British national Tommy Diver taunts UK police from Thailand

[boomerangutang]

Two small islands close together - as the great American sage Rodney King might say, "Can't we all just get along?"

Well, maybe it's not quite as loopy as the islands of New Guinea or Hispaniola being divvied in half.

To those of us not enmeshed in the internecine squabbles, the English and Irish are different as North Carolinians and South Carolinians.

[BigC]

Why does Thailand open its doors to these types of people?

I'm sure with his attitude and mouth, he will get noticed very soon in BKK and someone will rat him in.

Why do people think they are safe in Thailand and taunt police

If Interpol are after him then they shall catch him

I am sure MI5 with all their equipment can Pon point him

Plus he is giving out his location but It might be a decoy he might not be here or already left

If he is here then we shall be caught very soon

Maybe he doesn't care and just wants to be on a beach until he is re arrested

Who knows

Why these people even pick up a computer let alone a mobile phone is completely beyond me but that's why they get caught

[jkenn]

The real history, thanks a million!

LOL. Written by a bog trotting 15 year old who seems to omit the IRA's cowardly random slaughter of innocent people, especially kids across the UK in the 70s and 80s or their bullying and intimidation of their own communities in Ireland during the same time period. What a crock of abysmally written monkey knackers (I'm guessing by a 15 year old Yank). A mod should kill that drivel......

Congratulations on guessing half right. I am a Yank of Irish descent indeed. But far from 15 years old. You may disagree with the content but I think it was written well and certainly isn't drivel. A mod should kill it? Interesting... the truth can be dangerous.

It is indeed true that the PIRA committed some atrocities for which there is no excuse. What army has not? Frankly I think the PIRA took more care to try to avoid civilian casualties than most national armies such as the US and Britain, who are perfectly content to blow up entire wedding parties in order to kill one person who they sort of vaguely suspect to be a terrorizer. But it's ok because it's in Pakistan & Afghanistan that this is happening.

What was occurring in the North was a cycle of violence. As I mentioned the PIRA was almost vanished in the early 1960s. It was the egregious civil rights situation in the North, coupled with the intrasingent nastiness of the British and their complete lack of respect for the Irish which led them to send military troops in to slaughter peaceful protesters, round up anyone who opposed them and detain them without charge or trial (internment), commit extrajudicial murder of people they suspected of being Republicans, etc., that drove the cycle of violence forward. Both sides did a lot of wrong things, it is true. What I am saying is when we have a situation that involves a cycle of violence between two groups, it is helpful to evaluate the underlying causes for that. When the British realized they couldn't just beat down the Irish like so many Zulus or Arabs and they were forced to actually address the legitimate grievances of the Irish, rather than just responding with more violence, then the cycle of violence was able to be tampered down.

You mean they waited hours until the guy was drunk and easy

And this Fenian 'hero' was trying his luck with a load of old men.....sounds about your limit pal....Was funny watching the sh*t switch from his gob to his legs as soon as the lad told him to step outside....

It is interesting how people feel affiliated with the governments of their nation of citizenship. That is, when someone points out what the British government has been doing in Ireland historically, persons who are British feel personally offended. Likewise with the Irish. In truth, the "governments" of countries have little to do with the people and certainly do not care about the interests of the common persons. Democracy is largely a sham. Elections and policies are bought and sold and the common man is sold out.

This is more a class issue at this point than a nationality issue, I think. 10 Downing street does not have the interests of either the loyalist or the republican communities at heart. They were going to sell out the north completely to Dublin to stop the big bombs in London in the 1990s that threatened their financial industry. Ian Paisley was told, get into a power-sharing agreement with Sinn Fein, or we're disowning Northern Ireland. All London cares about is money. The people in the North and South of Ireland are being sold out to the big banks and the multinational corporate interests of the EU. The policy of the British has always been divide and conquer. They set the various communities in India, etc., against each other, then step up and act as though they are trying to just broker a stalemate between everyone, when in fact they were working to stir up the conflict in the first place.

No one is responsible for where they were born. The loyalist people in the North can not be blamed for the policies of the British government for the past 800 years towards Ireland. The working class communities in Ireland, both orange and green, are being sold out to the EU and corporate interests, just like Thatcher beat down the british miners.

What is important at this point is for the peace process to go forward. We have to remember how the situation came about. British brutality in Ireland has caused very deep wounds which the people in the North particularly are suffering from. Both sides should really work on moving forward to improve trust, and unite for their common class interests against their common enemies. If an Irishman and an Englishman are in a bar in Thailand together, rather than allowing corporate interests and British policy to tell them they are supposed to be enemies, they should rather work on finding their common interests. Whatever their common interests are, are not what London cares about, unless they happen to be billionaires.

[IrishMick]

Its quite clear that the people in this post who are espousing violence are clearly in support of her majesty's government in Ireland. Irish citizens seem to be the only side willing to make sacrifices for peace. But then again when you don't live in Ireland and don't have to deal with state sponsored violence then its all only a game played out on the computer while drinking your first breakfast beer of the day.

Edited January 9, 2015 by IrishMick

[tullynagardy]

Its quite clear that the people in this post who are espousing violence are clearly in support of her majesty's government in Ireland.

Pretty sure it`s people like yourself supporting the IRA, who before their defeat were a sectarian terrorist organisation, that seems to have less of a problem with violence.

[djayz]

@Baerboxer

You

You'd need to be incredibly dumb to actually believe violence could win over the long term. It never has and many of those who live by the sword die by it. Thatcher, I think, despised the IRA for the cowardly murders of people including her friend the WW2 hero Airey Neave, But she realized the the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF and UFF were not the entire population. You can't strife for a fair and just society in the UK and leave out Ulster.

Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley saw this, and were able to put the past aside and work hard together to achieve real progress. Dinosaurs like Adams were sidelined.

Do you know of any politician who isn't two (or more when necessary) faced?

Me

The IRA didn't murder Airey Neave, that was the INLA.

Adams hasn't been sidelined and is still a leading figure in the movement to unite Eire after the unilateral partition of it by the English, thankfully a peaceful movement.

Thatcher was one of the most despicable politicians of the recent past. All politicians lie I agree but her lies destroyed communities.

However that all said I agree with your condemnation of violence.

It is never a solution.

Thatcher was a politician I will never forgive but she wasn't stupid and realised that violence had failed.

All sides including the govt have blood on their hands because of the violence perpetrated by the paramilitary groups. All of them.

That is past.

A treaty was signed.

Peace has been achieved.

We all need to move on.

Was it the INLA who murdered Neave? They claimed responsibility although other theories exist. Anyway he was murdered, probably by Irish terrorists which I'm sure Mrs Thatcher would have noted.

You may view Thatcher how you want to, from an Irish perspective, but she took over a UK that had become the sick man of Europe being completely <deleted> up by trades unions that had been infiltrated by the extreme left. She was the medicine the UK needed at that time, however unpalatable that may have been. She was democratically elected, the longest serving PM of the 20th century and the only woman to hold that office. So, many did not support your view. Like many, she arguable went too far in the other direction.

Violence creates more violence as a response, which creates more violence. A vicious cycle. Once someone becomes embroiled it's hard to break out of. Adams still spouts the old rhetoric. He's held in check, and pushed south of the border. Understandable. McGuiness, has the intelligence and honesty to admit the wrong doings, on all sides, of the past and expresses correctly how things that seemed right at the time, can be seen to be so wrong later.

A deal was done, an agreement signed. There are dissidents and criminals hiding under political banners who still need dealing with. This warrant jumper is possibly an example. Peace anywhere is fragile - just look at how quickly violence has erupted all around the world.

One poster on this thread supports the idea of political violence, and even advocates it in support of a united Ireland, even though the majority in Ulster want to remain part of the UK. Whilst people think like that violence will always be just below the surface.

... and the majority of people in the Republic want to see Ireland reunited again. So who do we listen to? The wishes of the people of Ulster or the people of the Republic? I know! Why don't we listen to what the "majority of people on the island of Ireland" want... both from Ulster and the Republic.

But if Ireland were a united country would it let the north have a referendum on independence as we have just see with Scotland - or are they not as democratic as the British?

I believe that if Ireland were a united country, we too would let the North have a referendum on independence. I also believe that we are just as "democratic" as the British, or do you think only the British are democratic?

[djayz]

The problem is that the English can't remember what the Irish can't forget.

You've hit the nail on the head there!! One side can't forget, and the other side can't remember/is in denial.

Spot on!

A few months ago I found myself in a very unpleasant situation here in Thailand, in which a person died in an accident. It did me the world of good to talk to the other family about what had happened, how it had happened and how sorry I was about it. It helped them, and myself, to come to terms with the situation and to find some kind of peace. Then, a few daysago,as I was out doing some work in the garden, I though about the end of apartheid in South Africa and the subsequent process (I think they called it "contrition" in South Africa), in which people involved in apartheid confessed to, and apologized, for their actions in public. This seems to have helped both the White and the Black Africans to come to terms with the past and to move on (I've never been to South Africa and I'm basing all of this on literature and documentaries I've read/watched about this topic). Anyways, this made me wonder if this "act of contrition" could ever work for "us" (Irish/British, Catholics/Protestants, etc.) or is this something that only Asians/Africans are capable of? To openly talking about feelings, actions, etc. without being faced with contempt, hatred and vengeance? I can only speak from my own experience, but it did me the world of good to get it off my chest!

I moved away from Ireland when I was 19 and although I very, very seldom talk about politics, the whole Northern Ireland/England/United Ireland topic always strikes a very sensitive note with me - I believe we should be reunited, come hell or high water! Our land has been occupied for long enough!

I've met many an English person who was spot on and turned out to be a great friend, and then again I've met many an Irish person who I wouldn't talk to. I suppose we've got good and bad people on both sides.

I respect ever human beings right to live a free and happy life, where ever he/she may wish to live and I don't condone violence in any way whatsoever, but this issue has affected both sides of the Irish Sea for centuries.

Our countries, lives and histories are intertwined for eternity.

A lot of the English/British members here are going on about what the IRA did to their fellow country men, women and children. But it seems to me, that you have forgotten that your ancestors, your forces and your fellow country men have done the same to us....

What came first? The egg or the chicken? The invasion or the rebellion?

This has nothing to do with the people of mainland Britain. It's a problem/issue between the "people" of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

As a previous poster has already pointed out, the Protestant community is slowly dwindling in numbers and the Catholics are increasing (in Northern Ireland that is). It's only a question of time until the "majority" of people in Ulster are Catholics and the minority are Protestants.... I wonder how your "referendum" will turn out then...

[djayz]

The real history, thanks a million!

LOL. Written by a bog trotting 15 year old who seems to omit the IRA's cowardly random slaughter of innocent people, especially kids across the UK in the 70s and 80s or their bullying and intimidation of their own communities in Ireland during the same time period. What a crock of abysmally written monkey knackers (I'm guessing by a 15 year old Yank). A mod should kill that drivel......

No, sounds about right to me. I'm sure this "15 year old" knows just as much about the IRA's random slaughter of innocent people as he/she does know about the English random slaughter of innocent (Irish) people, especially women and children, and their bullying and intimidation in Ireland during the previous centuries.

"What goes around, comes around".

[jkenn]

The problem is that the English can't remember what the Irish can't forget.

You've hit the nail on the head there!! One side can't forget, and the other side can't remember/is in denial.

Spot on!

A few months ago I found myself in a very unpleasant situation here in Thailand, in which a person died in an accident. It did me the world of good to talk to the other family about what had happened, how it had happened and how sorry I was about it. It helped them, and myself, to come to terms with the situation and to find some kind of peace. Then, a few daysago,as I was out doing some work in the garden, I though about the end of apartheid in South Africa and the subsequent process (I think they called it "contrition" in South Africa), in which people involved in apartheid confessed to, and apologized, for their actions in public. This seems to have helped both the White and the Black Africans to come to terms with the past and to move on (I've never been to South Africa and I'm basing all of this on literature and documentaries I've read/watched about this topic). Anyways, this made me wonder if this "act of contrition" could ever work for "us" (Irish/British, Catholics/Protestants, etc.) or is this something that only Asians/Africans are capable of? To openly talking about feelings, actions, etc. without being faced with contempt, hatred and vengeance? I can only speak from my own experience, but it did me the world of good to get it off my chest!

I moved away from Ireland when I was 19 and although I very, very seldom talk about politics, the whole Northern Ireland/England/United Ireland topic always strikes a very sensitive note with me - I believe we should be reunited, come hell or high water! Our land has been occupied for long enough!

I've met many an English person who was spot on and turned out to be a great friend, and then again I've met many an Irish person who I wouldn't talk to. I suppose we've got good and bad people on both sides.

I respect ever human beings right to live a free and happy life, where ever he/she may wish to live and I don't condone violence in any way whatsoever, but this issue has affected both sides of the Irish Sea for centuries.

Our countries, lives and histories are intertwined for eternity.

A lot of the English/British members here are going on about what the IRA did to their fellow country men, women and children. But it seems to me, that you have forgotten that your ancestors, your forces and your fellow country men have done the same to us....

What came first? The egg or the chicken? The invasion or the rebellion?

This has nothing to do with the people of mainland Britain. It's a problem/issue between the "people" of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland.

As a previous poster has already pointed out, the Protestant community is slowly dwindling in numbers and the Catholics are increasing (in Northern Ireland that is). It's only a question of time until the "majority" of people in Ulster are Catholics and the minority are Protestants.... I wonder how your "referendum" will turn out then...

I think this post pretty much nails it on the head. A cycle of violence was in place. There really is no doubt as to who initiated the cycle of violence originally, and who re-stoked the flames in response to the northern Irish civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Looking at things objectively, there is really no reason those individuals in the North of British heritage should support the government in London, any more than the native Irish should accept their rule. If you look at the actual decisions being made by London, they're quite happy to sell out all the working class people of the North for the interests of the big bankers and the big EU multinational corporations.

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities are about as different as north and south carolina in the US. (For non-US persons who understand that that means, not different.)

The bottom line is the British government at 10 Downing street loves for the conversation to be about Irish versus British, Catholic vs. Protestant, republican versus loyalist. Because they're in the process of selling everyone out, and as long as the discussion is not about that, they've won.

I do believe that, given demographics which are quite clear, the people of the North will likely eventually vote for re-unification. There are two important points to make about this. First, is that the loyalist communities should not consider this to be a catastrophe. The interests of the large majority of the loyalists are actually quite aligned with the working-class republicans of the North, irregardless of pointless flags. (Sidenote about the flag controversy: Everyone should just be free to fly the pointless banner of their choice. Both green and orange, let the other guy fly his/her flag sometimes. It doesn't mean anything).

However, the bigger question is, whether Dublin will continue to sell out working class communities to the EU. This is something that affects both sides. Rather than stubbornly stick to the battles that the powers that be in Britain would like everyone to focus on, such as Catholic/native Irish versus Protestant/loyalist, the people involved should be more conscious of their shared class interests, ie., a fair deal for the working people, and an end to rape of ALL working class persons in the north by London and by the EU.

This individual on youtube, "Protestant Irish Republican", sums up these issues in various videos on his channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRisingOf16

Working-class persons of the North, of British and native Irish heritage, should be coming together to heal the wounds caused by 800 years of British GOVERNMENT brutality, which does not imply complicity of persons who simply are of English heritage, to build a better common future for ALL the common working-class people of the North.

Edited January 9, 2015 by jkenn

[tullynagardy]

I moved away from Ireland when I was 19

Thank god, Ireland doesn`t need people like you

Our land has been occupied for long enough!

Occupied by who? The majority of native citizens in Northern Ireland want it to remain that way. The term occupation implies some kind of Israeli situation which simply isn`t the case.

As a previous poster has already pointed out, the Protestant community is slowly dwindling in numbers and the Catholics are increasing (in Northern Ireland that is). It's only a question of time until the "majority" of people in Ulster are Catholics and the minority are Protestants.... I wonder how your "referendum" will turn out then...

Absolutely nothing judging by polls and the recent census. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/support-for-a-united-ireland-at-an-all-time-low-says-survey-124061454-237394181.html We live in a post Nationalist era.

To be honest I`m sick of Southerners, who didn`t have to live through the horrors of the troubles (yet helped supply it) pontificating about some "occupation." There is no occupation, we simply don`t want to be part of Eire. That aside Eire couldn`t afford us anyway with 100`s of billions still to repay from their bailout.

Iit`s high time Irish people like yourself got over this inferiority complex that dogs so many of you in regards to the English.

[tullynagardy]

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities

I`m curious as to what your defintion of "native Irish" is, I would contend no such thing exists.

Only a dumb plastic paddy yank, with little knowledge of Irish history, seeking some kind of identitiy, would spew such bs.

[micmichd]

"Native" Irish is maybe a community where they speak Irish (not English)

[theslime]

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities

I`m curious as to what your defintion of "native Irish" is, I would contend no such thing exists.

Only a dumb plastic paddy yank, with little knowledge of Irish history, seeking some kind of identitiy, would spew such bs.

Only a dumbo in denial would ask such a silly question, Idjits have their own history it seems.

[jkenn]

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities

I`m curious as to what your defintion of "native Irish" is, I would contend no such thing exists.

Only a dumb plastic paddy yank, with little knowledge of Irish history, seeking some kind of identitiy, would spew such bs.

Well I would reply to satisfy your curiosity, but I don't respond to ad-hominem attacks. I have been trying to remain rational and calm and in particular to avoid the kind of personal attacks that these discussions always descend into. Having being called "dumb", etc., by you, I don't feel inclined to answer your question.

For your reference, may I suggest the following alternative phrasing which you could have used, in which case I would have found your question to be relevant and interesting and responded to it.

"In your post, you reference the concept of the 'native Irish'. I would content no such thing exists. Would you provide a definition of what it is you mean by that?"

That would be a reasonable and rational post, promoting meaningful discussion without descending into mud-slinging and personal insults. I think I actually know Irish history fairly well and had you posted your question in a rational fashion it could be interesting to discuss further.

There's a lot of trust-building that needs to take place in the North of Ireland, which is something that Martin McGuinness for example emphasizes a lot. It's why he met with the Queen and shook hands with her. I also give the Queen Elizabeth II a lot of credit for meeting with McGuinness, given how her second cousin Lord Mountbatten was killed by the IRA. This is not something there is any reason to believe McGuinness was involved in, and he actually addressed that question specifically in an interview in New York with the Hudson Union society, that he had no knowledge or involvement whatsoever in that incident. However, he was still a former IRA member, so I was happy to see both him and the Queen meet and shake hands, and for the Queen to speak Gaelic during her visit to Ireland, etc. A reasonable and peaceful way forward has been painstakingly negotiated and agreed to by all sides. The job now is building trust and implementing the solution.

What is important in bringing about a lasting peace, in my opinion, is understanding and confronting the history accurately and honestly, and building trust and dealing with the anger that has resulted in both communities as a result of historical British brutality. This is why it's such a shame that discussions like this always turn into personal insults and invitations to "step outside" the pub for a minute. Why not just discuss the topic without resorting to personal insults?

Edited January 10, 2015 by jkenn

[micmichd]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language#/image/File:Irish_speakers_in_2011.png

For those who have no ears to hear or tongues to speak, but eyes to see: This is the island called Ireland.

[worzel]

It has always been interesting to me how people reflexively say "terrorist, terrorist" when they hear of the IRA, but don't say similar things about the British government. If there is a national flag backing up a gun, it makes a moral difference? The british government was conducting extra-judicial murder in the north of Ireland throughout the troubles, just killing people they wanted dead, there are BBC documentaries about this. Is this not terrorism? They also assisted loyalist paramilitaries with intelligence information and hit lists of people they wanted dead, whom the loyalists killed for them. These loyalist organizations were allowed to remain legal and operate openly (not admitting what they were doing publicly, but everyone knew this). The BBC to its credit has made a number of fairly open minded and even handed documentaries about the troubles which document these things.

When people simply say "The majority of people in the North of Ireland want to be in the UK." and think it settles things, this misses a lot of the history and the legitimate grievances of the native Irish in the north. Britain, using physical force/military violence, settled people in Ireland, particularly the north, in order to extract Ireland's wealth and productive capacity and subject the Irish to being serfs. During the great potato famine Ireland was actually a huge exporter of food products - transported from British-owned farms worked by Irish serfs/slaves essentially, with armed military guards transporting the food products so the starving local people could not get a hold of any.

The bottom line is the British populated the north with their settlers, and established economic and social systems where the British immigrant/settler population was superior to the native Irish, systems which have continued to the present day, though improved by the Good Friday agreement. The Irish were shut out of good jobs, shut out of government, shut out of the police forces. The police forces were little more than loyalist thugs, in many cases. The provisional IRA HAD to serve as a local police force in the catholic communities, because the official police were not only not doing their job but were actively antagonistic to catholic communities.

The grievances of the native Irish in the north during the period of the troubles were very grave. The electoral system in Northern Ireland was designed to shut the native Irish out of the system entirely. The system was not "One person, one vote", but rather, votes were allocated only to property owners. Each owner of a home was allowed one vote. The owner of the home exercised the vote, the others living there (children, wives, etc.) did not vote. This dramatically favored the Loyalist community, who historically have been the property owners because the British military made them the property owners, through military violence. Also, business owners were allowed additional votes. This also favored the loyalist communities, who owned the capital and the businesses since British military domination and violence put them in that position.

This sounds unbelievable to us today, but this was the system in the second half of the last century that was used to keep the Irish under foot. Districts were also heavily gerrymandered, guaranteeing loyalist majorities in all bodies of government, even in areas which were native Irish-majority. Plus, "winner-takes-all" policies were used to completely shut out the Irish from government, job opportunities, service on the police forces, etc. It was an atrocious civil rights situation.

Most Irish did try peaceful protest initially to try to change things. The British reaction to this was responsible for the rise of the IRA in the period of the troubles. The IRA had dwindled down to almost disappearing by the 1960s. They were essentially vanished, for all practical purposes. What happened, why did they come roaring back?

The response of the British to peaceful Irish protest is what happened - internment, massacre of peaceful protesters, refusal to implement effective policing for Catholic communities, jury-free trials placing Irish republicans in prisons where they were tortured and beaten, the gross indifference of Thatcher to the hunger strikers, most of them convicted only of being members of the IRA, and by courts run by the British with no juries - who had legitimate complaints about how they were being beaten and tortured in prison, etc., were the major forces promoting recruitment to the IRA during this time. When the Irish tried peaceful protest, the british military massacred them, on bloody sunday, and continued a policy of extensive extrajudicial murder which has been thoroughly documented by the BBC and others. The British government essentially gave the native Irish of the north two choices - stay down with our boots on your necks, or join the IRA. The situation is a lot more complex than "Terrorizers" versus "British democracy". The bottom line is the history of British cruelty and occupation has placed all the people who now live in the north in a very difficult situation.

When finally the British government decided to stop responding to the situation with escalating extrajudicial violence, and serious efforts were made to address the legitimate grievances of the native Irish in the north, culminating in the Good Friday agreement, then the situation improved, and the PIRA agreed to disarm and disband.

Hopefully the peace can last. The way forward involves an understanding of the actual history of the region, and understanding of how British policy and brutality over the centuries has placed both sides in the North - both the native Irish and those who are descended from the settlers sent by Britain to exploit Ireland a few hundred years ago - in a difficult situation, and hopefully commitment by all to addressing the legitimate grievances and needs of all parties can lead to a lasting peace for everyone. We dont need name calling, just honest analysis of history and the present, and a committment to finding a better way.

The real history, thanks a million!

not my fault they couldnt grow potatoes

[tullynagardy]

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities

I`m curious as to what your defintion of "native Irish" is, I would contend no such thing exists.

Only a dumb plastic paddy yank, with little knowledge of Irish history, seeking some kind of identitiy, would spew such bs.

Well I would reply to satisfy your curiosity, but I don't respond to ad-hominem attacks. I have been trying to remain rational and calm and in particular to avoid the kind of personal attacks that these discussions always descend into. Having being called "dumb", etc., by you, I don't feel inclined to answer your question.

For your reference, may I suggest the following alternative phrasing which you could have used, in which case I would have found your question to be relevant and interesting and responded to it.

"In your post, you reference the concept of the 'native Irish'. I would content no such thing exists. Would you provide a definition of what it is you mean by that?"

That would be a reasonable and rational post, promoting meaningful discussion without descending into mud-slinging and personal insults. I think I actually know Irish history fairly well and had you posted your question in a rational fashion it could be interesting to discuss further.

There's a lot of trust-building that needs to take place in the North of Ireland, which is something that Martin McGuinness for example emphasizes a lot. It's why he met with the Queen and shook hands with her. I also give the Queen Elizabeth II a lot of credit for meeting with McGuinness, given how her second cousin Lord Mountbatten was killed by the IRA. This is not something there is any reason to believe McGuinness was involved in, and he actually addressed that question specifically in an interview in New York with the Hudson Union society, that he had no knowledge or involvement whatsoever in that incident. However, he was still a former IRA member, so I was happy to see both him and the Queen meet and shake hands, and for the Queen to speak Gaelic during her visit to Ireland, etc. A reasonable and peaceful way forward has been painstakingly negotiated and agreed to by all sides. The job now is building trust and implementing the solution.

What is important in bringing about a lasting peace, in my opinion, is understanding and confronting the history accurately and honestly, and building trust and dealing with the anger that has resulted in both communities as a result of historical British brutality. This is why it's such a shame that discussions like this always turn into personal insults and invitations to "step outside" the pub for a minute. Why not just discuss the topic without resorting to personal insults?

Let`s just say I`m somewhat bitter, having lost family members to a murderous campagin, funded almost entirely out of American ignorance from people desperately seeking some kind of identity. (why do American always need a dual identity? Why Can`t they just be American)

Anyway I digress, please answer my question then? Who are these "Native Irish you talk of?" Someone has suggested above that it`s native Irish speakers, but with just 20k of them in some tiny West coast villages I doubt that`s what you mean.

I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

In reality, with 850 years of inward migration from the British mainland, there is no such thing as Native Irish. (and thats taking the people already there as native when we know the Celts were also immigrants to Ireland and not native) Nothing illustrates this inter mixing better than the names of the current Republican leadership - Adams is an English name so where does Gerry Adams fall on your native v non native scale?

[tullynagardy]

Idjits have their own history it seems.

O god the irony is killing me.

I hate "idjits" as well

[jkenn]

Let`s just say I`m somewhat bitter, having lost family members to a murderous campagin, funded almost entirely out of American ignorance from people desperately seeking some kind of identity. (why do American always need a dual identity? Why Can`t they just be American)

Anyway I digress, please answer my question then? Who are these "Native Irish you talk of?" Someone has suggested above that it`s native Irish speakers, but with just 20k of them in some tiny West coast villages I doubt that`s what you mean.

I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

In reality, with 850 years of inward migration from the British mainland, there is no such thing as Native Irish. (and thats taking the people already there as native when we know the Celts were also immigrants to Ireland and not native) Nothing illustrates this inter mixing better than the names of the current Republican leadership - Adams is an English name so where does Gerry Adams fall on your native v non native scale?

I'm very sorry to hear you lost family members.

As far as funding and arming the PIRA is concerned, I think that when you write that the IRA was "funded almost entirely out of American ignorance", this greatly exaggerates the role of Irish-Americans. There was funding of the PIRA of course by Americans of Irish heritage but much more important were other sources such as Gadhafi in particular,especially when he equipped the PIRA like a modern army through the three successful enormous arms shipments in 1984, and also Iran, as well as people in the South, and of course the PIRA's illegal activities such as bank robbery, counterfeiting, smuggling, etc. Gadhafi gave millions of pounds to the PIRA in the 1970s and again at the time of the 1984 weapons smuggling, and Iran gave 4 million pounds to the PIRA in 1980. That was of course in 1980 pounds, worth more today. I'm not saying that American aid was insignificant, but certainly the IRA was not funded "almost entirely" by Americans.

As I wrote in my original post, I believe it is primarily the way the British dealt with the legitimate grievances of the republican/nationalist communities that caused the IRA to return to prominence after it had been on the verge of disappearing. A movement like that can not grow simply because an external source funds it, there has to be a degree of grassroots support for the organization for it to survive. Unfortunately given the fact that Northern Ireland did not have a democratic system of government, and the shamefully brutal manner in which the British government dealt with dissent in the period of time leading up to and during the troubles, laid the groundwork for the IRA to have a resurgence. I wouldn't blame Americans, who formed a minority of support for the PIRA, for the fact that they came back, I would blame first the political forces that created the situation in which they were able to come back to power. For example, there was no effective policing of republican/nationalist/largely catholic communities. There was also essentially a form of gang warfare taking place between groups in republican and loyalist communities. The unfortunate truth is that, due to NI not having had a democratic form of government, and the government being dominated by those hostile to the republican communities, the police forces at best did not assist the republican communities and at worst were in collusion with loyalists in the street warfare that was taking place. How can one expect the republican communities will refuse to allow the IRA to operate and recruit in their communities in this situation? There was no neutral third-party to dampen down and control the violence, which is what the police are supposed to be. The IRA wound up being the last alternative available. If you want to blame suppliers for the growth of the IRA, Gadhafi is clearly your man. But again I think none of this external support means anything if there is not a situation on the group ripe for a group to grow in prominence. Americans could send as many weapons and as much money as they want to Sweden, and there's never going to be a Swedish Liberation Army fighting against the Swedish or any other government.

I think the purpose of public discoruse is for people to talk to one another and try to learn from each other, educate each other, show each other perspectives they didn't have before. While I may have negative things to say about the British Government, Governments usually have little or nothing to do with persons that happen to hold a passport issued by said government, and my presumption is always going to be that any particular individual I communicate with is participating in good faith in a dialogue and that we share common interests, such as the common interest of getting to the bottom of an honest understanding of history, and that both I and such individuals may learn from each other. So I am going to take your sincerity as a given and be polite and congenial with whatever partners in conversation I may have.

>> I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

This statment is still of borderline politeness.... ("crude and incredibly ignorant")... and probably could have been phrased in a more congenial manner, but I'll go with it.

Did you mean to type "Catholic"? Many of the pioneering Irish republicans were actually presbyterian. The Church was a collaborator with British rule. I dont think the conflict was primarily about religion, though the two sides were largely Catholic vs Protestant.

I was using the term "Native Irish" to refer to the republican/nationalist/largely but not entirely Catholic people, generally of Gaelic heritage, who were in cultural conflict with the orange/loyalist/largely protestant population which was largely of Scottish and English heritage.

However, I see your point about the term "Native". I accept that it may be problematic to use that term to describe one group of people in contrast to another if the other group also has hundreds of years of heritage in the region. Thus, I accept and agree I could have used a better descriptor.

However, I think the main issue historically has been the power discrepancy between these groups of people, rather than whether one or the other group can consider themselves more "native" or not. The main issue of course was the power relationship between these groups of people, and the suffering which was caused by that power discrepancy and how the power discrepancy was utilized by the British government. For example, during the great famine of the mid 1800s, one of these groups of people were well fed because the British controlled the farming resources of Ireland through military power and the British wanted this group to be fed, whereas the other group wound up starving because the plentiful food that Ireland was actually producing throughout the course of the famine was being exported under armed guard, because the British government did not care if they were fed. Ireland produced far more food than would have been necessary to feed the Irish people during the great famine and was a great net food exporter. In that sense, there was no "famine" in Ireland at all in terms of food production. There was plenty of food being produced. It was just commandeered by military forces and shipped out of Ireland to suit British business interests. There were British military garrisons posted across Ireland for the purpose of "protecting" the exported food from being taken by the Irish.

So whether one of these groups of people were more "native" than the other or not really is not the critical point, it's the power relationship between the groups and what happened to each group as a result of that relationship that was important. In the case of the great famine, millions of people died of starvation despite their lands producing more than enough food to feed them, because of British business interests.

[jkenn]

Btw I will go a step further and say that if my use of the term "native" to describe one of these groups was offensive to you, then I am sorry for that, and I will seek to use more neutral terms going forward. What rational discussion between people hopefully can achieve is understanding and from that progress towards peace and pursuing common interests. I accept that my personal background has led me to make certain assumptions and perceptions that are biased in a certain way, and that communities that have been in place for hundreds of years would take offense at a suggestion that they are not "native" to a certain area. By discussing this topic with you it has become more clear to me that it is important to bear in mind the perspective of orange/loyalist/protestant/whatever term is best, communities in the north, who naturally have felt under siege, particularly during the violent times of the troubles, which must be a terrible experience indeed. It appears the term "native Irish" has gotten under the skin of a few posting here, so I want to take that feedback to heart as a learning experience for me in terms of the troubles. Everyone is native to where they were born, no one makes the decision as to where to be born. I believe ultimately the root cause of these wounds and ills can be traced back to the policies of the British government. However, that does not diminish anyone's pain or the responsibility of all to be understanding and respectful.

You mention 850+ years, this is pushing the outer limits a bit, significant immigration from England to Ireland, in particular, the population of Ulster with settlers, started in the 16th century with the confiscation of Irish lands by Henry VIII and his successors, the numbers before that were quite small. This was a process basically of militarily confiscating lands owned by the persons living there at that time, and granting them to English/Scottish settlers to suit England's economic purposes. However, this is also a process that occurred in a time period 400-500 years ago and obviously nobody today is responsible for that. I was also born into a land (US) that was confiscated from its inhabitants by European immigrants. I do not consider myself responsible for that having occurred, but I do consider myself responsible for understanding any legitimate historical and current grievances that this population (referred to usually as "native americans") may have as a result of that process.

[BigC]

He won't be hear long it ain't that safe for ex criminals I am sure in this day and age the governments have him pinned down

I have seen so many people come and go thinking they are un touchable out here

You are run but you cannot hide for ever

[micmichd]

Why forever?

Just wait for a mutual amnesty ...

[Loaded]

As someone in this thread previously said, the loyalist and native Irish/republican communities

I`m curious as to what your defintion of "native Irish" is, I would contend no such thing exists.

Only a dumb plastic paddy yank, with little knowledge of Irish history, seeking some kind of identitiy, would spew such bs.

Well I would reply to satisfy your curiosity, but I don't respond to ad-hominem attacks. I have been trying to remain rational and calm and in particular to avoid the kind of personal attacks that these discussions always descend into. Having being called "dumb", etc., by you, I don't feel inclined to answer your question.

For your reference, may I suggest the following alternative phrasing which you could have used, in which case I would have found your question to be relevant and interesting and responded to it.

"In your post, you reference the concept of the 'native Irish'. I would content no such thing exists. Would you provide a definition of what it is you mean by that?"

That would be a reasonable and rational post, promoting meaningful discussion without descending into mud-slinging and personal insults. I think I actually know Irish history fairly well and had you posted your question in a rational fashion it could be interesting to discuss further.

There's a lot of trust-building that needs to take place in the North of Ireland, which is something that Martin McGuinness for example emphasizes a lot. It's why he met with the Queen and shook hands with her. I also give the Queen Elizabeth II a lot of credit for meeting with McGuinness, given how her second cousin Lord Mountbatten was killed by the IRA. This is not something there is any reason to believe McGuinness was involved in, and he actually addressed that question specifically in an interview in New York with the Hudson Union society, that he had no knowledge or involvement whatsoever in that incident. However, he was still a former IRA member, so I was happy to see both him and the Queen meet and shake hands, and for the Queen to speak Gaelic during her visit to Ireland, etc. A reasonable and peaceful way forward has been painstakingly negotiated and agreed to by all sides. The job now is building trust and implementing the solution.

What is important in bringing about a lasting peace, in my opinion, is understanding and confronting the history accurately and honestly, and building trust and dealing with the anger that has resulted in both communities as a result of historical British brutality. This is why it's such a shame that discussions like this always turn into personal insults and invitations to "step outside" the pub for a minute. Why not just discuss the topic without resorting to personal insults?

Mountbatten was with 2 young boys on his boat at the time of his assassination.

Google "mountbatten Kincora scandal"

[tullynagardy]

Let`s just say I`m somewhat bitter, having lost family members to a murderous campagin, funded almost entirely out of American ignorance from people desperately seeking some kind of identity. (why do American always need a dual identity? Why Can`t they just be American)

Anyway I digress, please answer my question then? Who are these "Native Irish you talk of?" Someone has suggested above that it`s native Irish speakers, but with just 20k of them in some tiny West coast villages I doubt that`s what you mean.

I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

In reality, with 850 years of inward migration from the British mainland, there is no such thing as Native Irish. (and thats taking the people already there as native when we know the Celts were also immigrants to Ireland and not native) Nothing illustrates this inter mixing better than the names of the current Republican leadership - Adams is an English name so where does Gerry Adams fall on your native v non native scale?

I'm very sorry to hear you lost family members.

As far as funding and arming the PIRA is concerned, I think that when you write that the IRA was "funded almost entirely out of American ignorance", this greatly exaggerates the role of Irish-Americans. There was funding of the PIRA of course by Americans of Irish heritage but much more important were other sources such as Gadhafi in particular,especially when he equipped the PIRA like a modern army through the three successful enormous arms shipments in 1984, and also Iran, as well as people in the South, and of course the PIRA's illegal activities such as bank robbery, counterfeiting, smuggling, etc. Gadhafi gave millions of pounds to the PIRA in the 1970s and again at the time of the 1984 weapons smuggling, and Iran gave 4 million pounds to the PIRA in 1980. That was of course in 1980 pounds, worth more today. I'm not saying that American aid was insignificant, but certainly the IRA was not funded "almost entirely" by Americans.

As I wrote in my original post, I believe it is primarily the way the British dealt with the legitimate grievances of the republican/nationalist communities that caused the IRA to return to prominence after it had been on the verge of disappearing. A movement like that can not grow simply because an external source funds it, there has to be a degree of grassroots support for the organization for it to survive. Unfortunately given the fact that Northern Ireland did not have a democratic system of government, and the shamefully brutal manner in which the British government dealt with dissent in the period of time leading up to and during the troubles, laid the groundwork for the IRA to have a resurgence. I wouldn't blame Americans, who formed a minority of support for the PIRA, for the fact that they came back, I would blame first the political forces that created the situation in which they were able to come back to power. For example, there was no effective policing of republican/nationalist/largely catholic communities. There was also essentially a form of gang warfare taking place between groups in republican and loyalist communities. The unfortunate truth is that, due to NI not having had a democratic form of government, and the government being dominated by those hostile to the republican communities, the police forces at best did not assist the republican communities and at worst were in collusion with loyalists in the street warfare that was taking place. How can one expect the republican communities will refuse to allow the IRA to operate and recruit in their communities in this situation? There was no neutral third-party to dampen down and control the violence, which is what the police are supposed to be. The IRA wound up being the last alternative available. If you want to blame suppliers for the growth of the IRA, Gadhafi is clearly your man. But again I think none of this external support means anything if there is not a situation on the group ripe for a group to grow in prominence. Americans could send as many weapons and as much money as they want to Sweden, and there's never going to be a Swedish Liberation Army fighting against the Swedish or any other government.

I think the purpose of public discoruse is for people to talk to one another and try to learn from each other, educate each other, show each other perspectives they didn't have before. While I may have negative things to say about the British Government, Governments usually have little or nothing to do with persons that happen to hold a passport issued by said government, and my presumption is always going to be that any particular individual I communicate with is participating in good faith in a dialogue and that we share common interests, such as the common interest of getting to the bottom of an honest understanding of history, and that both I and such individuals may learn from each other. So I am going to take your sincerity as a given and be polite and congenial with whatever partners in conversation I may have.

>> I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

This statment is still of borderline politeness.... ("crude and incredibly ignorant")... and probably could have been phrased in a more congenial manner, but I'll go with it.

Did you mean to type "Catholic"? Many of the pioneering Irish republicans were actually presbyterian. The Church was a collaborator with British rule. I dont think the conflict was primarily about religion, though the two sides were largely Catholic vs Protestant.

I was using the term "Native Irish" to refer to the republican/nationalist/largely but not entirely Catholic people, generally of Gaelic heritage, who were in cultural conflict with the orange/loyalist/largely protestant population which was largely of Scottish and English heritage.

However, I see your point about the term "Native". I accept that it may be problematic to use that term to describe one group of people in contrast to another if the other group also has hundreds of years of heritage in the region. Thus, I accept and agree I could have used a better descriptor.

However, I think the main issue historically has been the power discrepancy between these groups of people, rather than whether one or the other group can consider themselves more "native" or not. The main issue of course was the power relationship between these groups of people, and the suffering which was caused by that power discrepancy and how the power discrepancy was utilized by the British government. For example, during the great famine of the mid 1800s, one of these groups of people were well fed because the British controlled the farming resources of Ireland through military power and the British wanted this group to be fed, whereas the other group wound up starving because the plentiful food that Ireland was actually producing throughout the course of the famine was being exported under armed guard, because the British government did not care if they were fed. Ireland produced far more food than would have been necessary to feed the Irish people during the great famine and was a great net food exporter. In that sense, there was no "famine" in Ireland at all in terms of food production. There was plenty of food being produced. It was just commandeered by military forces and shipped out of Ireland to suit British business interests. There were British military garrisons posted across Ireland for the purpose of "protecting" the exported food from being taken by the Irish.

So whether one of these groups of people were more "native" than the other or not really is not the critical point, it's the power relationship between the groups and what happened to each group as a result of that relationship that was important. In the case of the great famine, millions of people died of starvation despite their lands producing more than enough food to feed them, because of British business interests.

I typed a massive response to you and drunkenly deleted it, so Ill keep this brief!

I apologise as I clearly misjudged your knowledge of my homeland which is quite clearly on a different level to almost every Irish American I`ve ever met. I disagree with little you say.

I`m a proud Irishman, Northern Irishman and Brit. I treasure my dual identity, I don`t see it as a contradiction, there are many like me. My families roots in Ireland preceed your countries formation so I take exception quite obviously to any insinuation I`m a settler or not native! It`s much like me saying you arn`t American. you seem to comprehend the inter mixing point so Ill leave that.

We are where we are. Lets be honest, the British empire mistreated half the world, Ireland likes to think it`s an exception but it`s no different to 100 different places. The amount of people in NI on our census who declare themselves as Irish is at an all time low, the same with British, a Northern Irish identity has been born and it`s hard to see it changing. 100 years is a long time.

I admire true Irish Nationalists, I admire the Ni Civil Rights movement, I admire some of the actions of those in the Easter Rising even. But please don`t kid yourself the PIRA equate to this, they were cowards who took out people sleeping in their bed because of their job or their religion. I`ll hate them to the day I die.

To bring it back on topic the lad in question is even worse than the PIRA!

[crobe]

....

You mention 850+ years, this is pushing the outer limits a bit, significant immigration from England to Ireland, in particular, the population of Ulster with settlers, started in the 16th century with the confiscation of Irish lands by Henry VIII and his successors, the numbers before that were quite small. This was a process basically of militarily confiscating lands owned by the persons living there at that time, and granting them to English/Scottish settlers to suit England's economic purposes. However, this is also a process that occurred in a time period 400-500 years ago and obviously nobody today is responsible for that. I was also born into a land (US) that was confiscated from its inhabitants by European immigrants. I do not consider myself responsible for that having occurred, but I do consider myself responsible for understanding any legitimate historical and current grievances that this population (referred to usually as "native americans") may have as a result of that process.

My problem with you is that you start from the premise of colonisation, which you rightly say mainly took place in the late 16th century - at the same time as a lot of colonisation to other places - the USA included.

A lot of IRA sympathisers start from this premise of "get the British to take their people out of Ireland" without recognising that these people have been there for may generations - and to hold them responsible for the actions of their ancestors is quite ridiculous.

If you wanted to remove the British from Ireland, then should it be reciprocal - all Irish and their descendants in the UK for the last 300 years to be rounded up and deported, and what about the mixed marriages - are they Irish or not?

The same could be said for the Europeans colonists in America, they are not "native Americans " and so by your arguments have no legitimacy - they should not be allowed to vote, only a native american should be president, and all the land rights for the whole country should be returned, regardless of how long people have been there (shades of Mugabe perhaps)

And you would also believe that it would be justifiable for native Americans to form an armed militia and bomb central station killing scores of innocent people in respect of how they have been treated over the past 300 years and heir lands being stolen.

While you may like to comment and make pronouncements about Ireland - somewhere that you do not live - what have you been doing to correct the historic injustice in your homeland - precisely nothing

I respectfully suggest that you turn your attentions closer to home rather than hypocratising here.

Edited January 11, 2015 by crobe

[crobe]

JKenn wrote

"As I wrote in my original post, I believe it is primarily the way the British dealt with the legitimate grievances of the republican/nationalist communities that caused the IRA to return to prominence after it had been on the verge of disappearing."

You are incorrect.

The historic mistreatment is used as an excuse for violence it is not the cause of it - people do not take up violent acts because of what they read in history books, but because of the society they are brought up in and the political agitation of those around them, or possibly injustice occurring to them personally.

The historic abuses, while true, feed into the narrative of sectarian violence which is the true source of the terrorism in Ireland.

For example, one of my friends is an Irish protestant in Cork - every day on the way to school the catholic parents would line their children up to spit at them as they passed - every day - just one small example but it shows how the sectarianism and religious intolerance are the true root of the problems in Irish society.

And the US funding of PIRA was in exactly the same class - feeding the endemic sectarianism, while trying to cover themselves in a blanket of support against historic colonialism

One of the main stumbling blocks to integrating Ireland over the past 80 years, from before the partition onwards, has been the refusal of the Ireland government to secularise and remove the influence of the catholic church - which led the NI protestant community to fear that they would be subject to catholic ordinance - again the religious perspective feeds in to the partisan narrative.

Cabinet papers show that under these circumstances, including protection against reprisals, then the British would have agreed to a united Ireland parliament., after a period of home rule.

This is not to say that there were not just as many obstacles placed from the nationalist side, both during the early 20th century and particularly in the 1968-1969 period which culminated in the deployment of UK armed forces - or that collusion between the forces, RUC and protestant community was not an impediment - however this should be seen as being part of the overall climate including terrorist incidents on the UK mainland as well as in NI, until the Omagh bombing from the real IRA and the signing of the good Friday agreement.

[worzel]

Let`s just say I`m somewhat bitter, having lost family members to a murderous campagin, funded almost entirely out of American ignorance from people desperately seeking some kind of identity. (why do American always need a dual identity? Why Can`t they just be American)

Anyway I digress, please answer my question then? Who are these "Native Irish you talk of?" Someone has suggested above that it`s native Irish speakers, but with just 20k of them in some tiny West coast villages I doubt that`s what you mean.

I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

In reality, with 850 years of inward migration from the British mainland, there is no such thing as Native Irish. (and thats taking the people already there as native when we know the Celts were also immigrants to Ireland and not native) Nothing illustrates this inter mixing better than the names of the current Republican leadership - Adams is an English name so where does Gerry Adams fall on your native v non native scale?

I'm very sorry to hear you lost family members.

As far as funding and arming the PIRA is concerned, I think that when you write that the IRA was "funded almost entirely out of American ignorance", this greatly exaggerates the role of Irish-Americans. There was funding of the PIRA of course by Americans of Irish heritage but much more important were other sources such as Gadhafi in particular,especially when he equipped the PIRA like a modern army through the three successful enormous arms shipments in 1984, and also Iran, as well as people in the South, and of course the PIRA's illegal activities such as bank robbery, counterfeiting, smuggling, etc. Gadhafi gave millions of pounds to the PIRA in the 1970s and again at the time of the 1984 weapons smuggling, and Iran gave 4 million pounds to the PIRA in 1980. That was of course in 1980 pounds, worth more today. I'm not saying that American aid was insignificant, but certainly the IRA was not funded "almost entirely" by Americans.

As I wrote in my original post, I believe it is primarily the way the British dealt with the legitimate grievances of the republican/nationalist communities that caused the IRA to return to prominence after it had been on the verge of disappearing. A movement like that can not grow simply because an external source funds it, there has to be a degree of grassroots support for the organization for it to survive. Unfortunately given the fact that Northern Ireland did not have a democratic system of government, and the shamefully brutal manner in which the British government dealt with dissent in the period of time leading up to and during the troubles, laid the groundwork for the IRA to have a resurgence. I wouldn't blame Americans, who formed a minority of support for the PIRA, for the fact that they came back, I would blame first the political forces that created the situation in which they were able to come back to power. For example, there was no effective policing of republican/nationalist/largely catholic communities. There was also essentially a form of gang warfare taking place between groups in republican and loyalist communities. The unfortunate truth is that, due to NI not having had a democratic form of government, and the government being dominated by those hostile to the republican communities, the police forces at best did not assist the republican communities and at worst were in collusion with loyalists in the street warfare that was taking place. How can one expect the republican communities will refuse to allow the IRA to operate and recruit in their communities in this situation? There was no neutral third-party to dampen down and control the violence, which is what the police are supposed to be. The IRA wound up being the last alternative available. If you want to blame suppliers for the growth of the IRA, Gadhafi is clearly your man. But again I think none of this external support means anything if there is not a situation on the group ripe for a group to grow in prominence. Americans could send as many weapons and as much money as they want to Sweden, and there's never going to be a Swedish Liberation Army fighting against the Swedish or any other government.

I think the purpose of public discoruse is for people to talk to one another and try to learn from each other, educate each other, show each other perspectives they didn't have before. While I may have negative things to say about the British Government, Governments usually have little or nothing to do with persons that happen to hold a passport issued by said government, and my presumption is always going to be that any particular individual I communicate with is participating in good faith in a dialogue and that we share common interests, such as the common interest of getting to the bottom of an honest understanding of history, and that both I and such individuals may learn from each other. So I am going to take your sincerity as a given and be polite and congenial with whatever partners in conversation I may have.

>> I suspect your use of "Native Irish" is a crude, and incredibly ignorant term, for Protestants.

This statment is still of borderline politeness.... ("crude and incredibly ignorant")... and probably could have been phrased in a more congenial manner, but I'll go with it.

Did you mean to type "Catholic"? Many of the pioneering Irish republicans were actually presbyterian. The Church was a collaborator with British rule. I dont think the conflict was primarily about religion, though the two sides were largely Catholic vs Protestant.

I was using the term "Native Irish" to refer to the republican/nationalist/largely but not entirely Catholic people, generally of Gaelic heritage, who were in cultural conflict with the orange/loyalist/largely protestant population which was largely of Scottish and English heritage.

However, I see your point about the term "Native". I accept that it may be problematic to use that term to describe one group of people in contrast to another if the other group also has hundreds of years of heritage in the region. Thus, I accept and agree I could have used a better descriptor.

However, I think the main issue historically has been the power discrepancy between these groups of people, rather than whether one or the other group can consider themselves more "native" or not. The main issue of course was the power relationship between these groups of people, and the suffering which was caused by that power discrepancy and how the power discrepancy was utilized by the British government. For example, during the great famine of the mid 1800s, one of these groups of people were well fed because the British controlled the farming resources of Ireland through military power and the British wanted this group to be fed, whereas the other group wound up starving because the plentiful food that Ireland was actually producing throughout the course of the famine was being exported under armed guard, because the British government did not care if they were fed. Ireland produced far more food than would have been necessary to feed the Irish people during the great famine and was a great net food exporter. In that sense, there was no "famine" in Ireland at all in terms of food production. There was plenty of food being produced. It was just commandeered by military forces and shipped out of Ireland to suit British business interests. There were British military garrisons posted across Ireland for the purpose of "protecting" the exported food from being taken by the Irish.

So whether one of these groups of people were more "native" than the other or not really is not the critical point, it's the power relationship between the groups and what happened to each group as a result of that relationship that was important. In the case of the great famine, millions of people died of starvation despite their lands producing more than enough food to feed them, because of British business interests.

strange then that noraid virtualy collapsed after 9-11 with also per say the end of pira as we knew it . The americains dont like it in their own back yard

[micmichd]

Really disgusting reading about religion (confessions) all the time when a short glance on a map would do.

Ireland is where Ireland is, and Irish are the people that live in Ireland. period.

Face it: the majority in Ireland is Catholic, and the Protestants are a minority. Absolutely no reason to discriminate them in a modern European state. Many other European nations integrated different ethnicities, in fact most of them did. Any European that is discriminated because of orginin, religion etc. can appeal to the European High Court in Strassbourg. And up to date, I have heard no Irish voice that wants Ireland to leave the EC.

[theslime]

Idjits have their own history it seems.

O god the irony is killing me.

I hate "idjits" as well

What is the as well, as well as what? You stated there were no Native Irish, now I see you say there are 20,000 in the west. make up your mind man.