The Queen & Visiting Ireland

[Richie]

I'd love to see some unbiased responses. Obviously the queen isn't going to be welcomed in Ireland and I know it's bad to say but I've been raised in some strange way to hate on British, not by my family but by my friends even in the early stages of primary school when I hadn't a clue about what happened. As everyone gets older they get educated and hold their own opinions. I don't hate Britain but I don't agree with what they done years ago.


Firstly, I'd like to make clear, yes the IRA are classed as a terrorist group, which is true. I can understand why the IRA have a hatred against the queen and Britain itself, I do agree with their views but not their violence. What the IRA have done isn't the same as what Britain have done I agree but you need to understand in some way the queen of England is somewhat a terrorist, it wasn't her that directed the English soldiers to invade Ireland but looking back at her family tree, her relations did. So you can understand why she isn't welcome to Ireland, after all her family is technically wanted for war crime against Ireland (not officially but by the IRA).

How can you compare British Army to the IRA?
The IRA kill innocent people in an attempt to make a united Ireland and for revenge.
The British army killed innocent people to take our land (Including children and family's).


She is meant to visit Ireland some stage next month, this is going to be disaster, all hell will break loose just like it did in 2006. In 2006 the British wanted to march down O'Connell street with a union jack flag. Riots broke out and the Irish wouldn't allow it to happen. I can only imagine when the queen comes to Ireland how bad it'll be.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cayhvNeElK4&feature=fvst



I don't want the queen to come to Ireland it is going to cause more problems and I don't see why the English would want her to come either, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a few attempts to assassin her. I hope she stays away and leaves us alone.


Opinions?

[Inseriousity.]

Hmm I suppose the question is should we prosecute the Germans because their ancestors were Nazis? I'm not saying what the British did was right but I think it's twisted logic to brand someone a terrorist because of something their family did.

Despite that, I still think it's a bad idea. When times economically are tough, the last thing you want is some Royals rubbing their nose in at how rich they are. *coughs Royal wedding*

Difference with the royal wedding is that we'll benefit from the tourism etc. What benefits would Ireland get? :P

[Red]

eugh for one she is not the queen of england, she is the queen of GB and Northern Ireland and I can't believe you are comparing the British Army to the IRA.
brave men who risk their lives for their country compared to total SCUM

[redtom]

The Queen is the monarch of the British Empire not just England, and she will be welcomed in Ireland by most, a few people wont like her there and that's that. The RIRA are a bunch of idiots with hardly any true support. Assassination attempts I think not :L

[-:Undertaker:-]

The difference between the British army (of which slaughter has occured under) and the IRA is that the IRA purposely targets innocent people and is thus classed as terrorism. Now the British army also is not like the Nazi army due to the fact that bad events in its history have always been isolated incidents and not consistent bloodshed targeting innocents. The IRA on the other hand I can describe as nothing more than scum.


Firstly, I'd like to make clear, yes the IRA are classed as a terrorist group, which is true. I can understand why the IRA have a hatred against the queen and Britain itself, I do agree with their views but not their violence.

What do you IRA sympathisers not understand about the concept that the people living in Nothern Ireland do not wish to be a part of your nation? what is so hard to understand about that? and before you label them as 'colonialists' who haven't a right to be where they are - i'd like to see you say the same to all Americans, black and white - all south Americans, all Europeans.. oh wait! thats right! we all come from a different origin at some point (Africa).

Thus annulling this ridiculous argument.


What the IRA have done isn't the same as what Britain have done I agree but you need to understand in some way the queen of England is somewhat a terrorist, it wasn't her that directed the English soldiers to invade Ireland but looking back at her family tree, her relations did. So you can understand why she isn't welcome to Ireland, after all her family is technically wanted for war crime against Ireland (not officially but by the IRA).

Do you feel the same way towards the scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and so forth? afterall, the vikings invaded both Ireland and other parts of Europe and the British isles - are the heads of state of Finland and co somewhat terrorists?

Do you ever hear of anyone calling the Italian President a terrorist because of the Roman Empire? no, you don't.

[Catzsy]

I am assuming that she has an invitation to visit - she would not do so otherwise and I am sure the majority of people will welcome her. I guess a nationalist has a right to an opinion too but lets wait and see what sort of welcome she gets. Has there been any really significient protests on the streets saying she shouldn't come?

[Richie]

The difference between the British army (of which slaughter has occured under) and the IRA is that the IRA purposely targets innocent people and is thus classed as terrorism. Now the British army also is not like the Nazi army due to the fact that bad events in its history have always been isolated incidents and not consistent bloodshed targeting innocents. The IRA on the other hand I can describe as nothing more than scum.



What do you IRA sympathisers not understand about the concept that the people living in Nothern Ireland do not wish to be a part of your nation? what is so hard to understand about that? and before you label them as 'colonialists' who haven't a right to be where they are - i'd like to see you say the same to all Americans, black and white - all south Americans, all Europeans.. oh wait! thats right! we all come from a different origin at some point (Africa).

Thus annulling this ridiculous argument.



Do you feel the same way towards the scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and so forth? afterall, the vikings invaded both Ireland and other parts of Europe and the British isles - are the heads of state of Finland and co somewhat terrorists?

Do you ever hear of anyone calling the Italian President a terrorist because of the Roman Empire? no, you don't.

That's different though, I wasn't brought up to see those countries as "evil" but with britain I was. When I was as young as 6 I would visit my family in Donegal (so I'd have to go through NI) why would I respect an army that treated people in the ROI like scum. I would sit on the bus and have British soldiers would aim loaded guns at my face because I'm really going to be holding a bomb in my bag pack. If you were brought up having the IRA aiming guns at you at that age would you have some hate against them (If they weren't "terrorists").


Personally I don't have a problem with the queen but for her own safety I suggest she stays away.

The scenario is basically dangling a rabbit (the queen) in front of a bunch of hungry dogs faces but not actually letting them eat the rabbit.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's different though, I wasn't brought up to see those countries as "evil" but with britain I was. When I was as young as 6 I would visit my family in Donegal (so I'd have to go through NI) why would I respect an army that treated people in the ROI like scum. I would sit on the bus and have British soldiers aim loaded guns at my face because I'm really going to be holding a bomb in my bag pack. If you were brought up having the IRA aiming guns at you at that age would you have some hate against them (If they weren't "terrorists").

The reason why the British army had to build walls and construct armed barriers was due to the fact that sovereign British territory was being attacked and open warfare was taking place between forces hostile to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom itself - what would you suggest we do otherwise? the IRA wanted war and they got war, again only serving to hurt the people themselves.

The IRA didn't tend to 'aim' guns at you because being the cowards they are, they resort to using innocent people in their campaign (see bombings by the IRA on the mainland and in Northern Ireland) just like the ANC and Mandela in South Africa - I don't have a problem with groups winning their freedoms via targeting a regime or government, but when you bring innocent people into it then no matter what the cause it is disgusting and foul.

And then there's the fact that unlike South Africa, the majority wish to be a part of the United Kingdom and not the Republic.

[Richie]

At the end of the day you could always use the childish phrase "they started it".

Undertaker I'm not saying what the IRA do is good but I agree with their political views. The British Army are no better for killing innocent family's decades ago. Anyway I don't really want the thread to drift into a political debate.

The queen doesn't need to visit Ireland, she's going to do more bad than good. If she got assassinated in Ireland next month, i can only imagine the tension between Britain & Ireland. Just as things start to die down, the IRA have stopped terrorist attacks. She should just leave Ireland alone for god sake.

[GommeInc]

What's in the past is in the past is my view :P If we all hated each other for past events Europe, America, Japan, Asia and Austrailasia would be a mess of hatred. We should both simply get over it in my views - the Irish mostly like us as do the English mostly like the Irish.

[Red]

the queen of England is somewhat a terrorist, it wasn't her that directed the English soldiers to invade Ireland but looking back at her family tree, her relations did.
I don't really understand how someone's ancestors makes you a terrorist yourself. You can't chose your family and its only by your own action's should you be branded a terrorist.


Just as things start to die down, the IRA have stopped terrorist attacks. She should just leave Ireland alone for god sake
I don't know where you have been but they have not stopped their terrorist attacks? The murder of Ronan Kerr, the soldiers at the Massareene Barracks etc. The Queen isn't the problem here, the rIRA are. The visit should help the peace process but they would do anything to stop our country move forward.

[Technologic]

The IRA bombed the uk numerous times so for i care they can bloody well piss off, they need to realise the 70s,80s and 90s are over and they're just giving the country a bad name now. If you don't like the queen visiting then don't go or write a letter or something....

[Chippiewill]

The queen doesn't need to visit Ireland, she's going to do more bad than good. If she got assassinated in Ireland next month, i can only imagine the tension between Britain & Ireland. Just as things start to die down, the IRA have stopped terrorist attacks. She should just leave Ireland alone for god sake.

Actually, she does, for political reasons if she doesn't then it'll increase tension and make a point that Ireland really is a sort of 'enemy' and that the IRAs attacks are 'working'.

[Richie]

The IRA bombed the uk numerous times so for i care they can bloody well piss off, they need to realise the 70s,80s and 90s are over and they're just giving the country a bad name now. If you don't like the queen visiting then don't go or write a letter or something....


I don't want her to go for the safety of our country and the queen.

[Eoin247]

Before i begin this i'm going to point out that i don't care where a person comes from, I believe how a person acts themselves is what defines them. Also I don't really care much about the reuinification of Ireland. To be honest unifying the island doesn't really bring much if any benefits to us. I'm writing this to correct incorrect "facts" and misconceptions.


Hmm I suppose the question is should we prosecute the Germans because their ancestors were Nazis? I'm not saying what the British did was right but I think it's twisted logic to brand someone a terrorist because of something their family did.

Despite that, I still think it's a bad idea. When times economically are tough, the last thing you want is some Royals rubbing their nose in at how rich they are. *coughs Royal wedding*

Difference with the royal wedding is that we'll benefit from the tourism etc. What benefits would Ireland get? :P

Well i suppose the difference here is that the nazis were punished for what they did. That's some peoples reasoning. However i agree with you that what your ancestors did shouldn't affect you.


The difference between the British army (of which slaughter has occured under) and the IRA is that the IRA purposely targets innocent people and is thus classed as terrorism. Now the British army also is not like the Nazi army due to the fact that bad events in its history have always been isolated incidents and not consistent bloodshed targeting innocents. The IRA on the other hand I can describe as nothing more than scum.



What do you IRA sympathisers not understand about the concept that the people living in Nothern Ireland do not wish to be a part of your nation? what is so hard to understand about that? and before you label them as 'colonialists' who haven't a right to be where they are - i'd like to see you say the same to all Americans, black and white - all south Americans, all Europeans.. oh wait! thats right! we all come from a different origin at some point (Africa).

Thus annulling this ridiculous argument.



Do you feel the same way towards the scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway and so forth? afterall, the vikings invaded both Ireland and other parts of Europe and the British isles - are the heads of state of Finland and co somewhat terrorists?

Do you ever hear of anyone calling the Italian President a terrorist because of the Roman Empire? no, you don't.

If that's your definition of terrorism then the British army has been proven to be guilty on that part quite a few times. In fact many armies have (Including the American army) and what you are saying is being extremely ignorant. The most recent example i can think of is in the middle east. To be more relevant though, I'll give an example that happened just before Ireland got independance. In 1920 a part of the British army went into croke park during a game and opened fire on the crowd. Fourteen civilians died and many more were injured.

When our ancestors originally arrived to Europe we weren't invading other peoples land, so firstly cross off that point. Secondly there is a huge amount of reasons why you wouldn't compare Ireland and America. I'd be here all night listing them so i'll just write the main flaw in that argument. You are trying to defend something your ancestors did with something else your ancestors did. Did you forget about those British colonies in America or something? Also i'm fed up of you calling everybody that discusses this with you an "IRA sympathiser". You've called me this two or three times since i joined the forum and i've done nothing but debate history with you when you've branded me so. Richie clearly said he doesn't agree with the violence done by the IRA, which means he's not an IRA sympathiser.

Again with the last point, comparing things that aren't comparable. Am i speaking Swedish? Is there another country on this island called southern norseland?


What's in the past is in the past is my view :P If we all hated each other for past events Europe, America, Japan, Asia and Austrailasia would be a mess of hatred. We should both simply get over it in my views - the Irish mostly like us as do the English mostly like the Irish.

I agree with you on that. However what most people outside of ireland seem to forget is that the main reason for the existence of the IRA as we know it, is due to what happened in more recent times in northern Ireland and because of its current state. It's not really due to the events before the twentieth century. As many of you might know, the troubles in northern Ireland only really began when the government there consistently reduced and reduced the rights of catholics. In the years after the split of the country you had barely any violence,. Which is actualy surprising. Most times in history when people are displaced on wrong side of borders, huge tensions and slaughters even occur.

[Firehorse]

At the end of the day you could always use the childish phrase "they started it".

Undertaker I'm not saying what the IRA do is good but I agree with their political views. The British Army are no better for killing innocent family's decades ago.

So every white person is racist because of the slave trade that ended 90 years ago? So the son of an alchoholic will become an alchohlic just because their parents were? So if my grandfather were a terrorist that automatically makes me one? So Australians are all thieves because their ancestors were shipped there from Britain for committing a crime?

Judging by your signature you're a fan of the IRA. As stated earlier in this thread many hold the opinion that the IRA are scum, I agree with them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Before i begin this i'm going to point out that i don't care where a person comes from, I believe how a person acts themselves is what defines them. Also I don't really care much about the reuinification of Ireland. To be honest unifying the island doesn't really bring much if any benefits to us. I'm writing this to correct incorrect "facts" and misconceptions.

Of course you care about the reunification, otherwise you would not be defending the foul organisation which is the IRA.

A point which is only proven when you yourself attempt to peddle a misconception further down.


Well i suppose the difference here is that the nazis were punished for what they did. That's some peoples reasoning. However i agree with you that what your ancestors did shouldn't affect you.


British generals who have acted wrongly have also been punished, sometimes not harshly - but you cannot label the British army as 'terrorists' based on just the actions of a few isolated incidents. I am opposed much to the American invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and soon-to-be-Libya - however the U.S. army is nothing compared to the Nazis or the IRA.


If that's your definition of terrorism then the British army has been proven to be guilty on that part quite a few times. In fact many armies have (Including the American army) and what you are saying is being extremely ignorant. The most recent example i can think of is in the middle east. To be more relevant though, I'll give an example that happened just before Ireland got independance. In 1920 a part of the British army went into croke park during a game and opened fire on the crowd. Fourteen civilians died and many more were injured.

Of which was a reaction to the shooting of British intelligence officers during the terrorism which was the Irish war of independence. I'm by no means defending what can only be described as a massacre but I find it very strange that you leave out the spark which started this off, namely Irish terrorism against British forces in Ireland.

The same applies for the General Dyer incident in the British Raj, a lone incident - compared to the IRA who systematically targeted civillians for decades upon decades and now are in government in Nothern Ireland when if i'm quite frank, the likes of Gerry Adams should at the very least be in prison.


When our ancestors originally arrived to Europe we weren't invading other peoples land, so firstly cross off that point. Secondly there is a huge amount of reasons why you wouldn't compare Ireland and America. I'd be here all night listing them so i'll just write the main flaw in that argument. You are trying to defend something your ancestors did with something else your ancestors did. Did you forget about those British colonies in America or something? Also i'm fed up of you calling everybody that discusses this with you an "IRA sympathiser". You've called me this two or three times since i joined the forum and i've done nothing but debate history with you when you've branded me so. Richie clearly said he doesn't agree with the violence done by the IRA, which means he's not an IRA sympathiser.

Totally ignored my points on the Vikings, the Romans and so forth. The Americas are the same because small Empires existed there in some areas before Spain and Portugal invaded (the Incan Empire for example) - which is exactly what happened with Britain and Ireland, later to ironically be repeated with Irish settlers colonising North America thus displacing the red Indians (which had themselves acted barbarically towards foreign forces) thus proving the fact that every group has made terrible mistakes at one point or another.

And i'm fed up of this IRA sympathising which you continue to preach on this forum. You and Richie continue to make threads on the subject of Ireland basically saying 'well the IRA aren't that bad because the British army did x, x and X' - if you continue to defend this hateful organisation which bears no resembelance to the British armed forces or the British monarchy then I will continue to call you an IRA sympathiser.

We've had ridiculous comparison already, with Queen Elizabeth II being compared to terrorists - enough of it.


Again with the last point, comparing things that aren't comparable. Am i speaking Swedish? Is there another country on this island called southern norseland?

Erm no, but the English language does have traces back to nordic languages and French - the only difference is that you don't notice this is because its such a long time ago. Now as for the division, you've just proved my points yet again. You firstly started off with 'I don't very much care about the reunification' and are now complaining about the division of Ireland whilst at the same time both you and Richie continue to harp on about isolated incidents in the British army while totally ignoring what the IRA did - targeting mainly innocents.

The people of Ulster are as British as anyone on the mainland, and northern Irish soil is as British as the soil i'm on now.

[Eoin247]

Of course you care about the reunification, otherwise you would not be defending the foul organisation which is the IRA.

A point which is only proven when you yourself attempt to peddle a misconception further down.



I did not once defend any action the IRA has done...

There is a difference between supporting a terrorist organisation and giving reasons why there are people in Ireland that dislike the British.


British generals who have acted wrongly have also been punished, sometimes not harshly - but you cannot label the British army as 'terrorists' based on just the actions of a few isolated incidents. I am opposed much to the American invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and soon-to-be-Libya - however the U.S. army is nothing compared to the Nazis or the IRA.


That's not quite what i meant. I was saying that the reason you don't have much ill feeling towards the Germans from people that suffered under them or fought against them in the past, is that most people feel that they were punished. Also there aren't really many big remnants to remind us of what the nazis did. Before you say "war museums" or something else, theres a huge difference between a still split country and a museum.


Of which was a reaction to the shooting of British intelligence officers during the terrorism which was the Irish war of independence. I'm by no means defending what can only be described as a massacre but I find it very strange that you leave out the spark which started this off, namely Irish terrorism against British forces in Ireland.

The same applies for the General Dyer incident in the British Raj, a lone incident - compared to the IRA who systematically targeted civillians for decades upon decades and now are in government in Nothern Ireland when if i'm quite frank, the likes of Gerry Adams should at the very least be in prison.


I thought you would mention this. Back then the IRA wasn't a terrorist organisation. It was made up of the people of Ireland fighting for independance. They attacked soldiers and not innocent civilians. Some British soldiers were assasinated by the "collins squad", and they retailiated by firing indiscriminatly into a crowd of innocent football supporters in a stadium. How on earth did you somehow twist this and say instead it was "Irish terrorism against British forces in Ireland."?



Totally ignored my points on the Vikings, the Romans and so forth. The Americas are the same because small Empires existed there in some areas before Spain and Portugal invaded (the Incan Empire for example) - which is exactly what happened with Britain and Ireland, later to ironically be repeated with Irish settlers colonising North America thus displacing the red Indians (which had themselves acted barbarically towards foreign forces) thus proving the fact that every group has made terrible mistakes at one point or another.

Amd i'm fed up of this IRA sympathising which you continue to preach on this forum. You and Richie continue to make threads on the subject of Ireland basically saying 'well the IRA aren't that bad because the British army did x, x and X' - if you continue to defend this hateful organisation which bears no resembelance to the British armed forces or the British monarchy then I will continue to call you an IRA sympathiser.

We've had ridiculous comparison already, with Queen Elizabeth II being compared to terrorists - enough.


I didn't ignore your point on the vikings etc. Read my entire post more carefully next time (go right to the end before quoting). I explained why they weren't comparable.

You mention the Irish went to America. You do realise what the number one reason for that was right? Again it comes right back to a certain country. They had no choice but to leave.

Wrongs cannot justify another wrong, which is what your trying to do with comparing other countries. Only reason the incas and aztecs aren't here to complain is because they were wiped out. In fact had your ancestors been completely successful with the plantations, you would probably have a country here full of nothing but love for everything British, also the IRA wouldn't exist.

I didn't say anything bad about your monarchy and i didn't your army a terrorist organisation. I just pointed out that what you originally said about the difference between them wasn't completely true. Theres a difference.

Again calling me an IRA sympathiser. Can you please tell me your definition of a sympathiser? I never once defended an action of theirs. I'm giving you reasons why there is still some ill feelings for some people in Ireland towards the English. The vast vast vast majority of the people in Ireland that dislike the British are not in the IRA. Give some evidence that i have directly defended the terrorist IRA.


norseland? Erm no, but the English language does have traces back to nordic languages and French - the only difference is that you don't notice this is because its such a long time ago. Now as for the division, you've just proved my points yet again. You firstly started off with 'I don't very much care about the reunification' and are now complaining about the division of Ireland whilst at the same time both you and Richie continue to harp on about isolated incidents in the British army while totally ignoring what the IRA did - targeting mainly innocents.

The people of Ulster are as British as anyone on the mainland, and northern Irish soil is as British as the soil i'm on now.

You missed what i was trying to say here i think. What i meant was that yes the vikings invaded, but they don't still own a part of either of our countries. Also we don't currently speak the same language as them. What i was saying was that unlike with the vikings, there are many things that remind people and bring up memories here.

Again, just because i'm giving reasons why there's dislike, it doesn't mean i dislike the British or support the IRA. I mean honestly, it's like answering a teachers question about the reasons for apartheid during history class and then having the teacher from then on calling you a racist.

"continue to harp on about isolated incidents in the British army while totally ignoring what the IRA did"

Yet again, I don't agree with what the IRA do. Harping on about the British army? I only mentioned it once, but i suppose if you really want i can go right back through history and prove that it's not just a once off sort of thing. I know that the IRA target mainly people that are innocent and thus i don't support them.

[Richie]

Just to add to the thread. You all make the IRA out to be the only ones disturbing peace, "the terrorists". The UVF was formed to eliminate the IRA (supposedly) but all the group did was kill innocent catholic civilians. So it's not like the IRA have attempted to kill people without being provoked, how I see it is the IRA must have been trying to, lets say "scare off" the UVF so they could attempt to make a united Ireland. Two wrongs don't make a right, if the people up north wanted peace they shouldn't of formed a terrorist group. They should of left the official army to end the chaos.


Now there are talks of the British army coming over to protect the queen, am I the only one who can see the real outcome? If the British army get involved without a doubt so will the IRA. Ireland is in a big economic crisis as it is and now they want to spend millions to protect the queen. It makes no ******* sense, stay away, let things die down at least another decade. The IRA agreed they'd stop the terrorist attacks in less than a decade, Jesus Christ war is going to break out. I don't want the queen to come to Ireland for her own safety and the safety of others. It's a little stubborn that the governments would put peoples lives on the line.

[Red]

Lmao. How exactly were we making out the IRA are the only ones disturbing peace? This thread is about the Queen's visit and IRA's reaction, so I don't even know why you've brought the UVF into it. Anyway both sides are guilty.


So it's not like the IRA have attempted to kill people without being provoked
So how exactly were they provoked for their latest murders of Stephen Carroll and Ronan Kerr then?
You'e just trying to justify the IRA's actions and they cannot be excused.


If the British army get involved without a doubt so will the IRA.
Even if they don't they are going to get involved.


The IRA agreed they'd stop the terrorist attacks in less than a decade
and you believe them? 8-)

[Richie]

So how exactly were they provoked for their latest murders of Stephen Carroll and Ronan Kerr then?
You'e just trying to justify the IRA's actions and they cannot be excused.

They were both high ranked police officers, what's to say the IRA don't have a grudge against them? We don't see what goes on behind the doors, do we? We just listen to the media and assume the IRA killed them and they were great men. What if they weren't? what if they brought it on themselves? You are basing your view on what the media tells you. Try look behind the picture, perhaps something did go on. We will never no.







and you believe them? 8-)

I believe in there political views, yes. Not their terrorist attacks.

[Red]

So provoking is now because they have a grudge. You can't go around murdering people because you have a grudge :S

By believe them, I mean the comment that they will end terrorist attacks within a decade. You can't seriously believe that?

[Richie]

So provoking is now because they have a grudge. You can't go around murdering people because you have a grudge :S

By believe them, I mean the comment that they will end terrorist attacks with decade. You can't seriously believe that?

Fair enough but it's the IRA, if you don't want to die, don't mess with them.

Yeah I do, if there is nothing for the IRA to do, the group will just die out. I can't see the IRA sitting around a tea table in 10 years plotting attacks against the British if they haven't been provoked. They'll have nothing to do and will move on with their lives. Most of them are fairly old anyway, so the chances of them dying in the next 10 years would be pretty high.

[Red]

I doubt anyway that these people 'messed' with them. They were innocent people whose only 'crime' was being a police officer and no I disagree. They want a united Ireland. They aren't just going to give up come a decade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I did not once defend any action the IRA has done...

There is a difference between supporting a terrorist organisation and giving reasons why there are people in Ireland that dislike the British.

It's been rather different to that, comparisons made between Queen Elizabeth II and terrorist groups whilst at the same time both of you showed a reluctance to label the IRA as they are, terrorists.


That's not quite what i meant. I was saying that the reason you don't have much ill feeling towards the Germans from people that suffered under them or fought against them in the past, is that most people feel that they were punished. Also there aren't really many big remnants to remind us of what the nazis did. Before you say "war museums" or something else, theres a huge difference between a still split country and a museum.

If you believe in a United Ireland why don't you just come out and say it? you've said you didn't, yet now you are still harping on about a 'split country' - there is no split. There is a split island yes, just as Indonesia and Papua New Guniea share the same islands but are different countries, the same applies to mainland Europe/Africa/South America/North American and so forth.

The people of Ulster are British and do not belong or wish to be a part of the neighbouring country, Ireland.


I thought you would mention this. Back then the IRA wasn't a terrorist organisation. It was made up of the people of Ireland fighting for independance. They attacked soldiers and not innocent civilians. Some British soldiers were assasinated by the "collins squad", and they retailiated by firing indiscriminatly into a crowd of innocent football supporters in a stadium. How on earth did you somehow twist this and say instead it was "Irish terrorism against British forces in Ireland."?

By the fact that the British army fought against guerilla squads as opposed to an army. I don't believe anyone here has ever or would ever say that the British army has got everything wrong and as I stated earlier, isolated incidents have occured (such as the Dyer incident in the British Raj) which were terrible and can only be described as massacres.

So why do you and Richie feel the need to constantly pretend that this is what we are saying, when we are clearly not. What many object to is the slaughtering of innocents by a terrorist group known as the IRA for a cause which does not have majority support in Ulster.


I didn't ignore your point on the vikings etc. Read my entire post more carefully next time (go right to the end before quoting). I explained why they weren't comparable.

You mention the Irish went to America. You do realise what the number one reason for that was right? Again it comes right back to a certain country. They had no choice but to leave.

Yes you did, you still seem to hold the idea in your head (despite denying you want a United Ireland) that the island is somehow divided and that the people living in the north are colonialists. Where is the line drawn Eoin? as I said earlier, you can apply it to the Viking settlements across Europe, the Spanish and Portugese settlement of South America or the Ottoman advancement and destruction of the Byzantine Empire which saw Islam sweep where the Roman Empire had once stood.

Are the people of North America, South America and Turkey all colonialists? we all if you go back far enough.


Wrongs cannot justify another wrong, which is what your trying to do with comparing other countries. Only reason the incas and aztecs aren't here to complain is because they were wiped out. In fact had your ancestors been completely successful with the plantations, you would probably have a country here full of nothing but love for everything British, also the IRA wouldn't exist.

I'm not justifying any wrongs, infact i've pointed more out with the incident of Dyer in the Raj for example - what you make of the colonisation of South America, North America, Ireland and so forth is another topic. The issue is, it happened. Those people are gone and their ancestors, whom were born there, now live there - it is their home.


I didn't say anything bad about your monarchy and i didn't your army a terrorist organisation. I just pointed out that what you originally said about the difference between them wasn't completely true. Theres a difference.

Richie did, and i'm replying to you both. But on the case of British rule over Ireland, in a way we had no choice - we were ourselves a small second rate nation at the time and Ireland, being a largely backward isle (more so backward than England compared to other European powers) was a very attractive landing post for French or Spanish troops against protestant England (often taking part in campaigns against England and later Great Britain).

In the end, Ireland didn't like England and showed it and the same the other way around - as a result the more advanced and stronger of the two won the day and claimed the spoils of war, as with any war in history.


Again calling me an IRA sympathiser. Can you please tell me your definition of a sympathiser? I never once defended an action of theirs. I'm giving you reasons why there is still some ill feelings for some people in Ireland towards the English. The vast vast vast majority of the people in Ireland that dislike the British are not in the IRA. Give some evidence that i have directly defended the terrorist IRA.

You sympathise with them by attacking anyone who rightly attacks the IRA by attacking the British army, of which nobody here has said is as white as a bedsheet. Now as for the ill feelings, you brought it upon yourselves (see response above) but being the weaker of the two nations working with strong continental powers, you rightly lost against England on many occassions.


You missed what i was trying to say here i think. What i meant was that yes the vikings invaded, but they don't still own a part of either of our countries. Also we don't currently speak the same language as them. What i was saying was that unlike with the vikings, there are many things that remind people and bring up memories here.

Should the bulk of Netherlands, Sweden and Norway be evacuated then? should where modern Turkey is, be returned to the Greeks/Italians as the Ottoman Empire crushed the Byzantine Empire? no, its a ridiculous argument and doesn't withstand a moments rational thought.

Now as for reminding people of the past, and so what? nobody alive in Ireland can recall a sovereign Irish state that emcompassed the entire island of Ireland because it hasn't existed for hundreds of years. And even if this were the case, which it is not, why should the wishes of the people in Ulster be ignored just so you can have a United Ireland, a reality you have haven't had for hundreds of years anyway?

Should the wishes of the British people be ignored so that all Viking lands can be reunited with Scandanavia? no.


Again, just because i'm giving reasons why there's dislike, it doesn't mean i dislike the British or support the IRA. I mean honestly, it's like answering a teachers question about the reasons for apartheid during history class and then having the teacher from then on calling you a racist.

"continue to harp on about isolated incidents in the British army while totally ignoring what the IRA did"

Yet again, I don't agree with what the IRA do. Harping on about the British army? I only mentioned it once, but i suppose if you really want i can go right back through history and prove that it's not just a once off sort of thing. I know that the IRA target mainly people that are innocent and thus i don't support them.

So why are you arguing that the British army is whiter than white when nobody has said its not? again, because you are determined to defend the IRA whilst Richie can't resist placing them in his signature and I recall (and he can correct me if i'm wrong) him posting a pro-IRA video not that long ago sometime last year.


Just to add to the thread. You all make the IRA out to be the only ones disturbing peace, "the terrorists". The UVF was formed to eliminate the IRA (supposedly) but all the group did was kill innocent catholic civilians. So it's not like the IRA have attempted to kill people without being provoked, how I see it is the IRA must have been trying to, lets say "scare off" the UVF so they could attempt to make a united Ireland. Two wrongs don't make a right, if the people up north wanted peace they shouldn't of formed a terrorist group. They should of left the official army to end the chaos.

Nobody has defended the Unionist terrorist groups in this thread.

Now as for the British army, I thought you would then view that as terrorism?


I believe in there political views, yes. Not their terrorist attacks.

What do you not understand about the concept of democracy? the people on Ulster want to be a part of the United Kingdom, not the Republic of Ireland. And as for the peace being disrupted, quite frankly although I certainly don't wish war - the Anglo-Irish agreement is a disgrace and should be abolished, as should the 'peace agreement' (which I can only describe as a surrender to foul terrorists) which gives the IRA through its mouthpiece, Sinn Fein - a permanent say in the government of Northern Ireland.

The British policy should be very clear on this; no surrender to the IRA.

[Eoin247]

We are forgetting that the police officer was catholic. Which is very significant as the IRA back in the troubles was supposed to protect catholics.

It shows that this IRA has evolved to just want to disturb peace. In fact it was announced that some newly formed split off group of the IRA has claimed responsibility.

The killing of officers (and threatened future killings) in NI has united pretty much all of ireland against this group. Something you wouldn't have seen back during the trouble days.



Edit: Just saw undertakers post after i posted this, i'll continue this tommorow

[-:Undertaker:-]

Another note on this also, you are both disorting this - the comparison was made between Queen Elizabeth II/HM armed forces and the IRA which was then quickly disproven and rightly shot down by many posters on this forum, you then came and brought in the likes of the UVF as the IRA rightly came under attack in the fact that the IRA are terrorists, Queen Elizabeth II and the British armed forces are not.

Nobody was for a moment defending the likes of the UVF or saying that the British army has been whiter than white.

[Richie]

Another note on this also, you are both disorting this - the comparison was made between Queen Elizabeth II and the IRA which was then quickly disproven and rightly shot down by many posters on this forum, you then came and brought in the British army and the UVF as the IRA rightly came under attack ni the fact that the IRA are terrorists, Queen Elizabeth II is not.

Nobody was for a moment defending the likes of the UVF or saying that the British army has been whiter than white.

The only reason why the topic has drifted away from the main point of the thread was because others wouldn't accept my opinion, I agree with the IRAs politics, not their terrorist attacks. People are trying to point out the obvious, yes the IRA are terrorists. I'm actually quite scared for the queen to come over, there is going to be riots again and possibly killings.

[Spuds]

By all means Richie, assassinate the Queen, do us all a favour.

[You]

By all means Richie, assassinate the Queen, do us all a favour.
Agreed!

[Eoin247]

It's been rather different to that, comparisons made between Queen Elizabeth II and terrorist groups whilst at the same time both of you showed a reluctance to label the IRA as they are, terrorists.



Firstly you're using stuff i didn't say against me. What kind of game are you playing here? I never made that comparison.

For the part in bold. I'm very glad you said that because you proved to me that you are not reading me and richies posts properly. It's fairly ironic actualy because me and Richie have EACH labeled them terrorists far more times than you have.

Up to this post of yours you have labeled the IRA terrorists twice, whilst me and Richie have done it at least 8 times! Don't believe me? here are some quotes...


richie
Firstly, I'd like to make clear, yes the IRA are classed as a terrorist group, which is true.
have some hate against them (If they weren't "terrorists").
Just as things start to die down, the IRA have stopped terrorist attacks
the IRA out to be the only ones disturbing peace, "the terrorists".
I believe in there political views, yes. Not their terrorist attacks.

Eoin247

There is a difference between supporting a terrorist organisation and giving reasons why there are people in Ireland that dislike the British.
Back then the IRA wasn't a terrorist organisation.
Give some evidence that i have directly defended the terrorist IRA.


Instead of just glancing at our posts and calling us IRA sympathisers, maybe read our posts properly. In fact going by your reasoning i have every right to call you an IRA sympathiser since "you showed a reluctance to label the IRA as they are, terrorists." by not calling them terrorists frequently enough.



If you believe in a United Ireland why don't you just come out and say it? you've said you didn't, yet now you are still harping on about a 'split country' - there is no split. There is a split island yes, just as Indonesia and Papua New Guniea share the same islands but are different countries, the same applies to mainland Europe/Africa/South America/North American and so forth.
The people of Ulster are British and do not belong or wish to be a part of the neighbouring country, Ireland.



Again not reading my post properly and missing out on my point. People were saying "if you don't dislike the Germans because of the past then why do the IRA dislike the English?", theres no separate country that used to be part of England now owned by Germany. I'm pointing out why it's a different situation. STOP twisting my words.

In fact i'll give you an example. You know what the main reason is a lot of spaniards dislike the British? It's because of Gibraltar. It's such a tiny tiny piece of land, yet there is a lot of sensitivity amongst the Spanish about it. Trust me i know, i have a lot of family in Spain. I'm pointing out to the people who don't seem to know the difference between situations, that when there are remnants it is a lot harder to just bury things than when there are no remnants.


By the fact that the British army fought against guerilla squads as opposed to an army. I don't believe anyone here has ever or would ever say that the British army has got everything wrong and as I stated earlier, isolated incidents have occured (such as the Dyer incident in the British Raj) which were terrible and can only be described as massacres.
So why do you and Richie feel the need to constantly pretend that this is what we are saying, when we are clearly not. What many object to is the slaughtering of innocents by a terrorist group known as the IRA for a cause which does not have majority support in Ulster.


Oh the irony. I'm clearly not supporting the IRA, as i proved above. So why do you " feel the need to constantly pretend that this is what we are saying, when we are clearly not."


Yes you did, you still seem to hold the idea in your head (despite denying you want a United Ireland) that the island is somehow divided and that the people living in the north are colonialists. Where is the line drawn Eoin? as I said earlier, you can apply it to the Viking settlements across Europe, the Spanish and Portugese settlement of South America or the Ottoman advancement and destruction of the Byzantine Empire which saw Islam sweep where the Roman Empire had once stood.
Are the people of North America, South America and Turkey all colonialists? we all if you go back far enough.


I didn't and to prove it i'll quote what i said:


Again with the last point, comparing things that aren't comparable. Am i speaking Swedish? Is there another country on this island called southern norseland?


The vikings, normans etc eventually integrated into our society and in the end had no links to their countries of origins. That's not what happened with regards to this.



I'm not justifying any wrongs, infact i've pointed more out with the incident of Dyer in the Raj for example - what you make of the colonisation of South America, North America, Ireland and so forth is another topic. The issue is, it happened. Those people are gone and their ancestors, whom were born there, now live there - it is their home.
Richie did, and i'm replying to you both. But on the case of British rule over Ireland, in a way we had no choice - we were ourselves a small second rate nation at the time and Ireland, being a largely backward isle (more so backward than England compared to other European powers) was a very attractive landing post for French or Spanish troops against protestant England (often taking part in campaigns against England and later Great Britain).
In the end, Ireland didn't like England and showed it and the same the other way around - as a result the more advanced and stronger of the two won the day and claimed the spoils of war, as with any war in history.


That's not what i was talking about when i said justifying wrongs. By comparing other peoples and countries that were wiped out/oppressed how you were attempting to justify wrongs with wrongs.

If Richie said it then please don't use it in reply to my posts. If i used opinions/statements that other British people on the forums have said against you then i could easily label you a large variety of things. With the original invasion though, that isn't what i was talking about. But with regards to that, the main reason people wanted the English out was due to how they were treated. If you had Irish people treated the same as English people were back then, then i would probably be British myself today and wouldn't be having this debate with you.


You sympathise with them by attacking anyone who rightly attacks the IRA by attacking the British army, of which nobody here has said is as white as a bedsheet. Now as for the ill feelings, you brought it upon yourselves (see response above) but being the weaker of the two nations working with strong continental powers, you rightly lost against England on many occassions

The only reason i even mentioned the British army is due to what you originally suggested in the first post i replied to of yours. Secondly i keep telling you that any ill feelings are due to recent history and current situations. Also see above for another reason.



Should the bulk of Netherlands, Sweden and Norway be evacuated then? should where modern Turkey is, be returned to the Greeks/Italians as the Ottoman Empire crushed the Byzantine Empire? no, its a ridiculous argument and doesn't withstand a moments rational thought.
Now as for reminding people of the past, and so what? nobody alive in Ireland can recall a sovereign Irish state that emcompassed the entire island of Ireland because it hasn't existed for hundreds of years. And even if this were the case, which it is not, why should the wishes of the people in Ulster be ignored just so you can have a United Ireland, a reality you have haven't had for hundreds of years anyway?
Should the wishes of the British people be ignored so that all Viking lands can be reunited with Scandanavia? no.


I touched on this above i think, but i'll say it again. The situations are obviously not the same. I'll give the example of the vikings. Over time they integrated into the societies, you don't know who amongst you is decended from vikings? There aren't any connections to scandinavia now. You are all just English. That hasn't happened in this case though.
You must remember that for a lot of people it isn't just that reason from history. You know yourself what the cause of the troubles in Northern Ireland was.


So why are you arguing that the British army is whiter than white when nobody has said its not? again, because you are determined to defend the IRA whilst Richie can't resist placing them in his signature and I recall (and he can correct me if i'm wrong) him posting a pro-IRA video not that long ago sometime last year.

Well the first part about the army can be answered with what i said earlier.

The second point is really beggining to annoy me. If you continue to use what Richie says against me then i'm going to take a leaf out of your book and use what some other Englishman on the forum says, against you. Considering i'll have a lot more choice it's probably not in your best interest ;)




Another note on this also, you are both disorting this - the comparison was made between Queen Elizabeth II/HM armed forces and the IRA which was then quickly disproven and rightly shot down by many posters on this forum, you then came and brought in the likes of the UVF as the IRA rightly came under attack in the fact that the IRA are terrorists, Queen Elizabeth II and the British armed forces are not.

Nobody was for a moment defending the likes of the UVF or saying that the British army has been whiter than white.

What the hell are you on about? Not one person quoted me apart from you. So there goes that argument about everybody shouting down what i'm saying. In case you didn't realise me and Richie are not the same person. Being from the same country doesn't make us one person so don't reply to me in that way. If you wish to continue this way though i'll gladly us this thinking myself against you from now on.

You are the one distorting this. Even though i've constantly proven (especially earlier in this post) that i don't support the IRA, you constantly say i do. Do you think so little of your argument that you feel the need to label me a terrorist and try to get people to disregard what i say in that way? You have said it in nearly every point you've made.

[AgnesIO]

Richie, are you saying if my great grand dad happened to be a murderer, my granddad, dad, me and future generations should therefore be hated?

[Red]

Firstly you're using stuff i didn't say against me. What kind of game are you playing here? I never made that comparison.

You never but Richie did.

the queen of England is somewhat a terrorist

You might label them a terrorist but when you are saying you agree with their political views and then condone their actions, then you are going to come up against accusations of being an IRA sympathiser.

[Technologic]

im just gonna go ahead and say the british army stopped all the crap in the 90s, its the IRA that continued on but hey, defend them all you like, not like anybody's gonna think you're a nut

[Eoin247]

You never but Richie did.


You might label them a terrorist but when you are saying you agree with their political views and then condone their actions, then you are going to come up against accusations of being an IRA sympathiser.


im just gonna go ahead and say the british army stopped all the crap in the 90s, its the IRA that continued on but hey, defend them all you like, not like anybody's gonna think you're a nut

If either of you are talking to me, then actualy read my post on this page.

Now kirst i'm going to go and defend Richie here. He never said he condones their actions. On his opening post he said:


I do agree with their views but not their violence

Just because Richie agrees with their views it doesn't mean he condones their actions.

[Red]

Didn't out right say it but when you go and posts things like claiming their attacks are provoked or that its ok for them to kill because they have a grudge against their victims then I beg to differ.

[Eoin247]

Didn't out right say it but when you go and posts things like claiming their attacks are provoked or that its ok for them to kill because they have a grudge against their victims then I beg to differ.

Please point out where i said anything even remotely close to this.

[AgnesIO]

By all means Richie, assassinate the Queen, do us all a favour.

What a bizarre comment

[alexxxxx]

I haven't read much of this thread, but I honestly don't understand why there is so much hatred for this. It's disgusting. Sure the British Army have made mistakes - it doesn't mean that bombing Manchester or London is any act of self-defense or that it can be excused. And calling the Queen a terrorist, give me a break.

[Niall!]

Nothing will happen, stop worrying about it.