Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[IAN 2411]

I have had something on my mind for a long time and I might be a million miles away from the truth. My battalion of Para were the first Special Forces to be posted to Northern Ireland, and I have often wondered why? Para’s like Marines are shock troops and go in fast paving the way for the main forces and then withdraw. There was a relative calm in the Province when we arrived and we could drive about in open top vehicles.

We went into the Protestant areas and they were hostile or should I say they gave us a lot more attention than they gave other units. They were unfriendly but not openly aggressive towards the Para’s. As we walked their streets passing groups of women or men there could be heard whispers in our wake. Our platoon had the outskirts of the town to patrol and also the countryside about.

It was about a month into the tour that things started getting hairy and I often wonder if the powers to be knew this would happen. The IRA started getting bolder and the riots started getting bigger. It was as if because the Para’s had arrived the whole of Northern Ireland upped their game to coincide. They must have known that we would not take the same type of crap the other units were taking.

The other units were in a strange sort of way a little complacent of the peace they had. I think that looking back the Irish, both Catholic and Protestant had placed them in a false state of security. It was peace, but the type of peace the factions wanted so that they could carry out their clandestine activities. I think even to this day that the Special Forces were sent there to shake them about a little and see what falls out. I think the high command knew what was going on and wanted life in the Province without punishing the other units commanders.

Well we did shake them about and made many arrests locking up members of both factions. It was this that started to bring the Provisional IRA, out into the open and they openly walked next to their dead comrades coffins. Para’s took advantage and even more arrests were made the day of the funeral, the peace had been broken and the factions were fighting back. In the six months I was there during that tour, all hell was let loose. 1 Para took over from us and were there for two years, and during the two years there was some of the bloodiest fighting between the factions. Bloody Sunday was just icing on the cake that had been cooking since our first day in the Province.

It’s only a thought.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

No answer for that, Ian - I simply do not know. But I suspect that Harold Wilson and Ted Heath had no idea what was in store for them when the Troubles began, while O'Neill probably had a very good notion.

However, by the time it was decided to send in special forces, they must all have realised that matters had got wildly out of control and that a heavy hand was needed to restore some semblance of order.

[MMI]

Sorry is this is further off topic for you Ian but MMI asked me some questions so I being submissive and all will attempt to answer them. My post before this one I hope will receive some clarification since I went back to the OP and re-read it to see if I somehow missed the boat.

It is not off-topic: it is just one of two or three themes.

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively. You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions. However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland; but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

You go on to ask,

Seriously is you were born and raised in Belfast and raised to believe that your father and mother and brothers etc were fighting for your independence from opression...how would you really feel?

Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

================================================== ================================================== ================

Further evidence of the Irish habit of subjugating their own was provided in BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” last week when they discussed how mothers in Londonderry are forced to ensure their sons, who have been fingered by Republican Action Against Drugs (an IRA splinter group “policing” Republican areas of Londonderry) to keep an appointment for a shooting, because they will be shot anyway, but more seriously if they ignore the summons. Listen to it, then maybe you’ll understand a bit better:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18068691

MOTHER "I had to let him go"

INTERVIEWER "Why?

MOTHER "Because that's the way of it ..."

It must be remembered that drugs formed a significant proportion of the IRA’s income, and with that in mind, one wonders why RAAD is seeking to eliminate drug dealers in Londonderry, even though drug-dealing and drug-taking is still rife.

[IAN 2411]

This is nothing new really, the only thing new about it is the fact that it is still being carried out. However, now it is done in a little more humane way. While over in the Province we found many people like that as young as 15 boys and girls. They had been knee capped, and for all you people that don’t know anything about knee capping? I will inform you. The victim is taken to a farm or building and gagged. Then a hole is drilled into his/her knee cap with an electric drill. After the IRA had their sick fun, and it was the IRA and not the RAAD, they would dump the person on the streets of Belfast. Selective punishment, I also remember that they shot a orphan Catholic boy that was 10 years old that was backward and could hardly speak...the reason....he delivered the papers to an army unit....it was our unit. Sick, Sick, Sick.

The IRA dealt in drugs and as MMI stated it was their main source of money after the Irish Americans donations. The problem was that those drugs were being dealt with in the UK, and USA along with most of the continent. Yes the USA where they were receiving most of their war chest, the IRA hold only loyalty to themselves. They were Catholics and Ireland must be kept clean of anything the Pope thought was against the will of God. Killing was ok, because if you look back at history the Pope used to go to battle with the army’s and advocated violence.

Summing up, I can honestly say that all Paramilitary units in Northern Ireland both sides of the conflict are now in it for their own gain. There is no war to fight and they are now just vigilantes with disgusting habits. They are not fit to walk on the same streets or Earth as the rest of the human population.

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

Referring back to your last post, you claim that your position is neutral and that history must be viewed objectively.

Should be viewed as objectively as possible. My position is and will remain in this regard completely neutral.

You also allow that people on each side of the problem have their own subjective opinions.

Yep. Their individual perspectives in combination with the human proclivity to self justify one's self and one's actions no matter how heinous is also factored in. Which is why I say that the one side will view the other as being the bad guys. Just like Al Quida vs the USA, or Arab vs Jew etc etc ...or in this case Irish vs English.

However, throughout this thread you have challenged any attempt to put forward an objective justification – or even an explanation – of the English viewpoint. Did I say “challenged”? I meant “denied”: denied out-of-hand with nothing rational to support your rejection.

When I see a truly objective explanation I shall indeed give much praise. So far I haven't seen anything objective so much as pro-English only with window dressing to give the basest of appearances of objectivity (almost as sublime a use of sophistry and subjectivity as that I receive from my main opponent in the religion section here) at least on your part (much the same as in our discussions concerning the American Revolution only there we were both being "subjectively" objective in our own way due to the primary sources from which we each respectively were drawing our information IE English schools taught a pro-English stance where as American one's taught a pro-American stance).

Then you accuse me of sophistry! At least sophists recognise facts.

Shrugs I call em like I see em. Sophism is a hard bucket to stay away from...its soooo natural for human beings to resort too it. So much so entire schools of philosophers followed it's tenants for centuries before those influenced by Socrates was adopted by people during the Renaissance. Additionally ...I have read all the things you presented as facts...and I have read everything else you presented...my only issue (the main point of which your participation has only added supporting evidence too btw) is that one's perspectives on these matters have everything to do with whether or not one views Mr Sheen's comments as being an affront too society or not. As to whether or not the Irish or the English are objectively in the right? My call is that it is perhaps no different than the USA and the Islamic Terrorists...both parties are perhaps in the wrong to one degree or another "objectively"...with each side "subjectively" accusing the other of being more if not totally in said "wrong".

I will accept the British have done bad things in Ireland;(<<< there you have made an attempt at objectivity...claps in applause) but you must accept the Irish have done worse, more often, and to their own countrymen. It is despicable to put the blame for their own low behaviour on the English, but innate in the Irish character.

Sighs...ahh but their you had to go and resort to the subjective all over again...and that my dear Sir is where the sublime sophism is coming into play followed by a wee bit o' bigotry I might add in bold at the end. Smh, I seem to recall a certain Austrian who made similar comments (though far more bellicose) about a certain group of Semites not so long ago. Innate in their character huh?

You go on to ask,



Seriously, I still would believe there is a difference between acts of treachery (e.g., British citizens who kill other British citizens in the name of Irish Republicanism) and acts of resistance against a foreign invader (e.g., the French resistance).

My guess is you would be throwing rocks with the others at what you have been taught to believe is a foreign invader who has kept your people oppressed for hundreds of years. Additionally you would also most likely self justify such actions and call what the English are doing the real "treachery" and perhaps even honestly believe as children of KKK members sometimes do about people of color that whatever is bad in "them" it is "innate in their character".

================================================== ================================================== ================

I do however thank you for proving my point for me though. (that one's perspective determines who the good guys and the bad guys are in this issue)

It is my overall opinion that:

both sides have done wrong and that their are groups on both sides who are willing to look past said wrongs and agree to both start doing right....but as with most of the other divisions of perspective we have touched on...some asshats (on both sides) ") keep setting things up to fail, or keep pushing, or cant be objective and are going to extremes that some find horrific because they are either unwilling or unable to allow peace or accept it until whatever it is they are fighting for is accomplished without compromise in full or the other side relents in total etc (maybe because its "innate to their character huh?).

Which imho is also a crying shame.

[js207]

Denuseri: Would you say there is a valid perspective from which the Mafia are the "good guys"? In some ways here, I'm reminded of how brainwashed the Taleban had their followers, to the extent of not even knowing the Northern Alliance were a rival Afghan Muslim group (somehow, their fighters were under the mistaken impression they were Christian invaders) - that some of them at least thought they were fighting for what they thought was a good cause, but based on a pack of lies from those who controlled them. There's a world of difference between different perspectives and having swallowed a pack of lies...

[denuseri]

Its all a matter of faith in the veracity of what one is tuaght or exposed too within reason.

[thir]

Sorry to come in late, but have been away for some weeks, and this is an interesting discussion.

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri
So is Collins a good guy or a bad guy? Was he a freedom fighter? Or a terrorist?


He was a freedom fighter, quite obviously. England had no business being in Ireland.

Some points:

1: I do not see how any country can justify invading another, whether for strategic reasons or because they think said country do not behave as they should.

2: If you do invade, and call said country 'your domain', I do not see how you can complain about having to spend money and soldiers hanging on to it, or to keep it 'orderly'.

3: I do not understand how taking a country makes it yours by moral or divine right or whatever, and any uprising thereafter 'rebels' or 'treason'. It is all about violence, nothing else.

[js207]

Thir: He kept fighting - against his fellow Irishmen - even after the British and Irish governments signed a treaty and the RoI was independent. "England" was never in Ireland in the first place, any more than New England is in Iowa now - but they shared a government, made up of people from all constituent countries, including Collins himself for some years.

How do you view the American Civil War, in this context? Northern troops using force to subdue the government of another part of the continent, which hadn't been part of the original USA - do you regard that as an invasion as well, and the Confederate troops as legitimate freedom fighters?

[denuseri]

In the case of the Civil War each state and territory had rules it initially agreed to abide by when it joined the Union.



As mentioned in the case of the English vs the Irrish perspective was everything: if you fought for the north you were fighting to "preserve the Union" and later to "bring freedom to the slaves". If you fought for the south you were fighting to preserve "state's rights and end northern agression".

[MMI]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed. But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour? The Tudors? They conquered Ireland to quell a usurpation of the Irish Crown by an Irish Earl (threat), and they restored power to the Irish Parliament which had been assumed by the more powerful Earls and Chiefs. The Plantation of Ulster? Northern Ireland was settled by Scottish and English farmers who were given land taken from the rebellious O'Neils and O'Donnells (threat) in the hope that the new demography would be more amenable to English authority. Cromwell? The Irish were supporting the Royalist cause (threat - ironic that the Irish hate the enemy of England's monarch, whom their ancestors supported and fought and died for)

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand. Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

(3) Moral right ... England was invited, and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order; divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

[thir]

Thir: He kept fighting - against his fellow Irishmen - even after the British and Irish governments signed a treaty and the RoI was independent.

Yes, there was a civil war, and he was on one side. The independance was not independant enought in some eyes, while it was in the eyes of others.

"England" was never in Ireland in the first place, any more than New England is in Iowa now - but they shared a government, made up of people from all constituent countries, including Collins himself for some years.

See above.

How do you view the American Civil War, in this context? Northern troops using force to subdue the government of another part of the continent, which hadn't been part of the original USA - do you regard that as an invasion as well, and the Confederate troops as legitimate freedom fighters?

If not a part of US at the time, yes, they were freedom fighters.

[thir]

He was also a cowardly assassin, but js makes a much better point.

I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

As to your three points,

(1) If a country fails to act in the face of a perceived strategic imperative, it is likely to be destroyed.

So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?

If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

But if one country behaves in a way that its larger neighbour disapproves of, that is no justification for invasion (unless that "misbehaviour" constitutes a threat).

Example?

In the present case, when has Ireland been invaded for displeasing England by its behaviour?

Another poster made that claim, that is why I included it.

(2) The presumption being that England has no right "to be there". By that argument, virtually the whole population of the Americas - north and south - have even less right to be there, because they arrived much later. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand.

You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

Presumably, if the Aboriginals or Maoris started to foment revolution, you would say that the governments there could not complain about the cost in money or lives spent in maintaining order?

Yes, I would.

(3) Moral right ... England was invited,

No country invites invasion

and being in control, it was obliged to maintain order;

Complaining bitterly about it too, and using excessive force, but yes

divine right (a) Pope Adrian granted the English Crown suzerainity over Ireland, and (b) the Irish Jacobites upheld the Stuart claim to the "Divine Right of Kings". Michael Collins, for example, was born a British subject, studied in King's College and began his career in London working for important financial institutions. His act of rebelling against the established government cannot be anything other than treason, and using violence against the state invites a violent response, even today in any country you care to name.

Nonsense. What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands? They did it in South Africa and Asia as well. It is just another way to say 'we take the right'.

England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country. Ireland was a colony for so many years, that does not mean they do not have the right for independance, just as for example India and many African states.

Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically.

[thir]

Yes, there was a civil war, and he was on one side. The independance was not independant enought in some eyes, while it was in the eyes of others.

Maybe that was too short: what I meant was that the war of independance ended with a treaty:

"The Anglo-Irish Treaty (Irish: An Conradh Angla-Éireannach), officially called the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty Between Great Britain and Ireland, was a treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and representatives of the secessionist Irish Republic that concluded the Irish War of Independence. It established the Irish Free State as a self-governing dominion within the British Empire and also provided Northern Ireland, which had been created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, an option to opt out of the Irish Free State, which it exercised." from Wikipedia.


The war of independence was about independence, and not everybody felt that being a dominion within the British Empire was independence from the British Empire.

The Northern Ireland problem was created with the Government of Ireland Act 1920:

The Act was intended to establish separate Home Rule institutions within two new subdivisions of Ireland: the six north-eastern counties were to form "Northern Ireland", while the larger part of the country was to form "Southern Ireland". Both areas of Ireland were to continue as a part of the United Kingdom, and provision was made for their future unification under common Home Rule institutions. Wikipedia.

[MMI]

I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

I'm referring to Collins and his "Squad" - highly paid sneak assassins.

So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?

If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

Look at it this way. If the Soviets had not created a buffer zone, and the US had invaded Russia, their country would have fallen due entirely to their lack of precaution.

Or look at it this way. West Europe was the USA's buffer zone and had troops stationed all over the western nations, just in case of a Red invasion.

Historically speaking, Ireland did invade the western British Isles many times, and it has been confirmed in an earlier post that this was perfectly acceptable at the timer.

If Ireland was under threat from a third country, and could protect itself by invading Cornwall (and was strong enough to), do you think it would not?

Another poster made that claim [that England had not invaded Ireland], that is why I included it.

So, tell me, when did those English invasions occur?

You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

I'm not so sure a distinction is always necessary, but the Spanish Conquest was certainly military, the British-Americans and their USA successors were pretty ruthless against the native indians, and the Australian colonials' treatment of the Aborigines left much to be desired. My point stands: England's authority over Ireland predates the creation of many other countries.

No country invites invasion

In 1169, Dermot MacMurrough invited a force of Norman knights to help him recover the throne of Leinster, which the High King of Ireland had deprived him of. As a result of this action, Dermott swore fealty to the English King and he was restored to his kingship.

[Britain] Complaining bitterly about [its obligation to maintain order in Ireland] too, and using excessive force

Correction: the Irish complaints about England are far more bitter than the English complaints about keeping them from killing each other. Excessive force? How many car-bombs have the British left in busy Irish shopping streets? How many letter bombs have they posted? How many passenger trains have they blown up? How many doors have they knocked on and shot whoever answered? All of those things were done by Irishmen against Irishmen and THAT is the whole of the problem.

What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands?

Back in those days, the Pope did have the right. In fact, Argentina's claim to own the Falkland Islands is based upon a Papal edict

England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country.

An invaded country has the right to resist an invader, agreed, but England did NOT "take" Ireland. Ireland submitted itself to England. And that happened in the 12th century! Thereafter it remained an independent lordship/kingdom until 1800, ruled by a person who also happened to be king of England (like the Isle of Man, for example), and, later, king of Scotland too. In 1800 Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom, exactly the same as Scotland or Wales. Who calls Scotland or Wales an English colony? Neither was Ireland; nor is Northern Ireland a colony now. At that time, the Irish Lords took seats in the House of Lords in England, and Irish Parliamentarians sat in the House of Commons, with the same voting rights as everyone else.

Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically

Economically, Ireland was better off as part of the UK than not. Britain was responsible for the industrialisation of the North, which, for example, gave birth to the Titanic. Once the Republic became independent, it became a third world nation, and stayed that way until EU euros brought the short-lived Celtic Tiger into being. Ireland is now paying for its profligacy. But that's not our fault.

[thir]

t:
I do not know what you are refering to here, but surely the army uses assassins? And drones? And bombs meant for hostile leaders?

MMI
I'm referring to Collins and his "Squad" - highly paid sneak assassins.

t:
And this is different from what armies do - how??

t:
So, when the Sovjet Union took half of Europe after WW2 to make a buffer zone, they were within their right?
If, theoreticallly speaking, it had been possible for Ireland to invade parts of West England to protect their shores, they would have been within their right?

MMI:
Look at it this way. If the Soviets had not created a buffer zone, and the US had invaded Russia, their country would have fallen due entirely to their lack of precaution.

t:
USSR would have fallen anyway, they were in no shape to fight any more, with a ruined country and 20 mill dead. But anyway I simply say that you have no right to invade another country for such reasons.

MMI:
Or look at it this way. West Europe was the USA's buffer zone and had troops stationed all over the western nations, just in case of a Red invasion.

t:
And they had no right to do that either.

D;
Historically speaking, Ireland did invade the western British Isles many times, and it has been confirmed in an earlier post that this was perfectly acceptable at the timer.

t:
Not by me, I do not agree.

MMI:
If Ireland was under threat from a third country, and could protect itself by invading Cornwall (and was strong enough to), do you think it would not?

t:
I do not know, but I think they have no right.

t:
You have to distinguish between military invasion, and immigration. But I see colonization as invasion too.

MMI:
I'm not so sure a distinction is always necessary,

t:
But you do agree that there is a difference between immigrants and an invading army?

MMI:
but the Spanish Conquest was certainly military, the
British-Americans and their USA successors were pretty ruthless against the native indians, and the Australian colonials' treatment of the Aborigines left much to be desired. My point stands: England's authority over Ireland predates the creation of many other countries.

t: What do you mean - the creation of other countries? They weren't really there, until the English took them?
t:
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
No country invites invasion

MMI:
In 1169, Dermot MacMurrough invited a force of Norman knights to help him recover the throne of Leinster, which the High King of Ireland had deprived him of. As a result of this action, Dermott swore fealty to the English King and he was restored to his kingship.

t:
Come on! Inviting the enemy for his own ends is not a country inviting someone in.

MMI:
How many car-bombs have the British left in busy Irish shopping streets? How many letter bombs have they posted? How many passenger trains have they blown up? How many doors have they knocked on and shot whoever answered?

t: I do not defend terrorism, no matter who are doing it.

But in general, there seems to be a tendency to think that in a conflict you have to kill like an army would, even if you are not an army, and any way an army kills is just ok, because it is an army.

MMI:
All of those things were done by Irishmen against Irishmen and THAT is the whole of the problem.

t: the jews were doing it all to themselves - ups, must have been thinking of something else.
Anyway I lost track. What do you mean that is the whole of the problem?

t:
What right does any pope have to give away other people's lands?

MMI:
Back in those days, the Pope did have the right. In fact, Argentina's claim to own the Falkland Islands is based upon a Papal edict

t:
But what, IYO, gives the Pope the right to decide who's country is whose?

t:
England took Ireland, and any act of rebellion is the right of any invaded country.

MMI:
An invaded country has the right to resist an invader, agreed, but England did NOT "take" Ireland. Ireland submitted itself to England.

t
It wasn't invaded, it just submitted?

MMI:
And that happened in the 12th century! Thereafter it remained an independent lordship/kingdom until 1800, ruled by a person who also happened to be king of England (like the Isle of Man, for example), and, later, king of Scotland too.

t:
Independant, but ruled by the king of England..?

MMI:
In 1800 Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom, exactly the same as Scotland or Wales. Who calls Scotland or Wales an English colony?

t:
Ehm - the Welsh and the Scots? Have you tried to call the Scots or Welsh English by mistake? You only get away with it by way of being an ignorant foreigner and a small female person as well, and to promise that you will never, ever say it again ;-))

MMI:
Neither was Ireland; nor is Northern Ireland a colony now.

t:
Of course Ireland was a colony, so regarded by the rest of the world. But I doubt we can get any further discussing it, we'd only be repeating ourselves.

MMI:
At that time, the Irish Lords took seats in the House of Lords in England, and Irish Parliamentarians sat in the House of Commons, with the same voting rights as everyone else.

t: sorry, at what time?

t:
Just as the other colonies Ireland had so much trouble getting back on its feet economically

MMI:
Economically, Ireland was better off as part of the UK than not.

t:
They were really much better off, and you could teach them some civilisation..

MMI
Britain was responsible for the industrialisation of the North, which, for example, gave birth to the Titanic.

t:
LOL - not a good example!

MMI:
Once the Republic became independent, it became a third world nation,

t:
My! Just like that?

MMI:
and stayed that way until EU euros brought the short-lived Celtic Tiger into being.

t:
Actually the Celtic revival started way long before that, 18something and onwards.

MMI:
Ireland is now paying for its profligacy. But that's not our fault.

t:
Profligate | Define Profligate at Dictionary.com

adjective. 1. utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated; thoroughly dissolute. 2. recklessly prodigal or extravagant.

Of course - all their fault.