Okay, that's not entirely true, I realize, but why does everyone insist on telling the story of the Northern Ireland conflict form the IRA=Terrorists POV? Granted, they've been responsible for some pretty nasty things that I cannot say I agree with, but when does anyone ever mention the RUC? The UDA? The UFF? Oh, you've never heard of those organizations? Maybe that's because the British press have been controlling the story for all these years, and those groups just happen to be pro-British paramilitary organizations (or, in the case of the RUC, official government agencies) who've killed as many, if not more people than the IRA. And none of them have ever been ordered to disarm as part of the peace process. Every time, and I mean every single time, that Sinn Fein and/or the IRA have agreed to the demands of the unionists, nutbags like Ian Paisley and David Trimble have backed out and made further demands. Let's not forget, the IRA was dormant, a virtual non-entity by the late 1960's, when the Derry massacre happened (for those who don't know, unarmed, peaceful civil rights protesters were fired upon and attacked by the the British army, in full view of television camera's, who then broadcast the images around the world, sparking renewed interest in the Republican cause and an almost overnight swelling of the IRA's ranks). The crown has bungled the Northern Ireland issue for decades, and no one has held them seriously accountable for it.
Who's really holding up the peace process?
No comments:
Post a Comment