It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Police race to stop Real IRA bomb plot

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by count66

What do you mean by freedom? Your economy is booming or was before the world economic crisis. This was due to the peace between the sides. British atrocities were great granted. But it seems that with or without Britain's intervention you would have great violence between Catholic and Protestants anyway.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

There are more poles, chinese and africans in Ireland then the scotch settlers who were and are British - they still wish to be part of Britain but they majority of the Island of Ireland do not and wish for a united Ireland - the North is also recognised under treaty terms as being an integral part of the Island of Ireland - if you want peace you do not place troops whatever their status in a place where almost 50% of the population in th North see them as colonial occupying forces.

Does that seem like a correct strategy from a peace seeking government?

To freedom fighters who were asked to lay down arms in a quest for peace does it not seem to them that it is the actions of a government who claims to have won a war which they did not??

Peace is what all people want but good faith paid on one side has to be repaid by the other

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

British intervention was never needed or warranted.

Throughout the troubles the Irish southern government held several united nations votes to station neutral UN troops in the North.

The British Government was on the security council and vetoed each resolution.

If they wanted peace and a fair strategy - why not allow UN troops rather then combatant troops that are seen as hostile by one of the warring parties.

Does this seem like a plausible strategy?

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by count66

There not freedom fighters. Come on man, Palastinians fighting against Israel are freedom fighters. Those attacking American troops in Iraq are freedom fighters. Shooting a policeman in the head with a sniper rifle in a now generally peaceful country is not freedom fighting, it is war provoking.

Mabye British troops shouldn't be there, but they are. I think in the long run they will leave but not when actions such as this are occuring. You can argue it is as a result of British presence that these 'activites' have re-emeraged. But i argue even without British presence there would be in-fighting in NI.

Now this talk of a bomb. If it is exploded in the middle of a town cntre and mutilates wounds and kills NORTHERN IRISH citizens such as in Omagh, is that freedom fighting?

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by count66

It does sound reasonable, but not plausable as all large nations Israel, Russia, the U.S and the U.K would never accept U.N troops on their territory or even close to it as they make up the U.N and the majority of its funds! That is reserved for 'smaller' nation such as in Africa, Cyprus etc

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

When someone is fighting and risking their own life to liberate a land that is occupied is that not freedom fighting?

I'm not saying I agree with their strategy but I'm a republican who wants a united country.

The British are not keeping their side of the bargain in the peace treaty.

This action by RIRA and the Continuity IRA is regretable and should be lamented - all I'm saying is don't necessarily buy into the whole there was no provocation stuff - the British army remaining in the north in peace time is waving a red flag at a bull and expecting not to provoke it.

If they didn't want the war to start again then they should start behaving like it.

P.S. This so called bomb is not being reported in any of the Irish media interestingly enough - so far the action has been limited to British representatives and if the war re opens I sincerely hope that no civilian is killed but is limited to the armed representatives of both sides.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

My point is that the North is Irish terroritory and always has been - but in your answer you have stated what I'm saying - the UK consider it and claim it as theirs - is that not an occupational force??

Is that not an act of war when even in the eyes of most countries of the world the north of Ireland would be viewed as part of Ireland and not part of the UK.

I'm not talking about legally here but rather morally.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by count66

Yes we are.
The Provisional IRA is not keeping to its terms.

Republicans fail to understand the Republic never wanted Northern Ireland due to the Irish economy being unable to support reunification. Why else did Tony Blair have to force them to fund economic projects in Northern Ireland?

Fine Gael is the only mainstream Irish party that has a strategy for reunification, the others do not. Sin Feinn's terrorist approach failed.

Majority of the citizens of the Republic do not see unification as important because the integration of the European Union would put Ireland back under administration along with Britain. A single Europe would make a United Ireland pointless.

European Commission reform, would strip Ireland of a position and allow Britain to represent both the United Kingdom and Ireland. It's 1801 all over again!

You may support terrorist attacks, and justify terrorism against the British people, but the majority of Irish citizens do not.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:25 AM
It doesn't matter if your English, Irish, or Moonish, any person who fires at an opposing force while stood behind a human shield or group of innocent civilians , or sets off a bomb in a shopping centre or civilian street and NOT directed at a military target is still a TERRORIST.
Theres no denying that collateral damage is taken on both sides but a firefight is as chaotic as it can get, innocents will be harmed if they don't take cover, but when a bomb is set off in a crowded area there is nowhere to run.
BUT, when a bomb is set off in a crowded area then when the people run ANOTHER bomb goes off as the crowds flee is nothing but a coward's attack, these kind of battles serve no purpose and under no account can be called a victory.
Any person with an ounce of humanity should realise that NO BOMBINGS or cowardly attack will server their purpose, the only way to change anyones mind, especially a Government is to talk and explain your way to victory.
Killing innocents is the most direct route to losing ALL credibility and respect from the people you need to talk to.
Theres no God or religeon or political charter that states you HAVE to kill innocents to get what you want.
Anyone that says otherwise needs their head examining and is living in their own makebelieve world and I pity them.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by Merriman Weir

They were as cowardly as the British Army firing at unarmed civilians in the North and colluding in the Bombings in the south.

One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Just because a government states that their violence is legal and the other mans violence is not doesn't make the so called legit violence any easier for the people on the receiving side.

You seem to think that I'm in support of the British Army killing non-terrorists? I've never said anything to suggest that I do.

Also, the term freedom fighter is a lot of bollocks when it comes to the mainland atrocities that the IRA and related factions have committed. When the IRA et al are planting bombs on the mainland which kill and maim mostly civilians - and don't forget bombs tend not to care what the targets actually think of Northern Ireland, whether the target is Catholic or Protestant or whether their great-great-grandfather left Ireland in the late 1880s - who exactly are they fighting here? It's certainly not the government. It's certainly not the military or security forces.

When it comes to killing "unarmed civilians", the actual statistics make for interesting reading.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:50 AM
I'm not up on my NI conflict history. I'm interested to learn why the British army were targetting unarmed civilians. I understand they have strict ROE to follow and I would love to know what provoked such a barbaric attack?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by UnitedSatesofFreemasons
Hell yeah IRA! I know they are some bamofo's, but i am full blooded irish, and i have some cousins still in the IRA, and past uncles who where also in the IRA. The reason i love the IRA is because they don't give empty threats, they do what they say, and mean what they do. Something the world should adapt. Instead we have everyone screaming in every direction, and it never happens. Well, here is the wolf.

It's really easy to cheer away from the sidelines when you've no chance of actually getting caught up in it.

If someone said they'd kill your family over there in New York and then followed up on it, would you singing their principles so highly then? "Well, I've got to hand it to that stalker. He said he'd kill my family and he did. Kudos, dude!" You're either an idiot or a hypocrite.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by RE2505
I'm not up on my NI conflict history. I'm interested to learn why the British army were targetting unarmed civilians. I understand they have strict ROE to follow and I would love to know what provoked such a barbaric attack?

The fact that they were fired upon first is the only way the Army ever got caught up in any street fighting. Bloody Monday is the most infamous of examples. The IRA claim they never shot at anybody and that all who were killed were innocents. The Army claim they were under attack by rioters who then started shooting at them. To this day no clear picture has emerged of what actually happened.

As for accusations of a "colonial occupying force" from the "full-blooded Irishman", what utter bollocks. Typical Irish-American ignorance of what is actually happening. I also laugh at the irony of a Yank expressing support for terrorists in Ireland who've killed upwards of 7,000 people over the past decades, but who would also support the invasion of a country and killing of 100,000 people based upon lies perpetrated after a terrorist attack on themselves.

The Army was sent in to protect the Catholics from an increasingly militant Protestant community. The catholics welcomed the british at first, but turned on them pretty quickly as they realised that they'd get no special treatment from the British.

It might seem like a noble cause from 5,000 miles away in the USA were you pretend to be Irish, but I lived in Belfast during the 1980's mate and it was anything but noble.

Not being able to go to the shops without packing a gun was a daily problem for my father. We couldn't even be seen entering or leaving the barracks were we lived for fear of being killed. I couldn't even go to school without a full military escort for crying out loud.

How noble is a cause were innocent children would be routinely targetted because these "freedom fighters" don't have the bollocks to attack the military themselves?

As for the ongoing deployment of troops in NI; well that is a routine deployment. Same as the myriad of barracks and bases dotted around the mainland. The troops based at the barracks that was attacked last week were about to go to Afghanistan, they weren't even anything to do with NI.

I have had to edit this post after reading those comments from that American poster so as not to get a banning. I am effing fuming.....

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by stumason

Thanks for the information.
As I suspected comparing anything the British army has done to the atrocities carried out by the IRA is laughable. British soldiers are professionals that follow orders and strict codes which aim to keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. The IRA are indiscriminate terrorists and cowards and it's a shame to see them raising their ugly heads again.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by count66

Listen, you and that other American clown who is singing the IRA praises.

The normal, regular people of NI on both sides of the divide, do not want them RIRA nor CIRA scum starting anything back up again in NI. We do not want to go back to the dark days of the Troubles. Maybe you can sit in your nice homes far away from the bombing with your family safe and your kids can go to school without being stoned and harassed and blown up, but the people of NI have had it with IRA/UDA Republican/Loyalist terrorism.

We want no more!! End OF!!

Our kids have suffered enough, when are you lot going to get it into your thick skulls that we the people of NI do not want any more troubles on the streets of NI. We want to live in peace.

So take your war-mongering living in the past rhetoric and annoy someone else somewhere else......leave NI alone, whether it be part of UK or Ireland or independent. Lets work on it peacefully.

Let the past be the past, why drag up the past atrocities? I know people still have strong feelings on both sides about what happened, but continuing the cycle of violence will solve nothing. It will not bring about a united Ireland. The Republic of Ireland have better things to worry about.

Give our children the chance we did not grow up without constant fear, without the threat of terrorism. Let our children grow up and encourage them to get along with everyone regardless of creed. Let them grow up in peace!

This is the only way.......PEACE !!! Do you get it yet?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by celticniall]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
Well said Celticniall, my sentiments exactly. At the end of the day, people just want to live peacefully and without the violence that has been witnessed in the past. I moved from Ireland to the States 8 mos ago and I never thought that there would be more bombings and violence, it's just very, very sad and disheartening. Havn't we all learned any lessons at all from the past????? Violence achieves nothing but provoking more violence.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:46 PM
Security forces are now concerned at the whereabouts of the bomb; there's a chance that the Real IRA might try to smuggle it over to the mainland.

Security forces are still hunting for a Real IRA bomb after intelligence reports that a device was smuggled across the border. They are investigating whether the device was destined for an Irish Sea ferry. This line of inquiry is linked to a security operation around the Duncrue industrial estate dockland area of Belfast on Monday.

All cars, vans and lorries entering the estate, which includes two docking bays for ferries to Scotland and England, were stopped by armed police and searched throughout Monday afternoon and evening, security sources said.

The Guardian

As for some of the despicable comments condoning terrorism that have been posted in this thread... shame on the authors. Whatever your stance on Northern Ireland, there is simply no justification for believing that terrorism is the way to go about achieving your particular point of view. I find it especially laughable coming from a small group of ill-informed Irish Americans, who clearly have no real idea of the situation or of public opinion in either the Republic or the North. I suggest you do some catching up; your way of thinking is about thirty years behind everyone else's.

Edit: As an addendum, the reason that there are still British soldiers in Northern Ireland is because it is still a part of the United Kingdom. They are simply garrisoned there as they are in Aldershot or Cattrick or any of the other major bases. They don't patrol the streets (that's done by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is supported by both sides - PC Caroll, who was murdered on Monday night, was a Catholic) and they don't interfere with the political process in Northern Ireland. Their function has changed a great deal over the last couple of decades, and the Good Friday Agreement allows them to remain.

[edit on 13/3/09 by Ste2652]

[edit on 13/3/09 by Ste2652]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by DataWraith

Well maybe the second world war could have been avoided through talking then

Oh yes - they tried that with Chamberlain - it didn't work

If any other country was under part occupation don't tell me anyone one of their citizens would be happy about that.

I'd love to see the uk's reaction if all the Irish settlers in say liverpool or Manchester suddenly decided that now they wanted to be part of the Irish Republic and then the Irish Army set up bases there - yeah the British reaction to that would be restrained alright - my eye.

Get real folks - Ireland is Ireland - the attempts at a failed breeding out programme for the Irish didn't work and now we are left with the result - British troops do not belong there.

If you want a truly peaceful settlement this is what you do

Remove British army troops

Disarm RIRA, CIRA, UDA, LVF, UVF UFF. they would do this voluntarily if the british were gone and one of the IRA groups disarmed first.

Then you allow the north to self govern with cross border co operation on issues or interest to both sides

Then you would see in time that the scotch settlers would realise they would have nothing to fear from a full unification.

No Irish person has any interest in harming or threatening the scotch settlers. We just want our land back - they are welcome to stay and offer a valuable contribution to our country.

Then maybe Ireland and the UK could finally get on together as equals and put the horrors of the past from both sides to bed.

Every one knows that this is the solution - in fact the good friday agreement is drawn up along these principles.

Why then will the british troops not withdraw.

UK Citizens ask your government why in a tense situation like the North do they still deem it necessary to station the amount of troops in NI that they have - I'm talking prior the recent outbreak of violence when there was 10 years of peace.

Irish citizens - ask why the government of the south never ever questioned the British on this.

As to most Irish citizens not wanting reunification - I have lived in Ireland for the 33 years of my life and have yet to meet in all my walks of life in Ireland one person who did not want reunification.

Perhaps there are a few traitorous nut jobs but I haven't come across them

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by stumason

This is pure untruth - the British Governments own inquiry found that the British Army Paratroopers fired without provocation on the peaceful march on bloody sunday.

This is merely mindless UK propoganda - it took the British government 20 years to admit their crime - what did they do at the time - awarded medals to the soliders who killed 14 unarmed civilians - that was the best recruitment tool for the IRA - What about the bombings in the south that killed 34 civilians - they have also been proven to have been carried out by British army soliders - come on man - I'm Irish and will admit what the IRA did - time to grow up and realise what your own army did in the name of occupation

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by RE2505

I would suggest before you applaud this sort of information that you also check out republican sites e.g. sinn fein and get the other side.

Go to you tube and type in bloody sunday and see what the British army rules of engagement re: civilians are really like.

Check out the Dublin and Monaghan bombings where civilians were killed and see what they British Army are capable of - google it and see who the Irish southern government hold responsible.

Educate yourself rather then believe mine or someone elses opinion who may have an agenda and blindly accepting it

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in