The Queen & Visiting Ireland

[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?

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!