I had a dream! tonight

[ZEGH8578]

bod, as a military enthusiast, "bloody sunday" strikes me as very strange. i know this is by far the most famous event in "the troubles" but the CHOISE of paratrooper commandos is what truly bothers me.
its something i havent seen discussed a lot, maybe over there they brought it up more

but its about the faulty math:
you have protesters, Who do we call?
The police?
The riot police? <---this would be sufficient, i suspect.
Special police?
The home guard?
Some infantry group?
The anti terror unit?
Paratrooper commandos? <---these men are a unit of their own, because this is how it works:

Each unit has its own TASK, its own EXPECTATION.
You wouldnt send riot police to put out a fire. they would be completely confused, and they would suck at firefighting.

Commando soldiers sit around and wait for a "sharp mission", as we call them in norwegian. If your a home guard soldier, or you train recruits in a military base, you do that because you like the military, but your not too eager about death.
If your more eager about death and killing, you become a commando soldier, because commandos are used for killing:
theyre the ones you call for resolutions of hostage situations (iranian embassy hostage situation in the UK), assasinations, etc.

and these guys
are trained
to kill, kill, kill and kill <---THAT is their expectation. If you call commandos, to babysit in a kindergarden, theyre gonna be shifty-eyed looking behind every shelf, EAGER to kill some arab or some communist, or whoever.

the fact that the british government sent paratroopers to deal with protesters, means _only_ one of two things:
1. they have no fucking idea what the various military units are for. Which sounds unlikely.
2. they _intended_ for the carnage. which sounds... harsh.

['Butterflies']

realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.

and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]

I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.

I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.

From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.


It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.

I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.


Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.

thats what i am saying dearie....
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.

by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!?

Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.

Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.

Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.

[ZEGH8578]

realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.

and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]

I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.

I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.

From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.


It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.

I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.


Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.

thats what i am saying dearie....
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.

by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!?

Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.

Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.

Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.

fine, then ill take upon myself to have acted on a very idealistic mindset.
i just find sad that a resistance group should give up completely. the breivik comparison, to me, is a bit off, cus he (first of all broke ALL records, im not sure if you know this, but hes #1 world-champion in spree killing) isnt fighting for a cause that most or even many norwegians support, not even in theory.

i never mentioned that group by name, because i woulda remembered. i dont. so...
i probably expressed dissapointment that it (it, as in irish resistance, in general) was over, and that britain won, again, just by being stronger.
since you know best who's who, you made the assumption that i was supporting that specific group, and therefore all their previous actions.

['Butterflies']

realistically, i acknowledge an independent northern ireland is much more feasible than a united ireland.
wholeness of the island is mostly a cultural/cosmetic issue
kosovo was basically a northern-ireland-of-yugoslavia, a subnational entity of albanians, waving albanian flags, wanting to be albanians, and theres albania, right across the border, and still theres no such thing as a unification going on.
compared to most countries come and gone, peaceful unifications are so rare, i can only think of germany.

and butterflies, you know, next time you wonder wether or not i am for or against genocide and terrorism, please, give me the benefit of the doubt, will you :]

I never said you supported genocide. I know you don't.

I've searched and searched for your original quote, but I can't find it.

From what I remember, you said you supported the actions of the PIRA/RIRA/CIRA. I might be wrong though, because no matter how hard I try, I just can't find it.


It seems impossible to condone the actions of PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, while condemning Breivik. He just happens to be better at it than PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.

I am sorry if I have wrongly remembered your post, and you have never expressed support or sympathy for PIRA/RIRA/CIRA.


Edit: Also, don't get the wrong idea. I have no problem with the goals of the IRA. I have a huge problem with the use of terrorism to achieve those goals.

thats what i am saying dearie....
also, if _I_ remember correctly, i was dissapointed at the notion of a complete disarmament, of whichever splinter faction of the IRA was left...
if you understood this as "damn, now they cant massacre civilians anymore:/" then that was NOT my mindset.
look at libya. their cause is being won - purely - by weapons.
strictly speaking, even exploding a car, to destroy a building, IS "okay", as long as you give adequate warnings first. to many this sounds silly, "who'd call to warn about a bomb?", well, the IRA have often done it, the ETA routinely do it - precisely to avoid civilian deaths. precisely so. the goal of their attack IS the government. to cause COST.
and if that doesnt work, engage military units.
i know i sound like im trying to show off or something, by accepting insurgency against military units, but its part of "freedom fights" that we love so much, to attack soldiers. libyan rebels are KILLLING people, and we are supporting them - cus they are killing _the soldiers_ who are defending the opposing regime. sometimes this becomes inevitable.

by disarming that part of the IRA, it seemed to me, like they doomed the entire cause. that was what bothered me.
i never condoned violence against civilians, and i KNOW irish insurgents, under many various IRA-names, have attacked civilians, and i think about them like anybody who does such stuff, they are psychopaths AND theyre idiots for undermining their cause.
now do you understand me!?

Of course I understand what you are saying, but that's not really why I took exception to your words.

Without the original quote, which I can't find, it makes it pretty hard to argue from my perspective.

Anybody who supports the actions of the post-ceasefire Republican terrorist groups, is either mindlessly ignorant, or is in favour of seeing a country get further torn apart, and ruining the lives of the people who have the misfortune to live here. All for the sake of a war that is over.

fine, then ill take upon myself to have acted on a very idealistic mindset.
i just find sad that a resistance group should give up completely. the breivik comparison, to me, is a bit off, cus he (first of all broke ALL records, im not sure if you know this, but hes #1 world-champion in spree killing) isnt fighting for a cause that most or even many norwegians support, not even in theory.

i never mentioned that group by name, because i woulda remembered. i dont. so...
i probably expressed dissapointment that it (it, as in irish resistance, in general) was over, and that britain won, again, just by being stronger.
since you know best who's who, you made the assumption that i was supporting that specific group, and therefore all their previous actions.

I never made an assumption about you supporting one particular group. I am going by my memory, which may be flawed, that you were in favour of the post-ceasefire groups who were continuing the fight, on the basis that you felt they were giving grief to the British government.
The reality is that they give little grief to the British government, but lots to the people of N.I.

Obviously there are differences between the terrorism in Norway and that in N.I. What happened in Norway was a shocking event, but a one-off(hopefully.) In N.I, we live every day knowing that terrorism of some type is a very real possibility.

[ZEGH8578]

then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.

i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair!
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.

i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.

['Butterflies']

then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.

i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair!
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.

i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.

Cool. Fair enough.


For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.

I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.

[ZEGH8578]

then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.

i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair!
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.

i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.

Cool. Fair enough.


For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.

I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.

i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]

['Butterflies']

then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.

i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair!
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.

i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.

Cool. Fair enough.


For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.

I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.

i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]

Yeah, OK. I am sorry about that.

This is still a touchy subject here, and having a small group of warped lunatics trying to destroy the fragile peace that exists is something that really hurts me, and a lot of others. I suppose it is something that it is easy to feel very strongly about if you live here. I may have overreacted





If you want a bit of information about events since the disarmament. I'm no expert, and Schleed, or some others may know better than me, but this is a quick rundown:

In 1998 a referendum was held in both N.I, and Southern Ireland. This was a yes or no question, basically  asking the people if they wanted peace or not.
This was supported by all the major polital parties, as well as the political wing of the IRA.
The result of the poll in N.I was 71% in favour of peace, from a turn out of 81% of the population (94% in favour of peace in Southern Ireland). It was an overwhelming majority of the people of the country choosing peace, and rejecting further violence.
This agreement, that was agreed by the IRA, meant that the IRA, and all other paramilitaries would disarm,  and the IRA would enter the mainstream political process as Sinn Fein.
The leader of Sinn Fein is Martin McGuinness, a former IRA member. He is the deputy First Minister of N.I. This means that he is the equal joint-leader of N.I.

Sadly, some people have decided not to respect the wishes of the people, and have chosen to continue the fight. They are the "Real IRA," and the"Provisional IRA," as well as some others. Unlike the IRA, these people do not have the support or resources to put any pressure on the government, so they have adopted a different strategy.
Their goal is to drive a wedge between the two sides, and to undermine the peace process. They are attempting to cause a war between Loyalist and Nationalists in the hope that one, or both sides will abandon peace.

The old IRA largely had the support of the Nationalist community. The Nationalist community, and the IRA has now chosen peace, not war. They have chosen political dialogue, rather than violence.

The terrorist groups represent only a small portion of Nationalists, and are hated by the majority of their own side.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998

[ZEGH8578]

then its my bad, for letting idealism come first.

i still support resistance in northern ireland, just cus i dont think a superpower like britain should be able to do and take whatever they want, as they please, and always get away w it... its not fair!
and i still support the use of force - as long as it is done in a warfare-sort-of-way, attack government forces, keep a CLEAR divide between combatant and civilian.

i get in similar arguments w americans, who assume that i support all concievable terrorism, because i support iraqi resistance/insurgency.
i try to explain to them that those i support, are those who are trying to sabotage american military achievements - JUST like norwegians sabotaged for germans. we set up ambushes, and we fucking executed them.
the most violent norwegian resistance groups are even erased from history classes, but these guys were fucking brutal. its war.
this still doesnt mean that i have ever supported the attack on civilians. a soldier knows where he is, and what hes there for. civilians are always in the middle of shit they didnt ask for. theres a big big difference.

Cool. Fair enough.


For your own sake though, I would advise you to learn a bit more about the more recent history of Irish Republican resistance before declaring support.

I'm sure you do have a decent knowledge of the pre-ceasefire era. The post-ceasefire era has little to do with the old times though, and you cleary have no knowledge of the recent actions, and aims of Republican armed resistance.
They are not the "good old IRA" that you think they are. They are simply a tiny group of twisted 'tards trying to restart the war, who have been largely disowned by their own community.

i always value information.
i remember the news story about the disarmament reaching here, and they didnt make any distinction between fractions of the ira, and i was even sortof expecting to hear some specifications about it, but they didnt mention any, so i just didnt think about that detail any further.
i do wish you'd have taken that angle, inform me about the specifics, before jumping right to "call out my bullshit" :]

Yeah, OK. I am sorry about that.

This is still a touchy subject here, and having a small group of warped lunatics trying to destroy the fragile peace that exists is something that really hurts me, and a lot of others. I suppose it is something that it is easy to feel very strongly about if you live here. I may have overreacted





If you want a bit of information about events since the disarmament. I'm no expert, and Schleed, or some others may know better than me, but this is a quick rundown:

In 1998 a referendum was held in both N.I, and Southern Ireland. This was a yes or no question, basically  asking the people if they wanted peace or not.
This was supported by all the major polital parties, as well as the political wing of the IRA.
The result of the poll in N.I was 71% in favour of peace, from a turn out of 81% of the population (94% in favour of peace in Southern Ireland). It was an overwhelming majority of the people of the country choosing peace, and rejecting further violence.
This agreement, that was agreed by the IRA, meant that the IRA, and all other paramilitaries would disarm,  and the IRA would enter the mainstream political process as Sinn Fein.
The leader of Sinn Fein is Martin McGuinness, a former IRA member. He is the deputy First Minister of N.I. This means that he is the equal joint-leader of N.I.

Sadly, some people have decided not to respect the wishes of the people, and have chosen to continue the fight. They are the "Real IRA," and the"Provisional IRA," as well as some others. Unlike the IRA, these people do not have the support or resources to put any pressure on the government, so they have adopted a different strategy.
Their goal is to drive a wedge between the two sides, and to undermine the peace process. They are attempting to cause a war between Loyalist and Nationalists in the hope that one, or both sides will abandon peace.

The old IRA largely had the support of the Nationalist community. The Nationalist community, and the IRA has now chosen peace, not war. They have chosen political dialogue, rather than violence.

The terrorist groups represent only a small portion of Nationalists, and are hated by the majority of their own side.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998

this is pretty much the version of the situation that i was allready aware of (more or less:D)
of course, i completely understand that people are sick of such a long lasting problem.
its the same in spain, the basques come down to a dilemma:
Do we support the harsh methods implemented by ETA? (at approx one car bomb a month at worst, the ETA are "amazingly" good at avoiding civilian casualties)
Or do we simply sit back, and accept that spain owns us, just cus they have more strength, and because we are sick of hostilities?

_that_ is where my support sentiment comes from. I like the notion that a tiny underdog is capable to show relentless resistance, over decades, despite the strained situation it causes.
its much too easy to support america bombing the fuck out of entire cities, than it is to support a tiny group of people torching cars, it seems, it comes down to a matter of culture and trend, more than actual reason (as often)
or people going "goddamn palestinians" to one shoeless kid, throwing rocks at soldiers, for then to go
"good for them, for defending themselves" when israel carpetbombs all of gaza.
i tend to root for the "underdog"

but yes, you are right
my original sentiment is for the "good old" ira, and their cause. and i did suspect that you had a bit of personal emotion considering the subject matter, being from there and all :]

[Queen Victoria]

I dreamt this turned into a callout.  Oh, wait.  It did.

[bodie]

Hey guy's i do understand what you both say.  Me, i just pounce on
an opportunity to highlight government fuck up's

It's been cool reading actually.   I like to read how other's view the things that go on in this world.  In my experience it is rare to find
people your age who are so knowledgeable and articulate and who actually give a fuck!

( by the way when i say 'people your age' i don't mean it in any kind of patronising way.  In fact it makes me feel kinda older but defo not wiser,  i just mean i see too much apathy in some folks, and i really hate apathy )

And, i really hope your 'peace' lasts and that you can relax about things more Butterflies.  I think my nerves would be kind of twitchy if my own neighbourhood had that history.

[ZEGH8578]

bod, in english plural is written w a normal s, "fuck ups" "others"
*GIGGLE*
people will correct the hell out of me, but the other way around, i always drop the ', but most cus i just dont* care
(*don't)

besides, i am a norwegian, being corrected, often snarkily, by native english speakers "learn to speak english u retard "
its always a kick as a non-english speaker, to correct those who speak it 

_just playin w ya tho_
i dont think i can deal with yet another dramatic argument so soon

[bodie]

Look my excuse for my poor  english  is that
it is a deliberate attempt to hide my extremely
high IQ     you know, just to put people at ease

[ZEGH8578]

Look my excuse for my poor  english  is that
it is a deliberate attempt to hide my extremely
high IQ  ;)   you know, just to put people at ease :zoinks:

thats very commendable of you!!!  :o

['Butterflies']

Hey guy's i do understand what you both say.  Me, i just pounce on
an opportunity to highlight government fuck up's

It's been cool reading actually.   I like to read how other's view the things that go on in this world.  In my experience it is rare to find
people your age who are so knowledgeable and articulate and who actually give a fuck!

( by the way when i say 'people your age' i don't mean it in any kind of patronising way.  In fact it makes me feel kinda older but defo not wiser,  i just mean i see too much apathy in some folks, and i really hate apathy )

And, i really hope your 'peace' lasts and that you can relax about things more Butterflies.  I think my nerves would be kind of twitchy if my own neighbourhood had that history.

Thanks, and I hope the peace lasts as well.

I'm in quite a unique position here because I'm one of the few non-foreigners in the country who are genuinely neutral in this "war."

I moved here with my Aunt and Uncle and cousin a couple of years ago. My aunt is originally from here, but moved to London when she was around 20, partly to get away from the troubles. They made the decision to move here when it looked like the troubles were just about over. Sadly, since we came here, things have slowly got worse, and although things aren't anywhere near as bad as they were in the past, they are pretty shocking to someone who grew up in Scotland. At times it has looked like their might be a return to the very bad old days.

I hate this place and wish I could go home.