Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

To the people who say the troubles was not a war

1246712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭BurgerFace


    Your own beloved US armed forces have deliberately targeted civilians practically since it's inception. The reasoning for this is simple. To destroy any will that the occupied civilian population might have to resist. They mercilessly butchered millions in The Phillipines, China, Latin America, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc. And they never gave a 15 minute warning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,439 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    Definitely knows the game

    https://seachranaidhe1.wordpress.com › ...

    Gerry Adams says he was in car crash in which IRA man on 'active service ...

    The former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has again insisted he was never in the IRA, despite acknowledging that he was in a car crash in west Belfast in 1969 with a man who was described as being on “active service” for the paramilitary organisation at the time.

    Mr Adams, who gave evidence to the Ballymurphy inquest on Wednesday, accepted that he was a passenger in a car in November 1969 in which an IRA member, Liam McParland, was killed.

    Mr Adams said that he was returning from a day in Ballinamore in Co Leitrim when the fatal accident happened on the M1 close to Kennedy Way in west Belfast.

    Questioned by lawyer Peter Coll, acting for the British ministry of defence, Mr Adams said he did not know at the time that Mr McParland was a local IRA commander in west Belfast.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Exactly, many of the people commenting on this thread are delusional and have a strong sense of hatred to the IRA in comparison to other armed groups/armies like the old IRA or US forces who they could use the exact same and far worse reasons for hating so much, they have this attitude due to propaganda campaigns in Irish media designed to hurt Sinn Féins support.

    I could guarantee most of these hardcore anti IRA people are avid readers of the independent which is known to be by far the most strongly against Sinn Féin and has been forced to apologise to Sinn Féin on numerous occasions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,439 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    We probably haven't enough time for all the apologies Sinn Fein nevermind the IRA have or had to make.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 468 ✭✭Shao Kahn


    I don't think you do get what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with "thanking" the Brits.

    And it's got nothing to do with trying to make excuses for anyone's actions either.

    It's about perspective. People such as yourself tend to be severely lacking in perspective, and as a result you struggle to uproot yourself from the past and move on with life.

    Our experiences as a country under British occupation are nothing unique from a global historical perspective. And also not even close to the worst examples you could highlight of mistreatment under an occupying power or regime. Every small nation in the history of the world, has been conquered, colonized, brutalized and brainwashed to varying degrees throughout history.

    Just as one example; in the 1970's, roughly around the same time that British soldiers were murdering 14 unarmed civilians on the bogside in Derry, Pol Pot was killing about 2 million of his own people in Cambodia over a 5 year period. And dumping them in mass graves around the country. (which was about one quarter of their entire population at that time)

    So while I'm certainly not "thanking" the Brits for being great benevolent colonizers. I do have plenty of perspective about why it happened, and the type of world that existed back then to make it happen. We were living in the age of empires (and in some cases brutal murdering dictators). We were a small nation, living right next door to a large powerful empire.

    Having perspective allows you to understand history, learn from it, and move on. It allows you to stop holding onto grudges that don't serve any useful purpose - except to make you bitter and angry. It's not just our history, it's about the history of human beings as a whole. Global history.

    With this context and better understanding, you can put these ugly episodes of history in the past where they belong. And move on with less bitterness, hopefully towards a more positive future where people do not repeat these mistakes of the past.

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Well there are many historians that would strongly disagree with your opinion https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/most-oppressed-people-ever-1.3744418


    And how is it in the past as you say? Part of Ireland is still under British control so while things certainly aren't as bad as they once were it's certainly not ''in the past'' the effects are still being felt today.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    They are the same thing, Sinn Féin was the political wing of the IRA, Sinn Féin is all that's left of the IRA which is now the most popular party both sides of the border which was the exact IRA strategy to take over the world of politics as the means of achieving their aims.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,017 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Your lack of understanding of military operations in the post-war period combined with the lack of distinction between "actively targeting civilians" vs "killing civilians without their being an intended target" is impressive. And before you say "My Lai", everyone accepts that was a war crime, not sanctioned policy. I don't think it would serve your purpose to make that your standard.

    As I mentioned, certainly the perceptions of standards had changed over time, what was considered acceptable in WW2 would not be so today.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Ah come on, for my láí Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley, a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served three-and-a-half years under house arrest.

    You are completely and utterly delusional, you would justify the killing of a hundred civilians just to take out one vietnamese soldier and you consider that OK.

    The amount of ammunition fired per soldier was 26 times greater in Vietnam than during World War II. By the end of the conflict, America had unleashed the equivalent of 640 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs on Vietnam.

    Vast areas dotted with villages were blasted with artillery, bombed from the air and strafed by helicopter gunships before ground troops went in on search-and-destroy missions.

    The phrase "kill anything that moves" became an order on the lips of some American commanders whose troops carried out massacres across their area of operations.

    While the US suffered more than 58,000 dead in the war, an estimated two million Vietnamese civilians were killed, another 5.3 million injured and about 11 million, by US government figures, became refugees in their own country.

    Today, if people remember anything about American atrocities in Vietnam, they recall the March 1968 My Lai massacre in which more than 500 civilians were killed over the course of four hours, during which US troops even took time out to eat lunch.

    Far bloodier operations, like one codenamed Speedy Express, should be remembered as well, but thanks to cover-ups at the highest levels of the US military, few are.

    Who is the real monster here? Me for supporting the IRA or you for supporting this? This is from the BBC, mainstream media is rarely allowed to talk about this sort of stuff until 50 years later after the war ends when no one cares anymore.



  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Heard Anton savage talking about a recent poll about unification. There was a fairly high level of support when people were asked the question about unification, it then dropped significantly when asked if they were willing to pay higher taxes to pay for additional cost. Uk government pays between 8 and 11 billion per year to run services in NI. So there may be sentimental support, but if we have to pay for it through higher taxation, nah, fook that.

    Personally, I think the last thing this country needs is an extra shower of trouble makers and criminals.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    Oh come on, if you asked people would they be in favour of stopping the deaths of millions of children in Africa who starve to death every year I'm sure most people would say yes, if you asked them would they be in favour of it if it meant them paying more taxes the answer might change significantly.

    If a referendum was held on unification and we got into an actual debate and real talk about it then without a doubt most people would be in favour of it.

    Ask any question with the phrase ''if it meant paying more taxes'' answers will change significantly.

    The reason Northern Ireland costs so much is because it is effectively it's own country that would change significantly under unification, take any random 6 counties in the Republic of Ireland and make them a country within the UK and the same thing would happen.



  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Exactly. The decision to unify would apply taxation to a huge proportion of the population of the south who could care less about Northern Ireland. I’m in my 50’s, I couldn’t give a **** about NI, my kids who are in their 20’s have absolutely no interest in it. I would go as far as to say I don’t know one person who cares, the very odd time it has come up in conversation it is met with complete indifference, the people up there are the UKs problem, not ours. If the 6 counties are unified, this country immediately inherits hundreds of thousands of disaffected unionists. And we would have to pay for the privilege. Why would we want this?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    The quote that people in the South could ''care less'' about Northern Ireland is a fairly recent trend only emerging in the last 15 or 20 years but still does not hold up to the opinions of the majority who think all of Ireland is important.

    Me personally could care less about Roscommon or Longford, I think awful Offaly might be the absolute worst place to visit in Ireland, very flat and boring with little of interest and lets be honest, not the nicest of folk.

    Indeed a place that any sensible tourist would always avoid but that's just my opinion like you have yours on 6 counties of Ireland but all 32 counties are a part of Ireland and should be treated as such.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭rdwight


    In all fairness, that's a mess of an analysis.

    I think you should have a look at the original report. And keep in mind the distinction you yourself originally made between support for IRA's motives and support for their activities.

    You originally claimed 21% "fully supported" IRA activities. You were wrong. The real figure was 2.8%

    The report summarises "Attitudes to activities" as follows

    Opposition 60.5%

    Neutral 18.7%

    Support 20.7% (of which 2.8% is "strongly supportive").

    If you can conclude that those figures mean that "they were basically half and half about supporting them or not supporting them" then your maths classes at school must have been a lot more entertaining than mine were.

    By the way, there's no need for you tie your self in knots: as the Irish Times article on the report (May 16, 1979) points out, having 21% give any degree of support to IRA activities was an embarrassment for the government of the day.


    I made no claim that the vast majority in the Republic despised the IRA,



  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    IF Roscommon, Offaly or Longford were in NI, I would not want to pay for them either, but they aren’t so that’s not much of an analogy. All 32 counties are part of the island of Ireland, but 6 of them are a different country and part of the UK. And I wouldn’t say it is a recent trend of the past 20 yrs. SF are popular down here because the two main parties are so unpopular, they make wild claims about what they would do different and a lot of tenants/people who want to buy homes think they will magically solve all their problems. But we all know it is bluff, it is easy to say what you would do differently if you had the chance, but doing it is a different matter.

    I’d speculate that if the UK government could give the 6 counties back, they would gift wrap them and hold the mother of all parties. But they won’t because the Unionist vote is so important, and I suspect a lot of the catholic community realise that they might be better off where they are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    And only 15% of people ''strongly opposed the IRA'' 25% were only slightly opposed to them.

    Only slightly more than half of the people in the Republic were opposed to the IRA with only 15% of people being strongly opposed and if you don't oppose them I think it's a fair assumption to make that the 22% of people who claimed they were neutral on the subject and the 21% who declared support would at the very least have not been far off having support for them.

    Basically the poll shows nearly half the people in the Republic of Ireland not being opposed to the IRA whatsoever and nearly 70% at the very most only being slightly opposed.



  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Is it not time for you to be knocking off and going home? You've been posting in this thread constantly since morning. It can't have been a very productive day for you in work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    I've made a total of 7 posts and about 8 posts altogether today, doesn't seem like much.



  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    word count?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Would you agree you are unhealthily fixated on this topic?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭rdwight


    You originally claimed 21% "fully supported" IRA activities. You were wrong. The real figure was a tiny 2.8%.

    As for your "if you're not vehemently opposed to us, then you must be close to supporting us" flights of fancy. What can I say?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 12,603 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    But the IRA actually made things worse. They hamstrung a strong peaceful movement that was emerging.

    They sure did, and perhaps it suited some people in power at the time to foster the violent militarism, rather than face a peaceful popular uprising that could very well have become revolutionary and a challenge to the status quo as it was, back in those times. Just a thought.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    I'll admit I was wrong about the ''fully supported'' I should have simply said supported.

    I stand by what I said from that poll nearly half of the people in the Republic of Ireland were not opposed to the IRA, if you asked someone in 1979 do you support this armed group who have killed over 1,000 people of the over 2,000 people killed in our country and they said to you ''I'm neutral'' what would you take from that? They refuse to say they are in support or are against them so I guess you can make up your own mind up on what that means.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭BurgerFace


    Russia DIDN'T fcuking annex Crimea. Crimea was part of Russia for 200 years. IT was given away to Ukraine AGAINST the wishes of it's people in the 1950's. It then returned to Russia, according to the wishers of the people via referendum in 2014. Let's get our facts right about that now.



  • Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think you should do a little reading up on the facts yourself, particularly on the circumstances which existed when the vote was taken, Russian military forces had already occupied Crimea prior to the vote, and the choices on the ballad which conveniently excluded retaining the country in the form that existed when the vote was taken.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,555 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Offaly is flat?


    I just drove through the Slieve Bloom mountains today.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭BurgerFace


    You're an embarrassment. The British "chose" to give back the 26 counties. So they would have given them back even if there was no campaign of resistance to British occupation, hmm? Is that what you're stupidly trying to insinuate? Collins' flying columns, raids on barracks, targeted assassinations, boycotts and a slew of other tactics brought the Brits to their knees. British soldiers couldn't move around without coming under attack. Dublin Castle was virtually under siege and the government agents couldn't even leave without being shot. The country was rendered ungovernable but the Brits withdrawing was just a coincidence, right? They would have withdrawn if the country was as peaceful and serene as Somerset or Cornwall? Don't make me laugh. And what rebellions that you speak of have been successfully crushed never to emerge again? Just curious.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭BurgerFace


    So they were allowed to die of starvation because they couldn't "afford" the food that was being appropriated by the British in order to feed their overseas armies? The country was agrarian and as such was awash with corn, wheat, barley. The amount of which made the modern day EU grain mountains look like mole-hills. This food was shipped out of the country and the starving millions be damned.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭BurgerFace


    Is there anyone in Ireland starving to death right now. It's not a case of affordability it's a case of availability. A mother with no source of income will do anything to feed her kids even if that means selling her body if she has no money. But she can suck dick from dawn to dusk but her kids will still starve to death if there's no food because it was all shipped overseas. And nobody said that the Brits "caused" the blight unless they were masters in biological warfare in the 1840's. Where you're getting that crap from is a mystery.



Advertisement