Are you fucking kidding me? Emigration (or even immigration) is not invasion. My Quaker ancestors were not overrun, driven out, raped, burned and left for dead by my Celtic barbarian horde ancestors… :rolleyes:
Stop it before you hurt yourself.
Are you kidding?
Ever heard of Native Americans - that all worked itself out did it?
Um, yeah, I have heard of them- I’m part Cherokee as well as part Irish, thanks. What’s your point?
Did the Irish “invade” America? I don’t think so, no. IIRC, the Irish were oppressed here as well.
I am not one to crank-out on local TV, but the other day a station featured a bartender showing how to make a drink called “The Irish Car Bomb.” Besides being undrinkable (a Guinness/Baileys boilermaker), and in light of the week’s news, I called the station and complained, pointing out how offensive a drink with a joking name about the WTC attacks would be. There was a pause. Later,
“Your complaint has been noted.”
“Why the pause?”
“I was yelling at the producer.”
Yes, at this time of year I get all Lace Curtain. It’s my training.
OTOH, my daughter, a bartender, was appalled that one of her own would show off, on Superstation WGN, a generic drink and not one that was created by himself.
Yeah I’ve heard it called an “Irish Car Bomb” or a “Belfast Car Bomb”. It tastes terrible.
That is the grossest thing I have ever heard of- you couldn’t get me anywhere near it, and I’m an alcoholic! :eek:
Oh, and it’s in poor taste, too…
I wasn’t asking what you were referring to, that was obvious. My point is that if that itself makes them a non-army, as you indicated, then there is probably no such thing as an army.
Incidentally a Jim Cusack article on republicans is no more a valid cite than a Rush Limbaugh report on Democrats would be.
Okay no army is perfect but most real armies are signed up for the Geneva Conventions. The IRA did not observe these rules. I suppose I shouldn’t have used the term real army as I was only saying that they would have had more sympathy from other parties had they not deliberately targeted civilians.
If there are factual inaccuracies there please point them out, otherwise this is little more than an ad hominem attack. Granted the cite is an opinion piece but to the best of my knowledge the author has presented the important facts of the case accurately.
Yeah, I don’t know which is the greater crime.
Even though I didn’t have a winky smilie handy, I was being a bit facetious…
Well, what does it mean to sign up for the Geneva Conventions and then flout their rules? I imagine you’d find that most armies in a conflict situation do, in fact, deliberately target civilians at some point or another. The British Army certainly did.
Well for starters the suggestion that Jean McConville was killed for being a Protestant is absolutely daft and is not supported by any authority that I am aware of. Secondly, his claim that “republican sources” admit this is pure made-up, as is his claim that no one on the Falls Road ever believed the IRA’s story to begin with. Republicans publicly and privately continue to insist that she was killed for giving information to the British Army and I know plenty of people from the Falls Road who were around at the time and are absolutely convinced this is true. You may consider it an ad hominem attack but Cusack has a record of simply making things up. Hang around politics.ie long enough and you’ll see even Blueshirts admit they take everything he writes with a grain of salt because some of it is so manifestly absurd.
Leaving out those details, the bulk of the Cusack article may reflect what most people think about the case, but in reality most people don’t know any more than what they have read or heard other people say about it. That goes for myself as well as you. So saying something is accurate “to the best of my knowledge” doesn’t really say much in this type of situation. I could equally say the IRA’s position is accurate to the best of my knowledge and we could both be correct.
I think it’s worth pointing out that Ed Moloney, who normally has nothing but bile to spew about the republican movement, researched this case extensively for his book and came to the conclusion that the IRA were telling the truth. As far as I know that is still his position. Of course, he could be wrong too, but he did actually look into the matter and - unlike just about everyone else who’s commented on it, myself included - he has no political motivation to take the position he’s taken. Just the opposite in fact.
Now getting back to the subject matter of the thread I find the reports of the PSNI’s latest actions very disturbing. The suggestion that Éirígí were involved in these attacks is completely unbelievable to anyone who knows anything about them (incidentally Cusack also misreports on them in yesterday’s Sindo - contrary to what he says they were formed nearly a year before SF signed up to the PSNI, a fact the quickest Google search would have revealed). It looks like a simple return to the bad ol’ days of police harassment of republicans and is only going to encourage disaffection in that community.
This thread seems to have developed from a query on current events into a general rerun of all the arguments about the continuing existence of Partition.
The bad old days are over and there is no significant body of public opinion in Northern Ireland that wants to return to that time. Just a few irreconcilables who can’t move on.
My point? If it’s wrong for people of one ethnicity to move to a country where their ancestors didn’t live, then it was wrong for the Irish to move to America. What’s the difference between an Irishman moving to America after soldiers conquered the Indians, and an Englishman moving to Ireland after British soldiers conquered the Irish? You don’t see the parallel? Sure that Irish guy maybe never shot an Indian personally. And that Protestant guy never shot an Irishman…personally.
I’d wonder why they shot him if he was already hanged 
And who exactly is to blame in this account? Who are these English/Protestants? Paramilitaries, the Army?
If you want a counter account of life here, I know someone who (back in the 70s) was accosted by a member of the UDR, who had a reputation for hassling Catholics when he was off duty. He was given the slip and the woman he tried to hassle went straight to the police. A sergeant with strong views on how to treat women took the soldier and gave him a thrashing about the interview room. The army received a complaint and threw the soldier out. The woman and her husband politely declined an invitation to a event hosted by the army (on account of not wanting to be seen in Catholic Fermanagh dining with the army.) The IRA later turned up to shoot the policeman who had rendered assistance.
Nice summation.
A current update on the country is that today looks like it might rain and tomorrow Belfast will be awash with more vomit than usual.
Just a bit? 
I’ll drink to that. Recession be damned.
I think we have misunderstood each other terribly. I don’t consider immigration to be invasion, or wrong.
The Real IRA has threatened to launch terrorist attacks on Britain (Link).
Thanks for the bump, it gives me an excuse to post this cutting look at the problem.
They’re at it again. A Catholic policeman was killed today in a boobytrap bomb attack.