Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

DanaC · 03-11-2009, 10:42 AM

The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles.

It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen...

When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace.

The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door.

These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.

03-11-2009, 10:42 AM	#9
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	The people who opposed British rule were given a place at the table. The reason we all thought this had settled down as an issue was because the same people who were setting off bombs in Manchester and London in the 80s and 90s were sitting at the table discussing peace when the takls eventually got under way. McGuinnes, who has termed the attacks treasonous, was himself a leading figure in the Troubles. It's all very well saying we should listen and understand what people want. I agree. I have always been of that opinion. But when the war is done and everyone is sick of blood and bombs, when both sides have set aside violence and opted for negotiation; when the negotiations have led on through sleepless nights and tense months, and everyone has given up something and everyone has gained concessions; when the swell of the people are supporting peace and fighters on both sides have become statesmen... When all that's done and the first tentative steps to peace have begun to steady into a good pace, when the goal is in sight and everyone is breathing a little easier, the fact that a handful of people who can't quite give up the fight, who value absolute and total victory too highly to compromise and who will see their country burn before they'll give up one inch of their dream, have chosen to dig in their heels and fight both sides, shouldn't be enough to crush the peace. The Provisional IRA, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics (or even their goals), fought for and with the support of the majority of the Catholic Irish community. (I believe that is the case, though I'd be willing to stand correction if anyone knows more about this). If you accept the logic of the Catholic Irish being the indigenous population and the protestant Irish being the descendants of the invader British/supporters of British rule, then there were two armies in operation: a British army and an Irish army (IRA). The IRA effectively became a parrallel judicial system in a country where the official system was seen (and in effect was) as a mechanism of external control over a subject population. Harsh, yes and brutal. Unfair and arbitrary, unregulated and uncontrolled. But probably more trusted on the whole, by your average family, than a copper when trouble hits your door. These splinter groups don't have popular support. They aren't fighting for and with the support of the Catholic Irish population they are fighting for their own ideological aims. They are a minority voice attempting to impose their dream onto the majority. They are asking for something that is impossible, and more importantly not supported by the population they claim to be fighting for.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)