The Troubles

>British send army to mediate
>army interns 1,000 Catholics and 0 Protestants despite the fact that the Protestants were the ones who were attacking the Catholics
>even the hippies say "say it, let's try shooting"

British policy in Northern Ireland makes US policy in Vietnam look brilliant and well reasoned by comparison.

>Denied opportunities
They were Catholics.
Need I explain?

The scots have been sodomized by the English for so long that they've actually started to like it.

Not to mention a lot of the planted population in Northern Ireland were Scots.

Did I mention, fuck Scots.

You have no idea how evil Catholics are, and have been, for a thousand years.

Holocaust level evil. Literally.

>1k criminals happen to be Catholics
Causation does not equal correlation you fool
They may have still been loyal subject of the crown

Does this make you happy?

Like, when you were 15, and you were imagining what your life would be like in the future, is this how you pictured it would go?

>were 15
Are you sure about that.jpg?

Except it was the Crown of England that imposed Roman Catholicism on the Irish. Before Strongbow and the other Normans, the Irish practiced their own variant of Christianity that was aloof of Rome. Henry II got papal approval to bring the Irish to the "true church"; and the process was not tidy or peaceful. So the English government has no one but itself to blame for turning Ireland Catholic.

We'll I hadn't heard of Veeky Forums back then, and I didn't think I would become as politically active as I am, but my biochemistry degree is really fun

That supposes that Ireland was once a contiguous state and that Northern Ireland belongs to the Irish people as a whole, but Ireland never existed as a unified state. The modern state of Ireland has no more claim to the Six Counties than the Norwegians have claim to the Orkneys. Furthermore, if we are to abide by the principle of self-determination, the people of Northern Ireland don't want to become part of Eire. If we don't give freedom to actual popular separatists movements like the Catalans or the Corsicans, why would we give away Northern Ireland to Eire?

This is going to sound odd, but what's the best read for The Troubles.

I'm from Northern Ireland, I grew up through The Troubles so I know the events etc., but I'm curious on the academic analysis of it, something I've never really seen too much of

>shit and wrong viewpoints

THE TROUBLES:

>NI is autistic about catholics because them not being the majority population is the only thing making the non country that is NI justifiable to exist
>Autism increases to active oppression
>Paisley forms groups designed to bully the irish
>Loyalists set off bombs and blame the IRA so they can get their preferred flavour of Unionism into govt
>Several attacks carried out by loyalists, all on civilians
>Civil Rights march is violently stopped
>University students protest against this
>They are violently stopped
>Some old faggot is beaten to death by the RUC for being part of a crowd throwing stones at an orange hall
>General RUC brutality continues
>IRA decide to actually do something
>Brits are called to tell bogshits to cool it
>Brits decide to actively help the RUC and the loyalist paramilitaries attack civilians
>Brits also infiltrate the shit out of the IRA
>Several years of nigger-tier revenge attacks, although Loyalists)Brits kill more civilians than the IRA
>Good Friday Agreement
>IRA faggots smug as shit as they're all released
>Loyalists dindu nuffin SF are terrorists
>"Well, that was fucking humiliating for everyone involved"

Troubles has no good guys. You are right about loyalists falsely assuming moral superiority because they were as bad as if not worse than the fenians.

Simply put, though, Ulster is full of apes and undeserving of actual British blood being spilled so they can all fuck off.

Pro-British = Unionists
You're pretty much right in that all sides came out badly, and all are frowned upon these days apart from in the chavvy areas. The IRA get the worst of it for some reason, I don't really know why. The only conclusive thing that can be said is mistakes were made on all fronts. The IRA shouldnt have started shooting, the unionist paramilitaries shouldnt have incited that violence and the British Army basically did just about everything wrong (shooting civilians, aiding the UDA and UVF).

People who were not Catholics, and hated Catholics, forced other people to be Catholics.

Learn history from non-Jesuit sources before your head literally explodes.

Because they were fucking terrorists, killing soft targets for political gain.

Educate yourself

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster

The was a deliberate policy of ethnic displacement. Who were the people being displaced? The Irish, by the Ulster Scots. Two very distinct groups - and we both know who are the natives.

But so were Unionists. They did it first, too. They comitted a firebombing and shot several people before the IRA even started.

Ok, so you think the Ulster-Scots being planted means you can just drive them out or ignore them now, 400 years down the line?

I know about the Plantation of Ulster. But legally, it was an act of a sovereign government on their own undisputed territory on their own citizens. This is like telling Americans to return Cherokee lands. How many Americans who live on former Cherokee territory today do you think want to become part of an Injun nation?

Not him but there is an argument that seeing as the ROI is no longer the super catholic state and protestantism isn't "in danger" the reason NI exists-founded deeply in that idea-no longer applies.

Besides none of them are actually religious, weirdly it's more of a culture to be catholic or protestant than actually religious.

IRA sympathiser.

>>Several years of nigger-tier revenge attacks, although Loyalists)Brits kill more civilians than the IRA

Nah.

You're right about the culture of religion aspect. But here in Northern Ireland there remains a majority of Unionists. To displace them from the United Kingdom, their country, despite them living there for 400 years is unjustifiable to me. You can say what you want about planters, but the Ulster Scots people after 400 years have a right to be here.

Except the Catholic Church is still a huge political and social force in Ireland. They control the schools, the press, and have a great political sway. For fucks sake, they effectively had divorce banned in 1924 with the help that Iberian bastard De Valera. They actively covered up the rampant sexual abuse in the Irish school system. They run many of the hospitals and they refuse to provide certain medical procedures on ideological or religious grounds.

>facts make me angry

The British Army were good guys trying to deal with chimpanzee-tier situation.

Proddies were trying to save themselves from Catholic domination.

Loyalists were scummy.

Provisional IRA was scummy.

Provo's now pretend that they were a civil rights resistance group, despite accepting a deal that was available at the start of the troubles.

>despite accepting a deal that was available at the start of the troubles
>implying the IRA didn't accept Sunningdale
>implying it wasn't the unionists who rejected it

>Literally saucing the Wesley Johnston 1999 website

Son. Just stop.

Also

>'Civilian'

Care to provide figures which suggest otherwise?

>MY DADDY TOLD ME CELTIC WERE TERRORISTS, LOYALIST DINDU NUFFIN

They were as bad as each other you blithering retard.

cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html

Is this not a good site?

but in the last say 25 years that has declined so much, the place is a liberal hole now

>They were as bad as each other you blithering retard.

Loyalists and Nationalists? Absolutely, IRA sympathiser.

Still nothing?

You know that your attitude-parroting "MUH TERRORISTS" at every mention of republicans-is what got the DUP absolutely cucked at that election?

You should be responding with sound arguments backed up by facts.
Except the facts debunk all arguments which place loyalists in favour.

Liberal to who? To you?
It's still miles more religious than most Western nations, even France and Austria, the other two great Catholic powers. It controls vital civil infrastructure and functions to a degree that most secularists would find intolerable. From cradle to grave, every Irish is in the grasp of the long arm of the Church.

>You should be responding with sound arguments backed up by facts.

What sound argument have you made backed up by logic and facts?

>Except the facts debunk all arguments which place loyalists in favour.

I haven't made ANY arguments favouring loyalists?

You are legitimately a retard.

>this graph shows that you are wrong
>LOL fake facts
>anything to back up that claim?
>you're a retard

Okay pal.

Welcome to every thread about Northern Ireland.

It's like Ukraine except you have chavs shitting up the thread instead of vatniks.

>the Ulster Scots people after 400 years have a right to be here
What about the rights of the people who've been thrown out of their land and their descendants? Of course, they have no rights do they.

>and their descendants
>they have no rights

Yes.

Being the descendant of somebody who got screwed entitles you to absolutely nothing.

Hey, this sounds an awful like the argument the Jews used to seize Palestine.
The point is, WHO THE FUCK CARES. If it's not in living memory, then the land belongs to whoever lives there now.
Fucking wannabe 1/64th Irish Americans and their scotch-addled brains want to make some political stand and yet know fucking nothing about the old country

>Brits killed more civilians than IRA
>Here's a graph that doesn't show this
>By the way the term 'civilian' is ambiguous
>Also, we use the term civilian so that you don't notice the sheer amount of security force members IRA brutally murdered

IRA sympathisers are literally plebs.

>Being the descendant of somebody who got screwed entitles you to absolutely nothing
In that case, since the ancestors of the Ulster Scots had no right to live in Ireland, then neither do their descendants.

Bring back a form of heptarchy, to destroy English preponderance. Unite Ireland (they've always got along well enough in the egg-chasing) and instigate a federal Council of the Isles.

We're all pasty, freckly, tea drinking cunts anyway.

Nice goalpost moving.

>you're graph isn't real
>it is, you stupid faggot
>well, it is, but it doesn't mean what you say it means

>the land belongs to whoever lives there now
That sounds great, let me know your address - I'll simply force you out of your house and live there. Then your house will belong to me - sounds wonderful!

Yeah? I guess you have no right to live in your house because that land used to belong to some other schmuck 400 years ago. Quit your bitching and build an economy that revolves around more than being a tax haven for American corporations.

>since the ancestors of the Ulster Scots had no right to live in Ireland, then neither do their descendants

Acktually, if every living member of your family was born in a country, and you've lived there your entire life, you have every right to live there.

People are responsible for crimes they commit, they aren't responsible for crimes their ancestors did.

>People are responsible for crimes they commit, they aren't responsible for crimes their ancestors did
If they're still enjoying the fruits of their ancestors criminal activities then they sure as hell are responsible.

Come and take it, Padraig.

I hope you realize, I think the IRA were the good guys.

But this is stupid logic.

>you know these people who have been living their lives peacefully and not hurting anyone?
>they're evil
>because history and shit

It's still influential though, i mean i can't think of a reason something like abortion is illegal otherwise, there's nothing wrong with that but ireland is still pretty clearly conservative, although that might be a position of ignorance, i'm a second generation irish immigrant living in the south east of england so i dunno.

Good post, great job.

I said loyalists and brits, not just "brits."
As for the "well who was REALLY a civilian" thing, that can be applied to both sides as a """civilian""" loyalist could be driving around UDA members and a """civilian""" republican could own a pub used by the IRA.

The idea of loyalists and brits being more trigger happy against civilians is a combination of the stats and the chronological listing of all attacks.

If i punch a dude in the face and steal his beer and give my kids the beer as inheritance and then my neighbours kid says that the beer belonged to his dad then i would think it'd be ethical for my children to give back the beer, ethical living supported by things gotten through unethical means isn't ethical.

Everybody is descended from thieves if you go back far enough.

By this logic we have to give the land back to the Indians.

[no spoilers on Veeky Forums] They can't have it [/no spoilers on Veeky Forums]

That's the aristocracy fucked, then. Class war and world land redistribution imminent.

I want a bigger allotment, fuckers.

Except this is real life and most people would rather life goes on as usual instead of some wanker using a century old grievance to blow up my favorite pub.

>all these retarded metaphors and analogies for the plantation/protestants in Ireland

Fucking stop

>this is [ideological construction]
>people like this [ideological construction]
>therefore, this [ideological construction] is good

Just because something is fait accompli, doesn't make it right.

>I said loyalists and brits, not just "brits."

And there's a reason wht you do that, sympathiser.

I think four hundred years qualifies as a reasonable statute of limitations, Seamus. Be sensible.

Got it, all it takes is time to magically turn a wrong into right.

>guy a kills 1 civilian
>guy b kills 1 civilian and 9 soldiers
>guy a is more evil because statistically he killed more civilians

This is what people who post this graph actually believe.

Two hundred years ago, Italy and Germany weren't even countries. Japan was still ruled by a hereditary feudal class.
Three hundred years ago, most of the United States was frontier, inhabited by mestizos and natives.
Four hundred years ago, the United Kingdom didn't exist yet and the crown of the Scotland and England were in a personal union.

Circumstances change. History happens. Definitions evolve, change, and are discarded. Perspectives are born and developed. There is no right or wrong, and appealing to history is worse than useless if you want to determine who is right or wrong. Just take the L and get over it. Name your 17th century paternal ancestor. I bet you can't.

>republicans killed the most republicans
What?

Turns out violent quasi-gangster terrorists don't always agree with each other.

Sophism at it''s finest.

>Two hundred years ago, Italy and Germany weren't even countries. Japan was still ruled by a hereditary feudal class.Three hundred years ago, most of the United States was frontier, inhabited by mestizos and natives.Four hundred years ago, the United Kingdom didn't exist yet and the crown of the Scotland and England were in a personal union.
So what - irrelevant.

>Circumstances change. History happens. Definitions evolve, change, and are discarded. Perspectives are born and developed.
You're saying absolutely nothing here.

>There is no right or wrong
I'm sure you'd consider me murdering your family wrong.

>appealing to history is worse than useless if you want to determine who is right or wrong
Every event that happens becomes part of history, the only way to determine right and wrong is to look into history.

>Name your 17th century paternal ancestor. I bet you can't.
You seem to think I'm Irish, I'm not - I just have a great deal of sympathy for them.

When Republicans kill more Republicans than the loyalists but the loyalists kill more Loyalists than the republicans

>This is what people who post this graph actually believe.

It's also really easy to kill lone soldiers. They are sitting targets, particularly if they're on their own.

It's hard to kill people who are part of a guerilla terrorist organisation. It's hard having to engage in urban environments with terrorists who are often indistinguishable from civilians.

Also, for a supposed 'murdering band of savages', the British Army managed to arrest a lot of republicans rather than just kill them in the street.

Yesh, but it was 1971 at the time, not 1690

There is no moral right or wrong. If you murdered my family, there is no objective right or wrong to look at it. You simply killed them. Whether it is considered right or wrong is to be determined in the context of culture and societal norms, both of which are always in flux, changing. Might is what makes right.

My examples are far from irrelevant. You think it was right for Parliament to declare a union of the crowns? Divine right which legally gave kings their power was discarded. The samurai were disenfranchised. The Northern German Confederation was subsumed by the will of Prussia, despite having longstanding independence. Piedmont, Tuscany, Venetia, Sicily, Naples were all their own independent states. Whose legal traditions survive today?

It's fine to have sympathy but don't try to pull some flimsy justification, a grievance that's so far in the past it might as well have been a fucking movie.

>There is no moral right or wrong. If you murdered my family, there is no objective right or wrong to look at it. You simply killed them.
Seriously....there's simply no point discussing anything with you at this point.

If we can't reach an understanding at this level, your own family - then we will never have a chance looking at the bigger picture.

Because you keep looking at history like its the history of individuals, rather than human societies. Nations are like organisms that follow natural law and follow paths of least resistance. They should not to be judged by subjective and ever changing, nebulous concepts like "justice'. For example, what the hell is a war crime or a crime against humanity? Human history is filled with them, yet they somehow became a crime in the aftermath of World War 2.

Yes, that being that they were on the same side.

Although the graph does show that loyalists-non brits-killed more civilians than republicans did.

Can you not read graphs?

You're making a fatal mistake.

You're assuming intrinsic morality.

>war crimes can't be rigidly and universally defined in terms of intrinsic moral character

correct

>we shouldn't hang war criminals

wrong

Because there is no intrinsic morality, there is no reason not to.

Because there is extrinsic morality, we have reasons to do so.

Just because there is no universal truth doesn't mean we shouldn't search for a truth that applies to ourselves.

Are you a retard?
To the IRA, the soldiers were hostiles in a combat situation. They were literally enemy soldiers. Of fucking course they killed them.

>Team A is fighting the british army, the RUC and paramilitary forces
>Team B is fighting a paramilitary force

>TEAM A IS OBVIOUSLY MORE EVIL BECAUSE THEY KILLED MORE!!!

Killing snitches and some splinters and feuds.

Republicans are better at killing republicans than loyalists are, kek

>great deal of sympathy for the Irish but not Irish
The duck are you then, if you're going to look back on nobler times then think of the British fighting the zulus, and yes Ireland is British
>you must kill lone soldiers
>if we handcuffed him and then put him in an Irish prison and kept him clean and well fed we would be bad guys
Can we have some other sources, as at this point it feels like basing all of pre Roman history on herodutus, which is a good read but laughably false in some parts

>killing enemy combatants in a war is brutal murder
>this is what anglos unironically believe

>These threads often devolve into people definitely stating things with and reducing everyone else's opinions to nothing for no reason
There probably won't be civilised discussions about this topic for a long time unforunately, Anglos are still really buttblasted about the IRA for whatever reason to the point that even mentioning Ireland on completely unrelated threads is sometimes enough to trigger them.

>holding families whose homes have been confiscated in camps which have lower death rates than London is evil
>this is what non-Anglos unironically believe
>Anglos are still buttblasted
>it's only the fault of the British, not ours at all
Just a reminder you would have got your independence legally if not for Germany, and a traitor getting shot because being a cripple somehow makes a difference

That's an interesting graph but it's next to useless without the data source included tbqh

Honestly, I think Thatcher didn't help.
Deciding to treat the Irish not as military but as criminal forces only further distanced them from military codes of conduct.
US will always support a united Ireland.
Because the Diaspora is try-hard.

What I posted had nothing to do with how paramilitaries viewed soldiers. I was pointing our how ridiculous it is to claim the British killed "more" civilian's when numerically they killed the least.

Hence

Guy a kills 1 civilian. Total dead = 1. Civilian casualties = 100%.
Guy b kills 3 civilians and 7 soldiers. Total dead = 10. Civilian casualties = 30%.

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to claim guy a is worse than b, using this criteria?

>england wasn't catholic during the 12th century

Why are you so fucking stupid?

>anglos

It's not anglos, it's ulster subhumans. NI is nothing more than a tax sinkhole and people living there aren't actually british no matter how much they delude themselves. Given that they are the ones most reliant on EU funding I hope they all starve to death when brexit finally happens.

>treating paramilitary groups without their own state are criminals not soldiers
Ya don't say

cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html

This was the source.

Wikipedia seemed to think it was legit. What are you gonna do.

Any other sources?
I mean despite the mountains of evidence we have for the Holocaust we still have three distinct views