Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Wut? The USA funded the IRA?
o.O

At the very least, US citizens did.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wut? The USA funded the IRA?
o.O

At the very least, US citizens did.

Okay...

If they have proof... go for it.

 whembly wrote:

Okay...

If they have proof... go for it.

Flannery admitted that he was funding the IRA, minimally by way of direct contributions. Read the article.

It is not a solid analogy though, as Flannery was never anything close to being a member of the US government, whereas the relevant members of the Saud family may be members of the Saudi governt (a dubious claim as the Saud family is huge).

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

please do id love to see America see themselves bitten in the ass also slightly off topic, but I know its what they want to be called but I never give them the honour of calling the IRA in irish history the IRA were heroes who fought for our independence, its sickening to see their name dirtied

You think people who targeted, bombed, murdered and assassinated not just British soldiers (an arguably legitimate target), but Policemen, politicians and innocent civilians (men, women and children) were Heroes? FETHING HEROES?

Have I misunderstood your comment, or are you really calling murderers and terrorists heroes??

Its one thing to call armed resistance against the Military forces of a perceived foreign occupation Heroism, but these people targeted many innocent people too. (as did their Loyalist Counterparts).

The IRA, and their Loyalist Paramilitary counterparts were TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS. I rank both sides right alongside Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas and Hezbollah in terms of scum-baggery.

You say that it's sickening to hear the IRA's name dirtied. I say its sickening and contemptible to hear them called Heroes.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its one thing to call armed resistance against the Military forces of a perceived foreign occupation Heroism, but these people targeted many innocent people too.

I have to agree. Attacking British soldiers is one thing, but once you start leaving "to whom it may concern" bombs in hotels and restaurant, you're a terrorist in my book.

All's fair in love and war.

 dogma wrote:
All's fair in love and war.

Except when you're blowing up innocent people.

 dogma wrote:
All's fair in love and war.

The Geneva Convention would disagree.

 dogma wrote:
All's fair in love and war.

I disagree with this doctrine. I think that we have a duty not to intentionally target noncombatants in war, and to mitigate civilian casualties as much as possible. I think that duty even covers a situation where causing as much economic and infrastructure damage as possible is a winning strategy, and hell, even when it's the only winning strategy. At that point you need to sue for diplomacy in my book.

The counterargument to this, obviously, is that if you go to war you need to win and you have a moral responsibility to your own side to do what it takes to prevail. In my opinion you cannot build a society worth having on innocent ashes - if you need to butcher civilians to win, maybe it's better that you don't.


blegh. Even as I type it, I know what you're going to say. "What if by killing many civilians early, you greatly reduce the duration of the conflict and hence save a much larger sum of lives in the long run?". The Hiroshima argument.

I don't have a good answer for that because it's a very good argument as well.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 dogma wrote:
All's fair in love and war.

Except when you're blowing up innocent people.

I agree, it should be avoided, but if you have no other recourse....

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
All's fair in love and war.

The Geneva Convention would disagree.

A convention which Churchill was never fond of.

Its still sickening, and contemptible, no matter the recourses available to you.

The moment you start to intentionally target the innocent, you give up what moral superiority, human compassion and decency you may have once had and become as bad and contemptible as your enemy.

The Blitz was wrong, because it specifically targeted innocents.
Dresden was wrong, because it specifically targeted innocents.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, because it specifically targeted innocents.
9/11 was wrong, because it specifically targeted innocents.
The terrorist bombings and murders of the Troubles were wrong, when they were specifically targeting innocents.


If you start using the same immoral tactics as your enemy, you are as evil as they are. At which point NEITHER SIDE deserves to win the conflict.

 Ouze wrote:

blegh. Even as I type it, I know what you're going to say. "What if by killing many civilians early, you greatly reduce the duration of the conflict and hence save a much larger sum of lives in the long run?". The Hiroshima argument.

I don't have a good answer for that because it's a very good argument as well.

That's roughly what I was going to say, but I'll add that I believe one should only go to war when necessary, and that such wars should be fought without restraint. WWI, WWII, and the Falklands War are probably the only examples of this; at least in modern, Western history.

At least if we leave out civil wars, where no one is innocent and everyone is subject to blame.

 whembly wrote:
Good luck with this.

Has there been any verifiable facts that the Saudi directly/indirectly banked roll Al Qaeda?

Wasn't all but one of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi? Pretty sure I've read about there being some evidence of high-up Saudi family members being involved (links to the Bin Laden family for starters), although I guess it's a grey area where 'government money' and 'state' are involved..

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The terrorist bombings and murders of the Troubles were wrong, when they were specifically targeting innocents.

Oh, yeah, The Troubles were horrible. I was thinking of the IRA circa 1920.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

If you start using the same immoral tactics as your enemy, you are as evil as they are. At which point NEITHER SIDE deserves to win the conflict.

Winning is not something that happens because the victor deserves it. Thinking of violent conflict in that sense is like treating it as a sport. Which, to be fair, is a European tradition.

 Pacific wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Good luck with this.

Has there been any verifiable facts that the Saudi directly/indirectly banked roll Al Qaeda?

Wasn't all but one of the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi? Pretty sure I've read about there being some evidence of high-up Saudi family members being involved (links to the Bin Laden family for starters), although I guess it's a grey area where 'government money' and 'state' are involved..

Like dogma said... the Saudi family is ginormous. Probably on par with "Smiths" or "Johns".

I'd argue that there are no rules in war...

The victors *makes* the rules...

Therefore, I'd argue that if you must wage war, then you'd must go all-out-balls-to-the-wall to achieve your objectives. Otherwise, you're prolonging the excursion such that you may incur more innocent deaths.

 whembly wrote:


I'd argue that there are no rules in war...

The victors *makes* the rules...

That logic has been used to justify all manner of atrocities through history.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I'd argue that there are no rules in war...

The victors *makes* the rules...

That logic has been used to justify all manner of atrocities through history.

Of course... you're trying to tact on some moral "standards" when waging war.

You mention things like Dresden Firebombing and Horishima/Nagaski... those were horrific, and yet, help end the war for the victors.

 whembly wrote:
Wut? The USA funded the IRA?
o.O

Nope. However it is a common argument used by people who cannot understand the difference between the actions of private citizens, and their governments.

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

please do id love to see America see themselves bitten in the ass also slightly off topic, but I know its what they want to be called but I never give them the honour of calling the IRA in irish history the IRA were heroes who fought for our independence, its sickening to see their name dirtied

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

please do id love to see America see themselves bitten in the ass also slightly off topic, but I know its what they want to be called but I never give them the honour of calling the IRA in irish history the IRA were heroes who fought for our independence, its sickening to see their name dirtied

You think people who targeted, bombed, murdered and assassinated not just British soldiers (an arguably legitimate target), but Policemen, politicians and innocent civilians (men, women and children) were Heroes? FETHING HEROES?

Have I misunderstood your comment, or are you really calling murderers and terrorists heroes??

Its one thing to call armed resistance against the Military forces of a perceived foreign occupation Heroism, but these people targeted many innocent people too. (as did their
Loyalist Counterparts).

The IRA, and their Loyalist Paramilitary counterparts were TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS. I rank both sides right alongside Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas and Hezbollah in terms of scum-baggery.

You say that it's sickening to hear the IRA's name dirtied. I say its sickening and contemptible to hear them called Heroes.

Apologies, I badly worded my comment, I was not talking about them specifically, mainly the small group that got executed and pretty much sacrificed their life for Ireland and the cause and all the freedom movement. But in all fairness here in ireland it's all talk about their upsides and for us what they won us was something priceless.

But it's quite interesting to hear an english side of things, just curious in school (if you learn about this stuff) are the British glorified in the same way the IRA and Irish independent movements are?

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

please do id love to see America see themselves bitten in the ass also slightly off topic, but I know its what they want to be called but I never give them the honour of calling the IRA in irish history the IRA were heroes who fought for our independence, its sickening to see their name dirtied

You think people who targeted, bombed, murdered and assassinated not just British soldiers (an arguably legitimate target), but Policemen, politicians and innocent civilians (men, women and children) were Heroes? FETHING HEROES?

Have I misunderstood your comment, or are you really calling murderers and terrorists heroes??

Its one thing to call armed resistance against the Military forces of a perceived foreign occupation Heroism, but these people targeted many innocent people too. (as did their
Loyalist Counterparts).

The IRA, and their Loyalist Paramilitary counterparts were TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS. I rank both sides right alongside Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Hamas and Hezbollah in terms of scum-baggery.

You say that it's sickening to hear the IRA's name dirtied. I say its sickening and contemptible to hear them called Heroes.

Apologies, I badly worded my comment, I was not talking about them specifically, mainly the small group that got executed and pretty much sacrificed their life for Ireland and the cause and all the freedom movement. But in all fairness here in ireland it's all talk about their upsides and for us what they won us was something priceless.

But it's quite interesting to hear an english side of things, just curious in school (if you learn about this stuff) are the British glorified in the same way the IRA and Irish independent movements are?

Scottish person here, 2 cents time is ago.

While these events are discussed, I've seen allot of people idolise the IRA and I'm pretty sure this is down to the input of parents. The discussion of the IRA always seems to focus on the troubles, but I haven't seen any glorification of the British.

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

Apologies, I badly worded my comment, I was not talking about them specifically, mainly the small group that got executed and pretty much sacrificed their life for Ireland and the cause and all the freedom movement. But in all fairness here in ireland it's all talk about their upsides and for us what they won us was something priceless.

Thats a relief.

Fighting for 'freedom' against a perceived foreign military occupation is one thing, and is arguably justified. (not that I'm agreeing with it - just acknowledging the argument).

British soldiers in Ireland were arguably justifiable targets. They are Military, and they knew that they were risking their lives when they signed up. Similarly, British and American soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are/were arguably justifiable targets. Regardless of whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were right or wrong, they were carrying out a military occupation of foreign countries.

But the deliberate targeting of non-combatant civilians, as committed by both sides of the conflict, the IRA and UVF was flat out wrong. Describing these people, specifically, as heroes is sickening.

The Troubles, among other things, has contributed to my adoption of Atheism. Time and again I've seen religion poison and taint humanity and cultural relations. Ireland. Islamic terrorism. Israel. Religion just isn't worth the cost.

As I understand it the British army was deployed to keep the peace between the two sides.

But it's quite interesting to hear an english side of things, just curious in school (if you learn about this stuff) are the British glorified in the same way the IRA and Irish independent movements are?

I'm English but my Dad came from Belfast, and was the son of a (English) Protestant Reverand. My grandmother is English. My Dad left Ireland when he was about 20 when they all came to live in England. His two younger brothers, my uncles, have embraced their Irish identity vs their British identity, despite being raised as Protestants. Ironically, one of them served in the British army. And the other converted to Catholicism and gave his 5 daughters Irish names.

And no, I can confirm that at least at my schools, Britain was never glorified at all in anything. If anything, my schools went out of their way to focus on Britain's perceived wrong doings. We were never taught about the Troubles in Ireland. In my school experience, History lessons were almost totally devoid of anything remotely resembling Patriotism.

History in my schools covered the Romans, the Norman Invasion of England (Battle of Hastings). The London Blitz. The Holocaust. Britain's role in the Atlantic Slave Trade (we watched the TV series Roots). Strangely, they never bothered to teach us about Britain's subsequent leading role in the Abolition of slavery, and the Royal Navy patrolling the Atlantic to enforce anti-Slavery laws. Of course, I dropped History by Year 10 (penultimate year of Secondary School, when we choose our GCSE's), so I did not continue onto GCSE History. I don't know what GCSE History at my school covered, but IIRC it did include the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis.


I don't have strong feelings on the question of Irish indepedence. Growing up, my Dad never talked about the Troubles much other than a couple anecdotes...e.g.
...One time, he let off some home made smoke bombs in his school, triggering a bomb alert and evacuation. He was never caught.
...Another time, he was playing soldiers with his friends with toy guns, and came face to face in a ditch with a British Paratrooper.
...And then there was the time when he had to take a detour hopping over fences in people's back yards to avoid the crossfire of bullets whizzing down the street.

I like Britain, and I like Ireland, and I wish the two islands were peacefully united in some fashion - a loose Federal system, or Commonwealth. I think we all have much more in common, culturally, historically, legally and traditionally, than we do with the European Continent who have never been particularly friendly towards us. But I suppose British-Irish relations have been hopelessly tainted by the Troubles. Also, as a Libertarian who values democratic self determination, if a majority of people in Northern Ireland want to be re-united with Ireland then I respect their desire and right to do so. Same goes for Scotland. If the majority of Scots want to leave the UK, then thats their right.

I don't want the UK to break up, but if there is a clear democratic mandate to do so then it must be done. It will be a very sad day though.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 The Dark Apostle wrote:

Apologies, I badly worded my comment, I was not talking about them specifically, mainly the small group that got executed and pretty much sacrificed their life for Ireland and the cause and all the freedom movement. But in all fairness here in ireland it's all talk about their upsides and for us what they won us was something priceless.

Thats a relief.

Fighting for 'freedom' against a perceived foreign military occupation is one thing, and is arguably justified. (not that I'm agreeing with it - just acknowledging the argument).

British soldiers in Ireland were arguably justifiable targets. They are Military, and they knew that they were risking their lives when they signed up. Similarly, British and American soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan are/were arguably justifiable targets. Regardless of whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were right or wrong, they were carrying out a military occupation of foreign countries.

But the deliberate targeting of non-combatant civilians, as committed by both sides of the conflict, the IRA and UVF was flat out wrong. Describing these people, specifically, as heroes is sickening.

The Troubles, among other things, has contributed to my adoption of Atheism. Time and again I've seen religion poison and taint humanity and cultural relations. Ireland. Islamic terrorism. Israel. Religion just isn't worth the cost.

As I understand it the British army was deployed to keep the peace between the two sides.

But it's quite interesting to hear an english side of things, just curious in school (if you learn about this stuff) are the British glorified in the same way the IRA and Irish independent movements are?

I'm English but my Dad came from Belfast, and was the son of a (English) Protestant Reverand. My grandmother is English. My Dad left Ireland when he was about 20 when they all came to live in England. His two younger brothers, my uncles, have embraced their Irish identity vs their British identity, despite being raised as Protestants. Ironically, one of them served in the British army. And the other converted to Catholicism and gave his 5 daughters Irish names.

And no, I can confirm that at least at my schools, Britain was never glorified at all in anything. If anything, my schools went out of their way to focus on Britain's perceived wrong doings. We were never taught about the Troubles in Ireland. In my school experience, History lessons were almost totally devoid of anything remotely resembling Patriotism.

History in my schools covered the Romans, the Norman Invasion of England (Battle of Hastings). The London Blitz. The Holocaust. Britain's role in the Atlantic Slave Trade (we watched the TV series Roots). Strangely, they never bothered to teach us about Britain's subsequent leading role in the Abolition of slavery, and the Royal Navy patrolling the Atlantic to enforce anti-Slavery laws. Of course, I dropped History by Year 10 (penultimate year of Secondary School, when we choose our GCSE's), so I did not continue onto GCSE History. I don't know what GCSE History at my school covered, but IIRC it did include the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis.


I don't have strong feelings on the question of Irish indepedence. Growing up, my Dad never talked about the Troubles much other than a couple anecdotes...e.g.
...One time, he let off some home made smoke bombs in his school, triggering a bomb alert and evacuation. He was never caught.
...Another time, he was playing soldiers with his friends with toy guns, and came face to face in a ditch with a British Paratrooper.
...And then there was the time when he had to take a detour hopping over fences in people's back yards to avoid the crossfire of bullets whizzing down the street.

I like Britain, and I like Ireland, and I wish the two islands were peacefully united in some fashion - a loose Federal system, or Commonwealth. I think we all have much more in common, culturally, historically, legally and traditionally, than we do with the European Continent who have never been particularly friendly towards us. But I suppose British-Irish relations have been hopelessly tainted by the Troubles. Also, as a Libertarian who values democratic self determination, if a majority of people in Northern Ireland want to be re-united with Ireland then I respect their desire and right to do so. Same goes for Scotland. If the majority of Scots want to leave the UK, then thats their right.

I don't want the UK to break up, but if there is a clear democratic mandate to do so then it must be done. It will be a very sad though.

thank you nice seeing a new perspective on things