Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

They were acts of war carried out not for defensive purposes but a show of strength

---

Which is my point. They were for political purposes, more than military purposes.

Quote:

---

How many people won't go outside their garden for a fear of something bad taking place? How many people are afraid to drive or be driven on the road in case they are in an accident? How many people are afraid of cruises because of the fear of drowning? There is no substance in that quote because it is a real minority and can be classed alongside others.

---

Except that those others you mention don't cause problems by going into a panic on a plane, causing fear among the other passengers, and sometimes having an innocent person thrown off the plane just because he resembles someones stereotypical image of an Arab. Those others also didn't create the hassles we now have to endure in airports. They may be a minority, but their fear is affecting everyone.

Quote:

---

You are generalising terrorism to suit your argument

---

And you are using a very narrow definition of terrorism to suit yours.

Quote:

---

to make atrocities in any mans eyes look clean.

---

Not at all! I don't downplay the horrible nature of these events. I'm only pointing out how some people view them.

Quote:

---

If Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was holding, and/or were producing these weapons then why did the Americans not bomb the shipping?

---

They destroyed most of the Japanese shipping. The Japanese Empire was virtually gone. But the Japanese government refused to surrender. The only option other than the bombs was to invade the home islands, which would have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of casualties both among the Japanese people and the American armed forces. I'm not saying they shouldn't have dropped those bombs. I think they did the right thing. I'm only saying that, in my broad, generalized view, their purpose was to terrorize the Japanese people and government as much as to destroy the military.

Quote:

---

and why “two” if it was an act of terrorism? Surely one would have been enough?

---

If the Japanese government had shown any inclination towards surrender after the first, then one WOULD have been enough. They did not. Some within the Japanese High Command felt that it was only a fluke, a one-off that the US could not repeat. It was necessary to show them that we could do it again, the implication being that we could destroy all of their cities. Again, a terror weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

If the Americans had read about Irelands history instead of sending millions of $ to help them kill the English soldier, the troubles in Northern Ireland would have been over a long time before they were. The Irish also sided with the Nazis’ during the war and that never helped either. The English were never the Oppressors they were invited to over lord Ireland, it was the IRA that made it an issue. The Irish Americans with their $ with blood on, are still a bad taste in the mouths of the British Soldier, but we have not yet stooped low enough to terrorise them.



And so to do the British, but the IRA will never allow it, because the IRA will then be redundant.

Be well IAN 2411

---

Sorry Ive studied the history rather extensively and I think you will need a far better argument to convince me that the English/Irish issue or for that matter any of England's many international (anything outside of England proper such as with the Scots and Welsh and French and America etc etc) foibles all occur so sophistically one sided.

And why do you think Ireland sided with England's enemies I wonder?

1. Irish history shows that, for most of the "800 years of English Oppression", it was one Irishman oppressing another. For most of that time, right up to the 19th century, Ireland had its own Parliament where Irish Lords made Irish laws for royal approval by the King of Ireland. It was due to the Earls, and the clan chiefs with whom they were often feuding, that the English King was invited into Ireland, and such peace as there ever was on that poor island was due more to English rule than to anything else. There were periods when English oppression was severe - Cromwell is a notable example - but at most other times, the violence was due to the inability of the Irish to live peacefully together, and English troops were forced to quell the not infrequent uprisings.

The majority of these uprisings happened because of the dire poverty most Irish people lived in while the Irish nobility and its merchant class kept fat cattle and the best wheat for export (to England and Europe) so that they could fill their own coffers at the expense of their countrymen.

The Irish, like the Americans, perpetuate the lies and deceptions that were used against the English right up to the present day, and they (the Irish) seek apologies from the English for what they did to themselves.

2. The Welsh have been closely united with England for hundreds of years, and Plaid Cymru is still a minority movement. There is no real hatred between the two countries, just a healthy rivalry. True, the Welsh have a keen desire to preserve their national language and heritage - looked down upon by English speakers until recently, but that is a good thing, and it does not demand that they cut their ties. Incidentally, English is spoken by more Welsh people than Welsh.

3. The Scots, too, are unlikely to become independent from England, and if they do, it will be by agreement between friends. Again, hatred of England is historical and largely unfounded - unless, like the Irish, you go back several centuries into history to justify your claim of unjust treatment.

The United Kingdom is exactly that - a union of two kingdoms, a principality and a province, and each has its place in that union just like any state in the USA. (The province is that part of Ireland which chose to remain British, after the establishment of the Irish Free State. It seems there are many Irish republicans who cannot countenance a British presence to the north, just like the American republic found it necessary to go to war against Canada after their independence.)

Most of the English/British possessions (save those where we had a peacekeeping role) sought independence by peaceful means and obtained it. The vast majority of those countries remained in the Commonwealth where they each have an equal voice on matters they deal with. A number still have the Queen as their head of state, and Britain is held in deep affection.

So, to sum up, England has committed many atrocities through its high handed arrogance and belief in its superiority over native peoples - that seems to be part of the Germanic DNA. I believe Britain is also guilty of genocide, where it successfully wiped out a whole race. We have ruled some places very badly.

But we have also ruled well, and the evidence of that is to be seen all round the globe. Some people, however, justify their own bad history by blaming it on us. The Irish were the authors of most of their own problems. They chose to become a third rate country rather than be part of the United Kingdom (an equal pert, remember). Zimbabwe shook off British shackles in order to murder white Zimbabweans and steal their property ... and that country is in financial ruins despite all its natural wealth. The 13 colonies were seized by a motley crew of smugglers, pirates, profiteers and other malcontents who sought to further their own interests rather than their compatriots and condemned them to years of war, to higher taxes and a national debt and called it "Liberty". There was no more freedom - in fact there was now less freedom - than they had under the British.

Thank you MMI for putting the record streight.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Sorry Ive studied the history rather extensively and I think you will need a far better argument to convince me that the English/Irish issue or for that matter any of England's many international (anything outside of England proper such as with the Scots and Welsh and French and America etc etc) foibles all occur so sophistically one sided.

And why do you think Ireland sided with England's enemies I wonder?

---

Take your blinkers off denu, and as for your question, you would have to ask them. [They were enemies of the world] If you have been reading the History of UK and Ireland extensively, then you would still be reading it now. You have also missed the main point of my argument that the British were not the opressors.

It is also a fact that if it was not for the American $ in later years, the IRA would not have been able to continue buying weapons and explosives. So as to kill not only the British soldier, but also their own race and creed along with the innocent people on the manland of England. It was an easy thing to omit while reading the history of ireland, because if it was written by the Irish it would not be printed. Neither did it help when Irish/American senitors pledged their alegience to the cause in Ireland, and were in a small way a great help to the gathering money to aid the IRA bomb making killing machine. Next time you talk to a British soldier of any rank, please do ask him/her where the IRA got 80% of their war chest? Then preach to me how bad the British were to the Irish. There were a lot of soldiers over in Northern Ireland questioning the Special Relationship while i was there, but perhaps that is only there when it is needed by the Americans.

Be well IAN 2411

Obviously both of you respected fellow contributors (Ian and MMI) are completely sympathetically entwined on the English side of that paticular sticky wicket.

Human nature being the way it is I suspect that there are I am sure an equally large number of people who just as validly hold the opposite point of view and have all the facts to back it up just as you will both claim to have and from your respective perspectives do.

No amount of logic or information provided on my part will change that subjective view point.

Please also note that I didnt say what my own personal views on the issue in question were.

The only point I tried to make was that who is the good guy and who is the bad guy is determined by one's perspective...IE which side if any the observer is on.

So I think my "blinkers" will remain exactly "objectively" where they are.

I recited facts. Facts are not capable of interpretation, but only of acceptance or rejection. I admit I did not recite all of the facts, and there are many that can be trotted out to show England did not do all it should have to relieve the suffering of the Irish poor. But I reject completely (save for Cromwell and perhaps the Tudors - who had other considerations to take into account) that England oppressed Ireland. The Irish problems were caused by the Irish themselves and were brought about through their own indifference to the suffering they caused to their own people. I believe the Republic came into being out of the bad bile of people like de Valera, and for no better reason than spite. The Irish Free State would have been as free as Canada is now - that is, completely free, and the Irish were given that status at a time when the IRA were all but defeated. But freedom given freely isn't the same as freedom that people are forced to die for, is it? So the Irish leaders spurned it, and a civil war (not an Anglo/Irish war) resulted.

In your posts, you might not have stated your personal beliefs, but a clear sympathy for the Irish cause comes across - to me at least. You claim that Americans in general support the Irish cause because they see a similarity between Irish effort to gain freedom and the American Revolution: "the underdog trying to do what we ourselves once did," even if their acts of terrorism are "sometimes reprehensible". Now I don't try to hide the fact that I despise Irish terrorists, but even acknowledging that bias, I cannot conceive of an act of terrorism that is not reprehensible!

Is the comparison between America's fight for freedom and Ireland's fair? I think not. America fought for its liberty: the Irish were given it in 1921. Following the bloody civil war - worse than the Anglo/Irish War that preceded it - those that were left formed a republic, but instead of calling it a day, they then turned against Northern Ireland, where the majority of people there chose to remain British. It is the IRA's attempt to force Northern Ireland to join the Republic that brought about the troubles that have rumbled along, financed by crime, Libya, and American dollars, since the 1960's. In other words, what you call the fight for Irish freedom is really an attempt to colonise a part of Britain against the will of the people. Ireland is already free!

Ireland is now the oppressor, not England.

You also claim to have studied the history of the Anglo/Irish question, but, quite apart from not realising Ireland has already achieved its freedom, you seem to have swallowed the myth that Britain is riven with hatred between its constituent parts to support your suggestion that everyone has been mistreated by the English. I can only call that naive.

Lastly, you ask why Ireland has sided with England's enemies? How far back do you want me to go?

Let's ignore the vikings - they hardly seem relevant to the 21st century, even though we are discussing Irish history. England's traditional enemy is France. I do not recall any significant alliance between France and Ireland against England. In fact, Tudor England made sure that Ireland could not be used by the French as a back door into England.

England's next major foe was Spain. As Ireland has always been Catholic, it would be natural for the Irish to support the Spanish Armada. It didn't.

In World War II, Ireland was neutral. The Irish Government was anti-English, but it did not support Germany. Many Irish citizens joined the British Army to fight on our side, but when they went home, the Irish Government put their names on a "List" which was then widely circulated so that those named would not be able to work in any government job. This was known as the Starvation Order (see what I said above about the Irish being the source of their own problems).

So who are the enemies of England that Ireland has always sided with?

What little is known of pre-Christian Ireland comes from a few references in Roman writings, Irish poetry and myth, and archaeology. While some possible Paleolithic tools have been found in Ireland, none of the finds are convincing of Paleolithic inhabitants in Ireland. The earliest inhabitants of Ireland were Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived sometime after 8000 BC when the climate had become more hospitable following the retreat of the polar icecaps - it's debated whether a land bridge would have existed at this time or if the first inhabitants would have crossed by boat. The people remained hunter-gatherers until about 4000BC when agriculture was introduced from the South West continent, leading to the establishment of a high Neolithic culture, characterized by the appearance of pottery, polished stone tools, rectangular wooden houses and communal megalithic tombs. Some of these tombs are huge stone monuments like the Passage Tombs of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth, many of them astronomically aligned (most notably, Newgrange). Four main types of megalithic tomb have been identified: Portal Tombs, Court Tombs, Passage Tombs and Wedge Tombs. In Leinster and Munster individual adult males were buried in small stone structures, called cists, under earthen mounds and were accompanied by distinctive decorated pottery. This culture apparently prospered, and the island became more densely populated. Towards the end of the Neolithic new types of monuments developed, such as circular embanked enclosures and timber, stone and post and pit circles.

The Bronze Age properly began once copper was alloyed with tin to produce true bronze artifacts; this took place around 2000 BC, when some Ballybegflat axes and associated metalwork was produced. The period preceding this, in which Lough Ravel and most Ballybeg axes were produced, is known as the Copper Age or Chalcolithic, and commenced about 2500 BC. This period also saw the production of elaborate gold and bronze ornaments, weapons and tools. There was a movement away from the construction of communal megalithic tombs to the burial of the dead in small stone cists or simple pits, which could be situated in cemeteries or in circular earth or stone built burial mounds known respectively as barrows and cairns. As the period progressed inhumation burial gave way to cremation and by the Middle Bronze Age cremations were often placed beneath large burial urns.
The Iron Age in Ireland began about 600 BC. The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of small groups of Celtic speaking people into Ireland, with items of the continental Celtic La Tene style being found in at least the northern part of the island by about 300 BC. The result of a gradual blending of Celtic and indigenous cultures would result in the emergence of Gaelic culture by the fifth century. It is also during the fifth century that the main over-kingdoms of In Tuisceart, Airgialla, Ulaid, Mide, Laigin, Mumhain, Cóiced Ol nEchmacht began to emerge (see Kingdoms of ancient Ireland). Within these kingdoms a rich culture flourished. The society of these kingdoms was dominated by an upper class consisting of aristocratic warriors and learned people, which possibly included Druids.
Linguists realized from the 17th century onwards that the language spoken by these people, the Goidelic languages, was a branch of the Celtic languages. This is usually explained as a result of invasions by Celts from the continent. However, other research has postulated that the culture developed gradually and continuously, and that the introduction of Celtic language and elements of Celtic culture may have been a result of cultural exchange with Celtic groups in South West continental Europe from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.
The hypothesis that the native Late Bronze Age inhabitants gradually absorbed Celtic influences has since been supported by some recent genetic research.
The Romans referred to Ireland as Hibernia. Ptolemy in AD 100 records Ireland's geography and tribes. Ireland was never formally a part of the Roman Empire but Roman influence was often projected well beyond formal borders. Tacitus writes that an exiled Irish prince was with Agricola in Britain and would return to seize power in Ireland. Juvenal tells us that Roman "arms had been taken beyond the shores of Ireland". In recent years, some experts have hypothesized that Roman-sponsored Gaelic forces (or perhaps even Roman regulars) mounted some kind of invasion around 100, but the exact relationship between Rome and the dynasties and peoples of Hibernia remains unclear.
Irish confederations (the Scoti) attacked and some settled in Britain during the Great Conspiracy of 367. In particular, the Dál Riata settled in western Scotland and the Western Isles.
The middle centuries of the first millennium AD marked great changes in Ireland.
Niall Noigiallach (died c.450/455) laid the basis for the Uí Néill dynasty's hegemony over much of western, northern and central Ireland. Politically, the former emphasis on tribal affiliation had been replaced by the 700s by that of patrilineal and dynastic background. Many formerly powerful kingdoms and peoples disappeared. Irish pirates struck all over the coast of western Britain in the same way that the Vikings would later attack Ireland. Some of these founded entirely new kingdoms in Pictland and, to a lesser degree, in parts of Wales. The Attacotti of south Leinster may even have served in the Roman military in the mid-to-late 300s.
Perhaps it was some of the latter returning home as rich mercenaries, merchants, or slaves stolen from Britain or Gaul, that first brought the Christian faith to Ireland. Some early sources claim that there were missionaries active in southern Ireland long before St. Patrick. Whatever the route, and there were probably many, this new faith was to have the most profound effect on the Irish.
Tradition maintains that in AD 432, St. Patrick arrived on the island and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity. On the other hand, according to Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary chronicler, Palladius was sent to Ireland by the Pope in 431 as "first Bishop to the Irish believing in Christ", which demonstrates that there were already Christians living in Ireland. Palladius seems to have worked purely as Bishop to Irish Christians in the Leinster and Meath kingdoms, while Patrick — who may have arrived as late as 461 — worked first and foremost as a missionary to the Pagan Irish, converting in the more remote kingdoms located in Ulster and Connacht.
Patrick is traditionally credited with preserving the tribal and social patterns of the Irish, codifying their laws and changing only those that conflicted with Christian practices. He is also credited with introducing the Roman alphabet, which enabled Irish monks to preserve parts of the extensive Celtic oral literature. The historicity of these claims remains the subject of debate and there is no direct evidence linking Patrick with any of these accomplishments. The myth of Patrick, as scholars refer to it, was developed in the centuries after his death.
The Druid tradition collapsed, first in the face of the spread of the new faith, and ultimately in the aftermath of famine and plagues due to the extreme weather events of 535-536. Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished shortly thereafter. Missionaries from Ireland to England and Continental Europe spread news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin learning during the Early Middle Ages. The period of Insular art, mainly in the fields of illuminated manuscripts, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island. Insular style was to be a crucial ingredient in the formation of the Romanesque and Gothic styles throughout Western Europe. Sites dating to this period include clochans, ringforts and promontory forts.
Francis John Byrne describes the effect of the epedemics which occurred mid-way through this era:
The plagues of the 660's and the 680's had a traumatic effect on Irish society. The golden age of the saints was over, together with the generation of kings who could fire a saga-writer's imagination. The literary tradition looks back to the reign of the sons of Aed Slaine (Diarmait and Blathmac, who died in 665) as to the end of an era. Antiquaries, brehons, genealogiests and hagiographers, felt the need to collect ancient traditions before they were totally forgotten. Many were in fact swallowed by oblivion; when we examine the writing of Tirechan we encounter obscure references to tribes which are quite unknown to the later genealogical tradition. The laws describe a tribal society that was obsolescent, and the meaning and use of the word moccu dies out with archaic Old Irish at the beginning of the new century. ("Tribes and Tribalism in Early Ireland", Eiru 22, 1971, p. 153)
The first English involvement in Ireland took place in this period. In 684 AD an English expeditionary force sent by Northumbrian King Ecgfrith invaded Ireland in the summer of that year. The English forces managed to seize a number of captives and booty, but they apparently did not stay in Ireland for long. The next English involvement in Ireland would take place a little less than half a millennium later in 1169 AD when the Normans invaded the country.
The first recorded Viking raid in Irish history occurred in 795 when Vikings from Norway looted the island. Early Viking raids were generally small in scale and quick. These early raids interrupted the golden age of Christian Irish culture starting the beginning of two hundred years of intermittent warfare, with waves of Viking raiders plundering monasteries and towns throughout Ireland. Most of the early raiders came from the fjords of western Norway.
The Vikings were expert sailors, who traveled in longships, and by the early 840s, had begun to establish settlements along the Irish coasts and to spend the winter months there. Vikings founded settlements in several places; most famously in Dublin. Written accounts from this time (early to mid 840s) show that the Vikings were moving further inland to attack (often using rivers) and then retreating to their coastal headquarters.
In 852, the Vikings landed in Dublin Bay and established a fortress. After several generations a group of mixed Irish and Norse ethnic background arose, the Gall-Gaels, '(Gall being the Old Irish word for foreign).
However, the Vikings never achieved total domination of Ireland, often fighting for and against various Irish kings. The Battle of Clontarf in 1014 marked the beginning of the decline of Viking power in Ireland. However the towns that the Vikings had founded continued to flourish and trade became an important part of the Irish economy
By the 12th century, Ireland was divided politically into a shifting hierarchy of petty kingdoms and over-kingdoms. Power was exercised by the heads of a few regional dynasties vying against each other for supremacy over the whole island. One of these men, King Diarmait Mac Murchada of Leinster was forcibly exiled by the new High King, Ruaidri mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair of the Western kingdom of Connacht. Fleeing to Aquitaine, Diarmait obtained permission from Henry II to recruit Norman knights to regain his kingdom. The first Norman knight landed in Ireland in 1167, followed by the main forces of Normans, Welsh and Flemings. Several counties were restored to the control of Diarmait, who named his son-in-law, the Norman Richard de Clare, known as Strongbow, heir to his kingdom. This caused consternation to King Henry II of England, who feared the establishment of a rival Norman state in Ireland. Accordingly, he resolved to establish his authority.
With the authority of the papal bull Laudabiliter from Adrian IV, Henry landed with a large fleet at Waterford in 1171, becoming the first King of England to set foot on Irish soil. Henry awarded his Irish territories to his younger son John with the title Dominus Hiberniae ("Lord of Ireland"). When John unexpectedly succeeded his brother as King John, the "Lordship of Ireland" fell directly under the English Crown.
Initially the Normans controlled the entire east coast, from Waterford up to eastern Ulster and penetrated far west in the country. The counties were ruled by many smaller kings. The first Lord of Ireland was King John, who visited Ireland in 1185 and 1210 and helped consolidate the Norman controlled areas, while at the same time ensuring that the many Irish kings swore fealty to him.
Throughout the thirteenth century the policy of the English Kings was to weaken the power of the Norman Lords in Ireland. For example King John encouraged Hugh de Lacy to destabilize and then overthrow the Lord of Ulster, before creating him to the Earl of Ulster. The Hiberno-Norman community suffered from a series of invasions that ceased the spread of their settlement and power. Politics and events in Gaelic Ireland served to draw the settlers deeper into the orbit of the Irish.
By 1261 the weakening of the Normans had become manifest when Fineen MacCarthy defeated a Norman army at the Battle of Callann. The war continued between the different lords and earls for about 100 years and the wars caused a great deal of destruction, especially around Dublin. In this chaotic situation, local Irish lords won back large amounts of land that their families had lost since the conquest and held them after the war was over.
The Black Death arrived in Ireland in 1348. Because most of the English and Norman inhabitants of Ireland lived in towns and villages, the plague hit them far harder than it did the native Irish, who lived in more dispersed rural settlements. After it had passed, Gaelic Irish language and customs came to dominate the country again. The English-controlled territory shrunk back to a fortified area around Dublin (the Pale), and had little real authority outside (beyond the Pale).
By the end of the 15th century, central English authority in Ireland had all but disappeared. England's attentions were diverted by the Wars of the Roses. The Lordship of Ireland lay in the hands of the powerful Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare, who dominated the country by means of military force and alliances with lords and clans around Ireland. Around the country, local Gaelic and Gaelicised lords expanded their powers at the expense of the English government in Dublin but the power of the Dublin government was seriously curtailed by the introduction of Poynings' Law in 1494. According to this act the Irish parliament was essentially put under the control of the Westminster parliament.
From 1536, Henry VIII decided to conquer Ireland and bring it under crown control. The Fitzgerald dynasty of Kildare, who had become the effective rulers of Ireland in the 15th century, had become very unreliable allies of the Tudor monarchs. They had invited Burgundian troops into Dublin to crown the Yorkist pretender, Lambert Simnel as King of England in 1487. Again in 1536, Silken Thomas Fitzgerald went into open rebellion against the crown. Having put down this rebellion, Henry VIII resolved to bring Ireland under English government control so the island would not become a base for future rebellions or foreign invasions of England. In 1541, Henry upgraded Ireland from a lordship to a full Kingdom. Henry was proclaimed King of Ireland at a meeting of the Irish Parliament that year. This was the first meeting of the Irish Parliament to be attended by the Gaelic Irish chieftains as well as the Hiberno-Norman aristocracy. With the institutions of government in place, the next step was to extend the control of the English Kingdom of Ireland over all of its claimed territory. This took nearly a century, with various English administrations in the process either negotiating or fighting with the independent Irish and Old English lords. The Spanish Armada in Ireland suffered heavy losses during an extraordinary season of storms in the autumn of 1588. Among the survivors was Captain Francisco de Cuellar, who gave a remarkable account of his experiences on the run in Ireland.
The re-conquest was completed during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, after several extremely brutal conflicts. (See the Desmond Rebellions (1569–1573 and 1579–1583 and the Nine Years War 1594–1603, for details). After this point, the English authorities in Dublin established real control over Ireland for the first time, bringing a centralized government to the entire island, and successfully disarmed the native lordships. However, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by crown authority (including resorting to martial law) to bring the country under English control heightened resentment of English rule.
From the mid-16th and into the early 17th century, crown governments carried out a policy of land confiscation and colonisation known as Plantations. Scottish and English Protestants were sent as colonists to the provinces of Munster, Ulster and the counties of Laois and Offaly (see also Plantations of Ireland). These Protestant settlers replaced the Irish Catholic landowners who were removed from their lands. These settlers would form the ruling class of future British appointed administrations in Ireland. A series of Penal Laws were introduced to encourage conversion to the established (Anglican) Church of Ireland. The principal victims of these laws were Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians.
The 17th century was perhaps the bloodiest in Ireland's history. Two periods of war (1641–53 and 1689–91) caused huge loss of life. The ultimate dispossession of most of the Irish Catholic landowning class was engineered; recusants were subordinated under the Penal Laws.
In the mid-17th century, Ireland was convulsed by eleven years of warfare, beginning with the Rebellion of 1641, when Irish Catholics rebelled against the domination of English and Protestant settlers. The Catholic gentry briefly ruled the country as Confederate Ireland (1642–1649) against the background of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms until Oliver Cromwellreconquered Ireland in 1649–1653 on behalf of the English Commonwealth. Cromwell's conquest was the most brutal phase of the war. By its close, up to a third of Ireland's pre-war population was dead or in exile. As retribution for the rebellion of 1641, the better quality remaining lands owned by Irish Catholics were confiscated and given to British settlers commenced. Several hundred remaining native landowners were transplanted to Connacht.
Ireland became the main battleground after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when the Catholic James II left London and the English Parliament replaced him with William of Orange. The wealthier Irish Catholics backed James to try to reverse the Penal Laws and land confiscations, whereas Protestants supported William and Mary in this 'Glorious Revolution' to preserve their property in the country. James and William fought for the Kingdom of Ireland in the Williamite War, most famously at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, where James' outnumbered forces were defeated.
Jacobite resistance in Ireland was finally ended after the Battle of Aughrim in July 1691. The Penal Laws that had been relaxed somewhat after the Restoration were reinforced more thoroughly after this war, as the infant Anglo-Irish Ascendancy novo elite wanted to ensure that the Irish Roman Catholics would not be in a position to repeat their rebellions.
Subsequent Irish antagonism towards England was aggravated by the economic situation of Ireland in the 18th century. Some absentee landlords managed some of their estates inefficiently, and food tended to be produced for export rather than for domestic consumption. Two very cold winters towards the end of the Little Ice Age led directly to a famine between 1740 and 1741, which killed about 400,000 people and caused over 150,000 of the Irish to emigrate. In addition, Irish exports were reduced by the Navigation Acts from the 1660s, which placed tariffs on Irish products entering England, but exempted English goods from tariffs on entering Ireland. Despite this most of the 18th century was relatively peaceful in comparison with the preceding two hundred years, and the population doubled to over four million.
By the late 18th century, many of the Anglo-Irishruling class had come to see Ireland as their native country. A Parliamentary faction led by Henry Grattan agitated for a more favourable trading relationship with Great Britain and for greater legislative independence for the Parliament of Ireland. However, reform in Ireland stalled over the more radical proposals toward enfranchising Irish Catholics. This was partially enabled in 1793, but Catholics could not yet enter parliament or become government officials. Some were attracted to the more militant example of the French Revolution of 1789.
Presbyterians and Dissenters too faced persecution on a lesser scale, and in 1791 a group of dissident Protestant individuals, where all but two were Presbyterians, held the first meeting of what would become the Society of the United Irishmen. Originally they sought to reform the Irish Parliament which was controlled by those belonging to the state church; seek Catholic Emancipation; and help remove religion from politics. When their ideals seemed unattainable they became more determined to use force to overthrow British rule and found a non-sectarian republic. Their activity culminated in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which was bloodily suppressed. Largely in response to this rebellion, Irish self-government was abolished altogether by the Act of Union in 1801.
In 1800, following the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the British and the Irish parliaments enacted the Acts of Union. The merger created a new political entity called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with effect from January 1, 1801. Part of the agreement forming the basis of union was that the Test Act would be repealed to remove any remaining discrimination against Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists and other dissenter religions in the newly United Kingdom. However, King George III invoking the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 controversially and adamantly blocked attempts by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. Pitt resigned in protest, but his successor Henry Addington and his new cabinet failed to legislate any repeal or change to the Test Act.
In 1823, an enterprising Catholic lawyer, Daniel O'Connell, known in Ireland as 'The Liberator' began an ultimately successful Irish campaign to achieve emancipation, and be seated in the parliament. This culminated in O'Connell's successful election in the Clare by-election, which revived the parliamentary efforts at reform. The Catholic Relief Act 1829 was eventually approved by the U.K. parliament under the leadership of Prime Minister, the Dublin born Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This indefatigable Anglo-Irish statesman, a former Chief Secretary for Ireland, and hero of the Napoleonic Wars successfully guided the legislation through both houses of parliament. He then persuaded the King, George IV, to concede in signing the bill into law in 1829 under threat of resignation. The continuing obligation of Roman Catholics to fund the established Church of Ireland, however, led to the sporadic skirmishes of the Tithe War of 1831–38. The church was disestablished by the Gladstone government in 1867. The continuing enactment of parliamentary reform during the ensuing administrations further extended the initially limited franchise. Daniel O'Connell M.P. later led the Repeal Association in an unsuccessful campaign to undo the Act of Union 1800.
The second of Ireland's "Great Famines", An Gorta Mór struck the country severely in the period 1845–1849, with potato blight, exacerbated by the political and laissez-faire economic factors of the time leading to mass starvation and emigration. (See Great Irish Famine.) The impact of emigration in Ireland was severe; the population dropped from over 8 million before the Famine to 4.4 million in 1911. Gaelic or Irish, once the spoken language of the entire island, declined in use sharply in the nineteenth century as a result of the Famine and the creation of the National School education system, as well as hostility to the language from leading Irish politicians of the time; it was largely replaced by English.
Outside mainstream nationalism, a series of violent rebellions by Irish republicans took place in 1803, under Robert Emmet; in 1848 a rebellion by the Young Irelanders, most prominent among them, Thomas Francis Meagher; and in 1867, another insurrection by the Irish Republican Brotherhood. All failed, but physical force nationalism remained an undercurrent in the nineteenth century.
The late 19th century also witnessed major land reform, spearheaded by the Land League under Michael Davitt demanding what became known as the 3 Fs; Fair rent, free sale, fixity of tenure. From 1870 and as a result of the Land War agitations and subsequent Plan of Campaign of the 1880s, various U.K. governments introduced a series of Irish Land Acts. - William O'Brien played a leading role in the 1902 Land Conference to pave the way for the most advanced social legislation in Ireland since the Union, the Wyndham Land Purchase Act of 1903. This Act set the conditions for the breakup of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders and tenants ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question
In the 1870s the issue of Irish self-government again became a major focus of debate under Charles Stewart Parnell, founder of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Prime minister William Ewart Gladstone made two unsuccessful attempts to pass Home Rule in 1886 and 1893. Parnell's leadership ended when he was implicated in a controversial divorce scandal. It was revealed that he had been living in family relationship with Katherine O'Shea, the long separated wife of a fellow Irish MP, with whom he was the father of three children.
After the introduction of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 which broke the power of the landlord dominated "Grand Juries", passing for the first time democratic control of local affairs into the hands of the people through elected Local County Councils, the debate over full Home Rule led to tensions between Irish nationalists and Irish unionists (those who favored maintenance of the union). Most of the island was predominantly nationalist, Catholic and agrarian. The northeast, however, was predominantly unionist, Protestant and industrialized. Unionists feared a loss of political power and economic wealth in a predominantly rural, nationalist, Catholic home-rule state. Nationalists believed that they would remain economically and politically second class citizens without self-government. Out of this division, two opposing sectarian movements evolved, the Protestant Orange Order and the Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Home Rule became certain when in 1910 the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) under John Redmond held the balance of power in the Commons and the third Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1912. Unionist resistance was immediate with the formation of the Ulster Volunteers. In turn the Irish Volunteers were established to oppose them and enforce the introduction of self-government.
In September 1914, just as the First World War broke out, the UK Parliament finally passed the Third Home Rule Act to establish self-government for Ireland, but was suspended for the duration of the war. In order to ensure the implementation of Home Rule after the war, nationalist leaders and the IPP under Redmond supported with Ireland's participation the British and Allied war effort under the Triple Entente against the expansion of Central Powers. The core of the Irish Volunteers were against this decision, but the majority left to form the National Volunteers who enlisted in Irish regiments of the New British Army, the 10th and 16th (Irish) Divisions, their Northern counterparts in the 36th (Ulster) Division. Before the war ended, Britain made two concerted efforts to implement Home Rule, one in May 1916 and again with the Irish Convention during 1917–1918, but the Irish sides (Nationalist, Unionist) were unable to agree terms for the temporary or permanent exclusion of Ulster from its provisions.
The period from 1916–1921 was marked by political violence and upheaval, ending in the partition of Ireland and independence for 26 of its 32 counties. A failed militant attempt was made to gain separate independence for Ireland with the 1916 Easter Rising, an insurrection in Dublin. Though support for the insurgents was small, the violence used in its suppression led to a swing in support of the rebels. In addition, the unprecedented threat of Irishmen being conscripted to the British Army in 1918 (for service on the Western Front as a result of the German Spring Offensive) accelerated this change. (See: Conscription Crisis of 1918). In the December 1918 electionsSinn Féin, the party of the rebels, won a majority of three-quarters of all seats in Ireland, twenty-seven MPs of which assembled in Dublin on 21 January 1919, to form a thirty-two county Irish Republic parliament, the first Dáil Éireannunilaterally declaring sovereignty over the entire island.
Unwilling to negotiate any understanding with Britain short of complete independence, the Irish Republican Army — the army of the newly declared Irish Republic — waged a guerilla war (the Irish War of Independence) from 1919 to 1921. In the course of the fighting and amid much acrimony, the Fourth Government of Ireland Act 1920 implemented Home Rule while separating the island into what the British government's Act termed "Northern Ireland" and "Southern Ireland". In July 1921, the Irish and British governments agreed a truce that halted the war. In December 1921, representatives of both governments signed an Anglo-Irish Treaty. The Irish delegation was led by Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins. This abolished the Irish Republic and created the Irish Free State, a self-governing Dominion of the Commonwealth of Nations in the manner of Canada and Australia. Under the Treaty, Northern Ireland could opt out of the Free State and stay within the United Kingdom: it promptly did so. In 1922, both parliaments ratified the Treaty, formalizing independence for the twenty-six county Irish Free State (which went on to re-name itself Ireland in 1937 and declare itself a republic in 1949); while the six county Northern Ireland, gaining Home Rule for itself, remained part of the United Kingdom. For most of the next 75 years, each territory was strongly aligned to either Catholic or Protestant ideologies, although this was more marked in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
The treaty to sever the Union divided the republican movement into anti-Treaty (who wanted to fight on until an Irish Republic was achieved) and pro-Treaty supporters (who accepted the Free State as a first step towards full independence and unity). Between 1922 and 1923 both sides fought the bloody Irish Civil War. The new Irish Free State government defeated the anti-Treaty remnant of the Irish Republican Army, imposing multiple executions. This division among nationalists still colors Irish politics today, specifically between the two leading Irish political parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
The new Irish Free State (1922–37) existed against the backdrop of the growth of dictatorships in mainland Europe and a major world economic downturn in 1929. In contrast with many contemporary European states it remained a democracy. Testament to this came when the losing faction in the Irish civil war, Éamon de Valera's Fianna Fáil, was able to take power peacefully by winning the 1932 general election. Nevertheless, up until the mid 1930s, considerable parts of Irish society saw the Free State through the prism of the civil war, as a repressive, British imposed state. It was only the peaceful change of government in 1932 that signaled the final acceptance of the Free State on their part. In contrast to many other states in the period, the Free State remained financially solvent as a result of low government expenditure, despite the Economic War with Britain. However, unemployment and emigration were high. The population declined to a low of 2.7 million recorded in the 1961 census.
The Roman Catholic Church had a powerful influence over the Irish state for much of its history. The clergy's influence meant that the Irish state had very conservative social policies, forbidding, for example, divorce, contraception, abortion, pornography as well as encouraging the censoring and banning of many books and films. In addition the Church largely controlled the State's hospitals, schools and remained the largest provider of many other social services.
With the partition of Ireland in 1922, 92.6% of the Free State's population were Catholic while 7.4% were Protestant. By the 1960s, the Protestant population had fallen by half. Although emigration was high among all the population, due to a lack of economic opportunity, the rate of Protestant emigration was disproportionate in this period. Many Protestants left the country in the early 1920s, either because they felt unwelcome in a predominantly Catholic and nationalist state, because they were afraid due to the burning of Protestant homes (particularly of the old landed class) by republicans during the civil war, because they regarded themselves as British and did not wish to live in an independent Irish state, or because of the economic disruption caused by the recent violence. The Catholic Church had also issued a decree, known as Ne Temere, whereby the children of marriages between Catholics and Protestants had to be brought up as Catholics. From 1945, the emigration rate of Protestants fell and they became less likely to emigrate than Catholics - indicating their integration into the life of the Irish State.
In 1937, a new Constitution of Ireland re-established the state as Ireland (or Éire in Irish). The state remained neutral throughout World War II (see Irish neutrality) and this saved it from much of the horrors of the war, although tens of thousands volunteered to serve in the British forces. Ireland was also hit badly by rationing of food, and coal in particular (peat production became a priority during this time). Though nominally neutral, recent studies have suggested a far greater level of involvement by the South with the Allies than was realized, with D Day's date set on the basis of secret weather information on Atlantic storms supplied by Ireland. For more detail on 1939–45, see main article The Emergency.
In 1949 the state was formally declared a republic and it left the British Commonwealth.
In the 1960s, Ireland underwent a major economic change under reforming Taoiseach (prime minister) Seán Lemass and Secretary of the Department of Finance T.K. Whitaker, who produced a series of economic plans. Free second-level education was introduced by Donogh O'Malley as Minister for Education in 1968. From the early 1960s, Ireland sought admission to the European Economic Community but, because 90% of exports were to the United Kingdom market, it did not do so until the UK did, in 1973.
Global economic problems in the 1970s, augmented by a set of misjudged economic policies followed by governments, including that of Taoiseach Jack Lynch, caused the Irish economy to stagnate. The Troubles in Northern Ireland discouraged foreign investment. Devaluation was enabled when the Irish Pound, or Punt, was established in as a truly separate currency in 1979, breaking the link with the UK's sterling. However, economic reforms in the late 1980s, helped by investment from the European Community, led to the emergence of one of the world's highest economic growth rates, with mass immigration (particularly of people from Asia and Eastern Europe) as a feature of the late 1990s. This period came to be known as the Celtic Tiger and was focused on as a model for economic development in the former Eastern Bloc states, which entered the European Union in the early 2000s. Property values had risen by a factor of between four and ten between 1993 and 2006, in part fuelling the boom.
Irish society also adopted relatively liberal social policies during this period. Divorce was legalized, homosexuality decriminalized, while abortion in limited cases was allowed by the Irish Supreme Court in the X Case legal judgment. Major scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, both sexual and financial, coincided with a widespread decline in religious practice, with weekly attendance at Roman Catholic Mass halving in twenty years. A series of tribunals set up from the 1990s have investigated alleged malpractices by politicians, the Catholic clergy, judges, hospitals and the Gardaí (police).
The 1920 Government of Ireland Bill enabled the reformation of the Northern Ireland counties which consisted of six Northeastern counties of Londonderry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and Armagh. From 1921 to 1972, Northern Ireland was governed by a Unionist government, based at Stormont in east Belfast. Unionist leader and first Prime Minister, James Craig, declared that it would be "a Protestant State for a Protestant People". Craig's main goal was to form and preserve Protestant authority in the new state which was above all an effort to secure a unionist majority. In 1926, the majority of the populations in the province were Presbyterian and Anglican therefore solidifying Craig's Protestant political power. The Ulster Unionist Party thereafter formed every government until 1972. Discrimination against the minority nationalist community in jobs and housing, and their total exclusion from political power due to the majoritarian electoral system, led to the emergence of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association in the late 1960s, inspired by Martin Luther King's civil rights movement in the United States of America. The military forces of the Northern Protestants and Northern Catholics (IRA) turned to brutal acts of violence to establish power. As time went on it became clear that these two rival states would bring about a civil war. After the Second World War, keeping the cohesion within Stormont seemed impossible; increased economic pressures, solidified Catholic unity, and British involvement ultimately led to Stormont's collapse. As the civil rights movement in the United States gained worldwide acknowledgement, Catholics rallied together to achieve a similar socio-political recognition. This resulted in the formation of various organizations such as the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) in 1967 and the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ)in 1964. Non-violent protest became an increasingly important factor in mobilizing Catholic sympathies and opinion and thus more effective in generating support than actively violent groups such as the IRA. However, these non-violent protests posed a problem to Northern Ireland's prime minister Terrance O'Neil (1963) because it hampered his efforts in persuading Catholics in Northern Ireland that they too, like their Protestant counterparts, belong within the United Kingdom. Despite O'Neil's reforming efforts there was growing discontent amongst both Catholics and Unionists. In October 1968, a peaceful civil rights march held in Derry turned violent as police brutally beat protesters. The outbreak was televised by international media, and as a result the march was highly publicized which further confirmed the socio-political turmoil in Ireland. A violent counter-reaction from conservative unionists led to civil disorder, notably the Battle of the Bogside and the Northern Ireland riots of August 1969. To restore order, British troops were deployed to the streets of Northern Ireland at this time.
The violent outbreaks in the late 60's encouraged and helped strengthen military groups such as the IRA. The IRA believed themselves to be the protectors of the working class Catholics who were vulnerable to police and civilian brutality. During the late sixties and early seventies recruitment into the IRA organization dramatically increased as street and civilian violence worsened. The interjection from the British troops proved to be insufficient to quell the violence and thus solidified the IRA's growing military importance. On January 30, 1972 the worst tensions came to a head with the events of Bloody Sunday. Paratroops opened fire on anti-internment protesters in Derry which killed 13 unarmed civilians. Bloody Friday, Bloody Sunday, and other violent acts in the early 1970s came to be known as the Troubles. The Stormont parliament was prorogued in 1972 and abolished in 1973. Paramilitary private armies such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, resulted from a split within the IRA, the Official IRA and Irish National Liberation Army fought against the Ulster Defense Regiment and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Moreover, the British army and the (largely Protestant) Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) also took part in the chaos that resulted in the deaths of well over three thousand men, women and children, civilians and military. Most of the violence took place in Northern Ireland, but some also spread to England and across the Irish border.
For the next 27½ years, with the exception of five months in 1974, Northern Ireland was under "direct rule" with a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the British Cabinet responsible for the departments of the Northern Ireland government. Direct Rule was designed to be a temporary solution until Northern Ireland was capable of governing itself once again. Principal acts were passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the same way as for much of the rest of the UK, but many smaller measures were dealt with by Order in Council with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. Attempts were made to establish a power-sharing executive, representing both the nationalist and unionist communities, by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 and the Sunningdale Agreement in December 1973. Both acts however did little for creating cohesion between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Constitution Act of 1973 formalized the UK government's affirmation of reunification of Ireland by consent only; therefore ultimately delegating the authoritative power of the border question from Stormont to the people of Northern Ireland (and the Republic of Ireland). Conversely, the Sunningdale Agreement included a "provision of a Council of Ireland which held the right to execute executive and harmonizing functions". Most significantly, the Sunningdale Agreement brought together political leaders from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK to deliberate for the first time since 1925. The Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention and Jim Prior's 1982 assembly were also temporarily implemented however all failed to either reach consensus or operate in the longer term.
During the 1970s British policy concentrated on defeating the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) by military means including the policy of Ulsterisation (requiring the RUC and British Army reserve Ulster Defence Regiment to be at the forefront of combating the IRA). Although IRA violence decreased it was obvious that no military victory was on hand in either the short or medium terms. Even Catholics that generally rejected the IRA were unwilling to offer support to a state that seemed to remain mired in sectarian discrimination, and the Unionists plainly were not interested in Catholic participation in running the state in any case. In the 1980s the IRA attempted to secure a decisive military victory based on massive arms shipments from Libya. When this failed senior republican figures began to look to broaden the struggle from purely military means. In time this began a move towards military cessation. In 1986 the British and Irish governments signed the Anglo Irish Agreement signaling a formal partnership in seeking a political solution. The Anglo-Irish Agreement (AIA) recognized the Irish government's right to be consulted and heard as well as guaranteed equality of treatment and recognition of the Irish and British identities of the two communities. The agreement also stated that the two governments must implement cross-border cooperation. Socially and economically Northern Ireland suffered the worst levels of unemployment in the UK and although high levels of public spending ensured a slow modernization of public services and moves towards equality, progress was slow in the 1970s and 1980s, only in the 1990s when progress towards peace became tangible, did the economic situation brighten. By then, too, the demographics of Northern Ireland had undergone significant change, and more than 40% of the population was Catholic.
More recently, the Belfast Agreement ("Good Friday Agreement") of 10 April 1998 brought - on 2 December 1999 - a degree of power sharing to Northern Ireland, giving both unionists and nationalists control of limited areas of government. However, both the power-sharing Executive and the elected Assembly were suspended between January and May 2000, and from October 2002 until April 2007, following breakdowns in trust between the political parties involving outstanding issues, including "decommissioning" of paramilitary weapons, policing reform and the removal of British army bases. In new elections in 2003, the moderate Ulster Unionist and (nationalist) Social Democrat and Labour parties lost their dominant positions to the more hard-line Democratic Unionist and (nationalist) Sinn Féin parties. On 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA announced the end of its armed campaign and on 25 September 2005 international weapons inspectors supervised the full disarmament of the PIRA. Eventually, devolution was restored in April 2007.
Ireland's economy has evolved greatly, becoming more diverse and sophisticated than ever before by integrating itself into the global economy. By the beginning of the 1990s Ireland had transformed itself into a modern industrial economy and generated substantial national income that benefited the entire nation. Although dependence on agriculture still remained high, Ireland's industrial economy produced sophisticated goods that rivaled international competition. Ireland's international economic boom of the 1990s led to its being called the "Celtic Tiger."
The Catholic Church, which once exercised an enormous amount of power, found its influence on socio-political issues in Ireland much reduced. Irish bishops were no longer able to advise and influence the public on how to exercise their political rights. Modern Ireland's detachment of the Church from ordinary life can be explained by the increasing disinterest in Church doctrine by younger generations and the questionable morality of the Church's representatives. A highly publicized case was that of Eamonn Casey, the Bishop of Galway, who resigned abruptly in 1992 after it was revealed that he had had an affair with an American woman and had fathered a child. Further controversies and scandals arose concerning pedophile and child-abusing priests. As a result, many in the Irish public began to question the credibility and effectiveness of the Catholic Church.

Thank-you, den. I think this survey of Irish history confirms the assertions I have made that the Irish have always been the cause of their own problems (with a couple of exceptions in 16th/17th centuries) and it fell to Britain to keep the different factions apart.

With all this history behind Ireland and the troubles, it still surprises me that the only piece of history that is ever remembered is the time between, 1969–74? During that time and while I was in the province a boat was boarded by HM Customs, suspecting drugs. However on board was $4 million worth of America’s most sophisticated weapons with almost the same in paper cash. Surely this was not sent by the same Country that is strongly denouncing terrorism since the 9/11 atrocity.

One of the weapons that were on board was an American Sniper rifle that was not even available to the American Special forces at that time. It just makes a person wonder from just how high up in America did the blood money and weapons get sent from? This I know to be true as we in the Special Forces were shown pictures of the weapons aboard the boat along with the $. There was also a picture of the snipers rifle set up on the deck of the boat along with American anti personal rocket launchers. It doesn’t bear thinking about really, but I am also a great believer in that you will only reap what you sow, or in 21st century terms, what goes around comes around.

As I slide down the banister of life, Northern Ireland and the IRA funded by the American $, will always remain a splinter in my ass.

One other thing the IRA, were not freedom fighters, they were “Terrorist scum.” Freedom fighters stop once they have achieved what they fought for. So you are wrong denu...terrorists are not freedom fighters by another name.

Be well IAN 2411

Blinks...illegally obtained weapons maybe.

I seriously doubt the USA's government approved sending any weapons.

Its not my fault that some people prefer to not be objective when it comes to this topic.

Perspective is everything.

One persons freedom fighter is indeed another's terrorist. Thats just basic logic 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Blinks...illegally obtained weapons maybe.

---

Yea right...now who is naive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I seriously doubt the USA's government approved sending any weapons.

---

This is a quote from the Daily Mail reporter Peter Hitchens, and although it is not my paper he has answered your question, denu.
.....................................

It was the US that compelled this country to surrender to the terrorist murderers of the IRA.
It was President Bill Clinton who laundered the grisly and sinister Godfather Gerry Adams, giving him a visa and allowing him to spread his soapy propaganda and raise funds across the United States. President George W. Bush, Mister Anti-Terrorism himself, that actually altered his schedule to fit in Mister Adams (who was too busy to make the original time) for a jolly St Patrick’s Day chinwag in the White House.

So put that in your Guinness and drink it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If it’s terror you’re against, you know where to look for its supporters and sponsors.

...................

That is as good as giving the IRA weapons, the American people might have been be blind or naive....but the British people and Securty Services were not.

WE have Paddy O'Bama now.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Perspective is everything.

One persons freedom fighter is indeed another's terrorist. Thats just basic logic 101.

---

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Blinks...illegally obtained weapons maybe.

I seriously doubt the USA's government approved sending any weapons.

---

I agree. The USA would never indulge in anything like secretly undermining a foreign power's government, would it? Besides, there was never any reason to try to undermine the British government.

By the way, has anyone ever noticed how important it is for Presidential candidates in America to win the Irish Vote when campaigning for a place in the White House, and how many have or claim to have Irish ancestry (even when this cannot be demonstrated). True, some of them seem to have come from Ulster (the part of Ireland loyal to Britain), but they seem not to make so much of that aspect of their ancestry, for obvious resons.

Count them since the Troubles began in the mid sixties ... call Nixon the first of them at that time to claim Irish heritage ...

Scary huh?

Now, you all know I'm the last person on this site to make unsubstantiated statements or cast aspersions, but wouldn't you all agree now that one person's terrorist can look so much like another country's President?

lol touche MMI

Its all a matter of perspective.

I do find it puzzling however that Brittan would tolerate known government involvement by the USA on the side of the IRA etc considering we are allies of Brittan.

I would love to see any actual data supporting such claims.

What could we do? If we complained, it'd be denied: the Underworld is responsible, not the President! Besides, if we forced US to really choose between Britain and Ireland, which one would they go for?

Like all good conspiracy theories, it is unprovable, but there are enough signs to give it credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I do find it puzzling however that Brittan would tolerate known government involvement by the USA on the side of the IRA etc considering we are allies of Brittan.

---

Do you see a realistic alternative? Bomb Boston? Respond in kind, by bankrolling or arming Al Qaeda?

For the most part, it wasn't so much a case of the federal government supporting the IRA directly, but excessive tolerance of the groups who did so - letting Gerry Adams into the US when his terrorist links should have precluded entry, letting his allies fundraise. Ironic, too, that support for the IRA was one of the very few areas where the Gaddafi regime and the US were on the same side!

(On the other hand, if a resurrected Hitler and Roosevelt both came to the UK for a reunion, it would be Hitler who got the friendly treatment and fast channel at immigration...)

Real IRA Vows To Continue Its Deadly Attacks

By David Blevins, Ireland correspondent | Sky News – 1 hour 3 minutes ago

The Real IRA has vowed to continue its attacks on members of the British security forces.

A masked man issued the threat during an Easter Rising commemoration in Derry.

The Real IRA is a renegade faction which emerged following a split in the mainstream Provisional IRA (PIRA).

PIRA's alleged quartermaster general, Michael McKevitt, walked out when Sinn Fein joined the peace process.

McKevitt is serving a jail sentence for terrorist offences south of the Irish border.

He is the husband of Bernadette Sands McKevitt, sister of infamous hunger striker Bobby Sands.

Up to two dozen others defected with him, taking with them both weaponry and experience.

The newly formed Real IRA soon replaced the Continuity IRA as the home for dissidents.

Initially, they had access to small amounts of material that had previously been under their control: Semtex explosive, Uzi submachine guns, AK-47 assault rifles, handguns, detonators and timing devices.

In 1999, they supplemented their arsenal by importing military explosives and rocket launchers from Croatia.

Further attempts to purchase and smuggle weaponry in Eastern Europe were foiled by security agencies.

The Real IRA comprises semi-autonomous cells, not unlike those operated by al Qaeda.

It has neither the command structure nor the discipline of the Provision IRA, but should not be underestimated.

A year after it came into existence, it carried out Northern Ireland's worst terrorist atrocity when 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed in the Omagh bombing.

Three years ago, the group claimed the murders of two British soldiers in County Antrim .

Sappers Patrick Azimkar, 21, and Mark Quinsey, 23, were shot dead outside Massereene Army Barracks.

Constable Ronan Kerr , 25, a Catholic member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, was their most recent victim.

Their booby trap bomb detonated when he opened his car door in Omagh.

Despite threats, the Real IRA failed to disrupt the Queen's historic visit to Ireland, but the terror group has no intention of abandoning violence and embracing peace any time soon.
..................................................
I said it in one of my earlier posts, The IRA are not freedom fighters they are filth, scum, nothing more than terrorists. They are just sick killers of innocents and cannot get the sickness out of their blood. If every soldier pulled out of the Province the IRA would still find an excuse to use their disgusting trade.

I wonder now if Martin Sheen is still proud of uncle's IRA past??? He must be as sick as they are.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

This is a quote from the Daily Mail reporter Peter Hitchens

---

I was thinking of coming in on this, but if you've sunk to quoting Hitchens as a source this is not a serious debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

I was thinking of coming in on this, but if you've sunk to quoting Hitchens as a source this is not a serious debate.

---

Six Arrests After Real IRA Vows More Killing

By David Blevins, Ireland correspondent | Sky News – Mon, Apr 9, 2012

Six Arrests After Real IRA Vows More Killing

Six men have been arrested after the Real IRA threatened to kill more policemen and soldiers.

They were detained after a masked spokesman for the group made the threat at an Easter
Rising commemoration in Derry.

Police are now questioning them in Antrim

The Real IRA is a renegade faction which emerged following a split in the mainstream Provisional IRA (PIRA).

PIRA's alleged quartermaster general, Michael McKevitt, walked out when Sinn Fein joined the peace process.

McKevitt is serving a jail sentence for terrorist offences south of the Irish border.

He is the husband of Bernadette Sands McKevitt, sister of infamous hunger striker Bobby Sands.

Up to two dozen others defected with him, taking with them both weaponry and experience.

The newly formed Real IRA soon replaced the Continuity IRA as the home for dissidents.

Initially, they had access to small amounts of material that had previously been under their control: Semtex explosive, Uzi submachine guns, AK-47 assault rifles, handguns, detonators and timing devices.

In 1999, they supplemented their arsenal by importing military explosives and rocket launchers from Croatia.

Further attempts to purchase and smuggle weaponry in Eastern Europe were foiled by security agencies.

The Real IRA comprises semi-autonomous cells, not unlike those operated by al Qaeda.

It has neither the command structure nor the discipline of the Provisional IRA, but should not be underestimated.

A year after it came into existence, it carried out Northern Ireland's worst terrorist atrocity when 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, were killed in the Omagh bombing.

Three years ago, the group claimed the murders of two British soldiers in County Antrim.

Sappers Patrick Azimkar, 21, and Mark Quinsey, 23, were shot dead outside Massereene Army Barracks.

Constable Ronan Kerr , 25, a Catholic member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, was their most recent victim.

Their booby trap bomb detonated when he opened his car door in Omagh.

Despite threats, the Real IRA failed to disrupt the Queen's historic visit to Ireland, but the terror group has no intention of abandoning violence and embracing peace any time soon.
.................................................. ....................

Just for you Leo9

This guy talks perfect English. This was my thread Leo9, I don’t know where you get off judging what is or what is not a serious thread. If you feel that way, then stay out of the thread and don’t make sarcastic remarks. Don’t ever try flaming me and making out that I am some sort of fool and below your standards.

Be well IAN 2411

When are people going to realise that these thugs and mercenary are not Freedom Fighters for any religious sect or country. They kill indiscriminately their own people in the south of Ireland with mafia type operations. They are now bringing their forced death to the North once more, and why you might ask? They have nothing to do; they are obsolete like old dinosaurs. The IRA fought for unification of the two halves and I am in no doubt when agreement arises they might get it. However, all the time the majority of Northern Ireland want to be part of mainland Britain it will never take place. The IRA, don’t want peace in any form, they want control, and they want peace under their twisted terms.

It shows their mentality by killing a lowly constable [Constable Ronan Kerr, 25,] that has no bearing on what the British forces do in Northern Ireland. To make a statement of their terrorist intent to the whole of Ireland, the poor guy was Catholic and an easy target. They are now killing the very people they indoctrinated with hate of the British, whom also paid their money in protection money into the IRA coffers.

The peace agreement is to them a retirement notice, and they will never retire because they want to be the saviours of Ireland. They killed 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins in the Omaha Bombing, showing the world their worth. The IRA’s twisted minds show us all that until they are dead and off of this world, then their killing spree will never end. They have the front to say that they are the Real IRA, but to be sure you get your facts straight I would go as far as to say they are the Europeans version of al Qaeda. The IRA or Real IRA they call themselves now is not fighting for Unification of Ireland or the Irish Catholics in the North. They are fighting for their own survival and are nothing more than thugs with big guns.

People like Martin Sheen in their glorification of these terrorists only fuel their narcissist need. When are the American Irish going to learn, that there is not now and never was any honour in being part of a thug organisation that kills for the sake of satisfying their own twisted minds. I wonder if these Irish Americans would be so keen to mouth off in the press of their IRA conections, if it was found that the IRA helped train the al Qaeda that organised 9/11. Don’t for one minute that I am talking foolish, because the IRA were out in the Middle East a long time before the peace process or the start of the Afghanistan War.

Be well IAN 2411

In other words, the "Continuity IRA" consists exclusively of bigoted diehards who refuse to recognise reality, and psychopathic criminals intent on smuggling arms, dealing drugs, and running brothels in between bank robberies and private score settling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Thank-you, den. I think this survey of Irish history confirms the assertions I have made that the Irish have always been the cause of their own problems (with a couple of exceptions in 16th/17th centuries) and it fell to Britain to keep the different factions apart.

---

LOL Then you need glasses :-)))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

---

I cannot for the life of me see how you distinguish between the two. Can you define a terrorist by atrocities done? Because armies do the same.

Examples of armies:
The Blittz of London could not be justified with strategic targets alone.
The bombing of Dresden - after the nazis were beaten, was pure revenge - understandable, but wrong.
The atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasagi were done to terrorize a surrender earlier than it would have come - some say Japan was already ready to surrender, at least after Hiroshima.
In Iraq, the destruction of Faluja was specifically called 'operation Shock and Awe' in recognition of the fact that the operation was not just to take it out as a stronghold, but to terrorize the country into surrender.

It would seem that if small, non-soldier gruops commit atrocities without a specific military target but to terrify, then they are terrorists, but if an army does it, it is ok.

Where are the rules? And who sets them??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

This guy talks perfect English. This was my thread Leo9, I don’t know where you get off judging what is or what is not a serious thread. If you feel that way, then stay out of the thread and don’t make sarcastic remarks. Don’t ever try flaming me and making out that I am some sort of fool and below your standards.

---

I apologise, Hitchens gets under my skin like fibreglass, but I should not have reacted that way. I certainly would never suggest that he doesn't write clear English, or that he is any kind of fool: he has made a lucrative career out of being the voice of the bigot in the saloon bar, and as a pro pornographer I'm in no position to criticise the way anyone writes for money. My opinion of those who take his column seriously is my own and I will keep it to myself hereafter.

I hadn't realised threads were private property, but since this one is yours, may I please have permission to enter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Blinks...illegally obtained weapons maybe.

I seriously doubt the USA's government approved sending any weapons.

---

Considering that the Kennedys were extremely proud of their Irish Catholic roots, like many others at the highest levels of US politics, I don't know why it's so hard to believe. Personalities aside, remember Iran/Contra? US Government operation to supply arms to South American terrorists? Because they were terrorists the US approved of?

Quote:

---

Its not my fault that some people prefer to not be objective when it comes to this topic.

---

<wry smile> How true.

Quote:

---

Perspective is everything.

---

No, perspective is a distortion. Persective makes a wedge out of a rectangle. That's why engineers and architects work from plans not perspective drawings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Thank-you, den. I think this survey of Irish history confirms the assertions I have made that the Irish have always been the cause of their own problems (with a couple of exceptions in 16th/17th centuries) and it fell to Britain to keep the different factions apart.

---

Amazing. I often wondered exactly what the term "invincible ignorance" meant, and now I have a perfect example. Anyone who can read a fifteen-hundred-year catalogue of invasions and oppressions and conclude that it was all the victim's fault is totally impervious to facts.

To mention only one example, did you miss the point that the reason there are "different factions" in Northern Ireland is because we put them there?

(I'm reminded of the character who declared in all seriousness that the Troubles could be solved if the Irish Catholics would only "go back where they came from.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

In other words, the "Continuity IRA" consists exclusively of bigoted diehards who refuse to recognise reality, and psychopathic criminals intent on smuggling arms, dealing drugs, and running brothels in between bank robberies and private score settling.

---

Part of it is undoubtedly that the IRA had a lucrative criminal network in their heyday, and some people are bound to be reluctant to lose all that lovely money. But random assassinations don't further that: as any mobster could tell you, the last thing you want to do is cause needless trouble and draw the attention of the law.

A fanatic is defined as one who redoubles his efforts when his cause is lost, and this is a horribly clear example. Ireland probably will be reunited one day simply as a casual piece of administrative convenience, when the population is sufficiently integrated that nobody cares, and the factions of the Troubles are as much of a historical curiosity as Lancastrians versus Yorkists in England. But it won't be reunited under Catholic Sharia because that is passing away in the Republic, and the irridentist ex-IRAs, like militant Islamists in the Middle East, are fighting for something that no longer exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

We've been through this already: freedom fighter and terrorist are quite distinct. One is a goal, the other a tactic or strategy. Some people may be both, others are clearly only one or the other: Timothy McVeigh might arguably be both from some perspectives, but Gandhi? Clearly no terrorist - objectively, he did not employ violence or terror - but recognised widely as a freedom fighter since he fought for freedom. Your confusion of the two is not 'logic 101', but a failure thereof.

---

An old scientific principle says, "instead of asking what it is, just ask 'what does it do?'" It's a lot clearer if we speak of methods.

Terror tactics are defined as those that are aimed at undermining morale and causing (as the old WWII officialese had it) "alarm and despondency," rather than causing strategic damage. Blowing up the Pentagon, if Al-Quaeda had achieved it, would have been a plausible military tactic: blowing up the WTC was a terror tactic.

Terrorists, as commonly defined, are guerillas that use terror tactics. The Talliban in Afghanistan, for the most part, seem to focus on military targets; a roadside bomb against an army vehicle is not a "terrorist" weapon, just a shot in a guerilla war. (Almost identical devices were used by the Resistance in WWII Europe.)

When national governments use terror tactics, it's usually not admitted as such. When the British Army responded to Ghandi's protests by shooting down a square full of peaceful demonstrators (for what the commanding officer later admitted was the "moral effect," i.e. the terror value,) they argued for months that it had been a riot action. When Israel indiscriminately shelled Gaza, focussing on hospitals, power plants and the like, they still maintain the fiction that they were targetting "terrorists." "Operation Shock and Awe" in Iraq was remarkable for being explicitly named as a terror tactic, but since (like Israel in Gaza) they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus, they clearly felt they had a free pass to break every rule.

"they also used banned weapons such as white phosphorus,"

White phosphorous isn't actually banned - there are restrictions on how and where you use it, as indeed there are for bullets and grenades. Incidentally, the US only signed that Protocol in 2009; for the vast majority of fighting in Iraq, only Protocols I and II were in force, I, prohibiting fragments which are X-ray transparent while II relates to land mines and other booby-trap devices. III, from 2009 onwards for the US, bars their use as incendiary devices against civilian targets, as well as against combatants in close proximity to civilians, but specifically does not restrict their use for illumination or smoke production purposes, which is how the US troops were using them in Iraq anyway.

There wasn't an "Operation Shock and Awe", either - the document titled Shock and Awe was from 1996, expanding upon a phrase dating right back to Sun Tzu; the actual implementation in Iraq was a rapid decapitation attack, intended to minimise both civilian and military deaths and very successful in that respect. You acknowledge the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target in a war, why not accept that Hussein's equivalent compounds and bunkers - which were the targets in those "shock and awe" opening air strikes - were just as legitimate, rather than "terrorism"?