The Queen & Visiting Ireland

[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?

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 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?