and to finish with one thing i have come to see is that most people in southern ireland and england are not that bothered about NI u may not know this but sinn fein biggest problem now is convinceing many southern irish about a united ireland because many people in the south dont want the headache as indeed many english could not care less
if u beleive that then u must think that the people who ran PIRA had the mindset of 10 year olds how the could u explain that the leadership in pira could with a few tons of semtex and assault rifles have that as an objective lol the british won rofl now for the first time i see your true colours what was it a football match in an under 12s league good god is it any wonder your views are so off the wall if u want to comment on NI history check some INDEPENDENT sources and stop reading battle m
@imedi The IRA by the "70's realised they couldn't get the brits out overnight. They came up with the stategy of the long war. ie a war of attrition lasting many years in which the IRA would tire the brits out. They would, the IRA hoped get sick of the war and withdraw from ireland. Go into google look up IRA long war. What was the IRA's campaign about if not forcing a british withdrawal?
@jonoessex either. and no i cant agree that their campagian was as u put it a total failure, how can i they are in government.. the southern government have cross border bodies in which they have a say on how northern irish government work the ruc have been reorganised udr and b specials disbanded , the electorial areas no longer gerrymandered to suit unionist vote none of this would have happened had it not been for PIRA . not that i think that is a good thing ..sad that it needed it
@imedi Oh come on. The southern government would have had a say in the running of NI with the sunningdale agreement in 1973. The Macrory report 1970 led to a great deal of changes to stop gerrymandering. The IRA campaign acheived nothing.
if a guerrilla army kills civilians they are terrorists but if a government backed military force kills civilians its collateral damage. I'm not saying terrorists are right I'm saying calling civilian casualty's collateral damage is wrong. murder is murder no matter what you call it. your governments are sending your children into foreign country's with loaded weapons to fight an enemy that isn't afraid to die while the real murderers sit back with big fat checks and pensions in there big houses
@barinit The IRA used to call their civilian casualties "mistakes". It's wrong no matter whether it's a government or a private group. The soldiers in Afghanistan should come home. War is a terrible thing but just because states do terrible things doesn't mean that non-state groups are any better.
part 2 = is that groups like the IRA .ANC. PLO could not exist unless they have the support of the people they live amongst thats why the british. isreali or south african military could never defeat them on the other hand they are not going to defeat a standing army either they know this hence the peace talks but i have no doubt that ira violence did pressure british into seeking a solution
introducing legislation !!! lol is that why the police and unionist mobs beat catholics of the street wnen they simply marched to look for basic rights for catholics and then burned them out of their homes remember at that time the ira was nothing more than a old mans club and were not even able to defend them, and yes the things were worse in south africa but thatcher called them terrorists too by what measure do u suggest people have the right to turn yo the gun u see the mistake u make is
@imedi Are you suggesting that the british government didn't introduce legislation to deal with the greivances of catholics? They introduced a raft of legislation to deal with catholic grievances.
@jonoessex if u are talking about the sunningdale agreement in 1974 what good was it when it was not enforced uvf and uda gunmen held a strike to back up unionst politions who opposed agreement because they would not share power with catholics, what did british do they backed down, like i already said nothing happened in the north until major and then blair stood up to the unionist . when adams and mcguinness saw that they were prepared to work for a united through peaceful means
@imedi The british government introduced a raft of legislation to deal with catholic greviances beginning in the late 60's. It's interesting that you think the british didn't introduce reforms until major. You have been misinformed. By 1975 all the reforms of the civil rights movement had been implimented. The local government franchise was reformed in line with the rest of the uk, the b specials were abolished, the special powers act repealed, a points system for housing had been introduced
@imedi cont... discrimination on the grounds of religion had been outlawed and a fair employment agency established. I repeat all these reforms had been introduced by 1975. So it is totally untrue to say nothing happened until major and blair. Adams & mcguinness had no intention of working for a united ireland peacefully until they realised they couldn't defeat the british militarily. They gave up and negotiated a settlement with the british because military means proved ineffective.
@jonoessex but u see your argument has 1 very big flaw in the mid 60s the ira were stood down as i said before. in 1969 it was not even there to defend catholics it then came back as a result of security force oppression and yes i have already said the ira leadership knew they could not defeat a standing army but they would have known this in 1969 for that matter many people in the british military have themselves admitted they could not defeat pira either. and yes there was
@imedi The security forces were not oppressing people. They were there to restore order. This did put them in conflict with nationalists some whom thought they were oppressors. In 1969 the provos were formed to force the brits out of ireland. They started with the belief they could force a british withdrawal within a year or so. In the late 70's they came up with the concepte of the long war. Saying it would take a decade or so to force the brits out of ireland.
@jonoessex to many catholics the security forces were opressers u are wrong big time i knew ordinary catholic families who were afraid to leave their houses after dark not because of UDA but out of fear of the UDR and RUC (security forces) and before u say their fears were unfounded UDR men were killed in UDA operations , yes ira did use slogans of brits out and so on but the british military thought they could defeat the ira in a year too so what...
@jonoessex legislatin past in 75 but as i have said already what use if not enforced.. and thats why many catholics vote sinn fein today because in their eyes ira campaign forced the british to stand up to unionist veto so ira campaign was not a waste of time
@imedi Gerry adams etc realised in the "80's that they could not defeat the british. Prior to that the IRA believed they could force the brit out through violence. If they didn't they would have given up. All the legislation I've mentioned was enforced.
@jonoessex rubbish i have given u the reasons as to why it was not enforced until the 90s, you can ignore them if u like, by the way in case u think i am anti british i am not .i have many british friends and have a sister married into a RAF family so i am not coming from a place that is anti british,. but i dont agree with your slanted view of history either , as i said first post groups like the ira dont just appear out of fresh air, they cannot exist without support of people
@imedi They were enforced. It is you who has a slanted view of history. Republican propaganda has been successful in convincing people that the non-violent civil rights movement was a failure. It was not. All the demands of NICRA were implemented and legislated for by the british by 1975.
@jonoessex lol then if u are right and i am wrong then why are sinn fein and not sdlp the main nationalist party in ireland. and lets see what we now have yes sinn fein are part of government in NI under good friday agreement which is closer to a united ireland than u think and much of it daily buissness is done on an all ireland basis something that was unthinkable to unionists so it cuts both ways.. as for propaganda that something thats used on all sides not just PIRA. do u
@jonoessex if u knew anything about conflicts like NI u would know this that there are NO WINNERS u silly person, if the british had won as u like to call it ,adams and co would either b dead or on the run do u REALLY think that a british government could stomach people in government who killed MEPs slaughtered british civilians and killed over 1000 members of the security services if they had defeated them lol not to mention giving a forign govt a say in running of part of their country
@imedi I suppose what I said about the british army winning may have sounded jingoistic. I withdraw those comments then. What I was trying to say was that the IRA campaign was to force the brits from ireland. They were unsuccessful. I was trying to say that there campaign was a total failure. Forget what I said about winning
@jonoessex really think that PIRA thought that they could oust a standing army with all the resources at their disposal thats silly... adams has stated often enough what his aim were which was to force the british to the table and in the process break the back of unionist sectarian government. he was never silly enough to beleive that unionist would ever accept a united ireland at the point of a gun . why becuse he would never accept unionist sectarianism at the point of a gun either
@imedi Your talking complete nonsense i'm afraid. The IRA's aim was to force the british out of Ireland at the point of a gun. It's as simple as that. Republicans are silly enough to believe that they could force unionists into a united ireland.
@jonoessex oh and 1 more thing the words internal settlement ,,, you are right the PIRA were not some bunch of yobs who got on a plane from sweden or iceland they were irish and supported by many people who british soldiers would say they were protecting thats british propaganda,,why because if army were telling the truth why would the same people they were protecting then go and vote sinn fein ..see your argument does not stack up,
@imedi The british were there to maintain order. The British army naturally got into conflict with the nationalist community. For example the falls rd curfew in 1970. They imposed a curfew to search for IRA weapons. The security measures and the deaths of civilians and IRA propaganda led nationalists into believing in the ideology of sinn fein. My argument does stack up
@jonoessex so the ira fooled the people in their own areas that brits are bad and we are good for 30 years lol awww those gulliable catholics how could they be so stupid all thease years against the poor misunderstood army . keep going im having a great laugh now,, jeez u should go door to door and explain how wrong they have been all this time lol
@imedi Well as I say the british role was to maintain law and order in NI. Many nationalists viewed the army as an oppressive force. It was a matter of interpretation. Republicans considered the british as occupiers because they wanted a united ireland and saw the brits as occupiers. Their view of the role of the brits is different to mine
@jonoessex no dont do that because i am not sure people in those area might see the funny side many of whom were victims of the security forces look i know pira were no angels but thats what i meant about their being no winners there was bad done on both sides i have tried to explain best i can why people turned to the gun and why it was not as simple as u make it out to b if u dont want to see that then thats up to u. but i dont support 1 side or the other but i dont go for we good they bad
@imedi Well I go for the idea that the conflict could have been solved through peaceful means. The british obvously wanted a power-sharing arrangement of some sort. They began trying to introduce that in 1973. The peaceful route the brits wanted was the best route rather than the violent route the IRA took
@jonoessex thats why u cant compare PIRA and al-qaeda wheather u agree with the ira or not there were reasons why they used armed actions against the state and many people who lived in the 6 counties felt they had every right to fight a sectarian government. al-qaeda armed actions are based on the fact that all non muslims are unclean so they should die its impossible to start dialogue with a group part of whos ethos is killing for the sake of killing
@imedi The goals of the IRA and al-qaeda are different. You are right about al-qaeda's aims. They cannot be negotiated with. The IRA could. What al-qaeda and the IRA share in common is a fanatical devotion to their ideology and a refusal to accept political reality. Eventually the IRA realised it couldn't win and gave up. It then entered a peace process. I'm glad it did so. It's campaign of violence has acheived absolutely nothing though.
@imedi The "unionist" veto still exists. NI is still part of the uk. The IRA's campaign was a waste of lives and it acheived nothing. I repeat, all the legislation I have outlined below was implemented and legislated for by the british government and enforced. Well I agree al-queda are fanatics to me and so were the IRA to their supporters they were both heroic.
@jonoessex thats why at the end of the day british government knew they had to talk to adams beleive me if they thought they could defeat PIRA those talks would never happen
@imedi The PIRA negotiated an internal settlement in which they would administer "british rule" in ireland. They certainly would never have done this if they thought they could defeat the british army which earlier in the conflict they did.
@imedi Well the IRA would never have negotiated an internal settlement if they thought they could defeat the british. They realised they couldn't win and gave up
@jonoessex i would not call the unionist right to b part of the uk a veto its their right under good friday agreement its up to people who want a united ireland to convince them through peaceful means that a united ireland is better ,,and yes that is how the supporters of PIRA would see them as heros just as many civilians in NI and IRAQ would see british army as nothing more than terrorists thats why i say its never as black and white as u like to think
@imedi It depends on your point of view yes but there is such a thing as truth. Al-queda might consider themselves as freedom-fighters for islam but they are just wrong. I can only come to a subjective judgement
how would u know what the goals of the ira were looking at hat u have wrote u seem to have a very simplistic view of history. of coarse u do not see the ira campaign as moral but many people who lived there felt they had every right to attack a sectarian state were many catholics were 2nd class . where do i start. bad houseing, gerrymandering, sectarian police, job descrimination. thease were some of the reasons i think many in sinn fien were always happy enough to achieve a 32 county ireland
@imedi Well they didn't have a right. They should have supported peaceful reform of the state.Bad housing, gerrymandering, sectarian police, job descrimination the brits introduced legislation to reform NI and deal with everyone of the issues you have raised.
i have a question? if american or british army carry out an operation that kill civilians what would u call it,.. u say the ira killed 600 lol a small number compared to the 1000s killed in iraq alone , but of coarse thats the problem we all have, we can comment on others but when its your own its covered up or a nice word is found maybe the ira should have used the word collateral damage that would have made it all ok, as they say 1 mans freedom fighter is another mans terroist
@imedi I don't think there's anything to lol about when discussing 100's of civilian deaths. I totally opposed the war in Iraq. I'd call the killing of civilians in Iraq an atrocity. I'd also call the killing of civilians by the IRA as an atrocity. The IRA did have a nice word for their atrocities they called them "mistakes". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The IRA were not freedom-fighters. They certainly didn't get very far in there "freedom fight" did they?
@jonoessex lol was directed at people who have no problem with the thousands upon thousands of deaths carried out by men in uniform because the queen said it was ok, and get on their high horses when civilians get killed by an organisation they dont agree with., and i would say those ira men did not do so bad they have great jobs now in government I.and u remarks have just proof of what i said u may not see them as freedom fighters but many did hence the fact they are in government
@imedi Well whether a violent campaign is moral or not depends on the circumstances. I think neither the IRA's campaign nor the iraq war were moral. The IRA wanted the overthrow of the NI state. Now they are running it for the british. They might have done alright financially but not in terms of acheiving their goals.
@jonoessex part2= through peaceful means but were unable to do this in a sectarian state in 1969.. the difference now is that the back of that sectarian state is broken i.e gerrymandering gone UDR disbanded , sectarian police force changed. discrimination a thing of the past . sinnfein still work for a united ireland but through politics . so much of what ira members wanted has happened..but most of them know that u cant force anyone to agree with u at the point of a gun. so now politics is the
@imedi The British were introducing legislation to deal with all these issues. "The back of that sectarian state" was broken by the 1980's. The IRA chose to keep on killing rather than talk. Sinn Fein only work for a united ireland peacefully because they realised that violence wasn't getting anywhere so they gave up. They wanted people to agree with them at the point of a gun but the gun proved ineffective.
@jonoessex part 3= to go.. what many people like u probably dont know is that sinnfein also have to convince many in the south about a 32 county state because many here would oppose it..you may call the ira terrorist but then so were mandela and the anc . conflict is conflict wrongdoing is part of it and is carried out by everyone some irish like to think and u will see this that the old ira never did anything wrong thats just bullshit too cant see wrong in their own side just like u
@imedi I can see wrong in my own side I'm critical of alot of british foreign policy. Mandela and the ANC were fighting against a repressive racist state with a government that was oppressing them in a terrible manner. The discrimination catholics suffered cannot possibly be compared to that of blacks in south africa and the brit government cannot possibly be compared to the south african goverment under apartheid.
@jonoessex and it was not until the blair government that the back of unionst sectarian government was broken long after the 80s and it was then that the ira for the most part stepped down except for a few no hopers that have very little support and find it very difficult to operate as a result
For real, I HIGHLY doubt King approves of the targeting of targeting and murder of civilians. As far as the IRA goes, I have no idea whether the stories about them are true but I doubt they were, they were fighting the British government of all people, who I'm sure would NEVER lie or do propaganda to demonize those wishing to separate from their empire.
Bottom line is, he has not a evil guy, about as guilty as liberals who sympathized with Saddam in the 90's and OIF.
@Dethreid Go into google and type in Kingsmill massacre. It happened on 5th January 1976. It's a fact not propaganda. The "liberals" who opposed the Iraq war didn't kill anyone, King has supported a paramilitary organisation which killed 1700 people!
Any and all violence was attributed to originating and being condoned and organized by the IRA right?
His hearings were indeed pointless since people can't seem to even talk about the possibility of Muslim extremism without assuming this means every single person who identifies as Islamic will all the sudden be assumed they are guilty, much rather just give Obama the ability to investigate in secret and not even have a trial for people they assume might be a terrorist.
At a peaceful protest on the 30th of January 1972 - 13 Irish innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood by British soldiers. A local priest wove a small white blood-stained handkerchief while trying to carry a dying 17 year old Jackie Duddy for medical help - that picture and those memories will haunt Ireland forever. You tell me who the terrorists are, Cenk. Learn your history before you dare criticize which to be terrorists because if the IRA are terrorists then so are the British Army.
@aidenmccloskey Bloody sunday was not peaceful. There was rioting on the protest. There were also IRA snipers who fired on british soldiers on the march. The british army were not terrorists. They had to follow the rules of war. They didn't always do that but there is no question that they behaved much better than the IRA. You wanna talk about atrocities, warrington, birmingham, kingsmill? la mon? edgar graham? British army civilians killed 150. IRA civilians killed 650.
@jonoessex Are you really going to bring in numbers to justify what the British Army did? Deaths are deaths. You can't compare how many life's were lost and say that one was worse than the other. Moron. There's no proof that there were IRA snipers in the area. The British Army shot live rounds at those who were already running away after throwing stones at them. 'Rules of war' - are you really so naive and stupid?
@aidenmccloskey It's obviously very important to point out who was the most violent group during the troubles. That was the IRA. I said that the british army didn't always follow the rules of war but the IRA didn't follow the rules of war at all. "There's no proof there were IRA snipers in the area". No proof other than the fact that IRA snipers admitted to the saville inquiry that they were in the area and fired on british soldiers!!!
@jonoessex You forget that the IRA are not a military and are not associated or affiliated with any government whereas the British Army are. Therefor the IRA follow no rules of war which is different from the British Army or any other military because they are owned by a government. We're getting off our original subject. Bloody Sunday. British troops murdered Irish protesters as they were running away. When you murder 17 year old boys in their native country, expect there to be consequences.
@aidenmccloskey I'm glad that you admit that the IRA didn't follow the rules of war. BS was a sad event but sometimes soldiers fighting wars do bad things however a majority of the deaths during the troubles were caused by the IRA. I hope you have now accepted that IRA snipers fired on the paras.
@jonoessex IRA snipers were present, however they did not fire and there is no evidence which proves that they had fired upon British troops on that day. I hope you have now accepted that what the British Paratroopers did on the 30th Jan, 1971 to those protesting were not acts of war, but murder and should be brought to justice. Those protesting weren't armed. The BA were aware, yet fired live rounds in the aim to kill them. Most of those weren't even 18 yet.
@aidenmccloskey I do accept that civilians were killed on bloody sunday in unjustifiable circumstances. I accept saville's findings. Saville said that there was firing by republican paramilitaries. Official IRA members have admitted it. Go into google put in saville inquiry key findings. Look on the bbc website about the findings. It says clearly that IRA snipers fired on the soldiers
@jonoessex I'm glad we're growing closer to an agreement. Saville also said ''British soldiers should not have been ordered to enter the Bogside area as Colonel Wilford either deliberately disobeyed Brigadier MacLellan’s order or failed for no good reason to appreciate the clear limits on what he had been authorised to do.'' The British army provoked an attack by not only civilians but by the IRA. Whether the IRA opened fire or not does not justify the fact that BA fired on unarmed civilians.
@aidenmccloskey Well you've now read saville's findings I see so you can't dispute that the IRA fired on soldiers. You said earlier that there was no proof there were IRA snipers in the area. Glad you've read the facts. The killing of civilians was not justified on that day but the most violent group in the troubles was the IRA.
civilians killed in an attack on a military installation, well if you are civilian then you need to understand that you might get killed when you are on a Military installation.
Terrorism is the explicit targeting of civilian infrastructure or souls in an attempt to effect political change.
I don't know much about the IRA, but my foreign policy knowledge tells me that this king fellow is probably a decent man and would not condone the actual targeting of innocent people.
@Dethreid No you don't know much about the IRA. Kingsmill 1976. A bus full of protestant CIVILIAN workers is stopped by the IRA using a covername. They then proceed to murder ten people for no other reason than their religion. I repeat ten CIVILIANS. King is not a decent man if he supports the IRA
If you invade a country then murder, rape and pillage the natives, there are going to be consequences, Cenk. Just like in Palestine. You are a hypocrite, Cenk. You claim to support Palestinian freedom fighters yet oppose IRA freedom fighters who have undergone the exact same conflict with the UK as Palestinian have with the Israelis. You are nothing but a pathetic pseudo-intellectual with hypocritical morals and standards. You know nothing about the Irish troubles. I am unsubscribing.
Not only did king support the terrorist scum IRA the funny thing is that as a right wing republican in the ira he was supporting a Marxist left wing terrorist grouping. Go figure. What a clown!!!
for all of you fucking morons the ira is a military group who fought the occupational british forces you dont compare them to al qaeda terrorist that fly planes into buildings the ira had a just cause they where fighting an army no innocent civilians
@pod12696 you need to understand the difference between the old ira and new ira. the old ira of the early 20th century fought the hated british autocracy that existed in ireland before we got independance in the 20's, the new ira of the 80's and 90's carried out terrorist acts on the people of northern ireland and britain, northern ireland chose to stay in the united kingdom, to try and force northern ireland to leave the uk.
@pod12696 Bloody Friday bombings,La Mon house hotel bombing,Kingsmill masscre of protestant workers etc etc etc.At least they've stopped,but don't try and ignore what they did.
@suffern63 In that case, don't try and ignore what the British Army did upon to the Irish people. Nobody forgets Bloody Sunday and the 13 innocent civilians who were gunned down by the British Army, parachute regiment. 6 of those 13 were 17 years of age. If the IRA are labeled as terrorists then the British Army should be too.
Cenk, two problems...first of all, while I disagree with King's work for the IRA, I wouldn't condone the British response to anything in Ireland, either. Second, I wanna see you get this pissed off at Democrats who support Hezbollah and Hamas. If you can bring yourself to man up and do that I might have some respect for this little rant. So far it rings hollow.
All Muslims deserve condemnation. Muslims are the practitioners of Islam, therefore the enemy. People's refusal to believe that there are absolutes leaves them wallowing in the muck of relativism. Fuck Islam, fuck Muslims, and fuck the Young Turks.
@AIRJORDAN2387 Yeah, sure thing man. At least you didn't try to come out with crap about how Islam is a good ideology and peaceful besides. I'm starting to think that we ought to give you lot the Empire you fear...
Oh MSNBC, you make me LOL with all your anti-American bias. Understand I'm not defending King here: Islam is an ideology that promotes terrorism, IRA are more like freedom-fighting terrorists. Neither are good, but the IRA isn't a big deal to Americans. Islam is. I get that the guy in the video is a damn dirty Turk, a (in Americanese) Liberal, and is promoting weakness besides.
What I don't get is why MSNBC always takes the bad guys' side...
@Terransupremist The IRA the Taliban, the Iraqi resistance are freedom fighters trying to force out foreign imperial powers. The heroes of the IRA will always stand alongside the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
@grimblebrumble17889 If that is true, then you deserve to die the same pathetic deaths. The 'heroes' of Iraq and Afghanistan are not the jihadists, the bombers, the militants. The heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan are the Iraqis and Afghans who sell their lives dearly to protect the innocent. They are the uncorrupted police and army units that fight to stop the bombers who have killed thousands of innocents.
There is a point where fighting against foreign powers is not the right thing to do.
@Terransupremist They are traitors. Where would we be if every european under the Nazi jackboot had of collaborated with the foreign enemy. The Taliban and the Iraqi resistance fight for the freedom of their countrys from foreign rule. They are our brothers in arms and we will have justice against those that seek to subjugate us. Tiocfaidh ar la. No justice no peace.
The PIRA aimed primarily for members of the British security forces. Yes, innocent civillians were also killed during the campaign, but this wasn't the main objective. The US has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians during its various military campaigns and has caused far more terror in the world than the PIRA ever did.
why? only americans got a right to defend?? no other country??while u strike, they will strike back.. stop being nosy in other countries and this might reduce the risk of terrorism..
@RichardElden I see by your profile that everyone who contacts you thinks you are a scummy bastard because of your keyboard big-mouth act. Add me to that list you little cunt.
Majority of the population of N. Ireland are Unionists, sorry but the PIRA are bad guys (UVF suck too), but still, to support any terror group and then paint Muslims as all being terrorists, wow, shockingly rediculous. Anyone, especially an American, who supports foreign terrorists, should consider himself or herself to be an incredible hypocrite.
1. The world experience with radical Islam isn't comparable to the localized nature of the conflict involving the IRA.
2. You're making connections between two decisions made by the same individual but you've taken them so far out of context I thought, at first, I was watching Fox News.
3. If you want to use that tone to bolster your argument take off the suit and tie because it's not acceptable.
I seen this point being made on the Daily Show recently, yet again an american journalist has mis-represented the troubles in northern ireland with this video. Its unfair to tailor facts to further your point, so the whole idea of Peter King wrong for standing up for what was right is just plain wrong. If we didnt have people like Peter King then irish catholics would still be getting murdered and oppressed by the british
Cenk denies the Armenian Genoicde and look at the name of his show.
"In R.J. Rummel's book Death by Government the regime of the Young Turks is listed seventh on the list of most murderous regimes, just after the Khmer Rouge regime and just before communist Vietnam"
How the fuck does supporting the IRA make you a terrorist? Just because the British government says the IRA are terrorists doesn't mean they are - well duh the IRA were separatists so of course they will be labelled as terrorists. But to ignore the fact that the IRA was fighting for Irish independence from British imperialism, which is what all Irish people wanted, does not make the IRA terrorists.
@OhMaDayzz The IRA had a political wing and also a paramilitary wing. In truth they still do. The paramilitary wing did fight the British army on the streets of Belfast, but they also blew up shopping centers and pubs which were not in any way legitimate military targets... thus the terrorist label. This, it may be noted, caused some serious divisions within the organisation itself. Peter King is basically a bigot and a hypocrite who wants to incite hatred against muslim people.
@CarajilloDulce Yes but in any war these things happen. The British army has also targeted the equivalents of pubs and malls in countries like Iraq, but we don't label the British government 'terrorists'. Supporting the IRA, especially if you are Irish is completely understandable and rational. It cannot be put into the same league as supporting Muslim terrorism which is real terrorism, and most of its victims are innocent Muslims themselves anyway, not westerners.
@OhMaDayzz I am Irish. I consider the British establishment and the US establishment to be guilty of state terrorism; and let's face it, they provide most of the weapons worldwide.
@OhMaDayzz The IRA were not fighting for freedom from "british imperialism". The british position was that they would withdraw from NI if a majority of it's inhabitants wanted independence. That is not imperialism. The IRA were called terrorist because they used volence against a british government that was in no way hostile to their desire for independence. They used violence to give them an advantage within a relatively democratic state
@jonoessex Are you forgetting Bloody Sunday? Are you forgetting about the fact that British troops murdered and raped Irish women during their occupation of Ireland? The British held their position in Ireland for 6 decades. That's more than long enough to decide their countries desire for independence.
@aidenmccloskey No I'm not forgetting bloody sunday. That was one of the few atrocities carried out by the security forces. A majority of the people who died during the troubles were killed by the IRA. No british army or RUC personnel raped women. The Irish government in dublin represented the majority of the irish people politicallly. They agreed to the continued british presence in ireland.
@ArtetlaMusique87 So are you saying they were INNOCENT that the bombings that killed civilians never happened? are they LIES no you ridiculous fool.
So all the evacuating of shopping centres, streets, non-armed forces locations are lies how about the attacks on civilians who worked within army bases how about attacks on the gardai not lies none of them.
Also to add the largest number of attacks from the 70's onwards were IRA attacks so the media was factual about the actions they used.
Cenk,,,,go learn about British Imperialism in Ireland and how they tortured and starved the Irish citizens after taking their land and their country from them. The IRA were formed by the downtrodden Irish people, you clown.
Interesting that you find Britains state-sponsored brand of terrorism acceptable, but refuse to acknowledge that the Irish should be allowed to defend themselves. You know fuck all about Ireland. Stick to what you know. Youre making a complete arse of yourself here.
@celt67 The use of terrorism by the IRA was legitimate same as it is by the Afghan and Iraqi resistance. I personally think that the Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters are slightly more honourable due to their unwillingness to only fight the imperialist americans on their home soil. The IRA would of blown up a school or a bar in retaliation.
@grimblebrumble17889 Very nicely stated! Unfortunately hardly any American sees our invasion of Iraq as out & out Murder. Iraq was simply defending their country from a bastard invader. regarding 9/11 I'd have been o.k. with leveling Saudi Arabia but that would have made a slight amount of sense.
@celt67 once the IRA were freedom fighters.where did they turn into terrorists? cos i live here and i only see fule smugglers and murderers of random innocents
@celt67 Where did this gentleman say British sponsored terrorism was okay? Ulster Presbyterians were labelled as dissenters by the Anglo-Irish. You're really dumbing down the argument here, and the point in this case, is that supporting a violent group that for decades uses violence and criminal activity to achieve its ends, which it failed to do anyway, is morally reprehensible. It would be the same if King gave money to the UVF. Get a grip on reallity.
@celt67 I gotta say one thing for peter king he has got some serious balls for being able to negotiate a temporary peace treaty between the ira and britain, the irish dont back down very easily they borderline on being downright stubborn especially for things their passionate about, peter king made a truce and it lasted a surprisingly long time, dont mind cenk hes just an idiot with an agenda
@celt67 how is it imperialism, in my view it's democracy because if you actually read proper facts instead of believing that propaganda you'd realize the majority of the Northern Irish don't want a united Ireland they want union with Britain, they don't agree with the IRA, they don't support the IRA, it is imperialism what the IRA practise, the Irish republican is a minority in N.I. They wish to go against the majority and unite Ireland, that is imperialism, democracy goes with the majority.
@98raza20 What a lot of tripe. This "majority" was PLANTED there by the British to settle the land hundreds of years ago, kicking the native Irish off their lands, just the same way the Israelis are stealing from the palastinians today. As for 'most people in the north want to be British'...go read about the widespread gerrymandering in N. Ireland before wading in with pig-ignorant comments about something you clearly know nothing about.
@celt67 oh yeah I forgot that republicans believes that if you can't trace you family roots in ireland for more than 500 years you have no rights. Wake up this is modern times, in modern times citizens of countries have the right to vote, I could go move to Ireland and get citizenship. Or do you know my family is originally from Ireland does that mean I have more rights in Ireland than a Irish protestant whose family is likely to be of anglo-saxon-scandinavian-roman blood who was born in N.I.
@98raza20 If you knew anything about Ireland, you would know that 3 out of the six Northern Counties have republican majorities, there is just no provision for a plebicite in those counties.
@celt67 Defending yourself is bombing war memorials, police stations, engaging in a campaign of assassinations, shootings and kidnappings against other Irishmen and women, bringing huge numbers of dangerous arms into Ireland that have now slipped the control of the Provisional IRA and are in the hands of nutters like CIRA and RIRA.
All that so Sinn Fein could have the privelige of accepting the Good Friday Agreement that was substantively the same as Sunningdale proposed in 1973. Good work.
So, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, whether or not he kills Americans. How dare we even imply otherwise.
Every penny spent by NORAID was used to support terrorism be it against the British or more often against brave Irish souls that dared to call out the IRA in their own communities.
In America today by supporting a terrorist organization you are automatically one of them. Peter King you ARE a terrorist how dare you stand in.Also the IRA collaborated with the NAZI party in 1939-44.
@StoptheHate81 haha you've gone way off the mark by saying the IRA collaborated with the Nazi's back then because the IRA didnt exist at this point in irish history. They were pretty much non-existet from when the civil war ended in ireland until they started up again in the north to fight oppression of irish catholics from the british. Considering your name is stopthehate you should really start checking your facts out because you seem to be seriously ill informed!
The IRA did collaborate with the Nazis and were very active in the North and on the Mainland during the War
The Chief of staff Stephen Hayes even passed on an invasion Plan of the North to the Germans and a German Intelligence Officer was arrested trying to meet up with the IRA in the South look up Gunther Schuetz
What was Brendan Behan a member of, the Boy Scouts ?
@Ayeyuya you are mis-representing the facts here Ayeyuya, im not pro-IRA btw but its true the saying my 'enemies enemy is my best friend', of course they want help to get the british off their island and by whatever means neccesary but you are making out as if they were also directly responsible for the holocaust Anyway, its a non-issue in terms of this video, Peter King is pointing out the IRA during the troubles had as much moral standing as the Britsh armed forces
@Ayeyuya you seem to forget that the british told us during world war 1 fight for the crown and you will return to a FREE ireland well 100,000 irish men lay dead in british uniform's all along the front line.and what did they return home too,the black and tans shooting farmers in the field as they worked.also we left the brits use our air space durning ww2 so they could attack germen u boats easer and faster.we seen british terror for 800 years and what do you do when you get 30 years of it back
@bonzodave in 1916 we got weapons from germany the nazi's were not in power at the time british people like to trow in the nazi bit.the germans were meant to send 3 u boats to dublin port knowing the brits would send a battleship in after the uprising began.they only sent one whit a few more guns.also in 1916 it was the IRB (irish republic brotherhood)the ira was formed in british pow interment camps,after the easter uprising.
@iBmads thanks iBmads, great bit of historical facts there! I not too well read in the easter rising but i know the IRA were not partners in crime during WW2.....cows in the field would be aware of this fact!
Misinformed oh really so your saying the "IRA" never existed prior to 1960 really I am pretty sure your FACT checking is off the original IRA or Irish Republican Army existed back in 1919, it's simple for you to check look up the opponents of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. As for your comment on WW2 look up Seán Russell an IRA soldier who died returning from Germany on a U-boat after canvassing for weapons from the Nazi's, check out details on "Plan Kathleen" you may find it interesting.
@ArtetlaMusique87 Oh also to add the issues such as petrol bombings homes of not just soldiers but police officers the IRA sanctioned, the planting of Bombs both nail & incendiary sanctioned by the IRA, the Raping of women & girls who were linked to English soldiers or civilians, the shooting of an 18 MONTH old BABY in the back of it's fathers car in Germany sanctioned by the IRA just to name a FEW. So yes the WORLD is justified in calling the IRA from the 70's onward TERRORIST SCUM-BAGS.
Poor Cenk has no argument why investigating homegrown terrorism is a bad idea, so he resorts to making a personal attack on King. That goes against Obama's desire for everyone to practice civility.
@pjmgame he said (radical islam) if all of islam isnt radical then whats the problem? ive talked to alot of muslims on here and they want to make a distinction between the 2 (which really there isnt any difference)
but they swear there are radical and non-radical muslims, i got alot of respect for king having the hearing
on the problem of radicalization in the muslim commuity, these problems need to be adressed
@thomas242007 The problem is that people don't see that. They believe all muslims cease to exist are evil. There IS a distincition between muslim and extreme muslims. Extreme muslims support terrorism, anti-freedom, etc. Non-extreme muslims are like you and me. They CONDEMN 9/11 and they do not want to take over the US. There as normal as you and me.
Lies no not lies during the conflict that started with the troubles in the 70's the only side that caused any of the issue's you raised were the PIRA or IRA that is FACT.
You go on about starvation removed from homes having them burned down those issues ended at the end of 1800's, what of Americas assault on the native Americans it's part of history same as slavery however it NEVER JUSTIFIES KILLING.
By the way I am not 100% British I am half Irish my family are from Belfast.
@BiggerGovernment Well, at least our honorable country is torturing people now & putting them in prison for years with no hope of lawyer/trial.We're slightly better than these Islam pieces of crap but not by much. Pundits like Cenk, Matthews, Olbermann, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity don't help the situation either. Americans are stupid obese Reality Show vermin now & only watch/listen to one crappy TV/radio show & believe all the crap they dole out. It's really unfortunate & started around 9/11
i love the plastic paddies commenting below thinking the IRA are some sort of freedom fighters. saying the six counties of Ulster should have been united with the republic is like saying Portugal should unite with Spain. The Republic of Ireland government did not want ulster as much as the British government didnt want it. it is a civil war waiting to happen
@TomBarry192I They weren't force you fucking tit. Protestant (who were overwhelmingly loyalists) fled to the nothern county's where there were a large concentration of loyalists so that they would feelm more protected and safe during the war of independence. When each county had to vote on remaining part of the UK or becoming a part of the Free state the six counties chose UK because of the large loyalists population, they weren't force you lieing cunt.
@TheSirPrise Each county did not have a vote, unionists only had a majority in 3 or 4 counties when partition was forced on Ireland under a threat of war by a government unelected anywhere in Ireland.
@TomBarry192I Eh no, each county voted and 26 counties overwhelmingly voted to be part of the free state however, because of their houses being looted the richer protestants (loyalists) and generally speaking many other poorer protestants moved to the North creating a large concentration of unionist supporters hence when six counties remain in the UK. Also, you act as if the UK purposefully kept those specific counties, what is their significance then? Why are they so 'valuable'? It's a load of
@TheSirPrise Unionist supporters always had a larger concentration in the north east for centuries, do you even know what you are talking about? Each county never had a vote. Only 3 or 4 counties had a unionist majority, counties were forced against their will to form part of the six county state. Tyrone and Fermanagh has nationalist majorities and under the boundary comission were supposed to go to the free state along with other parts of counties.
@TomBarry192I Except that the population of the six counties were *clearly* in favour of remaining part of the UK
Oh, that's right; like all of the Republicans and Unionists who have been left behind by history and the Irish people, you believe in self-determination; *you* determine. Not a democratic vote in a referednum, not a considered process, that respects the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, just "What I say, now, or people die"
@disamjisa what has the population of a certain amount of Irish counties got to do with anything? We could all draw a border to get a majority we want but that is undemocratic.
I take great satisfaction from the fact that you can't play the Britain card anymore; that the legal status of Northern Ireland is accepted by the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and has been ratified by the people of Northern Ireland through their democratic representatives
You can't make this abt UK's devious conspiracy to occupy Northern Ireland just to be evil. To continue your campaign, you will have to take on fellow Catholics and Republicans of the PSNI and Sinn Fein.
@677222 what non-sense are you talking? Micheal Collins got killed because he didnt secure the 6 countries, the what the Irish Civil War was all about you idiot! British wanted it because it had the biggest shipping yard in the world at the time amongst other reasons and the Irish wanted it because its their island- what muck are you talking? The british are also setting up the protestant side of northern ireland for a big fall when the north joins the south, its unfair to force them to do this
and to finish with one thing i have come to see is that most people in southern ireland and england are not that bothered about NI u may not know this but sinn fein biggest problem now is convinceing many southern irish about a united ireland because many people in the south dont want the headache as indeed many english could not care less
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi I agree with that
jonoessex 1 month ago
if u beleive that then u must think that the people who ran PIRA had the mindset of 10 year olds how the could u explain that the leadership in pira could with a few tons of semtex and assault rifles have that as an objective lol the british won rofl now for the first time i see your true colours what was it a football match in an under 12s league good god is it any wonder your views are so off the wall if u want to comment on NI history check some INDEPENDENT sources and stop reading battle m
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The IRA by the "70's realised they couldn't get the brits out overnight. They came up with the stategy of the long war. ie a war of attrition lasting many years in which the IRA would tire the brits out. They would, the IRA hoped get sick of the war and withdraw from ireland. Go into google look up IRA long war. What was the IRA's campaign about if not forcing a british withdrawal?
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex either. and no i cant agree that their campagian was as u put it a total failure, how can i they are in government.. the southern government have cross border bodies in which they have a say on how northern irish government work the ruc have been reorganised udr and b specials disbanded , the electorial areas no longer gerrymandered to suit unionist vote none of this would have happened had it not been for PIRA . not that i think that is a good thing ..sad that it needed it
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Oh come on. The southern government would have had a say in the running of NI with the sunningdale agreement in 1973. The Macrory report 1970 led to a great deal of changes to stop gerrymandering. The IRA campaign acheived nothing.
jonoessex 1 month ago
if a guerrilla army kills civilians they are terrorists but if a government backed military force kills civilians its collateral damage. I'm not saying terrorists are right I'm saying calling civilian casualty's collateral damage is wrong. murder is murder no matter what you call it. your governments are sending your children into foreign country's with loaded weapons to fight an enemy that isn't afraid to die while the real murderers sit back with big fat checks and pensions in there big houses
barinit 1 month ago
@barinit The IRA used to call their civilian casualties "mistakes". It's wrong no matter whether it's a government or a private group. The soldiers in Afghanistan should come home. War is a terrible thing but just because states do terrible things doesn't mean that non-state groups are any better.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@barinit well said
imedi 1 month ago
part 2 = is that groups like the IRA .ANC. PLO could not exist unless they have the support of the people they live amongst thats why the british. isreali or south african military could never defeat them on the other hand they are not going to defeat a standing army either they know this hence the peace talks but i have no doubt that ira violence did pressure british into seeking a solution
imedi 1 month ago
introducing legislation !!! lol is that why the police and unionist mobs beat catholics of the street wnen they simply marched to look for basic rights for catholics and then burned them out of their homes remember at that time the ira was nothing more than a old mans club and were not even able to defend them, and yes the things were worse in south africa but thatcher called them terrorists too by what measure do u suggest people have the right to turn yo the gun u see the mistake u make is
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Are you suggesting that the british government didn't introduce legislation to deal with the greivances of catholics? They introduced a raft of legislation to deal with catholic grievances.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex if u are talking about the sunningdale agreement in 1974 what good was it when it was not enforced uvf and uda gunmen held a strike to back up unionst politions who opposed agreement because they would not share power with catholics, what did british do they backed down, like i already said nothing happened in the north until major and then blair stood up to the unionist . when adams and mcguinness saw that they were prepared to work for a united through peaceful means
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The british government introduced a raft of legislation to deal with catholic greviances beginning in the late 60's. It's interesting that you think the british didn't introduce reforms until major. You have been misinformed. By 1975 all the reforms of the civil rights movement had been implimented. The local government franchise was reformed in line with the rest of the uk, the b specials were abolished, the special powers act repealed, a points system for housing had been introduced
jonoessex 1 month ago
@imedi cont... discrimination on the grounds of religion had been outlawed and a fair employment agency established. I repeat all these reforms had been introduced by 1975. So it is totally untrue to say nothing happened until major and blair. Adams & mcguinness had no intention of working for a united ireland peacefully until they realised they couldn't defeat the british militarily. They gave up and negotiated a settlement with the british because military means proved ineffective.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex but u see your argument has 1 very big flaw in the mid 60s the ira were stood down as i said before. in 1969 it was not even there to defend catholics it then came back as a result of security force oppression and yes i have already said the ira leadership knew they could not defeat a standing army but they would have known this in 1969 for that matter many people in the british military have themselves admitted they could not defeat pira either. and yes there was
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The security forces were not oppressing people. They were there to restore order. This did put them in conflict with nationalists some whom thought they were oppressors. In 1969 the provos were formed to force the brits out of ireland. They started with the belief they could force a british withdrawal within a year or so. In the late 70's they came up with the concepte of the long war. Saying it would take a decade or so to force the brits out of ireland.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex to many catholics the security forces were opressers u are wrong big time i knew ordinary catholic families who were afraid to leave their houses after dark not because of UDA but out of fear of the UDR and RUC (security forces) and before u say their fears were unfounded UDR men were killed in UDA operations , yes ira did use slogans of brits out and so on but the british military thought they could defeat the ira in a year too so what...
imedi 1 month ago
@jonoessex legislatin past in 75 but as i have said already what use if not enforced.. and thats why many catholics vote sinn fein today because in their eyes ira campaign forced the british to stand up to unionist veto so ira campaign was not a waste of time
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Gerry adams etc realised in the "80's that they could not defeat the british. Prior to that the IRA believed they could force the brit out through violence. If they didn't they would have given up. All the legislation I've mentioned was enforced.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex rubbish i have given u the reasons as to why it was not enforced until the 90s, you can ignore them if u like, by the way in case u think i am anti british i am not .i have many british friends and have a sister married into a RAF family so i am not coming from a place that is anti british,. but i dont agree with your slanted view of history either , as i said first post groups like the ira dont just appear out of fresh air, they cannot exist without support of people
imedi 1 month ago
Comment removed
jonoessex 1 month ago
@imedi They were enforced. It is you who has a slanted view of history. Republican propaganda has been successful in convincing people that the non-violent civil rights movement was a failure. It was not. All the demands of NICRA were implemented and legislated for by the british by 1975.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex lol then if u are right and i am wrong then why are sinn fein and not sdlp the main nationalist party in ireland. and lets see what we now have yes sinn fein are part of government in NI under good friday agreement which is closer to a united ireland than u think and much of it daily buissness is done on an all ireland basis something that was unthinkable to unionists so it cuts both ways.. as for propaganda that something thats used on all sides not just PIRA. do u
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Sinn fein are now administering a state that they previously tried to overthrow.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex if u knew anything about conflicts like NI u would know this that there are NO WINNERS u silly person, if the british had won as u like to call it ,adams and co would either b dead or on the run do u REALLY think that a british government could stomach people in government who killed MEPs slaughtered british civilians and killed over 1000 members of the security services if they had defeated them lol not to mention giving a forign govt a say in running of part of their country
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi I suppose what I said about the british army winning may have sounded jingoistic. I withdraw those comments then. What I was trying to say was that the IRA campaign was to force the brits from ireland. They were unsuccessful. I was trying to say that there campaign was a total failure. Forget what I said about winning
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex really think that PIRA thought that they could oust a standing army with all the resources at their disposal thats silly... adams has stated often enough what his aim were which was to force the british to the table and in the process break the back of unionist sectarian government. he was never silly enough to beleive that unionist would ever accept a united ireland at the point of a gun . why becuse he would never accept unionist sectarianism at the point of a gun either
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Your talking complete nonsense i'm afraid. The IRA's aim was to force the british out of Ireland at the point of a gun. It's as simple as that. Republicans are silly enough to believe that they could force unionists into a united ireland.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex oh and 1 more thing the words internal settlement ,,, you are right the PIRA were not some bunch of yobs who got on a plane from sweden or iceland they were irish and supported by many people who british soldiers would say they were protecting thats british propaganda,,why because if army were telling the truth why would the same people they were protecting then go and vote sinn fein ..see your argument does not stack up,
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The british were there to maintain order. The British army naturally got into conflict with the nationalist community. For example the falls rd curfew in 1970. They imposed a curfew to search for IRA weapons. The security measures and the deaths of civilians and IRA propaganda led nationalists into believing in the ideology of sinn fein. My argument does stack up
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex so the ira fooled the people in their own areas that brits are bad and we are good for 30 years lol awww those gulliable catholics how could they be so stupid all thease years against the poor misunderstood army . keep going im having a great laugh now,, jeez u should go door to door and explain how wrong they have been all this time lol
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Well as I say the british role was to maintain law and order in NI. Many nationalists viewed the army as an oppressive force. It was a matter of interpretation. Republicans considered the british as occupiers because they wanted a united ireland and saw the brits as occupiers. Their view of the role of the brits is different to mine
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex no dont do that because i am not sure people in those area might see the funny side many of whom were victims of the security forces look i know pira were no angels but thats what i meant about their being no winners there was bad done on both sides i have tried to explain best i can why people turned to the gun and why it was not as simple as u make it out to b if u dont want to see that then thats up to u. but i dont support 1 side or the other but i dont go for we good they bad
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Well I go for the idea that the conflict could have been solved through peaceful means. The british obvously wanted a power-sharing arrangement of some sort. They began trying to introduce that in 1973. The peaceful route the brits wanted was the best route rather than the violent route the IRA took
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex thats why u cant compare PIRA and al-qaeda wheather u agree with the ira or not there were reasons why they used armed actions against the state and many people who lived in the 6 counties felt they had every right to fight a sectarian government. al-qaeda armed actions are based on the fact that all non muslims are unclean so they should die its impossible to start dialogue with a group part of whos ethos is killing for the sake of killing
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The goals of the IRA and al-qaeda are different. You are right about al-qaeda's aims. They cannot be negotiated with. The IRA could. What al-qaeda and the IRA share in common is a fanatical devotion to their ideology and a refusal to accept political reality. Eventually the IRA realised it couldn't win and gave up. It then entered a peace process. I'm glad it did so. It's campaign of violence has acheived absolutely nothing though.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex as for the word fanatic well to some people it might be called heroic again it depends were u come from
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The "unionist" veto still exists. NI is still part of the uk. The IRA's campaign was a waste of lives and it acheived nothing. I repeat, all the legislation I have outlined below was implemented and legislated for by the british government and enforced. Well I agree al-queda are fanatics to me and so were the IRA to their supporters they were both heroic.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex thats why at the end of the day british government knew they had to talk to adams beleive me if they thought they could defeat PIRA those talks would never happen
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The PIRA negotiated an internal settlement in which they would administer "british rule" in ireland. They certainly would never have done this if they thought they could defeat the british army which earlier in the conflict they did.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@imedi Well the IRA would never have negotiated an internal settlement if they thought they could defeat the british. They realised they couldn't win and gave up
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex as did the british give up as i said it cut both ways
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The british forced the IRA to accept an internal political settlement. In effect the british won.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@imedi The British ended their military campaign in Ireland because the IRA gave up
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex i would not call the unionist right to b part of the uk a veto its their right under good friday agreement its up to people who want a united ireland to convince them through peaceful means that a united ireland is better ,,and yes that is how the supporters of PIRA would see them as heros just as many civilians in NI and IRAQ would see british army as nothing more than terrorists thats why i say its never as black and white as u like to think
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi It depends on your point of view yes but there is such a thing as truth. Al-queda might consider themselves as freedom-fighters for islam but they are just wrong. I can only come to a subjective judgement
jonoessex 1 month ago
how would u know what the goals of the ira were looking at hat u have wrote u seem to have a very simplistic view of history. of coarse u do not see the ira campaign as moral but many people who lived there felt they had every right to attack a sectarian state were many catholics were 2nd class . where do i start. bad houseing, gerrymandering, sectarian police, job descrimination. thease were some of the reasons i think many in sinn fien were always happy enough to achieve a 32 county ireland
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Well they didn't have a right. They should have supported peaceful reform of the state.Bad housing, gerrymandering, sectarian police, job descrimination the brits introduced legislation to reform NI and deal with everyone of the issues you have raised.
jonoessex 1 month ago
i have a question? if american or british army carry out an operation that kill civilians what would u call it,.. u say the ira killed 600 lol a small number compared to the 1000s killed in iraq alone , but of coarse thats the problem we all have, we can comment on others but when its your own its covered up or a nice word is found maybe the ira should have used the word collateral damage that would have made it all ok, as they say 1 mans freedom fighter is another mans terroist
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi I don't think there's anything to lol about when discussing 100's of civilian deaths. I totally opposed the war in Iraq. I'd call the killing of civilians in Iraq an atrocity. I'd also call the killing of civilians by the IRA as an atrocity. The IRA did have a nice word for their atrocities they called them "mistakes". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The IRA were not freedom-fighters. They certainly didn't get very far in there "freedom fight" did they?
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex lol was directed at people who have no problem with the thousands upon thousands of deaths carried out by men in uniform because the queen said it was ok, and get on their high horses when civilians get killed by an organisation they dont agree with., and i would say those ira men did not do so bad they have great jobs now in government I.and u remarks have just proof of what i said u may not see them as freedom fighters but many did hence the fact they are in government
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi Well whether a violent campaign is moral or not depends on the circumstances. I think neither the IRA's campaign nor the iraq war were moral. The IRA wanted the overthrow of the NI state. Now they are running it for the british. They might have done alright financially but not in terms of acheiving their goals.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex part2= through peaceful means but were unable to do this in a sectarian state in 1969.. the difference now is that the back of that sectarian state is broken i.e gerrymandering gone UDR disbanded , sectarian police force changed. discrimination a thing of the past . sinnfein still work for a united ireland but through politics . so much of what ira members wanted has happened..but most of them know that u cant force anyone to agree with u at the point of a gun. so now politics is the
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi The British were introducing legislation to deal with all these issues. "The back of that sectarian state" was broken by the 1980's. The IRA chose to keep on killing rather than talk. Sinn Fein only work for a united ireland peacefully because they realised that violence wasn't getting anywhere so they gave up. They wanted people to agree with them at the point of a gun but the gun proved ineffective.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex part 3= to go.. what many people like u probably dont know is that sinnfein also have to convince many in the south about a 32 county state because many here would oppose it..you may call the ira terrorist but then so were mandela and the anc . conflict is conflict wrongdoing is part of it and is carried out by everyone some irish like to think and u will see this that the old ira never did anything wrong thats just bullshit too cant see wrong in their own side just like u
imedi 1 month ago
@imedi I can see wrong in my own side I'm critical of alot of british foreign policy. Mandela and the ANC were fighting against a repressive racist state with a government that was oppressing them in a terrible manner. The discrimination catholics suffered cannot possibly be compared to that of blacks in south africa and the brit government cannot possibly be compared to the south african goverment under apartheid.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex and it was not until the blair government that the back of unionst sectarian government was broken long after the 80s and it was then that the ira for the most part stepped down except for a few no hopers that have very little support and find it very difficult to operate as a result
imedi 1 month ago
For real, I HIGHLY doubt King approves of the targeting of targeting and murder of civilians. As far as the IRA goes, I have no idea whether the stories about them are true but I doubt they were, they were fighting the British government of all people, who I'm sure would NEVER lie or do propaganda to demonize those wishing to separate from their empire.
Bottom line is, he has not a evil guy, about as guilty as liberals who sympathized with Saddam in the 90's and OIF.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid Go into google and type in Kingsmill massacre. It happened on 5th January 1976. It's a fact not propaganda. The "liberals" who opposed the Iraq war didn't kill anyone, King has supported a paramilitary organisation which killed 1700 people!
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex
Any and all violence was attributed to originating and being condoned and organized by the IRA right?
His hearings were indeed pointless since people can't seem to even talk about the possibility of Muslim extremism without assuming this means every single person who identifies as Islamic will all the sudden be assumed they are guilty, much rather just give Obama the ability to investigate in secret and not even have a trial for people they assume might be a terrorist.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid Anyone believed to be a terrorist should get a fair trial. The IRA were responsible for a majority of the deaths during the troubles.
jonoessex 1 month ago
At a peaceful protest on the 30th of January 1972 - 13 Irish innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood by British soldiers. A local priest wove a small white blood-stained handkerchief while trying to carry a dying 17 year old Jackie Duddy for medical help - that picture and those memories will haunt Ireland forever. You tell me who the terrorists are, Cenk. Learn your history before you dare criticize which to be terrorists because if the IRA are terrorists then so are the British Army.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey Bloody sunday was not peaceful. There was rioting on the protest. There were also IRA snipers who fired on british soldiers on the march. The british army were not terrorists. They had to follow the rules of war. They didn't always do that but there is no question that they behaved much better than the IRA. You wanna talk about atrocities, warrington, birmingham, kingsmill? la mon? edgar graham? British army civilians killed 150. IRA civilians killed 650.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex Are you really going to bring in numbers to justify what the British Army did? Deaths are deaths. You can't compare how many life's were lost and say that one was worse than the other. Moron. There's no proof that there were IRA snipers in the area. The British Army shot live rounds at those who were already running away after throwing stones at them. 'Rules of war' - are you really so naive and stupid?
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey It's obviously very important to point out who was the most violent group during the troubles. That was the IRA. I said that the british army didn't always follow the rules of war but the IRA didn't follow the rules of war at all. "There's no proof there were IRA snipers in the area". No proof other than the fact that IRA snipers admitted to the saville inquiry that they were in the area and fired on british soldiers!!!
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex You forget that the IRA are not a military and are not associated or affiliated with any government whereas the British Army are. Therefor the IRA follow no rules of war which is different from the British Army or any other military because they are owned by a government. We're getting off our original subject. Bloody Sunday. British troops murdered Irish protesters as they were running away. When you murder 17 year old boys in their native country, expect there to be consequences.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey I'm glad that you admit that the IRA didn't follow the rules of war. BS was a sad event but sometimes soldiers fighting wars do bad things however a majority of the deaths during the troubles were caused by the IRA. I hope you have now accepted that IRA snipers fired on the paras.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex IRA snipers were present, however they did not fire and there is no evidence which proves that they had fired upon British troops on that day. I hope you have now accepted that what the British Paratroopers did on the 30th Jan, 1971 to those protesting were not acts of war, but murder and should be brought to justice. Those protesting weren't armed. The BA were aware, yet fired live rounds in the aim to kill them. Most of those weren't even 18 yet.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey I do accept that civilians were killed on bloody sunday in unjustifiable circumstances. I accept saville's findings. Saville said that there was firing by republican paramilitaries. Official IRA members have admitted it. Go into google put in saville inquiry key findings. Look on the bbc website about the findings. It says clearly that IRA snipers fired on the soldiers
jonoessex 1 month ago
@jonoessex I'm glad we're growing closer to an agreement. Saville also said ''British soldiers should not have been ordered to enter the Bogside area as Colonel Wilford either deliberately disobeyed Brigadier MacLellan’s order or failed for no good reason to appreciate the clear limits on what he had been authorised to do.'' The British army provoked an attack by not only civilians but by the IRA. Whether the IRA opened fire or not does not justify the fact that BA fired on unarmed civilians.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey Well you've now read saville's findings I see so you can't dispute that the IRA fired on soldiers. You said earlier that there was no proof there were IRA snipers in the area. Glad you've read the facts. The killing of civilians was not justified on that day but the most violent group in the troubles was the IRA.
jonoessex 1 month ago
civilians killed in an attack on a military installation, well if you are civilian then you need to understand that you might get killed when you are on a Military installation.
Terrorism is the explicit targeting of civilian infrastructure or souls in an attempt to effect political change.
I don't know much about the IRA, but my foreign policy knowledge tells me that this king fellow is probably a decent man and would not condone the actual targeting of innocent people.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid No you don't know much about the IRA. Kingsmill 1976. A bus full of protestant CIVILIAN workers is stopped by the IRA using a covername. They then proceed to murder ten people for no other reason than their religion. I repeat ten CIVILIANS. King is not a decent man if he supports the IRA
jonoessex 1 month ago
If you invade a country then murder, rape and pillage the natives, there are going to be consequences, Cenk. Just like in Palestine. You are a hypocrite, Cenk. You claim to support Palestinian freedom fighters yet oppose IRA freedom fighters who have undergone the exact same conflict with the UK as Palestinian have with the Israelis. You are nothing but a pathetic pseudo-intellectual with hypocritical morals and standards. You know nothing about the Irish troubles. I am unsubscribing.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
Not only did king support the terrorist scum IRA the funny thing is that as a right wing republican in the ira he was supporting a Marxist left wing terrorist grouping. Go figure. What a clown!!!
kingericni 4 months ago
YOUR CAPTIONS ARE NOT CORRECT. YOU MAY WANT TO RE-LISTEN TO YOUR AUDIO & CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES. PLUS,THEY ARE MISSPELLED.
lucymo1000 5 months ago
for all of you fucking morons the ira is a military group who fought the occupational british forces you dont compare them to al qaeda terrorist that fly planes into buildings the ira had a just cause they where fighting an army no innocent civilians
pod12696 5 months ago 2
@pod12696 you need to understand the difference between the old ira and new ira. the old ira of the early 20th century fought the hated british autocracy that existed in ireland before we got independance in the 20's, the new ira of the 80's and 90's carried out terrorist acts on the people of northern ireland and britain, northern ireland chose to stay in the united kingdom, to try and force northern ireland to leave the uk.
Nilaikx 5 months ago
@pod12696 Bloody Friday bombings,La Mon house hotel bombing,Kingsmill masscre of protestant workers etc etc etc.At least they've stopped,but don't try and ignore what they did.
suffern63 5 months ago
@suffern63 In that case, don't try and ignore what the British Army did upon to the Irish people. Nobody forgets Bloody Sunday and the 13 innocent civilians who were gunned down by the British Army, parachute regiment. 6 of those 13 were 17 years of age. If the IRA are labeled as terrorists then the British Army should be too.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@pod12696 Would you care to explain that to my uncle (a mechanic) who was killed by an IRA nail bomb?
TheSirPrise 3 months ago
Cenk, two problems...first of all, while I disagree with King's work for the IRA, I wouldn't condone the British response to anything in Ireland, either. Second, I wanna see you get this pissed off at Democrats who support Hezbollah and Hamas. If you can bring yourself to man up and do that I might have some respect for this little rant. So far it rings hollow.
melthefretmaster 8 months ago
All Muslims deserve condemnation. Muslims are the practitioners of Islam, therefore the enemy. People's refusal to believe that there are absolutes leaves them wallowing in the muck of relativism. Fuck Islam, fuck Muslims, and fuck the Young Turks.
Terransupremist 8 months ago
@Terransupremist no fuck you
AIRJORDAN2387 3 months ago
@AIRJORDAN2387 Yeah, sure thing man. At least you didn't try to come out with crap about how Islam is a good ideology and peaceful besides. I'm starting to think that we ought to give you lot the Empire you fear...
Terransupremist 3 months ago
Oh MSNBC, you make me LOL with all your anti-American bias. Understand I'm not defending King here: Islam is an ideology that promotes terrorism, IRA are more like freedom-fighting terrorists. Neither are good, but the IRA isn't a big deal to Americans. Islam is. I get that the guy in the video is a damn dirty Turk, a (in Americanese) Liberal, and is promoting weakness besides.
What I don't get is why MSNBC always takes the bad guys' side...
Terransupremist 8 months ago
@Terransupremist The IRA the Taliban, the Iraqi resistance are freedom fighters trying to force out foreign imperial powers. The heroes of the IRA will always stand alongside the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
grimblebrumble17889 8 months ago
@grimblebrumble17889 If that is true, then you deserve to die the same pathetic deaths. The 'heroes' of Iraq and Afghanistan are not the jihadists, the bombers, the militants. The heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan are the Iraqis and Afghans who sell their lives dearly to protect the innocent. They are the uncorrupted police and army units that fight to stop the bombers who have killed thousands of innocents.
There is a point where fighting against foreign powers is not the right thing to do.
Terransupremist 8 months ago
@Terransupremist They are traitors. Where would we be if every european under the Nazi jackboot had of collaborated with the foreign enemy. The Taliban and the Iraqi resistance fight for the freedom of their countrys from foreign rule. They are our brothers in arms and we will have justice against those that seek to subjugate us. Tiocfaidh ar la. No justice no peace.
grimblebrumble17889 8 months ago
The PIRA aimed primarily for members of the British security forces. Yes, innocent civillians were also killed during the campaign, but this wasn't the main objective. The US has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians during its various military campaigns and has caused far more terror in the world than the PIRA ever did.
broigheall 9 months ago
why? only americans got a right to defend?? no other country??while u strike, they will strike back.. stop being nosy in other countries and this might reduce the risk of terrorism..
2849250 9 months ago
9/11, the wheel came full circle.
knilmart 9 months ago
@RichardElden I see by your profile that everyone who contacts you thinks you are a scummy bastard because of your keyboard big-mouth act. Add me to that list you little cunt.
celt67 10 months ago
Majority of the population of N. Ireland are Unionists, sorry but the PIRA are bad guys (UVF suck too), but still, to support any terror group and then paint Muslims as all being terrorists, wow, shockingly rediculous. Anyone, especially an American, who supports foreign terrorists, should consider himself or herself to be an incredible hypocrite.
MrBedlam75 10 months ago
1. The world experience with radical Islam isn't comparable to the localized nature of the conflict involving the IRA.
2. You're making connections between two decisions made by the same individual but you've taken them so far out of context I thought, at first, I was watching Fox News.
3. If you want to use that tone to bolster your argument take off the suit and tie because it's not acceptable.
:::shhh:::
monaco193 11 months ago
I seen this point being made on the Daily Show recently, yet again an american journalist has mis-represented the troubles in northern ireland with this video. Its unfair to tailor facts to further your point, so the whole idea of Peter King wrong for standing up for what was right is just plain wrong. If we didnt have people like Peter King then irish catholics would still be getting murdered and oppressed by the british
bonzodave 11 months ago
Cenk denies the Armenian Genoicde and look at the name of his show.
"In R.J. Rummel's book Death by Government the regime of the Young Turks is listed seventh on the list of most murderous regimes, just after the Khmer Rouge regime and just before communist Vietnam"
ubermisogynist 11 months ago
How the fuck does supporting the IRA make you a terrorist? Just because the British government says the IRA are terrorists doesn't mean they are - well duh the IRA were separatists so of course they will be labelled as terrorists. But to ignore the fact that the IRA was fighting for Irish independence from British imperialism, which is what all Irish people wanted, does not make the IRA terrorists.
OhMaDayzz 11 months ago 10
@OhMaDayzz The IRA had a political wing and also a paramilitary wing. In truth they still do. The paramilitary wing did fight the British army on the streets of Belfast, but they also blew up shopping centers and pubs which were not in any way legitimate military targets... thus the terrorist label. This, it may be noted, caused some serious divisions within the organisation itself. Peter King is basically a bigot and a hypocrite who wants to incite hatred against muslim people.
CarajilloDulce 11 months ago
@CarajilloDulce Yes but in any war these things happen. The British army has also targeted the equivalents of pubs and malls in countries like Iraq, but we don't label the British government 'terrorists'. Supporting the IRA, especially if you are Irish is completely understandable and rational. It cannot be put into the same league as supporting Muslim terrorism which is real terrorism, and most of its victims are innocent Muslims themselves anyway, not westerners.
OhMaDayzz 11 months ago
@OhMaDayzz I am Irish. I consider the British establishment and the US establishment to be guilty of state terrorism; and let's face it, they provide most of the weapons worldwide.
CarajilloDulce 11 months ago 2
@OhMaDayzz The IRA are terrorists, end of. And by the by not many Irish catholics support the IRA anymore because of their bombings of INNOCENTS.
AbiElectric 9 months ago
@OhMaDayzz The IRA were not fighting for freedom from "british imperialism". The british position was that they would withdraw from NI if a majority of it's inhabitants wanted independence. That is not imperialism. The IRA were called terrorist because they used volence against a british government that was in no way hostile to their desire for independence. They used violence to give them an advantage within a relatively democratic state
jonoessex 3 months ago
@jonoessex Are you forgetting Bloody Sunday? Are you forgetting about the fact that British troops murdered and raped Irish women during their occupation of Ireland? The British held their position in Ireland for 6 decades. That's more than long enough to decide their countries desire for independence.
aidenmccloskey 1 month ago
@aidenmccloskey No I'm not forgetting bloody sunday. That was one of the few atrocities carried out by the security forces. A majority of the people who died during the troubles were killed by the IRA. No british army or RUC personnel raped women. The Irish government in dublin represented the majority of the irish people politicallly. They agreed to the continued british presence in ireland.
jonoessex 1 month ago
@OhMaDayzz the Same case is with the taliban.. Not talkin about Al Qaeda.. Taliban... The Afghan resistance..
9chak 3 months ago
@OhMaDayzz What about Muslim groups that fight for freedom from America, are they terrorists?
YouTodayKing 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@YouTodayKing For the most part yes they are.
OhMaDayzz 2 months ago
Peter King is the leader of the Terrorist Organization called.......Homeland Security, of USA
TruthPowerful1 11 months ago
@ArtetlaMusique87 So are you saying they were INNOCENT that the bombings that killed civilians never happened? are they LIES no you ridiculous fool.
So all the evacuating of shopping centres, streets, non-armed forces locations are lies how about the attacks on civilians who worked within army bases how about attacks on the gardai not lies none of them.
Also to add the largest number of attacks from the 70's onwards were IRA attacks so the media was factual about the actions they used.
StoptheHate81 11 months ago
Peter King is a fake conservative. He is for gun control
xaviqaz 11 months ago
Cenk,,,,go learn about British Imperialism in Ireland and how they tortured and starved the Irish citizens after taking their land and their country from them. The IRA were formed by the downtrodden Irish people, you clown.
Interesting that you find Britains state-sponsored brand of terrorism acceptable, but refuse to acknowledge that the Irish should be allowed to defend themselves. You know fuck all about Ireland. Stick to what you know. Youre making a complete arse of yourself here.
celt67 11 months ago 8
@celt67 The use of terrorism by the IRA was legitimate same as it is by the Afghan and Iraqi resistance. I personally think that the Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters are slightly more honourable due to their unwillingness to only fight the imperialist americans on their home soil. The IRA would of blown up a school or a bar in retaliation.
grimblebrumble17889 11 months ago
@grimblebrumble17889 Very nicely stated! Unfortunately hardly any American sees our invasion of Iraq as out & out Murder. Iraq was simply defending their country from a bastard invader. regarding 9/11 I'd have been o.k. with leveling Saudi Arabia but that would have made a slight amount of sense.
rleary1 10 months ago
@celt67 once the IRA were freedom fighters.where did they turn into terrorists? cos i live here and i only see fule smugglers and murderers of random innocents
missatomickitten 11 months ago
@celt67 Where did this gentleman say British sponsored terrorism was okay? Ulster Presbyterians were labelled as dissenters by the Anglo-Irish. You're really dumbing down the argument here, and the point in this case, is that supporting a violent group that for decades uses violence and criminal activity to achieve its ends, which it failed to do anyway, is morally reprehensible. It would be the same if King gave money to the UVF. Get a grip on reallity.
MrBedlam75 10 months ago
@celt67 I gotta say one thing for peter king he has got some serious balls for being able to negotiate a temporary peace treaty between the ira and britain, the irish dont back down very easily they borderline on being downright stubborn especially for things their passionate about, peter king made a truce and it lasted a surprisingly long time, dont mind cenk hes just an idiot with an agenda
resistislam2011 10 months ago
@celt67 The IRA stand alongside our Iraqi and Afghan freedom fighting brothers.
grimblebrumble17889 8 months ago
@celt67 how is it imperialism, in my view it's democracy because if you actually read proper facts instead of believing that propaganda you'd realize the majority of the Northern Irish don't want a united Ireland they want union with Britain, they don't agree with the IRA, they don't support the IRA, it is imperialism what the IRA practise, the Irish republican is a minority in N.I. They wish to go against the majority and unite Ireland, that is imperialism, democracy goes with the majority.
98raza20 6 months ago
@98raza20 What a lot of tripe. This "majority" was PLANTED there by the British to settle the land hundreds of years ago, kicking the native Irish off their lands, just the same way the Israelis are stealing from the palastinians today. As for 'most people in the north want to be British'...go read about the widespread gerrymandering in N. Ireland before wading in with pig-ignorant comments about something you clearly know nothing about.
celt67 6 months ago
@celt67 oh yeah I forgot that republicans believes that if you can't trace you family roots in ireland for more than 500 years you have no rights. Wake up this is modern times, in modern times citizens of countries have the right to vote, I could go move to Ireland and get citizenship. Or do you know my family is originally from Ireland does that mean I have more rights in Ireland than a Irish protestant whose family is likely to be of anglo-saxon-scandinavian-roman blood who was born in N.I.
98raza20 6 months ago
@98raza20 If you knew anything about Ireland, you would know that 3 out of the six Northern Counties have republican majorities, there is just no provision for a plebicite in those counties.
TheJack01993 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@celt67 God fuck off.
TheSirPrise 3 months ago
@celt67 Defending yourself is bombing war memorials, police stations, engaging in a campaign of assassinations, shootings and kidnappings against other Irishmen and women, bringing huge numbers of dangerous arms into Ireland that have now slipped the control of the Provisional IRA and are in the hands of nutters like CIRA and RIRA.
All that so Sinn Fein could have the privelige of accepting the Good Friday Agreement that was substantively the same as Sunningdale proposed in 1973. Good work.
disamjisa 3 months ago
So, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, whether or not he kills Americans. How dare we even imply otherwise.
Every penny spent by NORAID was used to support terrorism be it against the British or more often against brave Irish souls that dared to call out the IRA in their own communities.
In America today by supporting a terrorist organization you are automatically one of them. Peter King you ARE a terrorist how dare you stand in.Also the IRA collaborated with the NAZI party in 1939-44.
StoptheHate81 11 months ago
@StoptheHate81 haha you've gone way off the mark by saying the IRA collaborated with the Nazi's back then because the IRA didnt exist at this point in irish history. They were pretty much non-existet from when the civil war ended in ireland until they started up again in the north to fight oppression of irish catholics from the british. Considering your name is stopthehate you should really start checking your facts out because you seem to be seriously ill informed!
bonzodave 11 months ago
@bonzodave
Total LIES
The IRA did collaborate with the Nazis and were very active in the North and on the Mainland during the War
The Chief of staff Stephen Hayes even passed on an invasion Plan of the North to the Germans and a German Intelligence Officer was arrested trying to meet up with the IRA in the South look up Gunther Schuetz
What was Brendan Behan a member of, the Boy Scouts ?
Not helping the Nazis - don't make me laugh
As usual Irish revisionist History in action
Ayeyuya 11 months ago
@Ayeyuya you are mis-representing the facts here Ayeyuya, im not pro-IRA btw but its true the saying my 'enemies enemy is my best friend', of course they want help to get the british off their island and by whatever means neccesary but you are making out as if they were also directly responsible for the holocaust Anyway, its a non-issue in terms of this video, Peter King is pointing out the IRA during the troubles had as much moral standing as the Britsh armed forces
bonzodave 11 months ago
@Ayeyuya you seem to forget that the british told us during world war 1 fight for the crown and you will return to a FREE ireland well 100,000 irish men lay dead in british uniform's all along the front line.and what did they return home too,the black and tans shooting farmers in the field as they worked.also we left the brits use our air space durning ww2 so they could attack germen u boats easer and faster.we seen british terror for 800 years and what do you do when you get 30 years of it back
iBmads 11 months ago
@Ayeyuya I've read this as well in regards to the Abwehr collaboration.
MrBedlam75 10 months ago
@bonzodave in 1916 we got weapons from germany the nazi's were not in power at the time british people like to trow in the nazi bit.the germans were meant to send 3 u boats to dublin port knowing the brits would send a battleship in after the uprising began.they only sent one whit a few more guns.also in 1916 it was the IRB (irish republic brotherhood)the ira was formed in british pow interment camps,after the easter uprising.
iBmads 11 months ago
@iBmads thanks iBmads, great bit of historical facts there! I not too well read in the easter rising but i know the IRA were not partners in crime during WW2.....cows in the field would be aware of this fact!
bonzodave 11 months ago
@bonzodave
Misinformed oh really so your saying the "IRA" never existed prior to 1960 really I am pretty sure your FACT checking is off the original IRA or Irish Republican Army existed back in 1919, it's simple for you to check look up the opponents of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. As for your comment on WW2 look up Seán Russell an IRA soldier who died returning from Germany on a U-boat after canvassing for weapons from the Nazi's, check out details on "Plan Kathleen" you may find it interesting.
StoptheHate81 11 months ago
@ArtetlaMusique87 Oh also to add the issues such as petrol bombings homes of not just soldiers but police officers the IRA sanctioned, the planting of Bombs both nail & incendiary sanctioned by the IRA, the Raping of women & girls who were linked to English soldiers or civilians, the shooting of an 18 MONTH old BABY in the back of it's fathers car in Germany sanctioned by the IRA just to name a FEW. So yes the WORLD is justified in calling the IRA from the 70's onward TERRORIST SCUM-BAGS.
StoptheHate81 11 months ago
Poor Cenk has no argument why investigating homegrown terrorism is a bad idea, so he resorts to making a personal attack on King. That goes against Obama's desire for everyone to practice civility.
BiggerGovernment 11 months ago 3
@BiggerGovernment King is blaiming an ENTIRE culture for the attack on 9/11. Sadly a lot of nuts do. The world is so fucked up.
pjmgame 11 months ago
@pjmgame he said (radical islam) if all of islam isnt radical then whats the problem? ive talked to alot of muslims on here and they want to make a distinction between the 2 (which really there isnt any difference)
but they swear there are radical and non-radical muslims, i got alot of respect for king having the hearing
on the problem of radicalization in the muslim commuity, these problems need to be adressed
thomas242007 11 months ago
@thomas242007 The problem is that people don't see that. They believe all muslims cease to exist are evil. There IS a distincition between muslim and extreme muslims. Extreme muslims support terrorism, anti-freedom, etc. Non-extreme muslims are like you and me. They CONDEMN 9/11 and they do not want to take over the US. There as normal as you and me.
pjmgame 11 months ago
@ArtetlaMusique87
Lies no not lies during the conflict that started with the troubles in the 70's the only side that caused any of the issue's you raised were the PIRA or IRA that is FACT.
You go on about starvation removed from homes having them burned down those issues ended at the end of 1800's, what of Americas assault on the native Americans it's part of history same as slavery however it NEVER JUSTIFIES KILLING.
By the way I am not 100% British I am half Irish my family are from Belfast.
StoptheHate81 11 months ago
Stonings, mutilating women, suicide bombers, front organizations for Hamas, honor killings, 9/11, highjackers, airport security, no fly lists, extremists, muslim brotherhood organizations, radicals, zealots, fascist regimes, sharia, jihad, mass murder while crying our "allah akbar", fatwas, anti-democracy, anti-freedom of speech . . . .
Islam needs an EXTREME makeover.
BiggerGovernment 11 months ago 20
@BiggerGovernment Well, at least our honorable country is torturing people now & putting them in prison for years with no hope of lawyer/trial.We're slightly better than these Islam pieces of crap but not by much. Pundits like Cenk, Matthews, Olbermann, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity don't help the situation either. Americans are stupid obese Reality Show vermin now & only watch/listen to one crappy TV/radio show & believe all the crap they dole out. It's really unfortunate & started around 9/11
rleary1 10 months ago
If Peter King were not a hypocrite, he would hold hearings into his own terrorism.
4teepee 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mohammed married 6 years old little girl when he was 51 years old....
WAR is within allah only means peace to Muslims who blindly submit. Infidels Jews and Christians knows Islam means war, persecution and beheadings.
MultiCountdown 11 months ago
@ArtetlaMusique87 Of course, that's what I meant.
DerBlitzStag 11 months ago
nigger killing nigger....nothing better
jsruss1960 11 months ago
i love the plastic paddies commenting below thinking the IRA are some sort of freedom fighters. saying the six counties of Ulster should have been united with the republic is like saying Portugal should unite with Spain. The Republic of Ireland government did not want ulster as much as the British government didnt want it. it is a civil war waiting to happen
677222 11 months ago
@677222 Six of Irelands counties forced into a union with Britain is like part of Portugal being joined to Spain.
TomBarry192I 11 months ago 10
@TomBarry192I They weren't force you fucking tit. Protestant (who were overwhelmingly loyalists) fled to the nothern county's where there were a large concentration of loyalists so that they would feelm more protected and safe during the war of independence. When each county had to vote on remaining part of the UK or becoming a part of the Free state the six counties chose UK because of the large loyalists population, they weren't force you lieing cunt.
TheSirPrise 3 months ago
@TheSirPrise Each county did not have a vote, unionists only had a majority in 3 or 4 counties when partition was forced on Ireland under a threat of war by a government unelected anywhere in Ireland.
TomBarry192I 3 months ago
@TomBarry192I Eh no, each county voted and 26 counties overwhelmingly voted to be part of the free state however, because of their houses being looted the richer protestants (loyalists) and generally speaking many other poorer protestants moved to the North creating a large concentration of unionist supporters hence when six counties remain in the UK. Also, you act as if the UK purposefully kept those specific counties, what is their significance then? Why are they so 'valuable'? It's a load of
TheSirPrise 3 months ago
@TheSirPrise Unionist supporters always had a larger concentration in the north east for centuries, do you even know what you are talking about? Each county never had a vote. Only 3 or 4 counties had a unionist majority, counties were forced against their will to form part of the six county state. Tyrone and Fermanagh has nationalist majorities and under the boundary comission were supposed to go to the free state along with other parts of counties.
TomBarry192I 3 months ago
@TomBarry192I shit.
TheSirPrise 3 months ago
@TomBarry192I Except that the population of the six counties were *clearly* in favour of remaining part of the UK
Oh, that's right; like all of the Republicans and Unionists who have been left behind by history and the Irish people, you believe in self-determination; *you* determine. Not a democratic vote in a referednum, not a considered process, that respects the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, just "What I say, now, or people die"
Go to hell terrorist.
disamjisa 3 months ago
@disamjisa what has the population of a certain amount of Irish counties got to do with anything? We could all draw a border to get a majority we want but that is undemocratic.
TomBarry192I 3 months ago
@TomBarry192I
I take great satisfaction from the fact that you can't play the Britain card anymore; that the legal status of Northern Ireland is accepted by the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and has been ratified by the people of Northern Ireland through their democratic representatives
You can't make this abt UK's devious conspiracy to occupy Northern Ireland just to be evil. To continue your campaign, you will have to take on fellow Catholics and Republicans of the PSNI and Sinn Fein.
disamjisa 3 months ago
@disamjisa I dont recognise the 26 county state or the 'United Kingdom' so your point is irrelevent.
TomBarry192I 3 months ago 2
@677222 what non-sense are you talking? Micheal Collins got killed because he didnt secure the 6 countries, the what the Irish Civil War was all about you idiot! British wanted it because it had the biggest shipping yard in the world at the time amongst other reasons and the Irish wanted it because its their island- what muck are you talking? The british are also setting up the protestant side of northern ireland for a big fall when the north joins the south, its unfair to force them to do this
bonzodave 11 months ago
Peter King is a Republican terrorist.
4teepee 11 months ago
OOOO Ahhh Up the RA
vinnyhoags 11 months ago 7