It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Return of the IRA?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by june3rd
Also just one final observation. You talk of the Scottish settlers. It is true that Ireland is an island, right. So who exactly do you think the indigenous people are.


Why should the Republicans who have given up their arms and settled for a sovereign country in the form of Northern Ireland.. be ridiculed by the continued arming of loyalist groups and the continued occupation of the British army. Whatever about the loyalist groups.. the British forces should have been removed over the past decade.. then this situation may not have happened.


You cannot make a statement about the 'continued arming' of loyalist paramilitaries unless you are involved with them and have evidence to support it. On the other hand, somehow I am just supposed to believe that the IRA decommissioned all of their weapons. There was never any details given about except it involved the decommissioning of a consider amount of weapons, this doesn't mean 100%.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Republic of Ireland is no saint.


What.. is this turning into a "your country did" argument?
If it is, I honestly don't think there is ANY comparison whatsoever between Ireland and the UK




Ireland allowed Nazi war criminals to settle and sent condolences on hearing Hitler committed suicide.


Whats your point? Ireland did more for the allies than for the axis during WW2 even though it was supposedly neutral. Hitler was a great leader for the Germans.. except for the whole WW2/Holocaust thing
That blackened his name a little bit.



Taoiseach Charles Haughey supplied weapons to the Provisional IRA too.


Personally?




Garda Síochána na hÉireann had a nonchalant approach to the border, openly allowed members of the IRA to cross back and forth. Secondly, under the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish government recognises Northern Ireland as British territory.


Of course they did.. the IRA had huge support in the South during the troubles.. Thats the legacy of centuries of repression and murder. That legacy is almost gone now.
Also, the fact that these men would have killed said Gardai's families in a heartbeat probably made it easier for them to turn a bline eye.



With a United Europe occurring within the next decade, there is no point of a United Ireland. It would merely be symbolic.


You know, I was just talking about that very point last night and it is completely valid. Sovereignty will be gone out the window soon enough so fighting for it is a bit of a lost cause.. that is unless these guys want to start bombing Brussels.

But.. it looks like the point the RIRA were making is that the continued occupation of NI by British troops will cause bloodshed... they haven't said anything about a united Ireland in ten years.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
No, you're not meant to believe that at all.. I definitely wouldn't anyway. You missed my point though..

Ill just quote myself..



Whatever about the loyalist groups.. the British forces should have been removed over the past decade.. then this situation may not have happened.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
What's wrong with United Kingdom soldiers being stationed in a barracks in the United Kingdom?

They can't all be in Afghanistan all the time you know! Though ironically the cowards murdered a couple who would have otherwise been there by now



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by june3rd
 




The Irish - genealogy has shown are from Basque decendency with some small Norse, Norman and British Influence - check out the blood of the Irish on the RTE website - a recent documentary

Scotch is a perfectly legitimate term for the people from Scotland - have you never heard of the Ulster Scotch or the Scotch Irish - google it.

Also, the British army if it wanted peace has no business in a land where 50% of the people don't want it there - if you want peace you don't offer provocation.

If I offended you then I apologise but as I see it as an Irish Republican - the British signed a peace treaty - asked for one side to decommission - the loyalist groups never decommissioned, the British army never decommissioned - if you were an Irish Republican would you not view that as a betrayal of peace terms and as a government actually looking for surrender under false pretences?

I do not want a return to war - I want the British to keep their side of the treaty and bring the loyalist groups with them.

Match the actions of peace given by the Provos and I can guarentee the provos will take care of RIRA and CIRA.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by june3rd
 




The Irish - genealogy has shown are from Basque decendency


As indeed are the English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Manx



We're all the same people and this modern obsession with imaginary demarcation really annoys me. Together we stand, divided we fall ....




Originally posted by count66
the British army never decommissioned -


Well obviously not


Would you really rather we had no armed forces at all?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Hello - that is not true.

The Basques and Irish are a separate race as geneolgy has shown.

The Brits and other Europeans have a different genetic code.

The Basques and Irish have a code that is only common to 2% of other european nationals - I'm talking about a specific genetic identifier here before you go off on the 99.99% commonality - we have our own language, culture, music and are fiercely independent.

I in my work deal with many other races and always found myself drawn to the Basques as individuals - I never understood why until this programme aired a few months ago. By the way the British Isles are mainly descended from the anglo saxon races - the celts never made it as far as Britain and Ireland - check it out if you don't believe me.

The British Army as an illegal occupying force in Ireland signing a peace treaty where both sides were meant to decommission failed to honour the terms of their treaty.

As an advocate of peace I ask you as a Brit to ask your government why do they continue to dishonour an agreement signed in good faith and why they have not 10 years later asked the loyalists to disarm???



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
Hello - that is not true.



Yes it is. We're all the same people. Genetics does not lie. Read, for example Oppenheimer


And as for expecting all UK troops to leave part of the UK .....


Maybe I should ask them to leave Gewisse and Mercia?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan



Originally posted by count66
the British army never decommissioned -


Well obviously not


Would you really rather we had no armed forces at all?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Essan]


That would not have been the case....the PSNI are armed, unlike the police in the UK.

Anyway, the Army were not active, which I think people are missing in this whole discussion. It would be different if they were still patrolling the streets of NI.

Valid point though.....why station soldiers in NI where the potential for conflict and provocation existed?

Do we even know the timeframe agreed for total withdrawl of all military personnel ?
And fair point above, and one that boils my blood, is that no mention was made of making the Loyalist UDA/UVF/UFF disarm and disband.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by celticniall]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by celticniall]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by celticniall
 


I think all trops will be withdrawn from N Ireland the same time they're all withdrawn form England, Scotland and Wales
They have to be barracked somewhere, so why not where barracks exist? Or should we spend billions building new barracks?

As mentioned before, the 2 soldiers murdered were due to leave for Afghanistan.

Are the cowardly 'Real IRA' working for the Taliban?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


since when did Ireland become part of the UK - was it the 3,000 years before englands occupation by the normans or the 800 years when the norman outpost became Britain.

I remember my grandfather telling me how Britain told the 26 counties when they were still forced to be part of the union how he was British and how he and his comrades fought the British to remind them otherwise.

My grandfather told me of the risings every 50 years since the original occupation of 1166.

He told me about cromwell. How his ancestors passed on stories of cromwells 50% genocide of the Irish population - historical fact - look it up.

He told me how the famine destroyed our country as was passed on to him by his grandfather.

He told me how the British government under Lloyd George promised Ireland Freedom if they supported the British in world war I - check it out if you don't believe me.

He told me how his older brother 17 yrs old bought this crap and fought and died in Gallopoli - he told me how he got his brothers victoria cross in the post - he told me how betrayed he felt for his brother when the British reneged on Irelands freedom in 1918 while lying and saying they fought that war for the protection of small nations.

He told me how he fought the British with the IRA and see how they burned his mothers house to the ground - how they shot innocent villagers in the war of independence from 1917 to 1922 when the 26 counties won freedom.

Despite all of this - which I may point out is verifiable by lots of documentation backing this general story - not my grandfathers individual story - not one ounce of this history is taught in British Schools.

I work with lots of British people and so often I have to educate them on the history of Ireland cause they come out with rubbish like the northern part of Ireland is somehow legitimately part of the UK.

It never was and never will be - your own government recognises this in the peace treaty they have betrayed.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by count66]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by count66]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Essan
 


since when did Ireland become part of the UK - was it the 3,000 years before english 6occupation by the normans or the 800 years when the norman outpost became Britain.


It's been part of what is known as the British Isles a lot longer than that. And we're all the same people regardless of modern pathetic ideas about nationality.



I work with lots of British people and so often I have to educate them on the history of Ireland cause they come out with rubbish like the northern part of Ireland is somehow legitimately part of the UK.

It never was and never will be - your own government recognises this in the peace treaty they have betrayed.



It's never been a part of a united Ireland either



But the fact remains, we are all the same people. So why do we fight?



Edit: do you agree that British troops should be murdered when they'e about to leave N Ireland? What purpose does that serve? Except helping the Taliban? Who's side are you on?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Ireland was a united country for 3,000 years before the normans subsequently British arrived.

Look up the high kings of Ireland!!!

I'm actually not a proponent of the new violence.

But I do understand the history of the violence and the root cause as most Irish people do. Unfortunately most English people don't and come out with nonsense.

I want a return to peace - a peace that is honoured by all sides.

The treaty needs to be respected by the parties who have yet to fulfill their end of the bargain.

If this is done then there will be no more violence - the republicans themselves I believe will sort this out.

Full decommissioning on all sides and withdrawal by British troops.

Let a new and proper relationship build on these Islands.

By the way - just for your own info - the British Islands is a illegal term under a united nations resolution - Eamonn de Valera successfully passed a united nations resolution in 1956 to say that this term as used by the British was to try and legitimise their occupation of the North - under the resolution - the Island of Ireland is recognised as independent of the term Britain. Charles De Gaulle was the other main supporter of this bill since his grandmother was Irish.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Essan
 


Ireland was a united country for 3,000 years before the normans subsequently British arrived.

Look up the high kings of Ireland!!!


Ireland was a collection of small kingdoms as was Britain. I believe Ultser was always a problem .... Britain also had the concept of a high king. But like Britain (Alba), Eirean only came under control of one king after the Normans invaded. Maybe we should turn our hatred towards Norway?


I'm actually not a proponent of the new violence.

Could have fooled me



But I do understand the history of the violence and the root cause as most Irish people do. Unfortunately most English people don't and come out with nonsense.


Some of us know rather more than you think



I want a return to peace - a peace that is honoured by all sides.


But which sides are those?

Are you still fighting against William of Orange (a Dutchman) Or Strongbow (form France)? Or is it just stupid religious hatred?



The treaty needs to be respected by the parties who have yet to fulfill their end of the bargain.


Well for sure the "Republicans" aren't keeping their side of the bargain
Not sure if any "Loyalists"* have committed any attacks?

* always think that should be disloyalist



If this is done then there will be no more violence - the republicans themselves I believe will sort this out.


You have a naive idea of human nature. Murderers will always find an excuse.



Full decommissioning on all sides and withdrawal by British troops.


Well some British troops would have withdrawn if cowards hadn't murdered a couple the day before they were due to leave


Of course, some 'Britsih' troops come from Ireland to start with
The term refers to all form the UK. It's not a synonym for English. Nor, indeed are the English in any way alien to Britain or Ireland.



By the way - just for your own info - the British Islands is a illegal term


No, it's a geographical term and wholly correct. In the same way that North America and SE Asia are correct.

Fact remains though: we all the same people. Why do you so hate your brothers and sisters?

And if you say because our ancestors did you harm you're a bigger fool than I thought. Though maybe I should hate the Italians for what they did to Boudica? Or, indeed, the Irish for what they did to St Patrick - a Briton as you well know


[edit on 13-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Just another issue to continue to divide people, engaging them in some meaningless pissing contest and selling more arms along the way.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Ok - where do i start Alba??? a Latin Term confused; or the rest hmmm!

Ulster one of the four recognised provinces - of a united Ireland under a high kings throne under the rule ultimately of the seat of Tara.

Let me give you an alternative scenario. Let all the Irish settlers in lets says Liverpool decide today they wish to be a part of the Irish Republic. Lets get the Irish Army to put barracks in Liverpool - I believe something like 50% of Liverpools population claim Irish descent.

Lets let the Irish lay claim to Liverpool and say cause the UK had a history of let says only 10 years without one part wishing a different ruler so now Liverpool is a legit part of Eire - how tolerant would you Brits be!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
They don't send any VCs out to recipients through the mail, and there were no Irish units fighting at Gallipoli. There were also no Irish recipients.

I'd like to be proved wrong, though.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by june3rd
 


The Irish - genealogy has shown are from Basque decendency with some small Norse, Norman and British Influence - check out the blood of the Irish on the RTE website - a recent documentary


As I mentioned previously, the people all over the mainland and surrounding islands have practically the same genetic history. The basis is Iberian which is then topped up with varying amounts genetic material from elsewhere. Ireland got a bit of North German whereas the mainland got a bit of both North and West German. Only people who seem desperate to hold on to some nonsense about a mythologised and romanticised Iron Age culture seem to have a problem with not understand the truth behind any of this.


Scotch is a perfectly legitimate term for the people from Scotland - have you never heard of the Ulster Scotch or the Scotch Irish - google it.


Funnily enough, whilst I'm familiar with 'Ulster Scots' and 'Scots Irish', having googled, my point still stands. The use of the word 'Scotch' relating to people is invariably a North American thing. I've never known anyone off-line actually use the word 'Scotch' referring to the Scots. Funnily enough, I'm meeting some Irish people (born there) and Scottish people (born there) later - I'm sure they'll be as unconvinced as I am by your argument.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Essan
 


Ireland was a united country for 3,000 years before the normans subsequently British arrived.

Look up the high kings of Ireland!!!


Actually, it was the fact that it wasn't quite as united and harmonious as you're making out that took the Normans into Ireland in the first place. How ironic that it took a kingly squabbling and a Catholic pope to introduce Cambro-Normans (note not the British or English as the Normans certainly didn't see them as either) to Ireland.

Then it took a King from mixed Welsh and continental stock to start the plantations in Ireland and then a Scottish king to continue them and yet somehow, for so many people claiming some kind of Irish descent, it's the English that are always to blame for everything to do with Ireland. I know that the it's often terms like 'Brits' and 'British' that are used but it's incredibly telling that mainland terrorist activities are focused on England not Scotland, Wales or even Cornwall.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by count66

By the way the British Isles are mainly descended from the anglo saxon races - the celts never made it as far as Britain and Ireland - check it out if you don't believe me.




I did check it out, thanks.....>




In a period of time beginning around 500BC, the Celtic culture which was expanding in central Europe reached the Britain and Ireland. While probably not an invasion as such, the Celts arrived in sufficient numbers to replace the language and culture of Ireland's Bronze Age residents with that of the Celts. The Celts were an Iron Age people, and used iron in addition to bronze to make weapons, cooking utensils and other items. Iron takes more technology to refine, but it also much stronger and more durable than bronze.

The Celts in Ireland divided themselves into over a hundred small kingdoms, or tuaths, each of which was ruled by a king. Sometimes a king had the allegiance of a number of other kings and there were a few kings who had a lot of control. These were kings of provinces. Early maps by Mediterranean sailors and geographers have identified the key tribes in Ireland around the time of Christ and these have been matched with historical evidence and folklore.

The Celtic culture was based around a system of honour, whereby warriors gained honour by valour in battle. Unlike conflicts in later history, it was almost invariably the aristocracy who did the fighting while the peasantry - who often worked like slaves for their king - remained on their farms. The whole system was supported by Brehon Law, a well structured system of justice where most crimes were settled by fines which were related to the status of the victim. There was no death penalty. In terms of religion, the Celts were pagan until the 400s AD, and had a form of bardic religion which involved the worship of natural objects such as trees and rivers. Special carved stones have been found that may have been involved in religious rites.

Around 43AD the expanding Roman Empire conquered Celtic Britain, as it had conquered most of Celtic Europe. Ireland and Scotland remained one the only non-Roman Celtic areas left. Trade continued between Britain and Ireland, but following the decline of the Roman Empire in the 400s AD, the Irish plundered the Britian coast and, later formed colonies in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. All were ultimately defeated by the Britons, except the colony in Scotland (by the Dal Riata tribe) which survived and ultimately formed the basis of the kingdom of Scotland.

Like all peoples, the Celts left ruins in Ireland. Large royal sites such as Emain Macha and Tara seem to have been used for ritual and kingship purposes, while the stone hillforts seem to have had a much more practical defensive purpose. Many of these can be seen today. And, of course, it was the language of the Celts (Q-Celtic) which forms the basis of modern Irish




Again, thanks


IP



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join