sunday’: 14 Catholic civilians were killed at a civil rights march in Derry. They were shot by members of the British Army.
Bloody Friday. Then we have the retaliation by the fledgling IRA. This knee jerk, whilst being retaliatory, was indeed an attack where collateral was not worried about. They were, though, targeting British Soldiers (2 died). these soldiers didn't just happen to be walking by & the IRA struck a fluke. Each bomb had warning which were ignored as at that time this was all new.
Then we have a the IRA killing British soldiers & after that Friday 17 May 1974. Suspected collusion with RUC & Army, the Loyalists kill 20 in Dublin then in Monaghan. You need to live & know the Loyalists here understand why everyone suspected, and now know infact, there was collusion. They were not bomb makers by their own admission. Had not the materials to or the know how. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were well known to be Loyalists aswell (the UDR was absorbed by the Royal Irish Regiment in the 80s). Even as lately as today RIR soldiers are STILL Loyalist members. In the Sunday World newspaper stated one of the RIR soldiers on uty at Garnerville to keep the UVF & LVF factions apart was a well known LVF member. This Rewgiments is finally being disbanded but that leaves us with the problem of thousands of ex soldiers who double as Loyalist Terrorists on the streets unemployed. Trained by the British Army to kill & they won't be happy.
I could go on to be honest but any later and it's like reading my childhood. Every bomb had a coded warning, they were not always adhered to. This does not excuse it, but what excuses Bloody Sunday? Or the 13 on Monday 9th? What excuses the Dresden Bombings? Or the Israeli Gunships wiping out 4 blocks of housing for one Hamas leader? Or their killing of Palestinians throwing stones? Even some of America's conducts during WWII, Vietnam, Iraq. It is war and it happens in war. It always has happened. While the IRA didn't always worry a great deal about collateral, civilians were not the target of the bomb. You did a 5 minute google search and came up with what you thought suited your argument the most. Now try google searching & this time read the whole thing, from various view points. Only then will you understand just what exploded here in the early 1970s.
That's the funniest thing I've witnessed thus far, tell me you were joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
Ireland is made up of 4 provences, historial provences, Ulster, Munster, Connacht & Leinster. In Ulster there are 9 counties, 6 of which are under British Occupation, Antrim, Down, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry & Armagh, 3 are free, Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan. Just what on earth was that half brained statement supposed to accomplish other than prove that despite your obvious strong views, you know little to nothing of the situation? That's summed up the opposition of my points in this thread.
is informing reason to be killed?
It was enough during WWII for the Allies, turning on your comrades for no other reason other than to save your own skin from prison is low. Low enough to kill? I cannot answer that, I can say it's an unsavory part of war that happens all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
but is to inform a crime or somthing to be praised? to risk your own skin to try and hinder an illegal organisation. is that a bad thing? should these people not be listed with the "innocents"?
Um, why? They are far from innocents. Most were members of the IRA who got caught & flipped. Whether it's a crime or an act of heroism very much depends on which side of the fence you are on. Illegal or not, IRA were a military organisation. If someone flipped & gave information which cost volunteer lives are gutter rats. Same goes for agents who flip for 'legal' armies. Treachery is treachery in any language. Because an organisation is deemed illegal, it doesn't make the cause bad. The term & staus of Illegal is given by the people writing the law, who in turn may have unpure interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Cuchulainn has basically said almost everything I have to say aswell to be honest, only in better wording.
Yes, Informers, no matter where they come from must be dealt with. It's not as if they didn't know what would happen if they where to be caught. :rolleyes2
Do me a favour and do some deep research into the Irish history and culture before the British invasion. Ulster has been a part of my history and my culture and language for as long as the English people have existed, :mad2: it's Irish, on an Irish island, on Irish soil, and no treaty, or document will change it. Modern laws won't change history. I've lived in Ulster all my life and I see it how it is, not how the BBC or ITV, or Sky news, or CNN, or the newspapers tells it.Quote:
They don't they live in Ulster.
Even the majority of the Protestant people want thier own government, learn the situation please or don't give a say at all.