The Dublin Government did not arm the IRA. There's no evidence for that. The Loyalists almost exclusively used British Army weapons. This is confirmed by British Army documents that are in the public domain. If the IRA were using Irish Army weapons the whinging from the British would never end. Why do the IRA claim the Dublin Government …
The Dublin Government did not arm the IRA. There's no evidence for that. The Loyalists almost exclusively used British Army weapons. This is confirmed by British Army documents that are in the public domain. If the IRA were using Irish Army weapons the whinging from the British would never end. Why do the IRA claim the Dublin Government opposed them fully but Loyalist terrorists claim they were acting under British direction? Read Johnny Adairs comments. And that of many many more Loyalists.
There may have been ROGUE elements in the British army, but it is a fact that 70% of the deaths in the Troubles were by the IRA. And The Irish Times has detailed how Charles Haughey the Irish PM set up the IRA.
Both your statements are false. The IRA caused 49% of deaths as shown by Wesley Johnson a Unionist historian. The INLA caused a further 3% of deaths.
Charles Haughey did not set up the IRA. There was an attempt to send weapons to the citizens defence committees who were headed by people who became the SDLP.
The Republican movement had been at odds with the Irish State for decades when the Troubles started.
You're ignoring The Irish Times. Republicans killed 60% in The Troubles - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles The trouble is that Britain was fighting with one hand behind its back (see the same approach to Islamic terrorism today). There were 500 IRA terrorists, all known to the security services. Kick the door down at 2am, a bullet in the head for each terrorist and a bullet in the head for his wife - all 500 of them - and the thing would have been over.
Why didn't Britain do that? I think the answer is that they knew that if you eliminate those 500 people, a new IRA spawns because the political problem still remains. That new IRA would not contain the British agents of the old, so they preferred to deal with the devil they knew. Fundamentally the conflict required a political solution and Britain was unwilling until very late to actually force the Loyalists to accept this. Likely the bombing of London's financial district gave the critical impetus to the political settlement.
Well, this is just your assertion that dealing properly with the IRA would have led to new members. It probably wouldn't have. It wasn't the bombing of the financial district - but pressure from Democrat politicians in the US who were convinced that Britain was doing to NI what Israel is doing to Gaza and that tens of thousands of civilians were being killed by the British army. And Britain, so determined to maintain a pointless alliance with the US meekly went along with it. One of the few good things Ireland has done is to be neutral. This allows Ireland to be pro-Palestinian - which is what the UK should be too. Instead, everything is confused by this US alliance, which we gain nothing from.
Democratic politicians had a clearer view of the Troubles than you think. The IRA raised very little money in Irish America considering the wealth and power and at the time though no longer cohesiveness of that community. Well 10,000 people were jailed for IRA membership, so clearly the 500 had a rapid turnover. Far more people wanted to be in the IRA than actually were in it, and this was in conditions where they knew death was highly likely. The British Government are not stupid and didn't have a weak a sway on America as you contend.
What is the IRA? It's not the specific organizations that exist. It is the fact that thousands of young men in Nationalist NI and the border region of ROI from Republican families know that if shit hits the fan. For example if the British refuse to leave after a UI vote. Then we are the IRA.
There will never be a United Ireland. That is the meaning of the GFA. See https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/no-united-ireland-not-now-not-ever/ That is an article by Graham Gudgin, former adviser to Trimble. As the Catholics (let's say the Irish Catholics, to exclude Poles etc) will never be the majority community, Irish Unity will not happen. Demographics show that the Catholic % has peaked. Part of the reason is the rise of the ethnic minorities. There will never ever ever be a United Ireland. I would not have signed the GFA myself, or the Windsor Protocol, but there is such a thing in English culture of "playing the long game by showing pragmatism". Few countries would have signed something like the GFA or the WP, but Britain realised it stabilised the Union for the long term, stopped the war, and ensured that even when the Protestants fell below the Catholics as a %, they would still get a veto on everything - while also making clear there would never be a United Ireland. The WP is crap - but maybe in 20 years time, we'll look back and say, 95% of goods trade was unaffected; NI followed EU rules, but mainly on things we would never have changed anyway (climate change rules, rules on 48 hour working weeks etc), while NI also benefited over the longer term from the shift of Britain's trade away from the EU. You don't see the longer picture. The British elite generally does. I think this CAN shade into complacency, but there is a longer angle to this.
My point is on the nature of the IRA, that if this situation were to occur then the IRA would re-emerge. Showing that the core of the IRA is not the organization but a much wider tradition and sentiment, this point is something British statesmen of course knew during the Troubles. On UI, I see nothing in Mr Gudgin's article which states that a UI will never happen, he simply argues that it is not inevitable, which is a fair point. In terms of likelihood, we can argue this all night, but Catholic majorities at younger age groups at least place the future in that communities hands.
No, the IRA would not emerge, as the Catholic community is more well-to-do nowadays, and the PIRA depended heavily on a community of losers. The Catholics are not majorities in any age group in NI - https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-northern-ireland-have-a-majority-catholic-population/ The 2021 census shows 46% Catholic, unchanged from 1921 - there is no evidence this is going to increase with the birth rate now stabilised. Ulster is permanently British. The Shankill Road has won. Take that on the chin, Aodh Rua. I notice all your energy goes into anti-Englishness. Have you ever even noticed that immigration will destroy both Britain and Ireland? Unionism will become a nonsense as it increasingly becomes a case of insisting NI is ruled by Pakistanis in London.... British is being destroyed by immigration. In fact. RoI is trying to catch up in the migration stakes too This will destroy both traditions in NI and means we need to view ourselves as white mainly, and not British or Irish. Do you think your future Somali overlords give a damn about Bobby Sands and the Battle of Boyne? I have to tell you, they don't!
I totally agree that we have to identify primarily as white, that's why we are being targeted not on specific national bases.
No, if there is a vote for a UI and that is not respected then an IRA will emerge. The IRA in rural areas like South Armagh was similiar to Old IRA, it was just an expression of the will of the Catholic people as a whole.
Ulster is less British every day. This is what Loyalists constantly tell us. I don't think they are entirely wrong.
Ireland is also less Irish every day. That is the main point. Have you seen Niall McConnell's video on Youtube. Although I feel nothing when I see that video of him standing to attention next to the Irish Tricolour, I do know that we make a big mistake if we don't side with all white nations. I went to Dublin last year, and saw how many sleeping bags there were in the streets. My hotel was the Marlin - right near St Stephen's Green and it seemed off to me that homelessness was so obvious in King's Road South - literally round the corner from the Irish Parliament. If Varadkar pops out for a sandwich, he's stepping over sleeping bags - and yet for him, it's not a big deal!!!!
The Dublin Government did not arm the IRA. There's no evidence for that. The Loyalists almost exclusively used British Army weapons. This is confirmed by British Army documents that are in the public domain. If the IRA were using Irish Army weapons the whinging from the British would never end. Why do the IRA claim the Dublin Government opposed them fully but Loyalist terrorists claim they were acting under British direction? Read Johnny Adairs comments. And that of many many more Loyalists.
There may have been ROGUE elements in the British army, but it is a fact that 70% of the deaths in the Troubles were by the IRA. And The Irish Times has detailed how Charles Haughey the Irish PM set up the IRA.
Both your statements are false. The IRA caused 49% of deaths as shown by Wesley Johnson a Unionist historian. The INLA caused a further 3% of deaths.
Charles Haughey did not set up the IRA. There was an attempt to send weapons to the citizens defence committees who were headed by people who became the SDLP.
The Republican movement had been at odds with the Irish State for decades when the Troubles started.
You're ignoring The Irish Times. Republicans killed 60% in The Troubles - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles The trouble is that Britain was fighting with one hand behind its back (see the same approach to Islamic terrorism today). There were 500 IRA terrorists, all known to the security services. Kick the door down at 2am, a bullet in the head for each terrorist and a bullet in the head for his wife - all 500 of them - and the thing would have been over.
Why didn't Britain do that? I think the answer is that they knew that if you eliminate those 500 people, a new IRA spawns because the political problem still remains. That new IRA would not contain the British agents of the old, so they preferred to deal with the devil they knew. Fundamentally the conflict required a political solution and Britain was unwilling until very late to actually force the Loyalists to accept this. Likely the bombing of London's financial district gave the critical impetus to the political settlement.
Well, this is just your assertion that dealing properly with the IRA would have led to new members. It probably wouldn't have. It wasn't the bombing of the financial district - but pressure from Democrat politicians in the US who were convinced that Britain was doing to NI what Israel is doing to Gaza and that tens of thousands of civilians were being killed by the British army. And Britain, so determined to maintain a pointless alliance with the US meekly went along with it. One of the few good things Ireland has done is to be neutral. This allows Ireland to be pro-Palestinian - which is what the UK should be too. Instead, everything is confused by this US alliance, which we gain nothing from.
Democratic politicians had a clearer view of the Troubles than you think. The IRA raised very little money in Irish America considering the wealth and power and at the time though no longer cohesiveness of that community. Well 10,000 people were jailed for IRA membership, so clearly the 500 had a rapid turnover. Far more people wanted to be in the IRA than actually were in it, and this was in conditions where they knew death was highly likely. The British Government are not stupid and didn't have a weak a sway on America as you contend.
What is the IRA? It's not the specific organizations that exist. It is the fact that thousands of young men in Nationalist NI and the border region of ROI from Republican families know that if shit hits the fan. For example if the British refuse to leave after a UI vote. Then we are the IRA.
There will never be a United Ireland. That is the meaning of the GFA. See https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/no-united-ireland-not-now-not-ever/ That is an article by Graham Gudgin, former adviser to Trimble. As the Catholics (let's say the Irish Catholics, to exclude Poles etc) will never be the majority community, Irish Unity will not happen. Demographics show that the Catholic % has peaked. Part of the reason is the rise of the ethnic minorities. There will never ever ever be a United Ireland. I would not have signed the GFA myself, or the Windsor Protocol, but there is such a thing in English culture of "playing the long game by showing pragmatism". Few countries would have signed something like the GFA or the WP, but Britain realised it stabilised the Union for the long term, stopped the war, and ensured that even when the Protestants fell below the Catholics as a %, they would still get a veto on everything - while also making clear there would never be a United Ireland. The WP is crap - but maybe in 20 years time, we'll look back and say, 95% of goods trade was unaffected; NI followed EU rules, but mainly on things we would never have changed anyway (climate change rules, rules on 48 hour working weeks etc), while NI also benefited over the longer term from the shift of Britain's trade away from the EU. You don't see the longer picture. The British elite generally does. I think this CAN shade into complacency, but there is a longer angle to this.
My point is on the nature of the IRA, that if this situation were to occur then the IRA would re-emerge. Showing that the core of the IRA is not the organization but a much wider tradition and sentiment, this point is something British statesmen of course knew during the Troubles. On UI, I see nothing in Mr Gudgin's article which states that a UI will never happen, he simply argues that it is not inevitable, which is a fair point. In terms of likelihood, we can argue this all night, but Catholic majorities at younger age groups at least place the future in that communities hands.
No, the IRA would not emerge, as the Catholic community is more well-to-do nowadays, and the PIRA depended heavily on a community of losers. The Catholics are not majorities in any age group in NI - https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-northern-ireland-have-a-majority-catholic-population/ The 2021 census shows 46% Catholic, unchanged from 1921 - there is no evidence this is going to increase with the birth rate now stabilised. Ulster is permanently British. The Shankill Road has won. Take that on the chin, Aodh Rua. I notice all your energy goes into anti-Englishness. Have you ever even noticed that immigration will destroy both Britain and Ireland? Unionism will become a nonsense as it increasingly becomes a case of insisting NI is ruled by Pakistanis in London.... British is being destroyed by immigration. In fact. RoI is trying to catch up in the migration stakes too This will destroy both traditions in NI and means we need to view ourselves as white mainly, and not British or Irish. Do you think your future Somali overlords give a damn about Bobby Sands and the Battle of Boyne? I have to tell you, they don't!
I totally agree that we have to identify primarily as white, that's why we are being targeted not on specific national bases.
No, if there is a vote for a UI and that is not respected then an IRA will emerge. The IRA in rural areas like South Armagh was similiar to Old IRA, it was just an expression of the will of the Catholic people as a whole.
Ulster is less British every day. This is what Loyalists constantly tell us. I don't think they are entirely wrong.
Ireland is also less Irish every day. That is the main point. Have you seen Niall McConnell's video on Youtube. Although I feel nothing when I see that video of him standing to attention next to the Irish Tricolour, I do know that we make a big mistake if we don't side with all white nations. I went to Dublin last year, and saw how many sleeping bags there were in the streets. My hotel was the Marlin - right near St Stephen's Green and it seemed off to me that homelessness was so obvious in King's Road South - literally round the corner from the Irish Parliament. If Varadkar pops out for a sandwich, he's stepping over sleeping bags - and yet for him, it's not a big deal!!!!