IRA Video


Good stuff. Freedom fighters resisting the British occupation of Ireland, just like the Palestinians resist the Israeli occupation of their homeland. The Irish people deserve the right to self-determination. The Good Friday agreement will never allow that, so it’s crap. The IRA often gives warnings for its bombs too, but of all of the armed movements of Europe, they’ve been the most hardcore. They kill young Catholic cops, apparently as “traitors.” That’s messed up.


Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

27 thoughts on “IRA Video”

  1. The Northern Irish are Lowland Scots who have been there for 300-400 years. Only 20 miles of water separates the two areas.There weren’t very many Irish in the North at the time- The Scots outnumbered the Irish 5-1 for a long time, and the Irish Irish (Catholics) have been attempting to re-conquer the area through their high birth rate. Kind of like Mexicans.

    Problem: those 1 million British-Irish Protestants ain’t gion’ nowhere and won’t be subjugated by Catholics, either (they will not be nice).

    These two groups just need to be separated- the British-Irish are a distinct ethnic group that has been there for hundreds of years- it is their home. It should probably be its own separate country but that won’t fly- so the British troops are there to “protect”.

    The English are jerks but the Unionist Irish are whiners- they have 4/5ths of Ireland and will never be happy, ever, apparently.

    1. The English are jerks but the Unionist Irish are whiners- they have 4/5ths of Ireland and will never be happy, ever, apparently.

      Hehe, and the Irish have a bit more to worry about than Northern Ireland.

      The fact that much of Dublin is turning into little Nigeria, for starters.

  2. When California is returned to Mexico, will the rest of the US willingly accept the 2nd wave of Mexican/California immigrants?

    I’m positive 95% of Mexican-Americans do not want to live under a Mexican nation.

    1. I don’t either. But when I think of Ireland and Mexico, there are too many parallels. The countries share a Catholic, sublimated camaraderie. Great boxers. Drinking. Slums. Historically high birth-rates.


  3. The Spanish had 20 buildings (slave labor/torture mills called “missions”) and a few barely manned forts- about 700 Spaniards total in the whole of California- 235,000 square miles.
    When New Spain became Mexico, the “Californios”- the Spanish/Mexicans who stayed after the missions were abandoned- wanted nothing to do with Mexico.
    They fought along side the whites and other settlers to break from Mexico during the U.S./Mexican War in 1846.
    At the time of the Gold Rush there were only 1,500 adult male (6,000 women & children) Californios of Mexican descent, most of who had been “given” huge pieces of land for no reason other than they had been soldiers. The 8,000 non-Mexican settlers actually outnumbered the Mexicans by this time..
    The Mexican “claim” to California has always been very, very weak.

    1. And will remain so.

      For all its loud college protestations, the Aztlan spirit is bullshit. Most Mexican-Americans are blue-collared middle-classers who don’t give a crap about indigenous Indian culture or the sanctity of the Spanish language.

      1. I have to put up with Aztlan crap all the time. There is no good basis for their “claim” to the Western U.S. They did have a good claim to the Santa Fe and Santa Fe Trail area. That’s why it’s called…New Mexico. All other state claims are grossly inflated or laughable. About seven Spaniards saw and hiked around Oregon for a few weeks, two visited Nevada, and about five trudged through Utah. The Texas story is similar to California- the Tejanos were even smaller in number and hated the Mexicans, fighting against them. There were a couple of small pueblos (100-200 pop.) in extreme southern Colorado near the New Mexico border. There were quite a few Mexicans in the extreme south of Arizona- the area of the Gadsen Purchase. But, when you buy something from a Mexican, they still think they own it. Pathetic.

    2. @ Mott

      Yeah, Aztlan is a load of shit. The idea that Mexicans are somehow “reclaiming” California is bullshit.

      Also, notice how nobody ever says that Turkey stole Istanbul from the Greeks, even though the Greeks have a far greater historical claim to Istanbul (ie. Constantinople) than Mexicans do to California.

  4. @ BAG- I figured it out! Nobody cares about land grabs, conquests, changes in ownership, UNLESS it was done by evil white Euro colonials within the last 350 years. Anything before that- not a problem!

    1. Yeah, in fact, post-modernists frequently glorify ancient and medieval Middle Eastern empires.

      I always hear a ton about how oh-so-tolerant “Islamic” empires were towards their subjects, and how much Spain benefited from Moorish rule.

      (glorifying empire based on the benefits of its rule. Where have we heard that before?)

      And of course, we’re also supposed to shed tears over the demise of the glorious Aztecs at the hands of the evil white Spaniards, not mentioning that the Aztecs were very brutal and oppressive in their own right.

      (otherwise, around 100,000 Tlaxcalan soldiers wouldn’t have allied with Cortez to take out the Aztecs)

      And of course, the same people who insist that 9/11 was justifiable payback for U.S. foreign policy (which, for the record, I don’t dispute), but would never claim that the deaths of Japanese due to U.S. bombing (atomic and fire) were payback for Japan’s war crimes.

      (oh, that’s right, the U.S. is a democracy, and Japan wasn’t at the time, so that means the Japanese people shouldn’t be blamed for imperial Japan’s crimes. Funny, because even though Germans were living under an even more authoritarian regime, they’re blamed for Nazi Germany’s crimes, ie. “silence is consent”)

      Ugh. This postmodern, revisionist crap makes my blood boil.

      And you know, it’s funny. Despite their belief that non-whites are infinitely superior to wicked whites in terms of morality and spirituality, they don’t actually hold non-whites to very high moral standards.

      Non-whites are never responsible for their own misdeeds, and if whites were somehow involved (however indirectly), then it’s the evil white man’s fault for contaminating their pure souls and forcing them to commit evil deeds.

      1. @BAG- Yes, all the hunter gatherer societies were NOBLE and matrilineal and bathed regularly, and respected Nature.

        Except, I guess, the ancient European tribes- they were Barbarians, wore caveman duds and had no class…I guess.

        Did you know that the African Slavery practiced by the Muslims was somehow not as bad as that practiced by the Euros? (even though they took as many)

        Did you know that the African kings would have never gotten so into Slave Trade if the Euros hadn’t plied them with gold, weapons and alcohol?

        Did you know that when the Whites broke a treaty with the Indians it was because they were fork-tounged liars, but when Indians broke a treaty, it was because they had a de-centralized authority structure that did not recognize treaties universally?

        The P.C. Police have more wild n’ crazy facts where those came from!

  5. Well said Mott 69. The Northern Ireland protestants have been there as long as the white man’s been in America. Do they not get the right to self-determination? It is, and always was, a civil rights issue re the catholics in the North. The IRA/ Sinn Fein are gangster capitalists; there isn’t a ‘progressive’ thing about them.

    I wonder why Irish catholics are so keen for the Northern protestants to be subjugated to their nasty right-wing theocracy, when most of the catholics seem to not want to live there themselves – there’s more Irish catholics in Britain than in Dublin. Anyway, the catholics have lost their state; their leaders gambled it and lost, and now the international bankers own it. Now the rest of them will have to leave or be slaves for generations.

    1. @Lafayette- Yeah, what is wrong with the Irish?
      For a people so close to English and Scandinavians, genetically- why are they so different?
      They’ve always been so dysfunctional, always playing the victim of English card- with a lot of truth to that, yeah, but here’s the deal: they complained that they were ignored by England, and couldn’t benefit
      from industrialization. But they would have screamed even louder had England invaded, took over and Anglicized and industrialized the whole island (which the English could have done, in theory- but only if they converted the Irish to Protestantism).

      At the risk of offending Catholics and Irish people I’d say their problem isin their genes and in their religion. Yet everyone does have a soft spot for them- likeable people and culture.

      My fave Irish facts: St. Patrick was English- captured and enslaved by Irish. Also, 2/3 of snakebite victims in the U.S. are of Irish descent, currently!

  6. THIS is what you call “good stuff”?
    Your definition of “good”would be interesting to know.
    I just posted a blog comparing the IRA to Hamas. Their approach to using terror to secure political objectives is remarkably similar. But I do agree that, long term, the “Good Friday Agreement “will not work.

    And I wish you would be less cavalier in your use of the terms “occupation” and “homeland” in referring to the Palestinians.
    It would make me believe that the sources all your knowledge of the situation here are Aljazeera, The Guardian or The Independent.

    Suffice it to say, in this short post, that the IRA only sought independence from UK rule, They did not seek the destruction and eradication of the entire United Kingdom and all its inhabitants.

    Read the Hamas charter -and then make the comparison!

  7. In a thirty year period from the 1960’s the IRA killed around 650 civilians – and maimed thousands of others – in bombing attacks on pubs, clubs, restaurants, shops and city centres.
    I call that terror.
    What would you call it?

    Whilst it’s true that, during the same period, they managed to kill around 1200 members of the “security forces” ( I think, mainly, policemen), the use of the term “mostly” is a bit disingenuous – even if statistically true.

    The Hamas charter, taken together with the public statements of their leaders seeks the elimination of Israel as a State for the Jews.

    Bearing in mind what happened to the Jews in the past when they had no homeland, I think my assumption is reasonable.

    And I guess that exhausts the 2% political window for today!

    Have a good one!

    1. Sheik Yassin was definitely not good for the Jews! Agreed. He was a vicious anti-Semite. His view of the position of the Jews after a Hamas victory was not a pretty one. It wasn’t that he was going to kill them all right away, you don’t understand that part. They would demand that all the post 1917 Jews take off and give them some time to do that. Those that didn’t leave, well, apparently there might be some attacks against them, like you see in Iraq today. Would they round them up Nazi-style? I do not think so.

      Mr. Rantissi was a very ugly man, not as religious as Yassin, but a vicious anti-Semite nevertheless. His view of Jews post-takeover? No one knows.

      Neither Yassin nor Rantissi supported killing or attacking any Jews outside of Palestine, so similarities with Nazis can end there. Nazis wanted Jews off the Earth; Hamas wants them off of Palestine: a difference.

      Mashal is a very slick guy and no one knows his position on the Jews post-takeover.

      The Hamas Charter is widely recognized to be a noxious and anachronistic document, but no one has the balls to rewrite it yet.

  8. Whilst I agree that your analysis is broadly accurate it does make some generous assumptions as to how Hamas would deal with Jews if they had the power.

    And I don’t think anyone will rewrite the Koran, especially the parts dealing with non- believers in general, and Jews in particular.

    On the question of balls; my personal problem is that it is mine that are on the line here should Hamas prevail – and I would rather like to hang on to them!

  9. In no particular order:
    St Patrick was born in what is now Scotland (just west of Glasgow).
    The Good Friday Agreement specifically allows for the reunification of Ireland, if voted for by majorities north and south of the border. IMO very many ‘nationalists’ actually wanted equal treatment in the north, not to join the south.
    The IRA killed a lot of people in England. Their main sources of finance were Libya and the USA. Funding from the US stopped after 9/11.
    As Matt69 says, the ‘Brits’ in Northern Ireland are mostly Lowland Scots who have been in Ulster since C17. They aren’t going anywhere and are a hard bunch of bastards – in fact the British Army was sent into Ulster in 1969 to protect Catholics there from Protestant mobs.
    To a large extent one can say that the C17 Wars of Religion continue in Ulster. In fact when planes come in to land at Belfast Airport the captains routinely advise passengers to set back their watches by 400 years.

    1. Just how many people did the IRA kill in England? I’ve never heard of a one.

      And what does this mean?

      IMO very many ‘nationalists’ actually wanted equal treatment in the north, not to join the south.

      I don’t think that anyone expects the Northern Protestants to go anywhere, and it would be news to me if this was an IRA demand. As I understand it, the IRA says that the Protestants can stay in North Ireland, but they want N. Ireland united with the rest of Ireland in a single Irish state.

      IMO, there is no such thing as “Northern Ireland” as a separate entity. It’s simply a British colony occupying part of Ireland. Hence, the IRA fight is an anti-colonial war. There is only Ireland, and “Northern Ireland” is a part of the state of Ireland.

  10. I don’t have a comprehensive list of IRA murders in England, but for starters
    1974 Guildford Pub bombings, 5 dead, 54 injured
    1974 Woolwich Pub bombings, 2 dead, 28 injured
    1974 Birmingham bombings, 21 dead, 162 injured
    1982 shootings & bombings, 11 dead, 50 injured
    1984 Grand Hotel Brighton bombed in an attempt to kill the British Prime Minister; she was unharmed but many were killed and injured

    I’m slightly surprised that none of this made the news in the US! It’s very easy to google this if you want more detail.

    ‘IMO very many ‘nationalists’ actually wanted equal treatment in the north, not to join the south.’ What this means is that modern Irish republicanism in Ulster started as a civil rights movement – actually very similar to the US South in many ways, theoretically equal political treatment undermined by gerrymandering and oppression by police. When the Ulster political establishment resisted the civil rights campaign it became an armed struggle ie revolution once reform was seen to be unavailable. But plenty of

    1. @Tim Weir

      Re: “I don’t have a comprehensive list of IRA murders in England, but for starters
      1974 Guildford Pub bombings, 5 dead, 54 injured
      1974 Woolwich Pub bombings, 2 dead, 28 injured
      1974 Birmingham bombings, 21 dead, 162 injured
      1982 shootings & bombings, 11 dead, 50 injured
      1984 Grand Hotel Brighton bombed in an attempt to kill the British Prime Minister; she was unharmed but many were killed and injured

      I’m slightly surprised that none of this made the news in the US!”

      All those bombings is one of the first things that spring to mind when I think of the IRA.

      I agree, though I haven’t read loads about it, from what I have heard and read it was originally about civil rights, the catholics in Northern Ireland weren’t getting treated equally to the protestants and life was very difficult for them at the time, that was the main issue.

  11. ‘IMO, there is no such thing as “Northern Ireland” as a separate entity. It’s simply a British colony occupying part of Ireland. Hence, the IRA fight is an anti-colonial war. There is only Ireland, and “Northern Ireland” is a part of the state of Ireland.’
    One or two relevant factual points:
    1. Ireland has never been a united country, except under the British Crown
    2. Northern Ireland is not a British colony, unless you want to call Alaska a US colony. It’s part of the UK, and a majority of its inhabitants want it to stay that way. If that ever stops being true – and this is possible – then Ulster will leave the UK. Just as Scotland might (incidentally, I’m a Scot). We are democrats.
    3. The IRA is not fighting against the UK, in fact the former head of IRA Sinn
    Fein has for a few years now been Deputy 1st Minister of Northern Ireland! Your video is either very old or relates to a dissident republican splinter group, not the IRA.

  12. Good Friday Agreement constuitutional issues:
    The Agreement acknowledged and recognised:
    that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland at the time wished to remain as part of the United Kingdom, and that Northern Ireland’s present and continuing status as part of the United Kingdom was a reflection of that wish;
    that a “substantial section” of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority “of the people of the island of Ireland”, wished to bring about a united Ireland;
    that both views were legitimate;
    that it was only for the people of Ireland as a whole, by agreement between North and South, “to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given”, to bring about a united Ireland;
    that any future change in the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom is only to be brought about by the freely exercised choice of “a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”;
    and that the British and Irish governments are under “a binding obligation” to implement that choice.
    The Agreement also “affirm[s]” that whether as part of the United Kingdom, or in future as a part of a united Ireland, the relevant government with authority over Northern Ireland shall exercise its authority there “with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities”.
    The “birthright” of all the people of Northern Ireland “to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both”, is also recognised, as well as their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship; and that these rights are not to be affected should Northern Ireland become a part of a united Ireland.
    The British government was committed to secure the repeal by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
    The Irish government was committed to secure the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland, which asserted a territorial claim to Northern Ireland, and to amend Section 29 of the Constitution so as to give authority to the cross-border institutions to be set up under the Agreement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)