IRA

Good to know we have terrorist sympathisers on here.

Yeah, we have plenty of Pro UDA, UVF, LVF, etc. Shame on them

You're right shame on them.

Get real.
IRA were (and still are) a bunch of cowardly murderers. mainly gangsters extorting money. drugs and other crimes.
Hiding behind pathetic politically minded people who were fronting them (Sinn Fein).

"Army" -- what a joke! Armies wear uniforms and fight, not hide behind women and children, then cry when someone gets hurt.
Why did they always cover their faces? because they are cowards.

Aided by the catholic church in Ireland as well (you know the ones? those who supported and protected kiddy fiddlers/paedos).

Some pathetis biases propaganda TV program says they were brave freedom fighters and you believe it (rewriting history springs to mind).

Did they show the murder of 2 children in Warrington by the brave freedom fighters of Ireland? What did those kids have to do with Ireland or its problems? Blowing up shops and pubs in England, or the attack on the baby of a Welsh soldier at a Channel port. F***ing heroes aren't they?

On a political point. How many in Ulster wanted (or currently want ) to be part of Ireland? Approx. 1/3 if that, on the last poll said they did. So whose freedom are they fighting for? Anyone wanting to leave Ulster for paddy land is free to do so. But they will not because of the free handouts they are getting from the hated British, (hypocrites as well it seems).

November 21, 1920 Croke Park was the scene of a massacre by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The Police, supported by the British Auxiliary Division entered the ground, shooting indiscriminately into the crowd killing or fatally wounding 14 during a Dublin-Tipperary Gaelic football match. The dead included 13 spectators and Tipperary's captain, Michael Hogan. Posthumously, the Hogan stand built in 1924 was named in his honour. These shootings, on the day which became known as Bloody Sunday

So the Irish police (for wahtever reason, opened fire on a crowd) almost 100 years ago, and that is justification for the cowardly atrocities committed by the IRA and its pathetic apologists.

What if British soldiers or people now attacked and murdered Irish people as revenge for the murder of 2 innocent boys in Warrington? That is the start, then we can justify more attacks and keep it up for 20 years. Perhaps bomb Dublin and f**k up their tourist trade etc. As the Warrington attack was only 20 years ago we can have 80 years of justification of cowardly unprovoked attacks on Ireland, if we use your justification criteria.

What about the other people in Northern Ireland , that didnt want to be united with Ireland and wanted to stay a part of the uk? there are so many parts to this problem , i dont think it could ever be resolved , and as far as violence and terrorism is concerned , THERE ARE many stories that would make your hair curl. also a lot in the public domain from all sides involved in this conflict!!

Who in fact are the majority in Northern Ireland

Not for much longer

Get real.
IRA were (and still are) a bunch of cowardly murderers. mainly gangsters extorting money. drugs and other crimes.
Hiding behind pathetic politically minded people who were fronting them (Sinn Fein).

"Army" -- what a joke! Armies wear uniforms and fight, not hide behind women and children, then cry when someone gets hurt.
Why did they always cover their faces? because they are cowards.

Aided by the catholic church in Ireland as well (you know the ones? those who supported and protected kiddy fiddlers/paedos).

Some pathetis biases propaganda TV program says they were brave freedom fighters and you believe it (rewriting history springs to mind).

Did they show the murder of 2 children in Warrington by the brave freedom fighters of Ireland? What did those kids have to do with Ireland or its problems? Blowing up shops and pubs in England, or the attack on the baby of a Welsh soldier at a Channel port. F***ing heroes aren't they?

On a political point. How many in Ulster wanted (or currently want ) to be part of Ireland? Approx. 1/3 if that, on the last poll said they did. So whose freedom are they fighting for? Anyone wanting to leave Ulster for paddy land is free to do so. But they will not because of the free handouts they are getting from the hated British, (hypocrites as well it seems).

November 21, 1920 Croke Park was the scene of a massacre by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The Police, supported by the British Auxiliary Division entered the ground, shooting indiscriminately into the crowd killing or fatally wounding 14 during a Dublin-Tipperary Gaelic football match. The dead included 13 spectators and Tipperary's captain, Michael Hogan. Posthumously, the Hogan stand built in 1924 was named in his honour. These shootings, on the day which became known as Bloody Sunday

So the Irish police (for wahtever reason, opened fire on a crowd) almost 100 years ago, and that is justification for the cowardly atrocities committed by the IRA and its pathetic apologists.

What if British soldiers or people now attacked and murdered Irish people as revenge for the murder of 2 innocent boys in Warrington? That is the start, then we can justify more attacks and keep it up for 20 years. Perhaps bomb Dublin and f**k up their tourist trade etc. As the Warrington attack was only 20 years ago we can have 80 years of justification of cowardly unprovoked attacks on Ireland, if we use your justification criteria.

It was orders by the British, there was atrocities on three side. The Provies, The Loyalists & The British. If the British Empire had insisting on invading foreign lands then people will rise up against their bullying, have you ever really looked into the British cause and the way they had treated people. FFS they even shot their own if the didnt do as they were told.

Get real.
IRA were (and still are) a bunch of cowardly murderers. mainly gangsters extorting money. drugs and other crimes.
Hiding behind pathetic politically minded people who were fronting them (Sinn Fein).

"Army" -- what a joke! Armies wear uniforms and fight, not hide behind women and children, then cry when someone gets hurt.
Why did they always cover their faces? because they are cowards.

Aided by the catholic church in Ireland as well (you know the ones? those who supported and protected kiddy fiddlers/paedos).

Some pathetis biases propaganda TV program says they were brave freedom fighters and you believe it (rewriting history springs to mind).

Did they show the murder of 2 children in Warrington by the brave freedom fighters of Ireland? What did those kids have to do with Ireland or its problems? Blowing up shops and pubs in England, or the attack on the baby of a Welsh soldier at a Channel port. F***ing heroes aren't they?

On a political point. How many in Ulster wanted (or currently want ) to be part of Ireland? Approx. 1/3 if that, on the last poll said they did. So whose freedom are they fighting for? Anyone wanting to leave Ulster for paddy land is free to do so. But they will not because of the free handouts they are getting from the hated British, (hypocrites as well it seems).

November 21, 1920 Croke Park was the scene of a massacre by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The Police, supported by the British Auxiliary Division entered the ground, shooting indiscriminately into the crowd killing or fatally wounding 14 during a Dublin-Tipperary Gaelic football match. The dead included 13 spectators and Tipperary's captain, Michael Hogan. Posthumously, the Hogan stand built in 1924 was named in his honour. These shootings, on the day which became known as Bloody Sunday

So the Irish police (for wahtever reason, opened fire on a crowd) almost 100 years ago, and that is justification for the cowardly atrocities committed by the IRA and its pathetic apologists.

What if British soldiers or people now attacked and murdered Irish people as revenge for the murder of 2 innocent boys in Warrington? That is the start, then we can justify more attacks and keep it up for 20 years. Perhaps bomb Dublin and f**k up their tourist trade etc. As the Warrington attack was only 20 years ago we can have 80 years of justification of cowardly unprovoked attacks on Ireland, if we use your justification criteria.

It was orders by the British, there was atrocities on three side. The Provies, The Loyalists & The British. If the British Empire had insisting on invading foreign lands then people will rise up against their bullying, have you ever really looked into the British cause and the way they had treated people. FFS they even shot their own if the didnt do as they were told.

Are you saying we can attack the Romans because they invaded us ? What about the Scandinavians (Vikings), Saxons/Angles (Germans) and Normans (French/Danes). Infact the Irish were invading and attacking Wales (and the rest of Britain) for years, so we are entitled to attack them back. They started it so there, neh, neh neh, neh, neh.

As for shooting our own. That is rightly the law in the armed forces. You have to rely on each other and if one neglects their duties or runs away then they endanger all their comrades (friendly sense, not socialist sense). It can be harsh but is the only way to protect the majority. What about those who did not run away, but stood and fought (and died) while the cowards (or ill ones) ran away? Would you reward cowards by allowing them to live? Although maybe you would if you believe the cowards in Ireland are freedom fighters.

Many countries invaded by Britian were left in far better states when we left (democracy, education and legal systems) eg: India, Kenya and many others.

funny thing is, that those who voice their strong hatred of the IRA are very much pro-loyalist (terrorism). "Right or wrong - it's my country", eh?

funny thing is, that those who voice their strong hatred of the IRA are very much pro-loyalist (terrorism). "Right or wrong - it's my country", eh?

I know and who funded and supplied arms to the loyalist, a well known British general use to import arms from South Africa for the Loyalists.

Im just glad them days are over and this new generation have been brought up in peace.

As simple as it sounds, they are cowards and there is no place or sympathy for them

The I.R.A. of the nineteen- twenties were freedom fighters who defeated the most powerful country in the world. The contemporary I.R.A are scum. I say this with Nortern Irish and Southern Irish relatives.

funny thing is, that those who voice their strong hatred of the IRA are very much pro-loyalist (terrorism). "Right or wrong - it's my country", eh?

I know and who funded and supplied arms to the loyalist, a well known British general use to import arms from South Africa for the Loyalists.

Im just glad them days are over and this new generation have been brought up in peace.

and those who point at the irish for not forgetting and forgiving the crimes britain have commited, are the ones who hate the germans because of the 2 world wars.

and, btw, what if the germans would have invaded and conquered britain? i assume there would have been a resistance-movement (like in france) who would fight the invaders (and rightly so). so they would be classed as terrorists too, dont they?

double standards...

btw, the taliban... once they fought in afghanistan against the soviets (when they invaded afghanistan in the 80s), they committed bombings against the soviets, sniper and mortar attacks... and guess who supplied the taliban with weapons, ammunition and trained them? USA, UK, Saudi-Arabia...

what are the taliban doing today? same thing as they have done against the soviets, now against the western invaders... today we call the taliban terrorists, back in the 80s we supplied them with weapons... the western nations were actively supporting terrorist activities, therefore the soviets would have had a good reason to attack us,dont they...?

it sums it up in one word: POLITICS

and those who point at the irish for not forgetting and forgiving the crimes britain have commited, are the ones who hate the germans because of the 2 world wars.

and, btw, what if the germans would have invaded and conquered britain? i assume there would have been a resistance-movement (like in france) who would fight the invaders (and rightly so). so they would be classed as terrorists too, dont they?

double standards...

btw, the taliban... once they fought in afghanistan against the soviets (when they invaded afghanistan in the 80s), they committed bombings against the soviets, sniper and mortar attacks... and guess who supplied the taliban with weapons, ammunition and trained them? USA, UK, Saudi-Arabia...

what are the taliban doing today? same thing as they have done against the soviets, now against the western invaders... today we call the taliban terrorists, back in the 80s we supplied them with weapons... the western nations were actively supporting terrorist activities, therefore the soviets would have had a good reason to attack us,dont they...?

it sums it up in one word: POLITICS

Although I agree with your sentiment in parts, this is quite flawed.

If there was a resisitance movement against a foreign enity they would not be classified as terrorists. Are the French resistance classed as such? No, the same would be applicable here.

Secondly you're suggesting that the Soviet's fought the Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan war, however that is entirely untrue. The Soviet's were supportive of the then marxist government, typical of the Cold War era. Obviously the US who have always feared communism ( eg the Red Scare 1919, McCarthyism in the 50's) were desperate to stop this Soviet influence. Consequently they provided funding to the Afghan Guerilla movement (not the Taliban!) hoping it would signal the fall of the Communist government. Essentially, the Taliban did not appear until the late 90's and the Soviet-Afghan war was fought between the Soviet's/Afghan Government,and the Western backed Afghan Guerillas (once again, not the Taliban!). Don't confuse the two.

and those who point at the irish for not forgetting and forgiving the crimes britain have commited, are the ones who hate the germans because of the 2 world wars.

and, btw, what if the germans would have invaded and conquered britain? i assume there would have been a resistance-movement (like in france) who would fight the invaders (and rightly so). so they would be classed as terrorists too, dont they?

double standards...

btw, the taliban... once they fought in afghanistan against the soviets (when they invaded afghanistan in the 80s), they committed bombings against the soviets, sniper and mortar attacks... and guess who supplied the taliban with weapons, ammunition and trained them? USA, UK, Saudi-Arabia...

what are the taliban doing today? same thing as they have done against the soviets, now against the western invaders... today we call the taliban terrorists, back in the 80s we supplied them with weapons... the western nations were actively supporting terrorist activities, therefore the soviets would have had a good reason to attack us,dont they...?

it sums it up in one word: POLITICS

Although I agree with your sentiment in parts, this is quite flawed.

If there was a resisitance movement against a foreign enity they would not be classified as terrorists. Are the French resistance classed as such? No, the same would be applicable here.

Secondly you're suggesting that the Soviet's fought the Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan war, however that is entirely untrue. The Soviet's were supportive of the then marxist government, typical of the Cold War era. Obviously the US who have always feared communism ( eg the Red Scare 1919, McCarthyism in the 50's) were desperate to stop this Soviet influence. Consequently they provided funding to the Afghan Guerilla movement (not the Taliban!) hoping it would signal the fall of the Communist government. Essentially, the Taliban did not appear until the late 90's and the Soviet-Afghan war was fought between the Soviet's/Afghan Government,and the Western backed Afghan Guerillas (once again, not the Taliban!). Don't confuse the two.

the french resistance were regarded as terrorists by germany during the nazi regime...its always important on which side of the fence you are...

the taliban came out of the mudjahedin movement who fought against the soviets. same fighters, same weapons...fought also in bosnia and chechnya... i forgot osama bin laden... who trained him again? oh yes, the CIA... btw thats no myth, the CIA still proudly claims it was them...

The IRA had every justification in taking up arms against Britain.

Who could blame them? Catholics were getting shat on in Ireland

But once they started bombing indiscriminately, killing innocent
people without a care in the World, they became scum.

Same as the Shankill butchers and the murdering protestant scum

The IRA had every justification in taking up arms against Britain.

Who could blame them? Catholics were getting shat on in Ireland

But once they started bombing indiscriminately, killing innocent
people without a care in the World, they became scum.

Same as the Shankill butchers and the murdering protestant scum

e.g. them... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_9cVOQD7l4

the french resistance were regarded as terrorists by germany during the nazi regime...its always important on which side of the fence you are...

the taliban came out of the mudjahedin movement who fought against the soviets. same fighters, same weapons...fought also in bosnia and chechnya... i forgot osama bin laden... who trained him again? oh yes, the CIA... btw thats no myth, the CIA still proudly claims it was them...

So are we valuing the opinion of the Nazi regime now? In that case, Germany beat the Dutch because they have more blonde-haired players and are born a superior race with a God-given right to rule. I wasn't on any 'side' of the preverbial fence, this is from a solely historical perspective; the French resistance were not a terrorist organisation. Employing sabotage against the Nazis is not an 'act of terror.' Thus, any guerilla/resistance movement attempting to defend themselves from foreign intruders (or even their own government) are not terrorist organisations per se. Look at the situation in Syria, are the 'Rebels' a terrorist organisation? No, of course not. However I'm sure the Army would suggest otherwise. Equally, I'm sure Gaddafi and his supporters were willing to brand the Lybian rebels as 'terrorists'. Essentially, I disagree that all resistance movements are also terrorist organisations. Suggesting so is simply an attempt to discredit them by whomever is on the recieving end of their actions.

That's also untrue, once the Afghan government fell in '92 MANY different factions and militias appeared, the Taliban were simply one of the more powerful. So yes, their formation was an indirect result of the chaotic political landscape in Afghanistan. However they were not all, necessarrily, the 'same fighters' with the 'same weapons'. The Mudjahideen forces actually split, and many either joined other factions or never fought again. Thus you cannot suggest, as you have done, that the Soviet's were fighting the same enemy as we are fighting now.

On second thoughts the prospect of an organised WRA is hilarious. They would be so incompetent and you could tell who they were from a mile off, smelly, scruffy, imbred and constantly speaking old Welsh.

On second thoughts the prospect of an organised WRA is hilarious. They would be so incompetent and you could tell who they were from a mile off, smelly, scruffy, imbred and constantly speaking old Welsh.

Your generation would be suitable then

the french resistance were regarded as terrorists by germany during the nazi regime...its always important on which side of the fence you are...

the taliban came out of the mudjahedin movement who fought against the soviets. same fighters, same weapons...fought also in bosnia and chechnya... i forgot osama bin laden... who trained him again? oh yes, the CIA... btw thats no myth, the CIA still proudly claims it was them...

So are we valuing the opinion of the Nazi regime now? In that case, Germany beat the Dutch because they have more blonde-haired players and are born a superior race with a God-given right to rule. I wasn't on any 'side' of the preverbial fence, this is from a solely historical perspective; the French resistance were not a terrorist organisation. Employing sabotage against the Nazis is not an 'act of terror.' Thus, any guerilla/resistance movement attempting to defend themselves from foreign intruders (or even their own government) are not terrorist organisations per se. Look at the situation in Syria, are the 'Rebels' a terrorist organisation? No, of course not. However I'm sure the Army would suggest otherwise. Equally, I'm sure Gaddafi and his supporters were willing to brand the Lybian rebels as 'terrorists'. Essentially, I disagree that all resistance movements are also terrorist organisations. Suggesting so is simply an attempt to discredit them by whomever is on the recieving end of their actions.

That's also untrue, once the Afghan government fell in '92 MANY different factions and militias appeared, the Taliban were simply one of the more powerful. So yes, their formation was an indirect result of the chaotic political landscape in Afghanistan. However they were not all, necessarrily, the 'same fighters' with the 'same weapons'. The Mudjahideen forces actually split, and many either joined other factions or never fought again. Thus you cannot suggest, as you have done, that the Soviet's were fighting the same enemy as we are fighting now.

not valueing the nazis in any form, i got strong anti-fascist beliefs. just saying that when they ruled over us, the resistance movement in france and germany were seen as terrorists by the nazis. stauffenberg and his men got executed as such, today they are our heroes. same applies for nelson mandela, once he was seen as a terrorist, now he is a hero... it all depends from which side u look at it. for some the IRA were terrorists, for others they're freedom fighters. the shankill butchers were heroes for some people, for others they were just murderers... not suggesting the shankill butchers should have seen in the same light as "la resistance" or the "geschwister scholl"...

I agree the french resistance wasnt a terrorist organisation.

and we all agree on syria, i believe.

coming back to afghanistan, according to our army, the bundeswehr, mudjahedin and taliban are seen as the same. just a different name, as they reorganised after the soviet war. but many of their fighters are still the same.

during the first gulf war, the western nations backed saddam's iraq against iran... later they turned on him, for being a dictator and a threat to international security ... after the got ridd of saddam, al-queda got hold of iraq, something they never achieved during saddam's regime. of course saddam was a barstool, no question. but a threat to world security?

it's all politics...

not valueing the nazis in any form, i got strong anti-fascist beliefs. just saying that when they ruled over us, the resistance movement in france and germany were seen as terrorists by the nazis. stauffenberg and his men got executed as such, today they are our heroes. same applies for nelson mandela, once he was seen as a terrorist, now he is a hero... it all depends from which side u look at it. for some the IRA were terrorists, for others they're freedom fighters. the shankill butchers were heroes for some people, for others they were just murderers... not suggesting the shankill butchers should have seen in the same light as "la resistance" or the "geschwister scholl"...

I agree the french resistance wasnt a terrorist organisation.

and we all agree on syria, i believe.

coming back to afghanistan, according to our army, the bundeswehr, mudjahedin and taliban are seen as the same. just a different name, as they reorganised after the soviet war. but many of their fighters are still the same.

during the first gulf war, the western nations backed saddam's iraq against iran... later they turned on him, for being a dictator and a threat to international security ... after the got ridd of saddam, al-queda got hold of iraq, something they never achieved during saddam's regime. of course saddam was a barstool, no question. but a threat to world security?

it's all politics...

Let's just say, politics is cyclical. Much like fashion, and the seasons

Nice to see a decent debate on here for a change without abusive posts and single minded responses! As I said I'd always regarded them as terrorists but I realised that was the PIRA as in my opinion the originals were fighting to protect their country! Not, that I agree with the PIRA's methods but how catholics were treated in NI, especially the circumstance I seen was Derry was disgraceful! However, lets be honest, most wars are to do with religion or politics!

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

There is a memorial in the village that my grandfather hails from, remembering two men who were dragged out of bed and killed in the middle of the street in front of their families! He tells me the Black and Tans were a horrible lot, waltzed into his town and burnt houses down, some of the people who had actually fought for Britain in WW1!

Didn't see the Documentary myself so can't comment on the programme. Northern Ireland who's own people are split down the middle a bit like the blue and Red camps on here. Who is right ? Well they have there own beliefs and that is there right, but they needed to do this democratically.

But the Irish admit themselves they love to fight and they love nothing better to fight each other (bit like City fans ) and they have done throughout history. But please remember these IRA so called soldiers deliberately killed the innocent, including Women and Children, they dealt with there own by blowing there knee caps off. They are underground drug dealers arm dealers no different to the Mafia, all out to make there money.

Ireland has and always will be a hot potato if they are a part of the UK or not. If they went alone do you honestly believe it would be a sanctuary for the tranquil ? No it would end up as civil War and there would still be the violence. its very noble thinking that the UK is responsible for the shit that goes on in Northern Ireland but it just ain't that straight forward IMO.

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

There is a memorial in the village that my grandfather hails from, remembering two men who were dragged out of bed and killed in the middle of the street in front of their families! He tells me the Black and Tans were a horrible lot, waltzed into his town and burnt houses down, some of the people who had actually fought for Britain in WW1!

YES your Grandfather is 100% right, and if you want a little insight into how Ireland was at that time , take a look at a Film called THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zVNCMyuodo

funny thing is, that those who voice their strong hatred of the IRA are very much pro-loyalist (terrorism). "Right or wrong - it's my country", eh?

I know and who funded and supplied arms to the loyalist, a well known British general use to import arms from South Africa for the Loyalists.

Im just glad them days are over and this new generation have been brought up in peace.

and those who point at the irish for not forgetting and forgiving the crimes britain have commited, are the ones who hate the germans because of the 2 world wars.

and, btw, what if the germans would have invaded and conquered britain? i assume there would have been a resistance-movement (like in france) who would fight the invaders (and rightly so). so they would be classed as terrorists too, dont they?

double standards...

btw, the taliban... once they fought in afghanistan against the soviets (when they invaded afghanistan in the 80s), they committed bombings against the soviets, sniper and mortar attacks... and guess who supplied the taliban with weapons, ammunition and trained them? USA, UK, Saudi-Arabia...

what are the taliban doing today? same thing as they have done against the soviets, now against the western invaders... today we call the taliban terrorists, back in the 80s we supplied them with weapons... the western nations were actively supporting terrorist activities, therefore the soviets would have had a good reason to attack us,dont they...?

it sums it up in one word: POLITICS

Sorry but the Taliban had nothing to do with soviets, they were and still are are small pocket of TERRORISTS, IT WAS THE MUDIAJIEN WARRIORS, proud afghan people sent them packing, the taliban are not tribal but mercenries.

As for the O/P I find it gut wrenching to read such crap and comments of those murdering bastards, and to all but salute them you should be deported, 1,939 innocent people were murderd buy those gangsters from 1969 to present, of which 500 were soldiers.

We did not invade, in 1969 we went in there as peace keepers. I personally spent 5 and half yrs of my life in ulster fighting the scum, and to hear someone on this site applaud them fooking sickens me to the core.

Thanks mate, disgraceful!

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

Who put two pound in you you Nazi c**t?

Serious get that MASSIVE chip off your shoulder. A relative of mine went out to Ireland as part of the BRITISH army during the troubles. He was Welsh, you sound like a f*cking scouser. Is there anything you don't blame the English for?

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

You're boring mate, why always so abusive to everyone? There's been a good open minded debate and then you pop up!

Who put two pound in you you Nazi c**t?

Serious get that MASSIVE chip off your shoulder. A relative of mine went out to Ireland as part of the BRITISH army during the troubles. He was Welsh, you sound like a f*cking scouser. Is there anything you don't blame the English for?

The I.R.A. of the nineteen- twenties were freedom fighters who defeated the most powerful country in the world. The contemporary I.R.A are scum. I say this with Nortern Irish and Southern Irish relatives.

the ira of the still bombed and murdered civilians just the same as the pira of the 60/70/80/90's
dont forget the year of the disapperences in cork in 1921 ethic cleansing

NO matter which way you play it, The British were occupying and running S. Ireland ,and as true Irishmen they wanted to run them self's, and not be run by another country that were occupying them with a heavy hand. Like in Wales the British did there best to break them in all kinds of ways. And one of the things they did was try to stamp out the language. And stop Irish people in there own lands meeting in groups. Like Football games, and Rugby games anything kind of place where one Irishman could meet up with others. The Black & Tans were also encouraged to kill and rape, which they did with great gusto and pleasure even children. There is still a Stone by the side of a river near a bridge , where a little boy of 7 yrs of age was playing in the water. The Tans were around 500yrs down the river waiting to ambush a group of Irishmen. While they waited they were bored and started to see who could get the nearest to the little boy by shooting at him. They hit him more than once, great British men weren't they?
Now the tans were mostly made up of Scottish ex solider's so the British could point out that they were not English but Scottish men, again another way out to try to keep the name of the Englishman clean of blame.

When the English go into a country they will always say, its to protect, even they are in some others country,yet if the people of that very country fight back they label them as terrorist. It has to be asked , if people from another country is occupying a country and running it by force , THEN WHO IS THE TERRORIST ?

Who put two pound in you you Nazi c**t?

Serious get that MASSIVE chip off your shoulder. A relative of mine went out to Ireland as part of the BRITISH army during the troubles. He was Welsh, you sound like a f*cking scouser. Is there anything you don't blame the English for?

You're boring mate, there was an open minded debate with different opinions and no abuse and then you turn up hurling abuse, get a grip, go and tug or something for f**k sake mun! Too much aggression in you fella!