Which is exactly what the IRA did if you substitute “unionist” for “nationalist”.
Well there was the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings, the single worst day of the Troubles in terms of loss of life and several other bombings. Also, citizens of the Republic were sometimes deliberately targeted by Loyalist/Unionist paramilitaries such as the Miami Showband Killings. Although the Loyalists/Unionists didn’t target the Republic as often as the IRA targeted Britain it isn’t true to say it never happened. Also, it is germane to point out that while soldiers from Britain patrolled the streets of Northern Ireland, the Irish Defence Forces had no similar presence in Northern Ireland.
If you look at it exactly certainly both factions killed various sorts of people-I was speaking of general trends. But to get to the heart of the matter-who do you think was more right in the end: the Nationalists or the Unionists?
Pacifist, remember ? 
So–what does all this have to do with The Golden Age of The West? Why have you abandoned the ideas expressed in your OP? Could it be that the “Gold” was a thin layer of gilt paint on a tottering edifice? Aliens did not land their UFO’s in the great capitals of Europe to trick innocent statesmen into starting the Great War. The weirdo artists did not cause it, either. Europe had, in fact, achieved a certain level of prosperity & social progress at the turn of that century. Then all the best people chose to end it in the useless slaughter that led to a greater war, bloody revolutions & genocides.
This evening’s lesson involves poetry. I’m sure Our OP has the background to recognize the story behind this poem by Wilfred Owen (1893-1918).
Concerning Ireland, Our OP has been offered some useful cites. Has he bothered to read them? Even better–perhaps he’ll pick up a book or two. (As have many of us, over the years.) Since I’ve chosen a poetic theme tonight, let me recommend the works of William Butler Yeats. He was a recognized literary figure during that “Golden Age” but his art grew with the new century. (And he was a true lover of Ireland, although it was a troubled affair.) Read The Second Coming (1919) to see his vision of the future–which went far beyond Ireland.
You specifically referred to unionists attacking the Irish Republic.
I firmly believe the Unionists were right as the majority of those in the counties forming Northern Ireland was Unionist.
And the Unionists did not attack Irish soil nor did they use violence on the scale of the IRA.
:smack:
I just explained why the Unionists did not attack Irish soil; there was no point.
And I just explained that they actually did.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12300403&postcount=242
That attack was not on Irish soil.
And there was motivation of spiteful, acidic hatred to bomb Irish soil much as that drove the IRA fanatics.
What are you talking about? Both attacks (the bombings and the other killings) were on Irish soil, although one was in the Republic of Ireland.
I’m not Curtis, but I ordered this from my library – I could use something new to read.
When I speak of “Irish” I mean the Irish Republic.
You are still wrong. Anyway, I’m getting out of this thread. G’night all.
Guinastasia, I hope you find it as interesting and informative as I did. Although parts of it are very upsetting I should warn you.
Pretty much irrelevant to your claim regarding an approach to civil war. Attacks on Brits in Britain did not push either Orange or Green toward civil war.
I am not taking sides on who was “right.” I have pointed out that you have displayed ignorance regarding the origins of the actual fighting in Northern Ireland–something you have confirmed in subsequent posts.
I am no fan of the IRA, nor of any of the TLAs beginning with U, but Spain had a Basque separatist party carrying out bombings and assasinations for years without ever approaching a civil war. Making the IRA the sole or primary cause of the troubles indicates an enormous ignorance on a topic about which you are blithely posting absolutist claptrap.
it’s debatable. poverty, overcrowdedness, a hostile israeli border all play into effect. my point was that the circumstances of ALL the citizens should be taken into account. If the average Egyptian citizen 3000 years ago had an army of slaves, plentiful harvests, and wasn’t beset with plagues, and compared to the average Egyptian citizen now, who (hypothetically) lives in squalor and is starving in garbage shantys (saw a short film documentary of this at an eco-film-festival recently. entire communities who live in the dump, living off what they find) then no. modern egypt is not enjoying a golden age. The trappings of modernity are NOT available to most egyptians so they are NOT better off. Also, of course, the ultimate fudge factor would be personal satisfaction. If the ancient egyptian was thoroughly placated in god-worship and the modern egyption is beset with western envy, then it would affect my “golden age” rating.
anyway, the rant i typed earlier was largely in response to your simple, glossy definition of “golden age.” i didn’t really mean for it to sound that all things modern are wonderful and all things from antique are shit. i’m sure modern sudan is NOT going through a golden age right now regardless of how many new products apple comes out with.
Where do you think Dublin is? :dubious:
Basques are a smaller minority compared to the size of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland.