Hunger

[Brendan]

Huguenot,

Ok perhaps I was being a bit hot headed but the tone of that article really got to me. Not because of any specific political affiliation, I am perfectly aware of the effects the ?troubles? had on all sides and don?t have any personal affiliation either way. But it attacked a sentiment held by people who (from what I can make out) the author is not a contemporary.

For example I could just as easily write a scathing commentary on the sentiment expressed in Cry Freedom and back it up with tales of personal tragedy and the crimes committed in the name of liberation. I wouldn?t though, because as a rational adult I realise that there are more than two sides to every story, I know that sentiment does not always reflect the outcome of something and I respect the feelings of other people.

To me it seems that the author was merely trying to absolve himself of a misplaced sense of latent, liberal guilt that he shouldn?t really be feeling in the first place.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Hugenot, I simply refuse to accept that you have a Brum accent. Not my image of you at all.

[YellowHairedLady]

@Hugenot

Do you really believe that the history between Ireland and England is that simple? If you do then you are more one-eyed than Gordon Brown. By all means you have the right to hate the IRA and to be extremely angry at them for the things they did within your country.

"The attacks only targeted English towns, not Scots or Welsh. It was racial, and it was 'personal'."

Racial? There are so many different races in England, and bombs are not selective as to who they kill, so which race were they against - the anglo-saxons, the Protestants, Catholics, Caribbean, African, Asian? How could you ensure that you only get one race? Besides, I think you will find that they killed as many of their own.

Personal - who was this one person that the problem was with? Because if by personal you meant a Nation, then aren't most, if not all, wars personal.

"The attack in Brighton in 1984 was aimed at destroying the democratically elected political leadership of our country."

Yeah, when you attack another country the Government / Leadership are often a target, for example, how is Saddam doing these days? I think many Irish people would compare the attempt on Maggie and the crew, as equivalent to your country executing the 7 signatories of the Proclamation of Independence. That wasn't exactly a respectful way to treat a country's leaders.

However, the most amazing thing about your post is that you completely ignore hundreds of years of history, just so you can maintain your blinkered view of Anglo-Irish History. Do you really think that your country was only in Ireland picking flowers? Check out how many innocent members of the public, the army killed during the troubles alone, and how many of them were children. And remember, this was the army of the Government.

My point is not to say that one side is better than the other. It is simply that the one eyed view of history is quite annoying. The day England (and it was England at the time) took Ireland, it picked a fight, it got a fight and both sides have done many despicable things over the years. A murderer is a murderer regardless of his/her uniform.

I have had someone from my town killed in the troubles, but it does not give me the right to one sided bigotry. I do agree with you on a couple of things though. 1 The English are entitled to an opinion, just keep it fair. 2 I shall put this a little more bluntly than you, The Northern Irish are taking Britain for a ride!

[Huguenot]

Sorry YHL, I wasn't trying to express an opinion on Irish/British history, merely to observe that English people are entitled to one.

Regarding individuals who believe in the slaughter of innoent civilians to pursue a political agenda, I don't feel any different to the IRA than I do any other organisation, including national governments, be they British or otherwise. If you see bigotry then I fear you're reading too much into it - I'm quite indiscriminate in my disapproval of terror tactics whatever side you're on ;-)

[????]

mmmmmmm.....

1776 = 1969...come on!

Democratically elected representatives of a sovreighn state = fascist dictator of middle east C'mon!

Unelected, unrepresentative and not universally supported group of terrorists = 'the irish people"

Plus go and dig out just how many children the british army did kill during the Trobles, or indeed how many "non-combatants" and compare that to the IRA's death toll...

Many british people recognise that the history of ireland hardy sheds a good light on Britain - although as Hugenot pointed out this tends to get blamed on the english although the protestants in the north who originally rejected independence are almost entirely of scottish descent. But the overromanticised view of the terrorism of the troubles ranges from naive to disgusting.

I suspect that civil rights in the end would have achived stability and peace far more quickly than the 'troubles' did and the British Army's outrageous and illegal actions at Bloody Sunday and the huge cock up that was Internment didn't help at all...but the IRA as blue eyed celtic freedom fighters....*puke

You think Britain is naive? we'd have happily given Ireland the north years ago and the blood bath that would have followed would no doubt still be being blamed on the "Brits" by the thankfully small band of Irish people for whom the 'english' are at fault for everthing (who are often just of irish dscendancy).

[YellowHairedLady]

@ Hugenot

The bigotry reference was just saying that I am not entitled to be a bigot. Not aimed at you. I am in agreement with you on the rest.

@ ????

Who is painting the IRA as "blue eyed celtic freedom fighters"? I was simply stressing that there are at least 2 sides to every argument

"Plus go and dig out just how many children the british army did kill during the Trobles, or indeed how many non-combatants" and compare that to the IRA's death toll..."

Personally I think anyone being murdered, by any side, is one murder too many. I am in total agreement with Huguenot when he says

"Regarding individuals who believe in the slaughter of innoent civilians to pursue a political agenda, I don't feel any different to the IRA than I do any other organisation, including national governments, be they British or otherwise."

For that reason, I am also against the Iraq war.

"You think Britain is naive?"

Not Britain, but from my experience, and I live in Britain, many british people, though clearly not all, are poorly educated as to Britains role in the troubles.

"we'd have happily given Ireland the north years ago and the blood bath that would have followed"

I believe that you would have given it up, however, I disagree that there would have been a bloodbath. I believe that had they put the same effort in as for the Good Friday Agreement, then we could have had the current situation a lot earlier. I think the likes of Thatcher and Haughey were a major obstacle to this and I dont believe that it is a coincidence that their replacements, Major and Reynolds are the ones that got the ball rolling.

At the end of the day, I think that you and I agree on far more that we disagree on. Surely, that is a good thing, and a clear sign that things are improving. Heres to a brighter future for all!

[mockney piers]

Firstly I by and large agree with you yellowyail, if you've read me before on these boards you know my starting point in politics is jaw-jaw before war-war, and that political elites in all walks of life are by and large scum.

So I'm really just going to be my usual annoying historical pedant and pick you up on

"The day England (and it was England at the time) took Ireland, it picked a fight, it got a fight"

I'd take issue with that, it was actually the Normans who took Ireland,and far from a fight, the Irish largely acquiesced in the face of their military superiority, as by and large did the English after Hastings (though they had a good crack there). Nothing to be ashamed of, pretty much everyone lost to the Normans, nasty bunch, but very good at what they did which was to thump people and nick their land, ask the Sicilians!

Given the aristocratic connections between the norman rulers both sides of the irish see it comes as no surprise that genuine English barons ended up owning Irish land over time, mostly through marriage, but proto imperial rule can reasonably, be said to have started with the Tudors who did indeed send armies to hold on to rule rather than back up dynastic ambitions.

The war of the three kindoms (english civil war) was actually started by the Ulster rising, wholesale murder of protestants (Irish and settler alike, it was a religious persecution) with the professed intention of supporting the Stuart king of a unified crown, but not yet united kingdom, against the perceived republican tendencies of an upstart and godly (their own title, actually what we would these days call fundamentalist religious) parliament.

As mentioned before the protestants in the north were immigrant settlers from Scotland, not England, and they supported a man at the Boyne who wasn't English, but a dutch prince on his way to usurping the English throne.

None of this is to say that the English never did bad things in Ireland, far from it, it's just that history is never very kind to simplistic truths once scrutinised.

Much of Irish history has been reinterpreted in the 19th and 20th centuries for political reasons of nationalism, when actually nothing remotely resembling a genuine nationalist movement had actually existed prior to that time.

[Jimbob]

i,ll take issue with the attempt to compare the number of children and "non-combatants" killed by the security forces with that of persons killed by republican factions. of over 3,500 persons killed, the republicans were responsible for almost 60%, loyalists 30% and the security forces 10%. so no comparison at all. no matter how the troubles are dressed up or portrayed, they were a time of sheer unadulaterated savagery,hatred and lawlessness, they are over and peace has settled on northern ireland. i,ve no doubt that in due course moves will come about to try and make ireland a 32 county state and that will perhaps reignight the situation, espicially while the loyalists still hold onto their weapons, but for the time being my friends and family are enjoying for the greater majority of them a peace that they have never known before, let them have their moment.

[YellowHairedLady]

@Mockney Piers

My purpose in this chat has not been to support any terrorist organisation, I think they are all scum, simply to express that the blood splattered hands are on all sides.

"Much of Irish history has been reinterpreted in the 19th and 20th centuries for political reasons of nationalism"

Funny you should say that because that is exactly what we know to be true of the UK. Take for example the whitewash over Bloody Sunday, The Black and Tans, Collusion with loyalist paramilitaries and the fact that no British politician called for the loyalist paramilitaries to disarm, at least not to the same extent as they did the IRA. British telling of history largely ignores these issues along with the fact that you supported a Unionist Government that openly allowed discrimination against Catholics, where Catholics chances of getting a job or a house, for example, were greatly diminished in comparison to Protestant's. All this gets swept under the carpet over here.

In fairness to Blair, he did apologise for the British reaction to the Irish Famine, which until then had also been ignored.

"when actually nothing remotely resembling a genuine nationalist movement had actually existed prior to that time."

Very clever wording, but I still think you will find the fighting against the plantations during the 1500's qualifies as a fight against oppression from a foreign power, and so can be called Nationalism.

But hey, that is a matter of opinion.

My opinion is that History about conflicts should be banned to as large an extent as possible, as it is very hard to teach it from a neutral perspective e.g., both Irish and UK History are biased towards their own people.

@Jimbob

"of over 3,500 persons killed, the republicans were responsible for almost 60%, loyalists 30% and the security forces 10%."

Out of 3,500 persons killed that makes 3,500 too many. Also, given the high levels of collusion between British Army and Loyalist paramilitaries you could easily make it 60% / 40%.

My point with the security forces was actually, why did agents of the Government (soldiers / police) who were supposed to be neutral, peacekeepers, kill so many people, and so many innocent people at that ( thought I am certain they were not all innocent). And why were the vast, vast, majority of them from one side.

For example, I have lived in Ireland, England (still do), Australia and New Zealand. In each of these Countries / Nations, I have never walked down the street fearing that I may be shot by agents of the Government.

"while the loyalists still hold onto their weapons"

Why were they allowed to? Very strange!

"i,ve no doubt that in due course moves will come about to try and make ireland a 32 county state and that will perhaps reignight the situation"

Given the current death and birth rates, there is likely to be a United Ireland within the next generation or so. Perhaps, loyalist paramilitaries will react badly to this.

"but for the time being my friends and family are enjoying for the greater majority of them a peace that they have never known before, let them have their moment."

I have no intention of stopping them having their moment, I am anti-violence from all sides, and I would add that I hope your friends and family, and all the people of the North experience peace for the remainder of their lives. God knows they deserve to.

[trinity]

YellowHairedLady Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Out of 3,500 persons killed that makes 3,500 too

> many. Also, given the high levels of collusion

> between British Army and Loyalist paramilitaries

> you could easily make it 60% / 40%.

No you can't - you can not add the number of people killed by terrorists to those killed by security forces. There was some collusion and certainly bad mistakes made by both the army and the police force but the aim of the security forces was first and foremost the protection of all civilians in Northern Ireland. The aim of the terrorists on both sides was to kill the opposing lot's civilians.

> My point with the security forces was actually,

> why did agents of the Government (soldiers /

> police) who were supposed to be neutral,

> peacekeepers, kill so many people, and so many

> innocent people at that ( thought I am certain

> they were not all innocent). And why were the

> vast, vast, majority of them from one side.

According to the book 'Lost Lives' approx 160 Catholic civilians and 23 Protestant civilians were killed were killed by the security forces (army and RUC). In fact the IRA killed more Catholic civilians than the security forces. The reason that many more Catholic civilians were killed (with most deaths occurring in the early 70's) is because the IRA targeted the Army in fire fights and the army returned fire with civilians being caught in the crossfire. Loyalists did not target the army and so Protestant civilians were not endangered in this way. There was no systemic targeting of Catholic civilians by security forces. The army and the RUC were (for the most part) neutral.

>

> For example, I have lived in Ireland, England

> (still do), Australia and New Zealand. In each of

> these Countries / Nations, I have never walked

> down the street fearing that I may be shot by

> agents of the Government.

But in none of these countries were you in danger of being blown to bits by a car bomb whilst eg shopping for school clothes for your kids, laying poppies at a rememberance service or using the local launderette. (Omagh, Enniskillen and Albertbridge Road.)

Don't get me wrong I lump all the terrorists together - IRA, UDA, PIRA, UFF - all murdering scum. But you are wrong, very wrong, to suggest that the security forces can be compared to these murdering b******s.

[tinagwee]

gosh azul what a stinking kettle of fish you opened there! lol

I agree with you yellowhairedlady.

Some of the comments especially at the beginning of this thread are contemptuous and I was shocked and am glad I don't personnally know some of you. I have plenty I would like to say but I won't other than that unless you have lived there before the last 15 years or so, then you have no idea of the reality of living in that weird and brutal world that was northern ireland during the troubles and there are many complex reasons why people became terrorists.

[Huguenot]

In your desire to sit on the fence Tina, you don't make clear whether you have contempt for terrorists, or those that rail against them. If you're suggesting that murdering people at the laundrette is okay because it's complex, them I'm aghast.

Or is it that you have contempt for people that highlight the atrocities committed by terrorists? If you have contempt for my thoughts on the British activity in Ireland, then like YHL, you haven't asked the question and you've fabricated an answer that differs with my position. I feel slighted.

More than that, if your approach to the democratic process is to reject the opinions of your fellow man - "I'm glad that I don't personally know you" - then that's part of the problem.

Personally I'll listen to, and respect, your views. I have no contempt for you and won't attempt to injure you for expressing your thoughts. If you don't want me there when I buy you a drink, let me send you a cheque. ;-)

YHL... sheesh. It seems that you interpret balanced opinions (my own notwithstanding) as attacks on the Irish. It's only you and the Serbs that talk about nationality as a 'birth'-right. A bit bloody medieval.

The people resident in Northern Ireland, be they born locally or immigrants, have the right to democratically define their own future. In making that decision they would be wise to consider both minority and majority views to ensure everyone's onside, and would be wise to consider their economy.

Conversely, they would be foolish to pursue genetic, religious or geographic agendas. They would be cretinous to consider 50.1% of the vote 'winners' (because that makes 49.9% of their neighbours losers). They would be especially daft to invent ghost enemies and skewed CVs, with elaborately invented factoids in support.

I don't think anyone's coming out of this smelling of roses.

[mockney piers]

"Funny you should say that because that is exactly what we know to be true of the UK."

Well, yes and no. English history taught in school is certainly skewed and too often ignores the bad, but I'd hazard that if it does veer toward the self-congratualtory, it doesn't have a specifically nationalist agenda, though it certainly has a ridiculously unhealthy obsession with the nazis when we can sit there and say we did a good thing (carpet bombing of civilians notwithstanding).

I'd agree that along with our role in the slave trade (which is taught) we need to focus on the dark side of imperialism (in Ireland, India South Africa and more recently in Diego Garcia) in our education. not in some sort of PC self flagellation as the Daily Mail would have us believe, but because in order to avoid mistakes in future you need to have a full perspective on the past.

TB famously didn't care about history, if he did he may have found many lessons about previous imperialist adventures in Mesopotomia and Afghanistan!!

Talking to many in the republic it's clear that schools have taught and continue to teach history through an overtly nationalist interpretation and that needs to end. My own dear wife (Mrs O'Mockney) seems to be of the opinion that Cromwell was some sort of global bogeyman right up until the 20th century. Perhaps it's time for a bit of perspective and a more global agenda in the education system, just as it's about time that this country got over the second world war. (Spain conversely actually needs to start addressing its past in history, some of the youngsters are barely even aware there was a civil war 70 years ago).

And nice and good of Blair as it was to apologise for the famine I'd much rather he apologised for the repugnant things he himself did, ah well, maybe it's between Tony and his priest now, though I'd much rather it was between him and the ICC.

And finally I'm not sure how you go about calling a 4 year ?400 million inquiry a whitewash. It was never intended to have teeth or result in prosecution, and it may have tempered its language somewhat, but it was always modelled on the truth and reconciliation committee in south africa.

As stupid as as sending armed shock troops to police a civilian protest was, how much more stupid was it to fire at them? It'd be far too cyncial of me to suggest that the massacre proved the death knell of the civil rights movement and the IRA's great recruiting sergeant; men with guns who worship at the temple of blood would never stoop so low would they.

Weirdly 26 dead civilians seems to be a just bad day at the office in Afghanistan, lets try and do something about never again actually meaning never again!

[SeanMacGabhann]

On this one I'm reminded of the old maxim "The English would do well to learn some history, the Irish would do well to forget it" - or some such

I can still be interested in the film itself as a piece of work with feeling the need to come over all anti-English can't I?

Logic and reason puts me on the same side as Piers and Huguenot in this debate but I can't help but feel there is something missing from their arguments. Between 1968 and the current peacetime what was it that the British Government found so hard todo to neutralise the IRA which was all but defunct in 1968? You can say you aren't going to give in to terrorists and will never talk to them all you want but

a) you have been talking to them

b) you will talk to them again

c) there will come a point when the violence stops because of these talks

So the sooner the posturing stops, the sooner the violence stops. And however abhorrent their tactics and methods were, the IRA and their ilk didn't come out of a vacuum. The festering bigotry and discrimination against the Irish Catholics in that province could and should have been dealt with by the government long before this all kicked off again.

Once again that doesn't excuse or condone terrorist activity - re-reading my post I haven't balanced up everything as I'd like but time has prevented me - I just wanted to add my tuppence hapenny

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

MP: If you'd mentioned John Major and the ICC in the same sentence I'd understand. As it is, I'm confused.

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Between 1968 and the current peacetime

> what was it that the British Government found so

> hard todo to neutralise the IRA which was all but

> defunct in 1968?

They were quite different organisations from what I?ve read.

[mockney piers]

"John Major and the ICC in the same sentence I'd understand. As it is, I'm confused."

LOL, fair comment, i refer of course to the International Criminal Court, not the International Cricket Council :)

Sean, I think you huguenot and yellowhair are all pretty much saying the same thing. I agree that the British gov't should have stepped in long before things got so bad. It's all a hideous tragedy that the civil rights movement wasn't listened to, especially as it was a time that it a parallel movement was making great strides in the US.

As I've said before the demands of the vast majority of the catholic community were so utterly reasonable, political enfranchisement and equality, it's just terrible that it all had to go down such a route. I will never and can never condone murder whether committed by a paramilitary or the state, and wish all those arrogant and nihilistic enough to glory in murder their own little corner in hell frankly.

[tinagwee]

well there is nothing like putting words in someone's mouth now is there hugenot! you are making a whole lot of accusations there to me which I dont even want to begin to answer (except to say I support no terrorists) because you have gone off on one hell of a rant and its not worthy of an answer.

[Huguenot]

Sorry Tina, I was speculating. ;-)

What was it you had contempt for?

[Azul]

huhuhuh

I have started a war here!

[YellowHairedLady]

@ Azul

No you have not started a war, just some good open debate, which I for one have enjoyed being a part of.

@ Trinity

"But you are wrong, very wrong, to suggest that the security forces can be compared to these murdering b******s."

And these would be the same security forces who are currently waging an illegal war in Iraq?

In fact your own words give justification for making comparison

"There was some collusion and certainly bad mistakes made by both the army and the police force" although funny how it is only a mistake if the Government does it. Personally, I think Major mistakes were made by all involved.

Also, how does this collusion and mistakes fit with the idea that:

"the aim of the security forces was first and foremost the protection of all civilians in Northern Ireland"

Quite simply it doesn't. You cannot protect civilians by killing them or assisting other terrorist organisations in killing them. Your imaginative argument could even get you a career with Sinn F?in.

"I lump all the terrorists together - IRA, UDA, PIRA, UFF - all murdering scum." You missed 2 British Military and the RUC. All of the aforementioned organisations are scum and always will be. Leopards dont change their spots e.g., Iraq!!!

[mockney piers]

"Leopards dont change their spots e.g., Iraq"

As it goes the military were never in favour of this invasion, it was Tony Blair and a gutless party who wouldn't dare say no to him. The military strongly suspected it was an illegal invasion, but the attorney general ruled it wasn't (of course he to was leaned on and didn't dare say no to his buddy Tony) and the die was cast.

The military did their best given a terrible remit, and though they never openly revolted (ie disobeyed orders) they interpreted those orders in such a way that they did the least possible, staying more or less holed up in 2 bases in and around Basra much to the annoyance of the Americans and the embarrassment of the government.

This wasn't necessarily a good thing, in avoiding getting involved in a conflict they wanted nothing to do with, they essentially handed over a city bigger than Belfast and an area the size of Northern Ireland to the control of criminal militias who did bad things with impunity.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I don't envy the army's positions either in Iraq or in Ulster during the troubles. I've friends who served in NI and said it was the most miserable and scary time of their life, and these people served tours in both Croatia and Bosnia during their troubles!!