peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Good, I hoped you didn’t mean what you actually said.....
Current Affairs Irish Border and Brexit
- Thread starter Charlie Sweet
- Start date
- Status
Good, I hoped you didn’t mean what you actually said.....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
This is true. But armies tend not to set off localised ied’s in towns or cities. They tend to face each other and act according to law. Terrorists on the other hand do exactly what the IRA did, terrorise and blow people up. It also happened in Israel and they too were terrorists.
“
terrorist
/ˈtɛrərɪst/
noun
- 1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
synonyms:bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More
- 1.
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
Carl O'Ancelotti
Player Valuation: £20m
I did mean what I said. However I didn't mention anything about military capabilities now in comparison to 1969 as you have misinterpreted. My point was that the strategy of "rounding up the perpetrators" as you put it, didn't work then and similarly wouldn't work now. But no doubt you knew that anyway.
Like I said:
One mans terrorist is another mans army or freedom fighter.
One mans army is another mans terrorist.
I think you could apply everything you have written to both here.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Apart from the legal dimension.......
I don’t understand mate what legal dimension?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Well the British Army is authorised legally by the state to enact its instructions. People at the top of Government or within the apparatus can be charged for any illegal actions. The IRA was not authorised in any legal fashion or by any state to enact what it did. If it had been authorised, by say the ROI, then Britain would legally have been able to wipe out Dublin. So it was not a war, as no war was declared, and they were terrorists because they belonged to no state and therefore operated outside of the law......
Not sure you get the republican mindset mate. From the Republican perspective they are the army of the 32 county republic that state was founded by the 1916 declaration. Under republican philosphey British occupation of Ireland is an unlawful invasion and they are/were at war. They claim the same legitimacy as you are arguing for the British army.
Like I say from a British perspective you an army and the IRA terrosists.
From a Republican perspective the IRA are the army and the British terrosists.
You are applying British law to a situation or organization that doesn’t feel it has the right, legitimacy or jurisdiction to do so due to unlawful occupation.
Last edited:
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
No, I’m applying international law to the situation. There are only two lawful states in Ireland, neither of them have the IRA as a lawful army. It’s a bit like ISIS, they may declare whatever they like, and even believe whatever they like, but they represent no recognised lawful state. If they did, we could bomb the crap out of it, lawfully......
Would international law support Ireland invading Liverpool and taking over half on Lancshire, of course not, Republicans claim the same thing for the six counties of Ulster by the British.
The IRA have a had many names and quite a detailed history it’s centuries old. They were infact the army of the Republic, in fact from their point view and of many nationalists they are.
Sinn Féin the political wing of the nationalist cause are recognized and represented, they sit in Stormont, The Dail and are elected to the British Dail, but don’t take their seats as they don’t recognize British legitimacy in Irish affairs.
Essentially the British army did come in and occupy Northern Ireland, if it looks like a war, smells like a war, kills like a war.., it’s probaly a peace keeping mission.
So essentially what you have here, is two sides who don’t recognize the legitimacy of each other and both think they are right, essentially what you feel for this situation the other side feels exactly the same the British are guilty off, both beleive in their own legitimacy.
I’m not advocating a particular side as i abhor violence to the extent witnessed in the 6 counties and genuinely would hate to see a return to the war. I do have a strong interest in Irish language, Gaelic culture and in particular a huge involvement in GAA. In all that I have studied in much detail the aspects and development of Irish history and politics, so really I’m just sharing as I’m sure the opportunity isn’t as accessible in the UK.
Last edited:
Taifi gorm
Player Valuation: £35m
So essentially the modus operandi of the British empire and/or state and most other countries.
Remember that the 'idolised' pacifist ghandi was labelled a terrorist
So all resistance independence movements ever have been illegal then.
What's next for the brexiteers bus driving the squatters out of the White House.
Are you really that disingenuous to believe that armed resistance/revolution/terrorism/conflict by oppressed people appears from a vacuum or is it just a case of contempt for the non-wasp, non-british savages not knowing their place (if so the kopities and sky are always looking for someone to help perpetuate their cultish notions of superiority ad nauseam).
To quote Mandela "A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.At a point, one can only fight fire with fire", now whether you view him as an illegal terrorist without an elected mandate or as a freedom fighter his point is one that rings true of all political strife. Cameron never sent in the para's (soap) Hulton esk against the SNP mandate, Churchill responded with internment, the army, the black and tans to sinn feins mandate (apologies to our Africa, Indian, Asian brethren for excluding them) which decision resulted in escalating gyres of Newtonian violence and terrorism
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
...
Well said. And Mandela was right of course. However when you realise that the IRA was responsible for 49% of all deaths during the troubles and the British Army responsible for 9%, and also that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group, I would not say that they were fighting fire with fire, they were creating the fire......
Well said. And Mandela was right of course. However when you realise that the IRA was responsible for 49% of all deaths during the troubles and the British Army responsible for 9%, and also that the IRA killed more catholics than any other group, I would not say that they were fighting fire with fire, they were creating the fire......
Carl O'Ancelotti
Player Valuation: £20m
Which by those figures means that 42% of deaths were the responsibilty of loyalist paramilitaries. Strange that you didn't mention that.
In fact, going by those figures the responsibilty for all deaths was pretty much a 50-50 split down both sides of the conflict. So please don't portray it being as one-sided as it is usually portrayed in the British media.
As is often said, the first casualty of war is truth. And because of that you did not get the full picture of what actually happened here during the Troubles on your side of the Irish Sea, particularly the part played by the forces of the State.
This is another popular misconception about the IRA mate. The IRA are not sectarian if anything they are very left socialist. Many of the IRA founding members and most prominent members were Protestant. The IRA actively canvassed the Protestant areas of NI for members.
The IRA are political, they are not sectarian, of course much of the discrimination by Unionist and British forces fell on the Catholic community so there is a natural alliance there and it produced breeding grounds in terms of nationalism.
But by nature the IRA would and have welcomed any nationalist regardless of religion.
Taifi gorm
Player Valuation: £35m
They didn't start the fire, that's unionist unicorn nonsense, but they certainly stoked the fire as was their right like it or not as combatants to destabilise the unionist statelet. The 51/49% split in casualties is for me not nuanced enough to reflect the realities of the dirty war waged or the rural/urban even differences between counties reality of the conflict.
It is a common error to equate the widerIRA, the Belfast conflict has a deeper hate, with being as sectarian as the loyalist position (the hatred of the other is at a basic level not as institutionalised amidst the nationalist community, more exasperation, the Irish being white caused an issue for the colonial mindset that was resolved by using religion as a measure of difference) However there were periods of differing leadership ,just like the swings within political parties left to right, were republicans must acknowledge they walked that path. Most of those involved may of been removed by differing events but they did almost drag the conflict into the sectarian rather than political sphere that the deep British state, hi Eton, could either only conceive it as rather wanted to portray it as.
- Status