The NI/ROI Protocol

[The Agrarian]

They did but come on, they are or were socialists. Enemy of my enemy type deal. One or more of the IRA's anyway. Of all the things to accuse them of, calling them Nazis is ridiculous!

I'm not even talking about the inference that they will exterminate a minority? Is that something you actually believe @The Agrarian ?

Do I believe the IRA were out to exterminate? Um. Yes. I did live through more than half of the troubles. That kind of thing is etched in the memory for life.

Some of the Royal family weren't opposed to them either

They gave eddie the push though, and he died in exile.

 

[nivilla1982]

‘Oh here’s to Adolph Hitler’?...The IRA and the Nazis

Seán Russell, the IRA chief of staff, spent the summer of 1940 in a ‘very large’ villa in the leafy Grunewald, near Berlin, surrounded by extensive grounds.

www.historyireland.com

 

[M-J-G]

‘Oh here’s to Adolph Hitler’?...The IRA and the Nazis

Seán Russell, the IRA chief of staff, spent the summer of 1940 in a ‘very large’ villa in the leafy Grunewald, near Berlin, surrounded by extensive grounds.

www.historyireland.com

Careful now, you'll make the mainland want to disassociate themselves with your side of the water even more.

 

[M-J-G]

They gave eddie the push though, and he died in exile.

That was mainly down to his own choices, if he'd towed the church's line Hitler might have been a closer friend of the UK's.
Thankfully he didn't seem to hold the church in that high a regard.

He was still of the house of Windsor and did still reign as the monarch and he was still buried at the royal burial ground, Frogmore.

I believe our (although possibly not your) future King was quite fond of him

 

[The Agrarian]

I didn't call them Nazis @BadWinner , but you have to admit there are striking similarities. They both handpicked people because of who they were, and systematically put them to death. Sometimes on visitation of their homes, sometimes taking them outside to the garden or the road alone or in groups for immediate dispatch, or by kidnapping them and doing it after transport and torture. Sometimes interrupting the victim's daily business in order to murder them, or have them removed for murder. Both of them justified their murders by blaming their victims, or their victim's ancestors or community for past wrongs, often incorrectly or with the loosest of associations. Both were driven by warped hatred of other identities, a warped sense of justice, a warped desire for blame and reprisal, and a warped fantasy of racial/ethnic nationalism. (So called loyalist terrorists also driven by similar warped hatred, but murders more likely to be indiscriminate and tit-for-tat in style.)

Differences being that the Nazis didn't have the law of the land breathing down their necks, for they were the law, and could process these things differently. The IRA mostly had to rely on ambush and flee strategy. The Nazis buried most of their victims remains, the IRA mostly left body parts to be collected from the surrounding trees, or from a burning wreckage, or naked in a field, roadside or bed. Germans swung hard away from their complicity or turning a blind eye, while the Irish continue to actively vote for them in large numbers.

 

[The Agrarian]

That was mainly down to his own choices, if he'd towed the church's line Hitler might have been a closer friend of the UK's.
Thankfully he didn't seem to hold the church in that high a regard.

He was still of the house of Windsor and did still reign as the monarch and he was still buried at the royal burial ground, Frogmore.

I believe our (although possibly not your) future King was quite fond of him

Nothing to do with holding the church in high regard. He made his choice of woman, as most men do. He didn't choose to leave because of his disregard for the church. He was pushed out for various reasons, his relationship with a strongly disliked American being a big one. But his very inappropriate alliances were also making everyone uncomfortable.

Future king? Charles is a chip off the old uncles block. I'd be ok with a British Republic, except that we might get a President Blair or suchlike, and the monarchy is probably net positive for the national finances through tourism, and they aren't allowed to say much, which is good.

 

[Ashtree]

I didn't call them Nazis @BadWinner , but you have to admit there are striking similarities. They both handpicked people because of who they were, and systematically put them to death. Sometimes on visitation of their homes, sometimes taking them outside to the garden or the road alone or in groups for immediate dispatch, or by kidnapping them and doing it after transport and torture. Sometimes interrupting the victim's daily business in order to murder them, or have them removed for murder. Both of them justified their murders by blaming their victims, or their victim's ancestors or community for past wrongs, often incorrectly or with the loosest of associations. Both were driven by warped hatred of other identities, a warped sense of justice, a warped desire for blame and reprisal, and a warped fantasy of racial/ethnic nationalism. (So called loyalist terrorists also driven by similar warped hatred, but murders more likely to be indiscriminate and tit-for-tat in style.)

Differences being that the Nazis didn't have the law of the land breathing down their necks, for they were the law, and could process these things differently. The IRA mostly had to rely on ambush and flee strategy. The Nazis buried most of their victims remains, the IRA mostly left body parts to be collected from the surrounding trees, or from a burning wreckage, or naked in a field, roadside or bed. Germans swung hard away from their complicity or turning a blind eye, while the Irish continue to actively vote for them in large numbers.

You can sleep soundly in the knowledge that your “entrepreneurial” ancestors, transplanted themselves from mainland to Ulster, where the crown on an ethnic cleansing campaign, displaced vast swathes of the ethnic, catholic Irish from their lands (flight of the earls), to make way for the planters.
Yes, it’s convenient to block out your own country’s history from say around 1915, First World War era. You can create a pretty nice narrative around saving Europe and fighting the Jerries etc. But of course we all know there‘s more to know about.
The most recent part of history which you myopically and conveniently focus on, is a mere short chapter in the whole history of the two islands. Others conveniently of course for them, or inconveniently as the case may be for others, insist that the book be read from start to the present day.

 

[JimAndy]

You can sleep soundly in the knowledge that your “entrepreneurial” ancestors, transplanted themselves from mainland to Ulster, where the crown on an ethnic cleansing campaign, displaced vast swathes of the ethnic, catholic Irish from their lands (flight of the earls), to make way for the planters.
Yes, it’s convenient to block out your own country’s history from say around 1915, First World War era. You can create a pretty nice narrative around saving Europe and fighting the Jerries etc. But of course we all know here’s more to know about.
The most recent part of history which you myopically and conveniently focus on, is a mere short chapter in the whole history of the two islands. Others conveniently of course for them, or inconveniently as the case may be for others, insist that the book be read from start to the present day.

except your not native Irish either are you. Your just the last set of Invaders.
A DNA study done (not sure if it was UCD or Trinity) showed that NO one on the island of Ireland and any DNA in common with the First settlers, and that most of the "Irish" are mostly descended from Viking DNA.
Also a lot of the "planters" as you call them all ready had family in Ulster due to the fact that
1) Scotland was there major trading partner as it was easier to trade with Scotland than cork
2) a fair chunk of ulster was ruled by scotland for about 600 years

 

[M-J-G]

Nothing to do with holding the church in high regard. He made his choice of woman, as most men do. He didn't choose to leave because of his disregard for the church. He was pushed out for various reasons, his relationship with a strongly disliked American being a big one. But his very inappropriate alliances were also making everyone uncomfortable.

Future king? Charles is a chip off the old uncles block. I'd be ok with a British Republic, except that we might get a President Blair or suchlike, and the monarchy is probably net positive for the national finances through tourism, and they aren't allowed to say much, which is good.

The church not approving of his lady friend and his royal position leading to him to be leader of the church played a large part in his abdication.

I feel we're better off with the Royal family than without, even though they are unelected officials.

 

[Ashtree]

except your not native Irish either are you. Your just the last set of Invaders.
A DNA study done (not sure if it was UCD or Trinity) showed that NO one on the island of Ireland and any DNA in common with the First settlers, and that most of the "Irish" are mostly descended from Viking DNA.
Also a lot of the "planters" as you call them all ready had family in Ulster due to the fact that
1) Scotland was there major trading partner as it was easier to trade with Scotland than cork
2) a fair chunk of ulster was ruled by scotland for about 600 years

Historical fact is that James 1, cleared vast numbers of native Irish from Ulster, and had them replaced by the so called planters. Garlic speaking catholic Irish, replaced by English speaking Protestant English and Scots.
That‘s just a fact, as undeniable as the role of the IRA in the recent troubles, and as undeniable as the rule and misrule of the Unionist governments pre the troubles era.
Just bear one thing in mind here. In recent history, the single and biggest reason the troubles took off as they did, was Ian Paisley.
And remember this also, in the ”troubles” period in NI, the first paramilitary arming, actions and murders were carried out by loyalists of catholics. De facto led by Paisley.

Getting their retaliation in first: 1969 and the re-emergence of paramilitary loyalism

In April 1966 the Revd Ian Paisley, who already earned his first token conviction for public order offence, addressed the meeting in Belfast’s Ulster Hall .

www.historyireland.com

 

[Nenuphar]

I didn't call them Nazis @BadWinner , but you have to admit there are striking similarities. They both handpicked people because of who they were, and systematically put them to death. Sometimes on visitation of their homes, sometimes taking them outside to the garden or the road alone or in groups for immediate dispatch, or by kidnapping them and doing it after transport and torture. Sometimes interrupting the victim's daily business in order to murder them, or have them removed for murder. Both of them justified their murders by blaming their victims, or their victim's ancestors or community for past wrongs, often incorrectly or with the loosest of associations. Both were driven by warped hatred of other identities, a warped sense of justice, a warped desire for blame and reprisal, and a warped fantasy of racial/ethnic nationalism. (So called loyalist terrorists also driven by similar warped hatred, but murders more likely to be indiscriminate and tit-for-tat in style.)

Differences being that the Nazis didn't have the law of the land breathing down their necks, for they were the law, and could process these things differently. The IRA mostly had to rely on ambush and flee strategy. The Nazis buried most of their victims remains, the IRA mostly left body parts to be collected from the surrounding trees, or from a burning wreckage, or naked in a field, roadside or bed. Germans swung hard away from their complicity or turning a blind eye, while the Irish continue to actively vote for them in large numbers.

I think the actions of the British army fit that description like a glove also, what is your feelings on those? Murdering their own country men and women?

My ancestors did it down here after a full blown civil war, it's not impossible.

 

[M-J-G]

I think the actions of the British army fit that description like a glove also, what is your feelings on those? Murdering their own country men and women?

My ancestors did it down here after a full blown civil war, it's not impossible.

To be fair the British Army were acting under orders, even though they did seem a bit trigger happy with the public at times, they were sent to do a job.

Many do however fail to mention or acknowledge the fact that around a third of terrorist murders in NI weren't committed by the IRA, and there are still political representatives and organisations in NI that have a lot of common ground with those who committed those murders.

 

[nivilla1982]

Circa 85% of the deaths in the "Troubles" were carried/caused out by various terrorist/paramilitary groupings of various shades.

CAIN: Sutton Index of Deaths - extracts from Sutton's book

cain.ulster.ac.uk

 

[M-J-G]

Circa 85% of the murders in the "Troubles" were carried out by various terrorist/paramilitary groupings of various shades.

CAIN: Sutton Index of Deaths - extracts from Sutton's book

cain.ulster.ac.uk

By that you must be classing the listed killings carried out by the Army, RUC, UDR etc. as murders. Were they?

 

[pgk]

By that you must be classing the listed killings carried out by the Army, RUC, UDR etc. as murders. Were they?

And that is the question the British establishment and their loyalist patsies would prefer not to be addressed.

 

[The Agrarian]

Oh groan.

 

[M-J-G]

And that is the question the British establishment and their loyalist patsies would prefer not to be addressed.

In reality I don't think the British establishment couldn't care less, as they generally class themselves as having nothing to do with NI or it's past.
It generally suits a loyalist agenda to only talk about the murders carried out by republicans (and vice verse), but it's usually human nature to shift blame where possible.

That wasn't really my point though, I was just interested to know if the killings carried out by the likes of the army were classed as murders, or if those listed in @nivilla1982's post were all proven murders.
I'd assumed that terrorists killed by the army wouldn't be classed as murder.

 

[yin ewe]

In reality I don't think the British establishment couldn't care less, as they generally class themselves as having nothing to do with NI or it's past.
It generally suits a loyalist agenda to only talk about the murders carried out by republicans (and vice verse), but it's usually human nature to shift blame where possible.

That wasn't really my point though, I was just interested to know if the killings carried out by the likes of the army were classed as murders, or if those listed in @nivilla1982's post were all proven murders.
I'd assumed that terrorists killed by the army wouldn't be classed as murder.

There were murders carried out by members of the security forces, terrorists killed 'on duty' by the security forces was not murder in my opinion. After all we were in a war according to Gerry and his pals.

 

[M-J-G]

There were murders carried out by members of the security forces, terrorists killed 'on duty' by the security forces was not murder in my opinion. After all we were in a war according to Gerry and his pals.

Was it only "Gerry and his pals" who thought that?
What excuse did other excuses did the rest of the terrorists use?

Totally agree that legitimate killings carried out by on duty forces shouldn't be classed as murders, but I think they maybe were in the stats posted earlier.
Just something I wanted to make a point about.

 

[nivilla1982]

In reality I don't think the British establishment couldn't care less, as they generally class themselves as having nothing to do with NI or it's past.
It generally suits a loyalist agenda to only talk about the murders carried out by republicans (and vice verse), but it's usually human nature to shift blame where possible.

That wasn't really my point though, I was just interested to know if the killings carried out by the likes of the army were classed as murders, or if those listed in @nivilla1982's post were all proven murders.
I'd assumed that terrorists killed by the army wouldn't be classed as murder.

If the UK Government "couldn't care less" why do they bother with various inquests and inquiries?
A variety of sources suggest only 4 serving soldiers were convicted for murder while on duty in NI.