Was the IRA defeated 'militarily'?

I certainly didn't think they'd been defeated militarily. But, then, they weren't an army, they were a terrorist group. On a battlefield you know who the enemy is: they don't hide inside normal everyday street clothes while parking vans loaded with fertiliser.

(Will, on another issue, you may want to flag THIS for special interest of the PMS folks; some practical action being taken to help.)

Fairly obviously, they weren't defeated militarily...in that they remained entirely capable of launching devastating attacks, but decided of their own free will not to.

Surely a military defeat would have entailed a complete dismantling of their capability.

By the by, I don't think the semantics of "terrorism" and "war" have any real relevance to this issue.

Whatever they were, were they defeated militarily.

I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that they weren't.

I think Paddy Pantsdown is fairly close to being right. By all accounts the IRA had been well infiltrated. You know the way they always like to think that they drove the British to negotiate by violence - well it worked both ways. They were going no where.

Bernard
I'm not sure that the IRA was capable of launching devastating attacks. Intelligence services do seem to have thoroughly infiltrated the IRA. The last attempt to hit a big target (army headquarters at Lisburn) wasn't a success, although it was a close run thing.
And electronic surveillance etc. would have made a large-scale campaign unthinkable. But I'm sure low level assassinations could have continued indefinitley.
An important question, given the war on terror, is what legal and moral compromises were made to achieve this level of success against a terrorist organisation? How much control did government have over intelligence services in such a conflict?
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is needed, but unless the current generation of Political leaders (Robinson, McGuiness et al.who caused the mess) step down, such a venture will remain wishful thinking.

G Veale

I am interested in Graham's comment on the moral compromises made by the state - in my opinion they were many and grievous, morally obnoxious and criminal. I do not, however, want to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I think we should put the past behind us, pardon all involved whether agents of the state or paramilitary combatants, abandon all enquiries, and relegate the subject from the school curriculum for at least 100 years.

I know this would be difficult for many who have lost those they loved in the conflict (a loss I have borne myself) but for the sake of the future and generations to come we have to let go of the past, accept change, and move on.

It won't happen, it's wishful thinking, but it the idea needs to be aired more often.

I think, if Ashdown is any way correct, the defeat so inflicted was by means equally as ignoble as those employed by the paramilitaries. We cannot overlook the role played by loyalist paramilitaries in weakening the resolve of the republican community to resist compromise. A vicious and sustained (state-sponsored, if the accusations of collusion are correct) campaign against Catholic civilians undoubtedly played a part in the mood shift which enabled acceptance of a largely internal settlement.

Totally a footnote, but whatever about Ashdown, Daniel O'Connell was my several greats uncle. I never heard anyone in the family mention Paddy as a relation - if they knew I can only hope they were embarrassed!

There are a lot of distinctions between terrorists organizations and paramilitary groups. I'd define the IRA as a vigilante paramilitary group. Most of the civilians intentionally killed had incurred some sort of reaction against them by nationalist forces. In many cases, civilians were off duty UDR members. For example, Francis Hughes was beaten as a child by UDR members when they discovered he was a Republican. (Beresford, David (1987). Ten Men Dead. Atlantic Monthly Press, pp. 113–114. ISBN 0-87113-702-X.), (Dillon, Martin (2003). The Trigger Men. Mainstream Publishing, p. 122. ISBN 0-87113-702-X.) He later took his vengeance on the guards when he signed on with the PIRA.

Things like this get blown out of proportion by loyalist news networks. Also, he was urged by his father to pursue the matter in court, but didn't because the courts were extremely partisan at the time and justice would not have been served. In simple terms, the Republican forces felt they could only receive justice if they took it into their own hands.

I believe it is a mistake for the IRA to consider associating with actual terrorist groups like Hamas because it encourages the fallacy that they themselves are one.

What I don't understand is why Great Britain left all of India alone to govern itself and didn't feel the need to station troops there but they won't extend the same courtesy to Northern Ireland. The land is Irish. It doesn't matter that British Imperialism caused a majority of Loyalist people to be planted there, it's not their nation and they shouldn't have the right to protest the reunion of the final 6 counties to the Republic.

Those close to the "victims" should do a little research about what their esteemed family members were doing at night when they were supposedly "guarding everybody from terrorists." Of course, that's unlikely because as Andrew Hansen of the Chaser's says: "Even tools turn into top blokes after death."

meluckycharms seems to be living in the deep past. NI is as British as the rest of the UK, as much as Arizona is as American as the rest of the US. Perhaps you'd like to return England to the Normans, or even the Romans?

MeLuckyCharms,
I've never read a post on Will and Testament that actually scared me, so this is a first.

In reply:

1) The IRA was not accountable, even in principle, to any law. If you reply that British Security forces were not accountable either, I would agree that *at times* it was not. Members of the RUC have expressed frustration and outrage at the behaviour of intelligence services. I would argue that it is in the interests of democracy to know when, how and why the control of law broke down. More urgently, which ministers turned a blind eye - and on what occasions were elements of the Security forces not even under *political* control?
But Security Services were practically controlled by law at least some of the time. The IRA was never under such control. As a law unto itself it was inherently dangerous.
2) The IRA had political goals, which moves it beyond vigilanteism.
3) It's definition of "Irishness" made it inherently sectarian. It did not uphold "justice" for both sections of the community, merely it's own - so it was not a vigilante organisation.
4) John is entirely correct to ask you to stop living in the past. The RUC was not the same sort of organisation in 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's or 1990's. To shoot an off-duty RUC officer in the 90's to avenge what happened on Burntollet Bridge or the Bogside in the 1960's is pure insanity. It's violence for the sake of violence. As I think you know.
5) I have known community police officers who had their legs blown off, and a dog handler who had his face blown off. But presumably they "deserved" this. It's worth reflecting on your argument - they were not legitimate targets in a military campaign, which like all wars has it's heros, it's villains, and like all wars is inevitably tragic. You're saying that they *deserved* to be shot as they were evil. And tools.
Yet the IRA itself would describe these men as "combatants" (I strongly disagree with them, but nevertheless you've actually made a terrorist organisation sound reasonable in comparison to your rant)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2132102.stm

You have got to know that you have completely lost the plot.
6) You conveniently ignore all evidence of the IRA's criminality. Lower fuel prices must be a bummer right now.
7) Picking out names at random - Jean McConville, Kevin McKee, Edward Bonner, Arhur McKenna, James Young, James Campbell, Brian McNally, Violet Mackin (who was *married* to a prison officer), Michael Kearney, Patrick O'Hanlon, Brendan McGraw, John McClory, Daniel MacErlean, Maurice Gilvarry, Patrick Trainor, Vincent Robinson, James Green (who had *left* the British Army), and William Martin all deserved capital punishment? On what evidence? Who was at the trial? Or did they just need to "incur a reaction" (whatever that means)?
8) Drinking in a pub in Birmingham is a capital offence? Shopping in Manchester? What sort of vigilantes are we talking about here?
9) Lest we get into "whataboutery" I would like to see British Ministers stand trial for Bloody Sunday (they sent an assault force into a civilian area) and Protestant Paramilitaries were little more than drug dealers and serial killers.
10) But I'm a Protestant and, after a period of reflection, I believe a United Ireland would be the best way forward for this Island. I admire the Irish Constitution. Statements like Post 6 present one of the greatest obstacles to Irish Unity.

Graham Martin Veale
Armagh

It's obvious you've all been spoon-fed alternate reality of what happened by the British government. Great Britain has been every bit as bad as the Nazis, the only difference is that textbook authors graduate from Cambridge and Oxford rather than Hamburg and Munich. History is written by the winners.

Also, the only reason the six northern counties are British in any scope is because of the unwanted invasion and plantation of British civilians when Ireland was pacified from the non-existent threat that England used to invade in the first place.

If by political goals, you mean the retraction of a brutal and despicable military occupation of land that the British government has no claim to, then I suppose you are right. Also, the vigilantism was necessary to protect the Republican citizens from the biased officials that the Loyalist majority elected. Justice is immutable. It defies the context of law and exists on a continuum. Right is right, wrong is wrong. If you murdered a man in the United States or beat a child, you would still be accountable for it 30 years later.

Also, the link offered above only shows that the civilians harmed were collateral damage. The IRA didn't seek out women and children and shoot them. That was the UDA's job.

Making the IRA the "bad guys" is the only way the British government has ever been able to justify staying in Northern Ireland, and the truth is that they were there long before the violence was. If people knew more about the IRA, then the British government would be powerless to maintain the delicately structured lie any longer.

"Great Britain has been every bit as bad as the Nazis..."

You just lost all credibility with that statement.

And you are the judge of credibility? Let me wrap this up so that even somebody such as yourself can understand.

The Nazis killed roughly 12 million people on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and sexual orientation.

Great Britain invaded Ireland on the basis of religion because they saw them "as a threat" and continued to enslave the population to work for British overseers in a fashion mirroring slavery in the Americas.

Great Britain took over India on the basis of race and harvested all the natural resources they could manage while treating the people as slaves and second class citizens.

Britain savaged the Native population of the Americas on the basis of race and only left Natives to themselves once they had Africans to do their bidding.

Ironically, America is probably the only place where the "colonists" were treated fairly by the government, and they were the ones that staged the most successful rebellion.

The racism implicit in England is much worse than that of the Nazis. It is just sinisterly less noticeable than Nazism because the Holocaust of England took place over centuries before the press was able to widely publicize such atrocities. Instead of "Heil Hitler" we hear "Long live the Queen(King)" or instead of "Sieg Heil" we hear "Rule Britannia."

I don't know the death toll that Great Britain is responsible for. I couldn't find the information, which is why they are able to paint roses over their stories of conquest and subjugation.

What meluckycharms displays more than anything else is simple ignorance - I have never before been so embarrassed for a poster when reading a post.

Perhaps though one can excuse such lack of knowledge as I doubt much Irish history is taught to those of the Native American races (as I must imagine you to be). I would have to assume that no descendant of the rapacious settlers who violently and deceitfully deprived the indigenous tribes of their homeland would have the temerity to make such remarks.

The biggest shame is that Native Americans are not still fighting like Irish Republicans.

I am not a Native American, but a resident American and the product of all of the censorship and lies inherent in British history. I come from a family of Irish expatriates, but unlike most Irish Americans, I took the time to put research into my heritage. I started off hating the IRA and apologizing for their actions, but every time I did research to argue against them, I couldn't find anything that would label them as terrorists. After searching time and time again and finding only cryptic condemnations where the facts didn't quite add up, I decided that I was being lied to.

For example, did all of you know that they teach the Potatoe Famine in American schools quite fallaciously? They purport that the Irish were all starving due to the famine and lack of food. That's the simple explanation, but it is much deeper. Ireland had taken famines in its stride before without the extreme losses of civilians as either deaths or expatriates. The difference was that they never survived a famine before where their brutal overlords and plantation owners taxed an exceedingly heavy portion of what they did harvest. In American schools, we get to learn how those silly, drunk Irish people were hungry for a bit as opposed from being starved by their masters.

It seems like the best those arguing against me can do is call me an embarrassment and a bad person while telling me I'm wrong. I challenge you to use statistics to prove me wrong.

One of the major attacks against them was that they harmed civilians. The civilians intentionally harmed had committed crimes and escaped prosecution. The ones unintentionally harmed were harmed legally under international law. The IRA declared the areas they attacked to be warzones under accordance with the law and warned civilians to get out. This is where the British government comes in. In contempt for the IRA military, they ignored the warning and told the people not to take it seriously. Surprise surprise. They were serious.

American and British planes eradicated Dresden leaving military hardpoints relatively untouched right before the surrender in WWII. The civilians died. They dropped 2,660 tons of explosives on areas with nothing but civilians in it as compared to the bombing runs on military targets where the largest amount dropped sits about 1,000 tons under that. Killing civilians was their intent.

In another example, if you consider the bombings of Baghdad by Allied forces. We have been bombing Iraq every month since the Gulf War. We have amassed a death toll estimated as high as 1,000,000 civilians since 2003. I do not debate that the bombings were legal and moral. We declared Iraq a warzone and proceeded to bomb it as such.

It is the intentional killing of civilians that makes you a terrorist or worse. If it were the killing of civilians under any circumstance, then I'm afraid we would all be terrorists.

"The civilians intentionally harmed had committed crimes and escaped prosecution." Like Jean McConville?

"The ones unintentionally harmed were harmed legally under international law. The IRA declared the areas they attacked to be warzones under accordance with the law and warned civilians to get out."

Bloody hell! Are you a Wind-Up Merchant or have you just been hit by the stupid stick?

Surely you mean hit with the "stupid baseball bat", many times, over and over again.

meluckycharms-

This would be a good time to stop embarrassing yourself. It was people like you that paid for the terrorist guns going into Northern Ireland and, through sheer ignorance, unwittingly helped to create the problem.

See, this is what I'm getting at. While you guys are pretty good at saying "You're an idiot." "You're a terrible person." and "You're totally wrong," nobody offers any proof counter to what I suggest.

Also, most sources on Jean McConville tend to focus on how it was an atrocity that she was killed, not that she wasn't an informant which was the case. Informants, whether they were men or women were executed by any nation. Lincoln had a woman killed during the American Civil War because she was an informant.

Nothing the IRA did was without precedent from your own government. To call one group on it and not the other is simply racist.

And as for the terrorist accusation, we've been through this. If civilian casualties denotes terrorism, your government are terrorists. It is the use of civilian casualties to cause fear for a goal that denotes terrorism. This in fact would suggest that the UDA were a terrorist organization. They beat Republican children, and searched houses at gunpoint as late as the 90's. I would know because one of my best friends had a gun pointed up his nose at the age of 4 when a UDA task force was going door to door. They almost exclusively used fear to keep the Irish population in check.

And as for the suspicion that I've been assaulted with a piece of lumber, I can assure you that my faculties appear to be in better working order than yours due to the fact that none of you have brought any form of relevant and significant argument against my case. I'm burying you in statistics and cases proving that you're wrong and you still refuse to listen and resort to name calling. Pathetic.

Jean McConvilles "crime" was giving comfort to a dying human being.

Still not sure if you are a WUM or fell off the top of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. Your remarks are obviously stupid-they don't deserve a response-even if anyone attempted it would be useless as you seem to be a too far gone bigot.

You are twisting facts. Her family who were not in fact reliable witnesses (by your own government's failure to include them in the case) were the only ones to claim that was the source of her aid. Investigations conclude that she was an informant. Deaths of good men and the grief of their families are on her head.

Every insult delivers to me the certainty that none of you know the slightest what you are talking about. Your denial of a reasonable response to the truth I present is tantamount to your denial of my right to proclaim them. You only believe in free speech when you allow those whom you direly disagree with to speak.

Also, none of you have managed to summon anything to counter my claims that the IRA did exactly what Great Britain or the United States did under wartime circumstances. Your denial of the Irish people's right to pursue those courses of action while the British and Americans can is racist. It is you who are the bigots. A nation is a nation, no matter how small or if they have a larger nation shoving a gun barrel down their throat. They have the right to act as other nations do.

meluckycharms-

Let me try to help you. Few people would try to argue that the British government did nothing wrong in Ireland (or anywhere else). But you strain credibility by comparing Britain to the Nazis and claiming the IRA were not engaged in terrorist activities and suggesting that NI is not British. Perhaps Arizona should be fighting for independence too, in 2008? Or to return to Mexico? I doubt most Arizonans would agree, because despite the history of how nations came to be, Arizona is American in 2008, and Northern Ireland is similarly British. Unless you want to talk to me about the Vikings, Greeks and Romans, please don't talk about historical events as though they happened last week.

Meluckycharms

Did the USA or UK or even Germany get annoyed that their opponents might actually shoot to kill them?

Arizona is a terrible example because it's not ethnically divided. Northern Ireland is. Also, Arizona wasn't invaded by America and later planted with a foreign population in hopes of pacifying it. The Republicans in Ireland who have made their ancestral homes there for centuries want to rejoin with their hereditary country. British citizens who were sent to build a strong non-Irish population do not, but I don't think they should have a say in the matter.

My credibility is hardly under strain in comparison to any of yours. I've put plenty of statistical evidence behind my assertions, and all you can do is throw circumstantial bs at me? Open a book or two. Read the results of studies and surveys. Numbers are about the only thing the government can't lie about. By your country's and my country's definition of a terrorist, the IRA are not terrorists. They don't seek civilian casualties. Civilian casualties happen as collateral damage, and both the US and the UK have certainly had a fair share of that.

If we are terrorists, you are terrorists and there's very little point in you lecturing me because you are in fact a terrorist and nobody should listen to terrorists.

Ah, I enjoy these wonderful attempts to censor me. This is the second time that a post of mine has been referred, has it not? I do believe I'm arguing against a pack of fascists.

Free speech for all.....except those with dissenting opinions. Even worse, those with dissenting opinions who can support them with evidence.

I must admit, I'm of the opinion that censored things have a great deal more truth in them than that which is purveyed and extolled as the cornerstones of society.

lucky

I thought you said you had done your research. You say Northern Ireland is ethnically divided. What do you think, should we send back across the water people like Gerry Adams, Barbara Brown, John Stephenson (Gaelicising your planter name doesn't make you ethnically Irish)?

I, however, am ethnically Irish, very much so. If you look back to post #5 (before you joined this thread) you will see that I am the great++ nephew of Daniel O'Connell (the Liberator), I am related to one of the gaelic clan chieftains of Ireland, my great++ grandfather participated in the massacre of Protestants in 1641 (I have read his deposition relating thereto in the library of TCD). I think its pretty obvious I am ethnically Irish and I want to see a United Ireland but I can honestly say I have never read such unmitigated rot in my entire life as I read in your posts. The IRA was an evil misguided terrorist organisation whose actions needless cost hundreds of lives set back the cause of Irish unity by decades.

You take political correctness to the extreme. The IRA is what every legitimate nation today is. Until you denounce your own governments, your unsupported condemnations of the IRA are hollow. The government sought to demonize them by calling them terrorists.

I don't care about your clan and your credentials. If you can't see with the evidence in your face that the IRA acted as the US and the UK would have and has been called into question for it, you are blind. They did what any Military organization would have done. The racist government looked for an out and found one in accusing the IRA of terrorism and hoping nobody would compare their actions to that of the supposed "terrorists."

If none of you are going to combat my logic that the IRA waged war in a manner which mirrored the UK and US in various different theatres and engagements, then I'm afraid your ignorance has confined you.

Sorry lucky

I have no difficulty denouncing the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima as war crimes - just as I would love to see Bush and Blair tried at the Hague for their illegal and immoral war in Iraq. YOUR government hasn't signed up to the ICC though, has it?

I am a pacifist, I have said so often on this blog before. All war is always in all circumstances evil.

By the way - you didn't answer my question. What military organisation complains when its opponents use military tactics against it and shoot to kill? What sort of soldier says I can shoot to kill you and or blow you up and devil take any innocent civilians who get in the way (acceptable collateral damage) but don't you try to kill us? Doesn't sound very military to me...

The war in Iraq is hardly illegal. Hussein broke some 21 UN resolutions. We followed up on it, the UN chose not to. If I'm not mistaken, your nation also joined the war in Iraq, and you had a lovely little episode with a squad of British soldiers beating Iraqi teenagers while a British news team cheered them on.

As for war, how can you define war? When Cain and Abel fought, the World was at war. When two people fight, there is war. If one person fights, it is a slaughter. Should then two people not fight and make it war? War is a means to solve injustice, and Northern Ireland is dealt a terrible injustice every day they are forced to remain separate from their ancestral nation.

People have gone to war over much less. The founders of the nation I live in went to war because the wealthy merchants and plantation owners saw it as financially beneficial to be separate from England and managed to sell it to the public as an intrusion against their personal liberties.

I do have something positive to say about the British occupation and reign of terror over Ireland. If they didn't make us learn English and abandon Gaelic, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to surpass the British in every field of literature.

I didn't understand your question as you penned it. The IRA were fighting a war against not only the British government, but also corrupt terrorist organizations such as the UDA which are on record as having beaten children and used fear as tactic to maintain order. The UDA struck the IRA where armies don't: on the home front. It's quite permissible to complain if you are killed because a terrorist organization broke civil liberties to kill you and stood completely justified in the eyes of the government.

Lucky you're not paying attention! I said I wanted to see Blair in the Hague as well as Bush. Also what on earth makes you think from anything I have said that I consider Britain as my nation? If you can't read a simple post maybe you should question your take on some of the supposed history and statistics you've read.

But, let's make it simple, I'll concede your point if you show me, complete with independent documentary proof of origin, a statement from the IRA which says:

We are soldiers fighting a war, we accept that you are going to try to kill us just as opposing armies have always sought to kill each other. We accept that we will inflict collateral damage and we accept that you will do so too in your operations against us. That's war, you don't complain about it and neither will we.

You show me that instead of a stream of demands for enquiries, claims of shoot to kill policies, condemnation of Army activity and I might think you have a point worth looking at.

Yeah right lucky - Gibraltar was teeming with the UDA when McCann, Savage and Farrell were shot.

The IRA were equally as callous in their mistreatment and exploitation of children as the Protestant paramilitaries. Whatever your propaganda tells you - there was no difference.

If you live in one of the 6 occupied counties, the UK is your government. Britain is your nation.

As for finding a claim that specific, I may as well tell you to get the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on record saying that he enjoys to cliff dive while drinking V8 vegetable juice for that wonderful life-preserving quality it possesses. It's a cop-out.

As for collateral damage, killing of civilians differs widely from beating children and using fear tactics. I see no similarities between the IRA and the UDA. The IRA fought a war knee-deep in blood, and they were paying for it in legal ways with the UDA being a sanctioned group and legal action against them being extremely difficult. They were forced into a war because there was no other way to work against a state-sponsored terror task-force. The IRA had no government backing other than the fact that they represented the people, which are the most pure form of government. It wasn't a fair war.

Funny you should mention Gibraltar. It was the Ulster Freedom Fighters, a branch of the UDA, that killed Danny McCann, Sean Savage and Mairead Farrell after raiding McCann's house.

I rest my case.

Your ignorance by the way is staggering! Any native of the six counties is entitled to an Irish passport and to claim Irish nationality if they so choose.

Let's see your statistics on the respective number of convictions of Loyalists and Republicans - show me how they bear out the assertions you have just made. What's your take on Neil Blaney and Charles Haughey's backing for the IRA campaign? Have you managed to blot from your consciousness the children and teenagers beaten with baseball bats and kneecapped by the provisional IRA during their campaign? Maybe you could furnish us with the statistics for that.

LOL - you would be funny if the matter weren't so serious.

I hope you realise that you are precisely the sort of American who is feted while he visits here and laughed heartily at as soon as he leaves - and that by the Republican community as much as any!

Wish I knew who was pressing the "Moan" button. Sorry I missed your response, luckycharms (do you really believe in that btw?); someone's skin is too thin and your post was referred to the mods.

Meluckycharms:

Don't let a few facts and truths get in the way of your fantasy:

1. Most of the deaths during the troubles were caused by the IRA.
2. Most of the deaths caused by the IRA were 'civilians'.
3. Most of the deaths caused by the IRA were fellow Irishmen, whether Protestant or Catholic, and not the alleged enemy, the 'British'.
4. The IRA have surrendered because their dirty, squalid war was a betrayal of the republican cause. Wolfe Tone would spin in his grave.
5. Instead of promoting Irish unity, they have cemented the Union.
6. Stop using the British as a scapegoat; it's the Irish who need to learn how to live together. Only when they have learned the lesson, will the border 'wither away'.
7. I was brought up a Presbyterian, though my ancestors probably converted from Catholicism. What am I,
Meluckycharm? I consider myself at least partly Irish and want to see a united Ireland but not one brought about by death, destruction and self-deception. Hopefully, that is over.

I assure you that I know more Irish history than you do, portwyne. I study it at my University in an unbiased forum.

As to Brian,

I would kindly ask that you support your wildly inaccurate claims with evidence (I know it's impossible since they're wildly inaccurate). I have made many claims, however I have not asked anybody to believe any of them without evidence. Also, if you're Presbyterian, chances are that your family are Scottish immigrants. Sorry about the whole not actually being Irish thing.

Also, I know I'm not being censored by the BBC, but rather by people who don't like my ideas. I don't know which would be more disquieting. I have made no attempt to censor anybody and have not ignored an argument without first disarming it.

I'm going to go right out on a limb here Lucky and take a wild stab of a guess.

I'm guessing that university isn't Harvard...

Guys, why not just ignore the troll?

-H

Lucky:

Between 1969 and 2001, 3,523 people were killed as a result of the Troubles. About 60% of the dead were killed by the IRA (2055) , 30% by loyalists and 10% by security forces. In other words, at least 90% of the deaths were caused by republican or loyalist Irish people. The IRA killed about three quarters of all Protestants killed and over 25% of all Catholics killed. And that, Lucky, is your brave Irish Freedom Fighters for you. What a sick joke!

Also, if you knew as much about Irish history as you say you do, then you would know that many Catholics converted to Protestantism for material advantage, especially in the 18th century during the Penal Laws.

Lucky:

Why did the IRA stop killing? Here's the truthful answer. They are VERY SLOW LEARNERS. If you are working for a united Ireland, you don't spend your life KILLING Irish people.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh, on logic. You say that the IRA's conduct was no different than the UK or the US governments. SO you have no grounds to complain about the UK governments behavior in Ireland. They did what they thought they had to do to. Stuff happens.
Whereas I want to hold governments accountable to a higher law.

You never read anything about the Nuremberg trials? Your defence of the IRA is EXACTLY the same defence offered by the Nazis at Nuremberg. As warped ideologies go...

RE 44
You're frightened of a good argument, aren't you Charming?

"Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one...The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason...

The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness."

"Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle."

I can keep posting that quote all day.

Graham, you say you want to hold governments accountable to a higher law. In reality, they are accountable to a "lower" law - i.e. human beings. I'm not sure, for example, that YHWH is an appropriate judge of governments, particularly given his (alleged, of course) track record with the Amalekites.

That aside, however, please carry on disemvowelling our new plastic paddy pal, but be aware that he's only a troll, and probably not worth getting worked up over. [And thanks for alerting me to this thread - NOT!! ;-)]

-H

Post 33 is hilarious. The "people" backed the IRA. North and South they had a democratic majority behind them. Which is why they had to resort to violence... because they would automatically win any election, they didn't need to participate in elections.

They could have controlled every council in the North, and dominated politics in the South. In such circumstances you don't actually need to count the votes to know you have a majority. The fact that the people were behind you meant that you could do whatever you felt necessary.

Of course this only works for Irish people. People who sold out on their Birthright, like Brian's ancestors and all their blood descendents aren't allowed to vote. That's because they wouldn't vote with the "people", the "people" being defined as those who support the IRA.

Furthermore, the fact that the English "people" supported the British Army doesn't justify their actions in Ireland, because their accents are funny.

G Veale

Helio
Actually, I meant something like the UN.
GV

Lucky
Come out, come out wherever you are!
We know you're watching, and you know we know.
GV

GV - still an open thread on theological navel gazing fyi....

OT

I'm back after doing this thing that people that have lives do....sleeping.

First of all, those are lovely statistics, but where did you get them? I have it on good authority that 7,000 people died during the war you called "the troubles", 4,000 being either Republican soldiers or Irish civilians and 1,500 being UFF terrorists with 500 more as collateral damage.

Second of all, I did not refer any posts to moderators and do not plan to. If anybody is doing it, it might either be a guest or you yourself trying to discredit me. If I were you, I'd censor your arguments too so nobody would be able to read them.

Also, the Irish that converted to Protestantism converted to Anglicanism. That was the Protestant denomination that offered bonuses to members. Presbyterian probably means that your ancestors were the Scottish people hired by the British government to go live in Ireland.

As to post 45, the British government intentionally sponsored terrorist factions such as the UDA to brutalize the Irish population. The IRA went away as of 2005, but the UFF was still around until 2007. If the UFF was solely to combat the IRA, then they would have dropped all activities when the IRA did, wouldn't they? The British government always tries to justify its war crimes in Ireland by saying that they were necessary, but it was they who struck first and preemptively.

Comparing me to a Nazi is laughable. I'm not advocating the immolation of all people of Anglo-Saxon descent. What I want is two pieces of land that were once together to be declared together again as per the original nation. That's it. I want the 6 Northern counties currently under British rule to return to the Irish nation.

Also, no I do not go to Harvard, however almost every American college of higher education is acredited closely to them. Unlike Europe, we have a large deal more than 4 or 5 decent universities. I go to a 2nd Tier school where many of the courses I take are the same as the ones taught at Princeton and Yale down to the exams. Questioning my education is a desperate shot and makes you look like a fool.

As for the accusation of me being insane, I'd hardly expect somebody an ocean away to be the judge of that. I'd stick to the self-righteous condemnations of anybody who has an opposing viewpoint. And if I was insane, would that make me wrong?

And while we're on the subject of Psychology, we can discuss something else important. It seems to me that you have all been conditioned. The knee-jerk reaction to the phrase IRA seems to be "Bloody terrorists! No justification for what they did! All a bunch of puppy-killers and baby-kickers!" This is no accident. The Government knows that if you ever looked further at what they do and compare it to the IRA, their accusations would ring hollow and their people would stop following them. I was also conditioned like this, but I overcame it. I must impress on all of you, I started as the most severe skeptic, but have come to realize that the IRA acted as a legitimate government would have in its place. It was the UDA and the UFF under British protection that were the real insurgents and terrorists.

Mechuckylarms,
I have it on good authority that 7,000 people died during the war you called "the troubles", 4,000 being either Republican soldiers or Irish civilians and 1,500 being UFF terrorists with 500 more as collateral damage.

What "good authority"? Those figures are nothing like any figures that are quoted by any authority at all. Indeed, I think you made them up. In what passes for your brain.

Oops - sorry - feeding trolls. Apols, team!

-H

I was proving a point. I fabricated those statistics and did not cite sources to confirm them. Neither did GV. His numbers could be as fallacious as mine, and numbers without interpretation mean nothing. For example, in America, the KKK cites statistics on crime perpetrated by African Americans as a justification for their removal from America. In reality, the statistics are a product of the environment that African Americans are placed in.

Even if the numbers are real, there is no distinction between UDA members and other "Protestants" in fact, this shows a naivety about the entire conflict. It isn't Catholic vs. Protestant. Any person who thinks that doesn't know the first thing about it. It's Gael vs. Anglo-Saxon. It's Republican vs. Loyalist. Citing the deaths by religion is purposely misleading.

The real statistics are here, lucky, and match the ones provided to you earlier by Brian in comment #42. You'd do well to listen to the very Irish people you claim need your defending them.

The Book of Ashdown
Chapter 252

1 And Lo!In those days there arose a Paddy who said "Shall we not smite the army of those who carry the Armalite in one hand, and wrap towels around the head with the other? 2 Yea, even as we smote the army of the Provos in the valleys of Belfast!"
3 But a certain Wise Man was vexed sore, and did say "Get thee hence! For verily, no army was smitten in these valleys. 4 Yea, for I tell thee that those who wore the Balaclava over their head were like unto any army. For they were like the vigilante - like unto Batman, or yea, even maybe Wolverine (but not Superman, for in that last movie he seemeth a bit gay unto my eyes.)"
5 But those that heard the Wise Man said "Who can hear this teaching? For did Batman shoot his enemies in the back of the head whence they went to collect their milk bottles in the morning?" 6 Yet Wise Man heeded them not. He warned them "Woe unto those who provoke a reaction. For they cannot say that we did not warn them. 7 Unless we didn’t. 8 Woe unto those who listen to what the books say, and heed not the words that the books do not say, 9 For what they do not say is what they did say 10 Until the Brits said "this is not what the books shall say 11 For we will make the books say what we shall say they say" 12 So be wary, you fool, and only say what the books do not say. 13 Woe unto those whose blood is not pure. 14 Woe unto those who are legitimate targets 15 Or who are married to legitimate targets 16 Who smile at legitimate targets or stand to near to one or who look a bit like them. 17 And yea, even those who look at me or my mates a bit funny. 18 For they shall be smitten even as the Provos were not smoten"

"You are twisting facts. Her family who were not in fact reliable witnesses (by your own government's failure to include them in the case) were the only ones to claim that was the source of her aid. Investigations conclude that she was an informant. Deaths of good men and the grief of their families are on her head."

You are an idiot and a very silly boy-please go away.

To everyone else-don't feed the trolls!

The Book of Ashdown
Chapter 1892

918 After he had finished saying all these woes the certain wise man laid down his head and slept. 919 And his mother did wonder of him 920 And recalling the day that he thought he had joined a University when he received his first library card, she pondered his many sayings. 921 For had he not said that it was given unto him to know the thoughts of the guilty and those who provoked reaction? 922 And yea, even when he wore tin foil on his head, he could still hear their thoughts...

The statistics on Wikipedia are drawn from Malcolm Sutton's Index (though you wouldn't know that since you are full of crap and are desperately searching for evidence to confirm your argument). It says on his website that you must read the book before using the statistics. That is because the statistics don't pay regard to the cause of death and the objectivity of the death. The deaths are classified by religion as opposed to political views for starters.

Dear Dylan, please offer proof instead of calling names or go back to kindergarten or the overseas equivalent.

Ironically, the user who questioned my mental health has degenerated into posting irrelevant nonsense.

Calm down dear! You are a very silly boy and mummy won't be happy with you-You see you are a troll and not very bright(and I am not interested in your degree-mill "qualifications"). Obviously you feel very inadequate and just on here to flame the thread.

Please go away!

You're dodging the issue. You are inadequately prepared to argue against me so you are bringing accusations against me. I wish I could tell everybody who ever beat me in an argument to take a hike because they're an immature tool.

If I'm not very bright, I wonder what that makes you as your only comments have been insults and bogus claims. You're lucky your government doesn't exterminate on the basis of IQ, or your family line might not continue past yourself.

meluckycharms-

Are you saying the statistics are wrong?

I'm saying that the way the statistics are reported is naturally misleading. I could "prove" to you that African Americans are genetically predisposed to crime. They aren't, but the statistics show that from the wrong perspective. Not only that, but the stats Brian stated were wrong.

"The database shows that 873 civilians were killed by loyalists, 738 by republicans, and 190 by security forces. An additional 56 were killed by unknown forces."

That makes 1063 deaths for the loyalists and UK Government and 738 for the IRA. The statistics don't also explore the causes of deaths such as the UFF surrounding themselves by civilians during shootouts and how they put their hq's near deeply civilian areas to ensure maximum civilian casualties when bombed. The loyalist casualties were legit civilian attacks in many cases rather than collateral damage.

You see MLC your posts are an art in idiocy that I don't need to go into detail to show that you are very silly-you do such a marvellous job yourself! have some more rope! and please some of us go/went to genuine universities and didn't need to get a "qualification" from some dude in a trailer park.

I don't suffer fools gladly so...

lucky-

You don't tire easily. Of course by demonstrating that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by African-Americans you are not showing that they're genetically predisposed to it: that's reading into the statistics what they don't say, which doesn't apply to the Troubles.

And nobody here is saying that one side was better than the other (loyalists and republicans). You're the one saying that.

65.....what a wonderful cop-out. I wish I could proclaim my opponents stupid and ignore them too.

My claim is that the IRA were not terrorists. They did things that were all preceded by the UK. The UK put an oppressive child-beating regime in power to reign terror over the population. If anything, their regime were the terrorists.

The problem with "the Troubles" is just that. The IRA declared it a war and treated it as such. The British government refused to acknowledge the IRA's authority to wage war, so they called it terrorism. By pretending it was a one-sided issue with all of the aggression on the Republican side, they shaped public opinion of the IRA as terrorists.

This is just a minor question challenging one point. If the only purpose of the UFF was to check the IRA, why is it that they only officially disbanded a full two years after the IRA ceased all military action?

Chucky, if you're *really* studying Irish history at an institute of higher education in the united states, you need to go and ask for your money back, because you have so totally been had, dude (as you teenagers say nowadays).

What next? Al qaeda were brave freedom fighters for flying the planes into the WTC? The Jews have only themselves to blame for the Holocaust? OJ Simpson was innocent? Atlantis really existed where Barry Manilow's nose is today?

Fantasy is all good fun, but you non-Irish foreigners really need to know when to pipe down. You need to show a bit more respect to the Irish when dealing with Ireland itself.

Incidentally, Wolfe Tone was Presbyterian. I suppose he was a Scottish blow-in too?

-H (here, have a burger!)

al Qaeda (Q's capital, you smart person, you) is a world apart from the IRA. They target civilians specifically. The IRA fought military targets. I don't hate Anglo-Saxons. I want a piece of land to be declared to be part of another piece of land that it is geographically connected to.

The only reason my family are foreigners is because British nobility saw fit that people in Ireland couldn't feed themselves during the famine. Read "A Modest Proposal" for details.

The Scottish who were sent to live in Ireland were Presbyterians. Odds are that if their family are Presbyterian, they're Scottish rather than Irish.

And also, European colleges are crap as a whole. Why do you all end up coming here for a decent education? And I study ancient Irish history and mythology. This is a hobby.

And by the way, we stopped saying "You 'been had" in the early 90's.

I'll say it once again. Oppose my claims with evidence, or shut up and be done with it. Name calling doesn't make you right. The fact that the only people on here are opposed to me does nothing to discredit my argument. Racial discrimination had to be ended by the Supreme Court in America because public opinion opposed it.

"I want a piece of land to be declared to be part of another piece of land that it is geographically connected to."

Is THAT the criteria by which we establish nations? 'This bit is attached to this bit, so they should, uh, go together'? What school did you go to again?

I was illustrating the simplicity and the logic of my claim. You see, in America we even have laws against breaking up territories, or gerrymandering. The 6 counties are surrounded by the other counties. They are part of Ireland and should be officially made part of Ireland due to the historical significance, the geographical significance, and the fact that it is Irish land.

By the way, thanks for avoiding the actual argument again. I could go through and correct all of your grammatical and spelling errors if you'd like.

* Enter stage left carrying huge sign, bucket of nails and hammer. *

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Thank you.

And now we have endgame. In the collective failure to disprove me, you resort to attempting to discredit me by calling me a troll. You'd better hope you get more "trolls" like me, because you all seem to be living in a dream world where anti-IRA propaganda rules the minds of the population. You know I'm not a troll, otherwise you wouldn't bother calling me "stupid". I think I scare all of you because I'm challenging everything you have held as secure. You're view of the government currently in place is very fallacious. They aren't your friends, unless of course you are a loyalist.

If you start to question what you've been told was true, I've done my job. Just by making my case, the next time the Loyalist forces do attempt to slander the IRA, you will be unable to stop yourself from asking questions. Then you will find for yourselves what I have and you will become "trolls." Or you could pretend you didn't see it and continue as you are now.

"Anti-IRA propaganda." Priceless.

You're right, man, us Irish are brainwashed by our own governments; you have to be thousands of miles away to see it. Thank you for your service to the Irish people; I'm sure someday we'll come to appreciate it.

You have no idea. The British government is getting closer and closer to becoming something out of V for Vendetta or 1984 every day. You've been spoon-fed all of these fallacies and told that they are truth since you were children. Of course you don't know better.

How much do you think you know about your government? Look hard, and I'm sure you'll be surprised. The British needed to focus the hate of the Loyalists on something, lest they turn around against the true source of all the conflict. They couldn't simply point to the Irish people anymore. That would be noticeable and condemnable by the global community. The IRA were the perfect scapegoats. You should read some of the writings about how the Irish are "genetically inferior" to Anglo Saxons from Raleigh's and Spenser's writings. It's just the same thing in the 21st century applied to an army that would be just compared to any other nations'.

Chucky,
"A Modest Proposal" was a work of satire. Wolfe Tone was a Presbyterian. YOU are the one who hasn't presented any evidence; your response to ridicule is in itself ridiculous. You claim to have studied Irish mythology and history, but are clearly unable to distinguish between the two. You have confessed to lying on this very thread - what next? You really are a jolly little troll! Have you ever actually set foot in Ireland, or is it that you think that seeing the Leprechauns would spoil the fantasy?

John, here, let me help you with that sign. I can't help but toss the wean a scrap - he's so starved looking!

-H

The Book of Charms
Chapter 207

1 And yea, those who listened did wonder 2 and said, "is he not like unto a Troll? 3 Yea, like unto the Trolls that live in Crossmaglen and the Short Strand ?4 For verily he doth not sound like any American I have ever read."
5 "From Adam until yesterday, there has never been such an easy target. 6 For lo, he does not understand the quote from Chesterton"
7 But Graham waxed wroth and said "No, for he is like unto the Neanderthal. For did not the Neanderthals think that war was two cavemen bashing each other with stones. Yea, only a caveman could mistake murder for war"
8 But the Charmig one rebuked them "You fools. You do not know how scary the Brits are 9 The scary Brits that did steal all the evidence that showed how scary they really are. 10 For know you not that when a man seems innocent 11 And no evidence can be found against him 12 That is the proof that the man is guilty?"
13 And the people did say "We never said the Brits were innocent. Who is this man that speaks from the place that words should not come from?" 14 And the Charmer kept going 15 Like unto the bunny with the Duracel batteries 16 "Yea, you cannot comprehend my words, and you will be never seeing and never understanding 17 For yea, the Brits have stole your minds. Surely the fact that I am losing this argument proves that I am winning"

Chapter 2
1 And the people wondered "Has ever such a Troll been seen in all the land?" 2 Though the wise and learned warned them not to they did feed the Troll 3 Yea they threw him the scraps from the table 4 For they thought "This is more entertaining than "The Simpsons" 5 Where can such entertainment be bought"

Everything MLC saud is true.

I've just checked his source - www.reptilianagenda.com -
and the British government, led by shapeshifting lizards, is plotting our liquidation.

Helio:
Actually, Wolfe Tone was born a member of the Church of England. But many of the other founders of the United Irishmen were indeed Presbyterians from Ulster. They wanted to united Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, not divide them. They would all spin in their graves at the behaviour of modern militant republicanism, and the mental contortions and dishonesty of their fanatical followers and sneaking regarders.

Brian
At first I thought he was a miltant ideologue. He thought I was calling him nuts when I quoted Chesterton - (actually Chesterton was making a point about refutation and Rationalism). But given his comments about 1984 (which should not be mentioned in the same universe as tripe like "V for Vendetta") I must now conclude that I was wrong. He is not the victim of an ideology.

He's loony as a tune.

GVeale

Brian,
Damn! Wolfe Tone had one foot in Rome?!? That'll teach me to re-check my sources (I could have sworn that Frank Kee said he was a Presby). Silly me.

Ah well. More snacks for mechuckylarms, I suppose.

You all seem to love dancing on valence issues. I'd like to lay the most distilled points of my argument out so there is no ability to play with words

1. The IRA were not terrorists. They followed international military policies in their prosecution of a war which the UK denied existed. They used war-time policies. The reason the UK whined was because they didn't accept it as a war and didn't expect the IRA to pursue war-time policies.

2. The British Government is unable to criticize the IRA for anything so long as they let others continue under the delusion that they are somehow more pure than the IRA. They adopted the same or worse policies throughout time such as Dresden and their current bombing of civilian targets in Baghdad. Are they exempt from their own actions simply because they're a more powerful country?

3. What I want is for the 6 Northern counties to be quickly integrated into the Southern counties to complete the Republic of Eire. It was fundamentally wrong for the UK to give back only the Southern portion of Ireland. Much of the nation's history is centered in those 6 counties with the religious capital, Armagh, being a hotly contested county. Yeats and all the others who stood for the independence of Ireland are turning in their graves that Ireland got so completely shafted.

4. I'm not Catholic. My family is until my father, but I'm not. Actually, I grew up in the Anglican Church of America. (How's that for conflicting viewpoints?) Most of the people I went to church with expressed support for the reunification, ironically. I'm now a non-denominational Christian, but I've never been Catholic. You don't have to be Catholic to be a Republican Nationalist. That is why the death records can be so misleading.

Melucky charms;

I have said nothing on this subject yet, one of the reasons being that I take a different view to many of those who berate you.

However, I think this discussion in general is pointless, belligerent, outdated and misplaced on this blog. Not to mention that some (though not all) of your arguments are pure nonsense.

Having said that, i think that many of the points made against you are worth contending. I just don't see the point of doing that here. In fact I think, as with many things, this issue is to a large degree one of perception.

Words like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" or whatever else you want to use make absolutely no odds to those that have suffered on all sides, and i think it's a distinctly useless argument to have, particularly at this point in history.

And particularly from thousands of miles away.

Quote meluckycharms post 82.

3. What I want is for the 6 Northern counties to be quickly integrated into the Southern counties to complete the Republic of Eire. It was fundamentally wrong for the UK to give back only the Southern portion of Ireland. Much of the nation's history is centered in those 6 counties with the religious capital, Armagh, being a hotly contested county. Yeats and all the others who stood for the independence of Ireland are turning in their graves that Ireland got so completely shafted.

Has it ever occurred to you that the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland *don't* want this to happen? Do they have a say in the matter? Surely to go against the wishes of the majority of people who live in the bit of land you are contesting would be a *betrayal* of all the democratic rights you claim the IRA have been fighting for!

Jason

P.S. No doubt some will read into this post that I'm a Unionist. Please don't.

Are we still giving this plastic paddy WUM with some "qualification" from a trailer park degree mill the time of day!

I think we have upset diddums!

I protest. The Universities in America make European ones look like high school. Unless you went to/are going to Oxford, Cambridge, or Trinity then I suggest you remain quiet on the subject of higher education as American schools put yours to shame.

As for the unification, the majority of the island that is Ireland would have easily voted for independence. The British government knew they could keep more of Ireland if they did the voting by sections as the heavily Loyalist sections would vote to remain whereas a full nation vote would leave all of the counties to Eire and none to the UK. In the US, we have the same thing. We call it "Gerrymandering." We draw district lines in states to ensure one party holds a majority in all districts or that s minority party holds a majority in a few districts for elections.

"I protest. The Universities in America make European ones look like high school. Unless you went to/are going to Oxford, Cambridge, or Trinity then I suggest you remain quiet on the subject of higher education as American schools put yours to shame."

Have you got any evidence to back that up? As a University Student of an Institution that is not one of the three that you mentioned, I somewhat beg to differ.

This thread is most instructive and has really helped explain one thing for me.

I often wondered why intelligent people on this blog bothered arguing with YEC's and their ilk. Then along comes Lucky who embodies the YEC mindset, merely applying it to a different argument, and all is clear.

Like the desire to poke a painful broken tooth with your tongue: it requires a superhuman strength of will to deny oneself the desire to respond to his mindless, brainwashed nonsense...

I think the problem is that I'm challenging your world view as being wrong and people don't like that. You are in fact the ones that are brainwashed. I thought what you thought until I took my own initiative and dove into the records of both the American and British governments on this looking through articles to see if things didn't work. The problem with you is that you are willing to sit there and believe everything you're told instead of going out and testing it.

Next time your government tells you something bogus, go call them on it.

Also, connecting me to Young Earth Creationists is a stretch worthy of only a true master of bs. I have said nothing to indicate my beliefs in that direction. Better than most YEC's, I've annotated my arguments for you to follow along. You simply choose to sit there and say "BS. You can't possibly be right *insert insult here*."

If this were a debate, you would have gotten straight zeros because you didn't even bother to respond to any of my claims with meaningful rebuttal supported by evidence.

meluckycharms, two questions, what age are you? and have you ever spent any time in Northern Ireland?

M86

Yep definitely a degree mill merchant.

Portwyne well spotted on the YEC link-I was thinking exactly the same thing myself as I read MLC. It is utterly pointless to attempt a debate with such a mindset but it can be fun to see them hang themselves with their own rope.

Now, now, you shouldn't disclose your age over the internet.

As for spending time in Northern Ireland, I think it's irrelevant. America's harshest critics have never been to America. I notice from your posts that you are very into criticizing US politicians. Have you ever been to Washington DC?

I'm using statistics from the British government and other publications to prove my point. Those don't change no matter where I am.

Once again, thank you for picking a valence issue in an attempt to take attention away from the issue at hand.

Guys,

I'll welcome meluckycharms' contributions on other upcoming issues around here of course, but I'm done with this thread. It really is a waste of time. Anyone else?

I'm off

Still no evidence for your claim "The Universities in America make European ones look like high school".

Strange; I thought I read earlier in this thread a critical post from you about people making claims and not backing them up. I must have been mistaken - you surely wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you?

Jason

So that's a "17" and a "No" and a Dip.Stic from Liberty University, then?

Bye all!

95 LAWL

You are so pathetic. You can't beat me in an argument about the actual topic so you're playing around with my retorts to those insulting my education.

Just like everybody else here, you should give up. You have no intelligent arguments against me so you might as well give up rather than resorting to stupid childish comments and further degrading yourself.

And I'm not disclosing my age and my location until those arguing against me see fit to disclose theirs I don't see why I'm the person under fire because everybody who happens to post here disagrees with me.

@97

FYI, I haven't actually engaged you in your debate about the IRA. I merely made a point about the majority of people in NI not wanting to live in a United Ireland. Which is irrefutably true.

I'd also like to know at what point I resorted to stupid, childish comments?

And you still have not supported your claim that American Universities 'out-rank' European ones.

Jason

I'm not here to argue about that. You're a big baby that can't argue against me and wants to get stuck on other things. The truth is that the majority of the whole Island of Ireland wants the country to be unified. The opinions of the Northern majority shouldn't matter.

Your pathetic and childish comments are the ones that detract focus from the issue being debated to stupid irrelevant garbage such as credentials.

And here's something to chew on. If European Universities are so great, why do you all come to America for higher education? It's a matter of great debate.

https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/07/01/european-versus-us-universities/

https://www.euractiv.com/en/education/europe-universities-reformed/article-166708

https://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4370590

Happy now? Of course not because now you are wrong and we can get back to the original matter.

Just a thought for discussion - perhaps American Universities *have* to be better than UK ones, because the students are stupider?

I give you Exhibit A ;-)

-H