"IF" a United Ireland did happen...(Mod warning in OP, stay on topic!))

katydid

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

If you knew the slightest thing about the troubles, that was the standard tacit or firing from the door of a pub with a AK47 of the loyalists/Brit dirty tricks dept right through the troubles in nationalist areas. But doubtless you'll keep telling yourself the Brits were the nice guys in a difficult situation trying their very best to keep the 'peace' , helping little old ladies across the road blah, blah.

And because that happened, it was ok for the IRA to blow up people out for a Saturday night drink in Birmingham and Guilford?

Can you explain how that rationale works?

maccored

katydid wrote: »

The IRA used the fear of the people to invoke a generation of violence, when any perceived danger to the community was well passed, and in that atmosphere, where violence breeds violence, it was taken up by the other side and perpetuated.

where in gods name did you read that, considering its not actually based on the truth or reality? when had 'any perceived danger to the community' passed? Actually, I probably shouldnt be asking you that as you certainly dont seem to have any clue about the subject

katydid

maccored wrote: »

where in gods name did you read that, considering its not actually based on the truth or reality? when had 'any perceived danger to the community' passed? Actually, I probably shouldnt be asking you that as you certainly dont seem to have any clue about the subject

So which bit is untrue? Easy to pontificate and cast slurs. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is...

droidman123

katydid wrote: »

What were Lynch and co supposed to do? You can't simply go into another jurisdiction and start laying down the law. Get real. It was a NI problem, nothing to do with this state.

I can understand, however, how people were driven into the arms of the IRA in '69, in the heightened atmosphere of fear and panic of the time. That doesn't justify thirty years of murder and mayhem across these islands. The IRA used the fear of the people to invoke a generation of violence, when any perceived danger to the community was well passed, and in that atmosphere, where violence breeds violence, it was taken up by the other side and perpetuated.

another jurisdiction? it was in our constitution at the time that the republic had a claim to the occupied counties.

katydid

droidman123 wrote: »

another jurisdiction? it was in our constitution at the time that the republic had a claim to the occupied counties.

It was still another jurisdiction. Our constitutional claim didn't change that. It was, and is, British territory.

pilgrim pat

only a coward would admit that the north belonged to the british ,the Catholics in the north went through hell for decades ,whatever happens united Ireland or whatever this land belongs to the natives and that's mainly catholic like the roi we will get the murdering britts out one way or an other ,you relay had to have lived here during the war to understand

maccored

katydid wrote: »

So which bit is untrue? Easy to pontificate and cast slurs. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is...

i say this bit is untrue - I note you didnt answer my question about it:

The IRA used the fear of the people to invoke a generation of violence, when any perceived danger to the community was well passed, and in that atmosphere, where violence breeds violence, it was taken up by the other side and perpetuated.

You seem to be implying the ira forced people to support it and it was because of the ira that the 'other side' got involved. absolute rubbish.

As Ive already said, you really arent worth the bother of replying to.

katydid

maccored wrote: »

i say this bit is untrue - I note you didnt answer my question about it:



You seem to be implying the ira forced people to support it and it was because of the ira that the 'other side' got involved. absolute rubbish.

As Ive already said, you really arent worth the bother of replying to.

I didn't say they FORCED people to support them. I said they used the fear that the people had. It wasn't force. It was cynical exploitation.

Yes, it was because of the IRA that the whole thing escalated. If they hadn't done what they did, the other side would have had no reason to kick off.

If I'm not worth the bother of replying, why do you bother...heh heh heh...

katydid

pilgrim pat wrote: »

only a coward would admit that the north belonged to the british ,the Catholics in the north went through hell for decades ,whatever happens united Ireland or whatever this land belongs to the natives and that's mainly catholic like the roi we will get the murdering britts out one way or an other ,you relay had to have lived here during the war to understand

Um, the North DOES belong to the British. Look at a map.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

the other side would have had no reason to kick off.

The UVF killed two Catholic civilians in May & June of 1966. The Loyalists 'kicked off' first to use your own terminology.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

And you base this OPINION on...?

Well for a start, you seem to think loyalists need a reason to kick off in the first place. Just goes to further show your ignorance and naivety of the loyalist mentality, and the situation as a whole

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

We could ask all those questions, but the bottom line is that the IRA and others are the ones who blighted OUR society and killed OUR people. They are the ones we have to deal with today, not Hitler or Robert Emmet.

I think this was the best one Karl. Suddenly history doesn't matter and isn't relevant when she's posed questions she can't answer which once again points out her hypocrisy, yet it's fair game for her to reference history when she feels like it to push an agenda.

DarkyHughes

katydid wrote: »

We could ask all those questions, but the bottom line is that the IRA and others are the ones who blighted OUR society and killed OUR people. They are the ones we have to deal with today, not Hitler or Robert Emmet.

No, we don't have to deal with the IRA today, they called a ceasefire 21 years ago.

DarkyHughes

katydid wrote: »

I support the tactics of a democratically elected government. Remind me again when the IRA, OR ANY OTHER TERRORISTS ON THIS ISLAND, were elected?

In case you hadn't noticed, the 1916 rebels weren't after Home Rule...

So you supported the IRA during the 1919 -21 period is that correct? When did you start to think they were "bad" people as most people from 1919 - 21 were still in the IRA for a while after ?

droidman123

katydid wrote: »

Um, the North DOES belong to the British. Look at a map.

So when hitler invaded poland,poland was german? The occupied counties of ireland are not british,have never been british,and never will be british.if the loyalists dont like living in my country i,m sure there is lots of space in scotland or elsewhere in britan to build a nice house to live in.

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well for a start, you seem to think loyalists need a reason to kick off in the first place. Just goes to further show your ignorance and naivety of the loyalist mentality, and the situation as a whole

I didn't say they needed a reason. I said they did kick off for this reason.

Two very different things.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

Tbh I don't think you're worth the trouble because you've no intention of an honest discussion and prefer instead to stick your fingers in your ears and sing the 'la-la-la-terrorism-la-la-la' song. I won't be responding to you any further in this thread.

Ah right. Thought as much. All talk, but a coward when it comes to being asked to stand over what you claimed.

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

No, we don't have to deal with the IRA today, they called a ceasefire 21 years ago.

But unfortunately many of their supporters and those responsible for their crimes are alive and kicking, some of them sitting in our national parliament.

They haven't gone away, you know - to quote one of the latter.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

I just love this back slapping fest. And not a shred of actual evidence to contradict me!

Evidence wouldn't be of any use to you.
Your total bias is evident for all to see and therefore your points are invalid.

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

So you supported the IRA during the 1919 -21 period is that correct? When did you start to think they were "bad" people as most people from 1919 - 21 were still in the IRA for a while after ?

The IRA were the legitimate army of the Irish government, mandated to form a republic by the election of 1918.

The PIRA were a terrorist organisation which has nothing to do with the original IRA, and never had a democratic mandate of any kind.

Apples and oranges, as the Yanks say

circadian

katydid wrote: »

Yes, it was because of the IRA that the whole thing escalated. If they hadn't done what they did, the other side would have had no reason to kick off.
...

I think you'll find that police brutality is part of what escalated the violence.

Nationalists had little to no representation in government, had unequal pay, lived in slums and suffered gerrymandering.

When they began to protest against this they were beaten/stoned/homes destroyed by the RUC, Black and Tans, the B-Specials and loyalist mobs. All with the support of the Government.

I don't agree with the PIRA campaign, but to state that they escalated the violence is nonsense. The Government that refused to grant equal rights to all it's citizens and oppressed a large section of it's population brought this about.

katydid

droidman123 wrote: »

So when hitler invaded poland,poland was german? The occupied counties of ireland are not british,have never been british,and never will be british.if the loyalists dont like living in my country i,m sure there is lots of space in scotland or elsewhere in britan to build a nice house to live in.

Read what I said. When did I say Ireland was British? I said it BELONGS to Britain.

Maybe if you took your time to read what's written, instead of jumping thoughtlessly in, you might save both of us a lot of time.

katydid

circadian wrote: »

I think you'll find that police brutality is part of what escalated the violence.

Nationalists had little to no representation in government, had unequal pay, lived in slums and suffered gerrymandering.

When they began to protest against this they were beaten/stoned/homes destroyed by the RUC, Black and Tans, the B-Specials and loyalist mobs. All with the support of the Government.

I don't agree with the PIRA campaign, but to state that they escalated the violence is nonsense. The Government that refused to grant equal rights to all it's citizens and oppressed a large section of it's population brought this about.

You're right, police brutality did contribute to escalating the violence. There were a few factors, and the nationalist population had right, at one stage, to be fearful.

But it is NOT nonsense to say that the PIRA escalated the violence. They turned it from a crisis into a thirty year long reign of terror. The initial problems, like those in the US originating from the rise of the Civil Rights movement, would have been sorted in a shorter time, but once the terrorists became involved, the Civil Rights people and the politicians were sidelined, and the focus became almost exclusively on them and their vile actions.

A peaceful resolution was not given a chance, and that is something that anyone who supported terrorism on either side in the North should hang their heads in shame over.

droidman123

katydid wrote: »

Read what I said. When did I say Ireland was British? I said it BELONGS to Britain.

Maybe if you took your time to read what's written, instead of jumping thoughtlessly in, you might save both of us a lot of time.

it will NEVER belong to Britain, ever! I could plant seeds in my neighbours garden, but the garden will still always be my neighbours.

circadian

A peaceful resolution was rebutted by the government at the time.

Something was going to give and it did. The Unionists had the opportunity to right the wrongs but they didn't, they wanted to retain the status quo and knew that more nationalists would be elected thus reducing their power.

I don't condone the actions of the PIRA but I can certainly understand why people in the late 60's felt the need to sign up. There's only so much trampling people can take. Not to mention the previous protests for equal rights, had the government engaged rather than send police into nationalists areas to vandalise then the war would most like have been avoided.

The sequence of events after that continued to fuel the conflict and all sides are at fault for atrocities. It is absurd to solely lay the blame at the doors of republicans. How would you feel about living somewhere that you had no right to vote, could be refused a job based on your religion, had 3 families in a 2 up 2 down house and ultimately had your peaceful protests ignored by the government or worse, suffered repercussions as a result of demanding basic rights? Add to that Bloody Sunday, the British Governments refusal to talk to Republicans which was essentiallyseen as backing the Unionist government at the time.

As my mother once said to me "We had serious inequalities and suffering. We protested and asked for change. We were beaten for that."

It's all fine and well sitting in your armchair claiming that one IRA is grand but the other isn't, or to suggest that a peaceful resolution wasn't given a chance or as suggested earlier in the thread "sickness of the Northern mindset". Your posts smack of a lack of understanding of the complexities or even the actual events leading to the conflict. It's pure ignorance.

Like I said, a peaceful resolution was rebutted and responded to with violence. It would be normal to expect some to respond in kind.

Godge

circadian wrote: »

A peaceful resolution was rebutted by the government at the time.

Something was going to give and it did. The Unionists had the opportunity to right the wrongs but they didn't, they wanted to retain the status quo and knew that more nationalists would be elected thus reducing their power.

I don't condone the actions of the PIRA but I can certainly understand why people in the late 60's felt the need to sign up. There's only so much trampling people can take. Not to mention the previous protests for equal rights, had the government engaged rather than send police into nationalists areas to vandalise then the war would most like have been avoided.

The sequence of events after that continued to fuel the conflict and all sides are at fault for atrocities. It is absurd to solely lay the blame at the doors of republicans. How would you feel about living somewhere that you had no right to vote, could be refused a job based on your religion, had 3 families in a 2 up 2 down house and ultimately had your peaceful protests ignored by the government or worse, suffered repercussions as a result of demanding basic rights? Add to that Bloody Sunday, the British Governments refusal to talk to Republicans which was essentiallyseen as backing the Unionist government at the time.

As my mother once said to me "We had serious inequalities and suffering. We protested and asked for change. We were beaten for that."

It's all fine and well sitting in your armchair claiming that one IRA is grand but the other isn't, or to suggest that a peaceful resolution wasn't given a chance or as suggested earlier in the thread "sickness of the Northern mindset". Your posts smack of a lack of understanding of the complexities or even the actual events leading to the conflict. It's pure ignorance.

Like I said, a peaceful resolution was rebutted and responded to with violence. It would be normal to expect some to respond in kind.

This is a pointless debate going around in circles.

Most people believe that violence is not a solution except in extremis or where democratically mandated (e.g. police force operating in accordance with the law and procedures). For most of these people, the conditions required to support violence were not met in Northern Ireland during the "Troubles". (A minority of these people would believe that the in extremis conditions were met in Northern Ireland).

There are some people who believe that violence is a useful tool to achieve political goals (most clearly stated in the ballot box in one hand, armalite in the other policy). They have a different attitude to violence and a different mentality to most people.

From a distance of time, we can all put our view forward (some people on here weren't even born when the "Troubles" took place) but much of those views are tainted by romanticism or a desire to demonstrate that one side won or lost.

The only factual evidence to consider whether the IRA campaign was justified or not is the level of democratic support Sinn Fein (as the IRA cheerleader) received during that time. And one thing is certain. At no time during the "Troubles", did Sinn Fein receive a majority of support from the voting population, even more importantly, at no time did they receive a majority of support from the voting nationalist population, most of whom consistently preferred the non-violent SDLP. Down South, support for the IRA was at a very very low level.

So there is one thing you can say with certainty, the IRA had no democratic mandate at all from the people of this island.

You can continue the argument about who started what, or whether 1916, 1919 or 1921 or whenever were different, but you cannot get away from the democratically expressed wish of the population of Northern Ireland for peace, and the lack of support for the IRA.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The IRA were the legitimate army of the Irish government, mandated to form a republic by the election of 1918.

The PIRA were a terrorist organisation which has nothing to do with the original IRA, and never had a democratic mandate of any kind.

Apples and oranges, as the Yanks say

And the 1916 leaders didn't have a democratic mandate either, but for whatever reason you support them.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

But unfortunately many of their supporters and those responsible for their crimes are alive and kicking, some of them sitting in our national parliament.

And voted in there by people of Ireland in a democratic election.

You do agree with the democratic process don't you?
Or would you like to ban these people from running for election?

Perhaps we should bring back Section 31 just to suit you and your twin on here.

DarkyHughes

katydid wrote: »

The IRA were the legitimate army of the Irish government, mandated to form a republic by the election of 1918.

The PIRA were a terrorist organisation which has nothing to do with the original IRA, and never had a democratic mandate of any kind.

Apples and oranges, as the Yanks say

Did Dan Breen & Sean treacy have a mandate to kill two RIC officers who were not a threat to anyone? The whole country including the Dail was shocked at that.

The PIRA were not terrorists, that's just Free State, British propaganda.

And don't forget it was the so called "legit" British Army who started massacring civilians before the IRA & they committed plenty of them - Falls curfew 1970 = 5 innocent people killed by the British Army, Ballymurphy massacre 1971 11 civilians killed by British Army, Bloody Sunday 1972 = 14 civilians murdered by the British Army & the Springhill massacre 1972 = 6 civilians murdered by the British Army.

The PIRA had a right a duty to rebel against injustice. What type of sane or self respecting people would sit there & let the state forces crush them?3

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

And voted in there by people of Ireland in a democratic election.

You do agree with the democratic process don't you?
Or would you like to ban these people from running for election?

Perhaps we should bring back Section 31 just to suit you and your twin on here.

Are you referring to me? If so, maybe you would be polite.

Of course they are democratically elected and I accept their election. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Hello Mary Lou's antics in occupying the Dail, it seems that they haven't accepted the democratic process.

katydid

droidman123 wrote: »

it will NEVER belong to Britain, ever! I could plant seeds in my neighbours garden, but the garden will still always be my neighbours.

Like it or not, international law and the international community doesn't agree with you. Nor does the British OR the Irish government.

But keep whistling into the wind.

katydid

circadian wrote: »

A peaceful resolution was rebutted by the government at the time.

Something was going to give and it did. The Unionists had the opportunity to right the wrongs but they didn't, they wanted to retain the status quo and knew that more nationalists would be elected thus reducing their power.

I don't condone the actions of the PIRA but I can certainly understand why people in the late 60's felt the need to sign up. There's only so much trampling people can take. Not to mention the previous protests for equal rights, had the government engaged rather than send police into nationalists areas to vandalise then the war would most like have been avoided.

The sequence of events after that continued to fuel the conflict and all sides are at fault for atrocities. It is absurd to solely lay the blame at the doors of republicans. How would you feel about living somewhere that you had no right to vote, could be refused a job based on your religion, had 3 families in a 2 up 2 down house and ultimately had your peaceful protests ignored by the government or worse, suffered repercussions as a result of demanding basic rights? Add to that Bloody Sunday, the British Governments refusal to talk to Republicans which was essentiallyseen as backing the Unionist government at the time.

As my mother once said to me "We had serious inequalities and suffering. We protested and asked for change. We were beaten for that."

It's all fine and well sitting in your armchair claiming that one IRA is grand but the other isn't, or to suggest that a peaceful resolution wasn't given a chance or as suggested earlier in the thread "sickness of the Northern mindset". Your posts smack of a lack of understanding of the complexities or even the actual events leading to the conflict. It's pure ignorance.

Like I said, a peaceful resolution was rebutted and responded to with violence. It would be normal to expect some to respond in kind.

It would be normal to expect some to respond in kind. That doesn't explain thirty years of murder and mayhem.

Godge

droidman123 wrote: »

it will NEVER belong to Britain, ever! I could plant seeds in my neighbours garden, but the garden will still always be my neighbours.

That is a delusion you have. We have given up our claim to Northern Ireland and have confirmed in our Constitution that as long as the people of the six counties wish to be British, they can stay a part of the United Kingdom.

It is over.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And the 1916 leaders didn't have a democratic mandate either, but for whatever reason you support them.

Firstly, unlike the PIRA, their modus operandi was not to slaughter the innocent.

Secondly, they got their mandate retrospectively two years later in the 1918 election. The PIRA and other terrorists never had any mandate.

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

And voted in there by people of Ireland in a democratic election.

You do agree with the democratic process don't you?
Or would you like to ban these people from running for election?

Perhaps we should bring back Section 31 just to suit you and your twin on here.

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately we have to swallow the fact that we have unrepentant terrorists sitting in our parliament. That IS democracy. It doesn't mean it's good for the country.

My twin?

katydid

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Did Dan Breen & Sean treacy have a mandate to kill two RIC officers who were not a threat to anyone? The whole country including the Dail was shocked at that.

The PIRA were not terrorists, that's just Free State, British propaganda.

And don't forget it was the so called "legit" British Army who started massacring civilians before the IRA & they committed plenty of them - Falls curfew 1970 = 5 innocent people killed by the British Army, Ballymurphy massacre 1971 11 civilians killed by British Army, Bloody Sunday 1972 = 14 civilians murdered by the British Army & the Springhill massacre 1972 = 6 civilians murdered by the British Army.

The PIRA had a right a duty to rebel against injustice. What type of sane or self respecting people would sit there & let the state forces crush them?3

There will always be instances where people step out of line in legitimate circumstances; we saw that in NI, where individual British Army personnel stepped out of line. But that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the organization or their mandate.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Firstly, unlike the PIRA, their modus operandi was not to slaughter the innocent.

The PIRA wouldn't have existed for very long if that were true. So you support 1916 despite the fact that the rising brought severe damage to the center of Dublin, and many civilians were killed.

Secondly, they got their mandate retrospectively two years later in the 1918 election. The PIRA and other terrorists never had any mandate.

Nope. SF's version of Irish independence was accepted by 47% of the electorate on the island. How it was to be put effectively into practice remained unknown, bar attempting to set up an alternative government to the British administration.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The PIRA wouldn't have existed for very long if that were true. So you support 1916 despite the fact that the rising brought severe damage to the center of Dublin, and many civilians were killed.

Nope. SF's version of Irish independence was accepted by 47% of the electorate on the island. How it was to be put effectively into practice remained unknown, bar attempting to set up an alternative government to the British administration.

The PIRA didn't depend on a democratic mandate to exist. They had some popular support but they continued to exist because of fear and intimidation, and weapons got with ill-gotten money.

And SF won 73 out of 102 seats I 1918. That 71%.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

and weapons got with ill-gotten money.

Just like the 1919-21 IRA then with all those Michael Collins inspired bank robberies to keep things going.......

And SF won 73 out of 102 seats I 1918. That 71%.

That's just highlighting the oddities of the first past the post electoral system.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say they needed a reason. I said they did kick off for this reason.

Two very different things.

The UVF formed before the PIRA. What was there reason for kicking off?

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

I suggest you read a bit of Irish history. Your ignorance is woeful

After claiming the PIRA kicked off and instigated the troubles, you have the nerve to call someone ignorant on Irish history? And you too bullheaded and ignorant to see the irony. Then mind boggles

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately we have to swallow the fact that we have unrepentant terrorists sitting in our parliament. That IS democracy. It doesn't mean it's good for the country.

My twin?

Do you want to list off these 'unrepentant terrorists' for us there?

Godge

The Golden Miller wrote: »

After claiming the PIRA kicked off and instigated the troubles, you have the nerve to call someone ignorant on Irish history? And you too bullheaded and ignorant to see the irony. Then mind boggles

You might want to soften your cough a bit on the issue of the start of the Troubles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

"There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the UVF in 1966,[50] the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969."

There are other suggested dates as well. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for many on here to view all things Northern through a green-tinged prism. What they don't realise is that entrenched attitudes like that are part of the reason that there will never be a United Ireland in our lifetimes.

The Golden Miller

Godge wrote: »

You might want to soften your cough a bit on the issue of the start of the Troubles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

"There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the UVF in 1966,[50] the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969."

There are other suggested dates as well. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for many on here to view all things Northern through a green-tinged prism. What they don't realise is that entrenched attitudes like that are part of the reason that there will never be a United Ireland in our lifetimes.

Me soften my cough? Did I make a claim over how the troubles were started, or was I responding to another poster who claimed the PIRA kicked it off? All your post has done is prove my point, in that no, the PIRA did not kick off the troubles

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Do you want to list off these 'unrepentant terrorists' for us there?

Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris, for two

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

After claiming the PIRA kicked off and instigated the troubles, you have the nerve to call someone ignorant on Irish history? And you too bullheaded and ignorant to see the irony. Then mind boggles

I didn't say the PIRA kicked off the Troubles. I said they exploited them and turned them from something which could have been solved in the short term to a thirty year reign of terror.

If you're going to try and criticise me, at least start from the correct base.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say the PIRA kicked off the Troubles. I said they exploited them and turned them from something which could have been solved in the short term to a thirty year reign of terror.

If you're going to try and criticise me, at least start from the correct base.

I didn't say the UVF/UDA/RUC etc kicked off the Troubles. I said they exploited them and turned them from something which could have been solved in the short term to a thirty year reign of terror.

That's what your argument is boiling down to. Pure non-objective petty dogmatic bias

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris, for two

Have you documented proof that Adams is an 'unrepentant terrorist'?

DeJa VooDoo

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Me soften my cough? Did I make a claim over how the troubles were started, or was I responding to another poster who claimed the PIRA kicked it off? All your post has done is prove my point, in that no, the PIRA did not kick off the troubles

And he used Wikipedia to do it......;)

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Have you documented proof that Adams is an 'unrepentant terrorist'?

Nope. But he's unrepentant about terrorism.