Martin Sheen proud of uncle's IRA past

[MMI]

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

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

[IAN 2411]

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

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

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

Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

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

[denuseri]

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

[js207]

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

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

[thir]

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

[thir]

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

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

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


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

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

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

[denuseri]

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



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

[thir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t:
Not by me, I do not agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t
It wasn't invaded, it just submitted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t: sorry, at what time?

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

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

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

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

t:
LOL - not a good example!

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

t:
My! Just like that?

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

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

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

t:
Profligate | Define Profligate at Dictionary.com

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

Of course - all their fault.