The Troubles

I have never once seen a thread on the Troubles present legitimate evidence to lead to a conclusive set of opinions on The Troubles in Ulster.

Bring to this thread your facts, figures AND your opinions, and let's settle once and for all:

>Was the IRA's cause legitimate/was violence their only foreseeable option
>Did the British commit atrocities or where they just caught up in a mess
>IRA or UDA/UVF, which was the enemy of the non-combatant innocent?
>Which side came out on top?
>Should people such as Martin Mcguinness/Gerry Adams be allowed in government, and should the IRA soldiers have been released from prison?

And lastly,

>Who started it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kFrUFd-RRHo
generalmichaelcollins.com/on-line-books/the-path-to-freedom-index/chapter-7-distinctive-culture/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>in Ulster
You're just begging for shitposters with that one

I've always been a hibernophile so I am admittedly a bit biased. Part of me wants to conclude that the irish nation (due to history) have the more legitimate claim to N.I than the british. I do however consider the good friday agreement the best and most civilized solution available. Then again, I also think that Finland should become a part of Sweden again and reinvade Karelia, so maybe take what I say with a pinch or two of salt.

Well obviously I mean only in the 6 counties, but the Troubles largely only happened in the province of Ulster, albeit only a chunk of it.

I'm English through and through but know a lot of people from Belfast through Uni.

There seems to quite literally be a divide along the lines of "The IRA did nothing wrong", "The IRA were irish-ISIS and need hung" and then "I don't care up the ra lmao"

It always looked like there was needless action taken against civilians, however.

ka t*igs

>Ulster

>uneducated
>barbaric
>deeply religious
>support terrorism
how exactly do Irish differ from muslims?
Other that Irish never had an Empire, I mean

there were 2 threads on it yesterday, and there've been loads in the past

>It always looked like there was needles action taken against civilians, however.
>Using child as shields
>looked like

you forgot

>flooded England and changed the genetic makeup considerably
>blew your people up on a number of occasion

allahu ár lá sasanach

>Was the IRA's cause legitimate
Yes
>was violence their only foreseeable option
Maybe. They initially tried peaceful marches etc but were met with violence and hate, and so they responded with violence and hate.
>Did the British commit atrocities or where they just caught up in a mess
Both. Bloody Sunday notwithstanding, the British also colluded with loyalist paramilitaries several times. But they were caught in a very difficult situation they absolutely did not want to be in.
>IRA or UDA/UVF, which was the enemy of the non-combatant innocent?
All 3
>Which side came out on top?
The Catholics got many of the concessions they had been looking for in terms of civil rights, but the DUP also became very powerful (even if they had to share that power with Sinn Féin)
>Should people such as Martin Mcguinness/Gerry Adams be allowed in government, and should the IRA soldiers have been released from prison?
Yes. It was and is the price of peace. Although it doesn't really matter now, seeing as McGuinness has basically retired from politics. Adams is a different story; he seems to be a much more polarising figure. As of now he's focused more on politics in the south and refuses to step down but has also successfully harnessed the power of memes to reinvigorate youth support for himself and his party.
>Who started it?
The real question. Placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the IRA is asinine. Remember that the whole conflict stemmed from the civil rights movement in the 60s, which grew violent in large part thanks to the vitriolic anti-Catholic rhetoric of Paisleyites and events like the Belfast Waterworks bombing (loyalist false flag bombing blamed on the IRA specifically in order to escalate violence and discredit the civil rights movement). Asking who "started" the Troubles is a bit like asking who started WW1. It's very easy to pick a side and successfully argue for/against that side, but desu the whole thing was a clusterfuck that was bound to turn ugly

>Was the IRA's cause legitimate/was violence their only foreseeable option
They had legitimate grievances but resorting to violence wasn't necessary
>Did the British commit atrocities or where they just caught up in a mess
Yes, they committed a great deal of atrocities which still have not been justly resolved
>IRA or UDA/UVF, which was the enemy of the non-combatant innocent?
Proportional to their total number of killings IIRC the UVF killed way more civilians
>Which side came out on top?
It's probably accurate to describe it as a total stalemate
>Should people such as Martin Mcguinness/Gerry Adams be allowed in government, and should the IRA soldiers have been released from prison?
Yes, both sides should've been given a second chance, but members of the British army should be held to a higher standard

The true greenpill is that modern Irish history is boring as fucking and you have to go to the 16th century to get anything mildly interesting

t. Irish Nationalist who grew up during the troubles

There's nothing more pathetic than catholics trying to glorify their slimy IRA heroes. All that does is show how truly stupid you are.

this is the best answer
>you have to go to the 16th century to get anything mildly interesting
youtube.com/watch?v=kFrUFd-RRHo

There's nothing more pathetic than protestants trying to glorify their slimy UVF heroes. All that does is show how truly stupid you are.

I believe in freedom, civil and religious liberty, democracy and everything else Britain represents. You're the Nazi, you're the ultra-nationalist wishing to exterminate a religious, ethnic and political minority which doesn't fit into your view of a totalitarian Ireland.

No wonder you supported the actual Nazis whilst we fought them.

violence was completely necessary to stop Bombay Street happening over and over again in cities and towns

>You're the Nazi, you're the ultra-nationalist wishing to exterminate a religious, ethnic and political minority
what the fuck kek

fear mongering sure has been doing it's job since the early 20th century on you gullible faggots

19th*

>IRA soldiers

Eh, I'll bite. Ireland was neutral. We didn't support the Nazis. Elements of the IRA tried to do what they had done in the first world war and form some kind of "alliance" with Germany and failed pretty hard. But if you genuinely think they had anything in common ideologically with the Nazi party itself then you're just deluded. It was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and nothing else.

I can't fault a red-blooded British patriot for hating the IRA but you're not doing yourself much credit by resorting to the "everyone I don't like is a Nazi" argument right off the bat.

wew lad

>Irish Republican Army
>Army
>an army is made up of soldiers

>I believe in freedom
Spook
>civil
Wew
>religious liberty
Gross

Ireland supported the Nazi,De Valera signed the condolence book in the german embassy when Hitler died

They dindu nuffin those kids had them nailbombs coming

>Everyone I don't like is a NAZI!

>Ireland supported the Nazi,De Valera signed the condolence book in the german embassy when Hitler died
He also visited the United States embassy when FDR died

They also interned downed German pilots while allowing allied ones to cross the border to the North, they confiscated the German ambassador's radio and telephone and put him under house arrest, and allowed the allies access to certain air and sea channels that they forbade the Germans from using.

But yeah I guess they supported the Nazis somehow

good lad desu

That's different from saying that the whole of catholics supported the nazis

reminder

>and allowed the allies access to certain air and sea channels that they forbade the Germans from using.
Not til the US entered to war,too late for thousands of u boat victims

>I believe in freedom, civil and religious liberty, democracy and everything else Britain represents
You seem to have Britain confused with America. I mean, I'm glad Britain has taken to accepting American Values so thoroughly, buut please try to avoid mistakes like this in the future.

>the Salvation army
>army
>an army is made up of soldiers

I literally, regularly, forget NI even exists and it's a part of my own country.

>'The city of Caesar Augusta, which means The Fortress of Zara'
wat

Catholics voted him in,just like they vote for IRA commanders with blood on their hands

the opposite is true afaik, you're stupid as fuck

De Valera' personal sympaties have nothing to do with the government plan he presented to the people, let alone having nothing to do with that people

...

Dev giving condolences when Hitler died was pretty stupid but the only reason he did it was to keep up appearances of neutrality, even though Irish neutrality had in practice heavily favoured the Allies as others have pointed out ITT

Last I checked the salvation army doesn't have guns and shit

it was the right thing to do, all the talk post-war about MUH CRASHED PLANES WE HELPED THE ALLIES is slimey bollocks, we'd have said the same about either side depending on who won

>owning a gun makes you a soldier

>lots of people with guns in an organised command structure with specific political motivations does not constitute an army

>the nra is an army

Wouldn't this qualify any gun club as an army?

if they deploy against something sure, why not

That was certainly the thought process behind it, don't get me wrong. But by the time Hitler died it was pretty clear who was going to win. I'm not so sure offering condolences was at all a smart thing to do because the Anglos have judged him pretty harshly for it ever since. You could argue that hindsight is 20/20 but I think this outcome should have been apparent even back then

...

Dev was a gentleman (ignore everything he did before though)

The way he upheld our neutrality in WWII was his finest hour, no doubt about that. But yes, let's not derail this thread into civil war bickering. That would be a whole other shitstorm. It is a can of worms I would admittedly open, just to see clueless Anglos and plastic Paddies weighing in on both sides.

Collins deserved it

fuck you man Collins was GOAT

generalmichaelcollins.com/on-line-books/the-path-to-freedom-index/chapter-7-distinctive-culture/

>tfw he would have constructed a beautiful Gaelic ethnostate

...

fuck are you on about

More unwelcome derailing

This is a troubles thread what did you expect?

>Was the IRA's cause legitimate
You can make a case that it was at the beginning but the longer the conflict progressed the more you can see their actions as unnecessary. Couple this with the deaths of civilians and it is far harder to legitimise IRA action. That goes for all paramilitaries.

>was violence their only foreseeable option
It's worth noting that unionist gerrymandering made political opposition that much harder. Does it excuse the violence? I think it makes it more understandable.

>Giving northern Ireland back to Ireland won't do anything.

There's no way NI can be 'given' back to Ireland, it needs a referendum. It's the people's to decide and even that would probably create violence and destabilise the north.

does it go for the British army who killed more civilians on average than the IRA?

>opinions
Oh please. Could we not?

>FUCKING CATHOLIC TERRORISTS
>FUCKING ORANGE MURDERS

Super. You two fucking brats need to STFU before I turn this car around right now.

I will come back there and slap you both upside the head unless you quit fighting with your brother.

That's not true though you fucking dullard, Brits killed the least people, stupid fucking potato farming savages just ape out at eachother

I don't think that the British Army deserves anyone's sympathy for their actions during that Troubles. As the military they should be held to a higher standard and were there to protect civilians.

>does it go for the British army who killed more civilians on average than the IRA?

do you know what "on average" means you inbred dogs bollocks, or do I speak your language better than you?

Of those killed by British security forces:

187 (~51.5%) were civilians
145 (~39.9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
18 (~4.9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
13 (~3.5%) were fellow members of the British security forces
Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:

1080 (~52%) were members/former members of the British security forces
723 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
57 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
11 (~0.5%) were members of the Irish security forces
Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:

878 (~85.4%) were civilians
94 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1%) were members of the British security forces

give that a once over, that's FIFTY-ONE PERCENT, compared to THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT killed by the IRA (all splinters, all groups)

>IRA killed about 600 more civilians than the army
No one in their right mind gives a fuck about your mental gymnastics.

>Kill shitloads more civilians
>It's okay because they killed more on average
Yeah it's totally fine they nailbombed those kids, the British killed more on AVERAGE

are you both retarded?

have half of your kills as civilians gives you a clear indication of who they were aiming at, doesn't it?
but nah, muh child killin terrurists

can't wait for the backpedalling talking about collateral

>We didn't do nuffin those kids had them bombs coming
>British killed 4x less but more on average, how EVIL
Kys Mick retard cunt

Can't make this up

the IRA killed more in total so it makes sense for them to have a high number of corresponding civilian casualties, compare them to the British fucking Army and they were less likely to kill civilians though

really makes you think huh, simple bastard

>>Was the IRA's cause legitimate/was violence their only foreseeable option

No. Britain has a history of granting home rule and independence when the majority want it, while there was a political means available violence was inexcusable.

>>Did the British commit atrocities or where they just caught up in a mess

Bit of both.

>>IRA or UDA/UVF, which was the enemy of the non-combatant innocent?

They were both murderous scum.

>>Which side came out on top?

Northern Ireland went from being the richest part of the island of Ireland to the poorest, so no-one won.

>>Should people such as Martin Mcguinness/Gerry Adams be allowed in government, and should the IRA soldiers have been released from prison?

Yes, it's the only way to put it in the past and move on.

>Who started it?

Everyone involved is responsible, even the "innocent" bystanders who kept voting for these thug political parties.

>Britain has a history of granting home rule and independence when the majority want it,
what do you think all the trouble was about before 1916 you fool

They still killed 6 times as many civilians you spanner, I doubt they give a fuck about who had the better average lmao.

People in Ireland trying to stop the government giving Ireland homerule?

>using racist anglo propaganda as scientific fact
wew lad and i bet you think we all didnt come from africa either

they also killed over 10 times the amount of people

Unionists didn't have a majority to stop us, they couldn't have done anything about it if it was a purely democratic vote before the country was partitioned when they chimped out about not wanting a democratic vote

the House of Lords vetoed it multiple times before the veto was limited, and then WWI happend
how ignorant are you?

Yet you still got Home Rule. So the initial post is correct.

>kill 3 times more civilians than the other guy while repeatedly deliberately targeting civilians
>try to claim the moral high ground because muh statistics skew the numbers for the other guys smaller number of kills

no we didn't

Also

>former members of the British security forces
>they're not civilians if we want to justify murdering them

How ignorant are you?

>Protestants in Ulster were oppressed before Protestantism existed
>Pro-Britain ulster dwellers existed before england existed
>Irish paganism was alive and well in Ulster in the 16th century
>also nobody was on ireland before Christianity

jesus fucking christ

>while repeatedly deliberately targeting civilians
false, tit-for-tat killings were carried out by lone individuals most of the time operating under false aliases/acronyms as with Darkley, Kingsmill, a good portion of the pub bombings, et cetera - this all owing to the structure of the IRA and its splinter groups

most civilian deaths were the result of pre-mature bombs or collateral even after ample warning had been given most of the time as with Omagh

what are you on about lad?
we never had a home rule parliament after Grattan, this is an historical fact

what event are you talking about precisely?

>muh warnings!

Oh yeah that's great. "We made a bomb and set it to explode, but it's YOUR fault if it kills anyone because of our poorly described or flat out false warning".

OP of that thread wasn't a loyalist, he was taking the piss.

But muh averages
Also remember nail bombing kids is okay if you ring em up and tell them you're gonna mail bomb them
IRA dindu nuffin, they wuz good boys, then knee cappings are just Anglo propaganda

Government of Ireland Act 1920. How ignorant are you?

warning's better than no warning, they didn't need to give one out when it came to targetting something but they decided to do so

that created the parliament in the 6 counties, sure, not a parliament for the 32 counties

meanwhile by 1920 the WoI was underway, the Dáil had been established following the vote of the majority in favour of Sinn Féin in 1918
How ignorant are you?

>tfw OP of that thread and OP of the pasta in it that starts with "Let's get it started boys"
>tfw was surprised and proud when some other faggot actually reposted it, months later, in my bait thread
>tfw almost every single thread I make on /pol/ has been me pretending to be a unionist retard
>tfw it works every time and actual protestant retards come out of the woodworks
>tfw a friend made a fake "feels" story years ago about Eight Beers Mgee
>tfw he used my face for "EB"
>tfw the story got so popular that the Rumjacks made a song about "EB"
>tfw I can't stop prodposting

help me, lad

butthurt

They also created a parliament in the South, don't be ignorant. Britain honoured its word, too bad Ireland didn't.

Veeky Forums is not /pol/ with dates

let me repeat that for you

>Veeky Forums is not /pol/ with dates
>Veeky Forums is not /pol/ with dates
>Veeky Forums is not /pol/ with dates

How kind of them. That proves once and for all that they were the good guys.

>warnings better than no warning
>apart from when the warning is so vague it drives more people closer to the bomb
>apart from where the warning is false and the bomb goes off in another town entirely

the first home rule bill was in 1886 but it wasn't until 1920 that they did that, AFTER the general election of 1918, two years AFTER the establishment of the Dáil
retard

it was superfluous if all they were aiming to do was kill children with nail bombs, certainly, as your hyperbolic emotion driven posts seem to indicate was their aim, you woman

Still did it, so original point holds true. Sorry that facts hurt your feelings.

ever heard of the phrase "too little, too late"?

that bullshittery doesn't swing in the real world faggot, sorry facts hurt your feelings

>getting to fulfil your psychopathic bloodlust and keep the moral high ground in your own mind
>superfluous

more emotion

when are you going to make an attempt at formulating anything approaching an actual argument