Northern Ireland Conflict

The division of Ireland occured in 1921, when after 3 years of fighting between the British and the repulicans Michael Collins the lesder of the then IRA agreed to hace 26 counties for Ireland and 6 counties for the Loyalists. This worked fairly well until in the late 60s the protestants created much trouble t=for the catholics.The RUC (police force) were uanble or didn't want to control them so the British army was called in to protect the Catholics. As the IRA had a ceasefire, A splinter group the Provional IRA turned the British into the Deamons (in the eyes of the Catholics) turning them on them. Prior to 1921 many incidents on both sides caused death and heartache to both Catholics and Protestants. Very similar to Israel and Palastine, many peole have forgotten the true start and reasons.

William of Orange who defeated the Irish and conquered Ireland (on behalf of the British crown).
A rough history of the Irish troubles.

 

But a good one. The incident that many people apparently consider to have sparked the current troubles was when some British paras fired into a crowd of Catholic demonstrators in the late 1960s, killing several. The paras still insist that someone fired at them first.

 

that was bloody sunday and i think it happened in 1972.

 

A good reason why it's not a good idea to smear an entire country for the actions or beliefs of a few. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Americans view the IRA as terrorists and abhor the bombings, murders and other terrorists acts committed by these criminals; but what do people like GP remember? The few Americans (almost entirely Boston or New York Irish/Americans) who were misguided enough to donate money to terrorists groups in Ireland. It is extremely diffficult in a society as free as ours to monitor such activities. The FBI has only recently discovered Arab/American groups sending donated funds to Islamic terrorist groups also. I assure that the same kind of thing is occurring in every country in Europe. There were British citizens(and at least one American) fighting for the Taliban and are surely in Iraq today. There will always be some people like that in an ethnically, culturally and racially diverse nation.

 

It seems strange that since sept 11 2001 the IRA have moved more towards peace, since the the American government changed it's ideas on Irish terrorism. I know it happens all over but in Britain I know of some of the reason why it is allowed to happen, I also know of some of the American governments involvement in Ireland too. I know not all Irish Americans are terrorists or supporters of, however, most Irish Americans do not even know about most of the atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Nationalism. Yes being on the recieveing end of American and Australian money does taint ones mind. Seeing NORAID fund raisers on the television saying how much they support the IRA and if their money releases fund for other activities then they are happy. Does annoy me, again I don't hold it against every Irish American, but I will jump down his/her throat to put my point accross.

As for monitoring groups it is very easy, we have done it for years, your government just doesn't want to, and our country is as free as yours.

 

I don't. Why don't you share that information with us?

That's interesting because I have never seen a Noraid commercial on television in the states (nor have I heard of the organization). No doubt you think that the US is a hotbed of support for the IRA with citizens rallying to their cause. On the contrary I would be willing to guarantee you that not one American in a hundred would ever even have heard of Noraid much less support their activities.

If it's so easy then is that why the IRA was never able to sucessfully plant bombs in London..but wait..er...they have done that many times..must not be too easy.
As far as Britain being as free as the US that is open to debate. Many restrictions on civil liberties that are accepted as a matter of course in Britain would not be so easy to implement here..e.g. outright bans on private gun ownership (I realize there are exceptions and the ban is not a blanket one, yet it is far more restrictive than our Constitution would permit)

 

A very futile debate, however, as freedom in Europe and freedom in the US are two entirely different concepts. A good example is the restriction on private gun ownership, which by you and many Americans is viewed as a restriction on civil liberties ( i.e. a restriction on your freedom ) while I and many Europeans with me would see an American gun policy as a restriction on our freedom.

This may come as a surprise to you, but most Europeans would find the suggestion that the US have more freedom than Europe rather ludicrous, just as you might find the thought that Europe has more freedom than the US equally ludicrous. Different sets of values, different concepts of freedom.

 

Very interesting however it only serves to illustrate my point rather than refute it; which was that this issue is "open to debate". GP is the one that made the blanket statement which substituted opinion for fact when he stated that Britain is as free as the US. Perhaps you should direct your comments to him.
You must be willing to engage in some convoluted logic to claim that the lack of restriction on your liberty by the state is in itself a restriction on your liberty. To take the reverse side of that argument; the more restrictions the state places on the individual the more liberty the individual enjoys?
BTW nothing about the "Euro" opinions I read on these forums come "as a surprise " to me. I'm occasionally surprised when someone deviates from the "party line" however

 

there still part of Britain cheeky_monkey. :lol:

 

The "party line", like Skua said, is simply a set of values shared by many Europeans. We could consider your opinions the "party line" of the New World, since we've definitely seen more Americans say similar things!
Over time I certainly learned not to debate gun ownership with Americans anymore.

I think both you and GP are a little out of line here, the latter by claiming to know that many of the inhabitants of another continent support terrorism (if you were to show us proof, GP...) and the former by claiming to know what the other person thinks.

 

Now I'm confused. Where did I claim to know what anybody is thinking?

 

There was no real cause for this assumption other than GP's obvious claim that he knew of some people in the US supporting the IRA unknowingly.

 

Edited by Moderator

no I can't

As an example the IRA fired three mortars at heathrow airport, 2 didn't detonate, after 30 years of bomb making, you would have thought they could build three bombs that go off..... Maybe they did mabybe someone tampered with them.

Maybe the military allow some acts to get people high up in the IRA so they can stop bigger acts of terrorism, as we have seen in Israel and by the north of Iraq mass retaliations don't stop them, maybe controlling them is a better idea. Then you can find out about their organisation and save more people. However, it would mean killing less people....... on both sides.

AS for freedom if guns are the only freedom you have that I don't have then keep it, if I want ot do that I can going some where else.

As you may not be aware different countries have different freedoms.

By the way I don't hate Americans. Please come up with some thing decent, The Irish concentration of America is as you say in the north east, and they are not all bad. It is however, the rich people who pay to the government to have favours for their brothers in the opressed land of Ireland, that raise or raised millions of dollars with the blessing or knowledge of the government.

 

I didn't say that most of the inhabitants of a continant support terrorism, I said.

'most Irish Americans do not even know about most of the atrocities carried out in the name of Irish Nationalism.'

I agree most Americans would be ashamed if they knew about their countries involvement in terrorism.

I will stop on this topic now and apolgise to the board for my outbursts.

 

Roel wrote:

GP wrote:

GP's own words are where my comment came from not from any claim to be able to read his mind.

 

Clarification to my post.

For nation read government.

 

GP wrote:

.

You claim to have some special knowledge that you cannot share?
A secret? If you cannot share it then to claim you know it to be true is would require a reader to accept your word for this "fact" without any evidence to support it.

.

Pure ad hominem. Don't address the substance instead attack and insult the poster. Surely this is a violation of the forum guidelines.

More ad hominen. Incredible. Apparently you are entirely ignorant of the Electoral College system in the US. The outcome of that election (I asssume you don't mean the last election but are referring to 2000) i.e. the way that it was decided was completely consistent with the US Constitution.

Where did I claim you hated Americans? Your own words are evidence of your anti-American attitudes, I don't need to add my opinion.

 

May I be given license to insult and abuse other posters so long as I apologize in the next post?

 

Closed until further notice.

 

Thanks Skua.
I'll re-open the topic in a day or so, without any editing. If anybody has a problem with what I have written, PM me.

Ok, point number one - remember the Forum Motto:
Be Polite

This means:
Grieg
Do not start off an argument with a personal attack.

This is not really acceptable in any debate, but especially not at the start. By all means refer to somebody's argument or opinion, but do not attempt to 'label' them or discredit them.

GP
Do not flare up. If something annoys you, go away, calm down. Then answer it later, in a more appropriate manner. If something really offends you, PM the Admin team or the appropriate Moderator.

Everybody
No, there is no licence to deliberately insult people then apologise later. However, if you get angry & flare, then publically apologise & retract/amend statements, that is at least a step in the right direction.
It is always good to admit when you are wrong, and to acknowledge when somebody else has admitted this.

If you are stating something based on fact, give sources.
If you are stating something based on heresay, say so.
If you are stating something based on opinion, say so

Above all else
Not quite related, but still very important.
Please be aware that simply communicating by the written word is very tricky, and you can easily be misunderstood. Just something as simple as the tone of your posts can be misleading. What you see as clear, concise argument can seem argumentative & hectoring. What you see as incredibly witty can seem deliberately rude & offensive. Take care when writing, and consider the usefulness of the 'smilies'.

Language is also a problem in a forum where the majority of people who read your words come from different countries, with different customs, idioms and languages. What might seem appropriate for an Englishman might seem offensive for an American (for example). We did have a case a while ago when one member (first language not English) caused offense by using a grammatically correct English phrase, the meaning of which had subtley changed in regular use by English-speakers.

Take care when writing, and take care when reading. If in doubt, take it as a cultural typo, unless they persist in being rude. In that case, PM the Admin team or the appropriate Moderator.