80 Comments

• kurtjohnson | Jan 01, 2011, 03:06 AM EST

  @Realist - There is no british nation but three (or arguably four) people combined by force through a medieval sort of proto-bolshevism. The "british nation (and by extension its planters)," even presuming it existed, has no veto over the Irish right to self determination. The poisonous treaty of Versailles (the reparations from which Germany just completed paying this week) is what created the rise of the Nazis and WWII with its associated atrocities. Moreover, the etioogy of british and later Nazi supremacism can arguably be traced to degenerate anglo-dutch materialist doctrines.

• ancavker | Dec 28, 2010, 11:25 AM EST

  Dan No denying that the IRA in the 30's frolicked with the Nazi's just like many English including Churchill initially froliced with Hitler, and admired him. Lets not forget that the English and French treatment of Germany at the end of WW1 went along way in leading to the rise of the mad man Hitler.

• ancavker | Dec 28, 2010, 11:22 AM EST

  bobby40 True the Americans did destroy the native Americians. And yes the native Americans were depicted as savages even when I was in school which was not that long ago. Much of course the same way the English portrayed the Irish. Of course this has rightfully changed now, and the native Americans struggle is depicted as a fight for survival, and of course nobody is asking that they apologise for fighting back. Compare that of course to the Irish who are constantly told they should be ashamed of the so called atrocities committed against Protestants in the 1641 rising. The same settler stock who were destorying the native Americans in America.

• ancavker | Dec 28, 2010, 11:16 AM EST

  realist: Ireland was an integral part of the UK??? Talk about tired old nonsense. I Guess you have been inhaling too much of Conor Cruise O'Brien's nonsense, or perhaps the Reform Movement silliness. Did Ireleand join the UK of it's pwn free will? Did the Irish people have any say in it? The answer of course is no. The fact remains that in the 1918 general election Sinn Fein won the majority of seats and had a mandate from the Irish people to establish an independent Ireland; simple as that.

• sirpeter | Dec 27, 2010, 08:11 PM EST

  bobby40...Don't go..I like your way of thinking,I can see you contributing in a very positive way.There isn't much intelligents from the anti-Irish anglophiles..so it's a bit of fun.

• hancock | Dec 27, 2010, 09:08 AM EST

  Yeah, we all got our own facts here, and eveybody is a bigot. Even the English terrorists.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 27, 2010, 07:52 AM EST

  bobby40, welcome on board...try Irish Times online for some excellent articles...keep visiting this site to remind yourself that bigotry and bias is alive and well, and deserves to be challenged by the occasional fact(s)!!

• hancock | Dec 27, 2010, 12:58 AM EST

  Thats the spirit Bobby, it took you all of ten lines to get with the program.

• bobby40 | Dec 26, 2010, 04:48 PM EST

  Sorry I'm new to IrishCentral about an hour. I'm trying to find a site that covers irish issues maturely and professionally. Is the the quality of the journalism or can anyone write articles. Hate filled biased journalism. Pathetic. The author drives into the brits without mentioning the IRA or Irish American involment accurately in Ireland. Disappointed IrishCentral. "When it comes to terrorism the Brits have very little to learn from anyone" Well anyone could reply american destroyed a way of life, a culture, a people. Today Native americans on their reservations have high drug abuse, unemployment and sucide rates.

• hancock | Dec 26, 2010, 10:49 AM EST

  Their all terrorists, English and Irish.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 26, 2010, 04:53 AM EST

  Can anyone name any of the 21 victims killed by IRA in the Birmingham pub bombings? No, didn’t think so. Strange how the miscarriages of justice are remembered in detail, and seen as greater crimes than the bombings themselves, classic Nazi propaganda tactics…FACT - it was Sean Russell, and fellow pro Nazi IRA, who ‘frolicked’ with the Gestapo.

• pilib04 | Dec 25, 2010, 10:24 PM EST

  Andanddec refers to the Birmingham and Guildford bombings. Presumably to remind us of the gestapo tactics of the british government. FACT: Annie Maguire served 14 years for a crime she did not commit. Patrick Maguire served 14 years for a crime he did not commit. Annie and Patrick's son, Patrick Maguire (age 14 at the trial) served 4 years for a crime he did not commit. Annie and Patrick's son, Vincent Maguire, age 17 at the trial, served 5 years for a crime he did not commit. Sean Smyth served 12 years for a crime he did not commit. Patrick O'Neill served 12 years for a crime he did not commit. Giuseppe Conlon died in prison after serving 12 years for a crime HE DID NOT COMMIT. FACT: Paul Hill, Paddy Armstrong, Carole Richardson and Gerry Conlon served 16 years for a crime they did not commit. the brit trial judge we should be reminded, said he wished he could have given them the death sentence!!! The Brit PM apologized in 2005 for this travesty. In regards to the Birminham the birmingham bombing, same thing.Brits framed six Irish men, Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkeny, William Power and John Walker. They were imprisoned from 1975 to 1991. Then released and later awarded compensations ranging 840,000 to 1.2 million pounds.

• Realist | Dec 24, 2010, 04:34 PM EST

  ancavker: In the UK as a whole (of which Ireland was an integral part) Unionist parties won 611 of the 700 seats that were available. That gave them the mandate from the British people, to maintain the United Kingdom. The fact that Sinn Fein voted no, means nothing. They were a minority in the British Isles. Should states in the U.S. that do not vote for the winning presidential candiate be allowed to secede? Should the whites in South Africa have been allowed to set up a seperate white homeland? After all many of them had been there since the 1600's. Did the east Germans get to vote yes or no on reunificaiton with west Germany? Lol....it cuts both ways my friend. Even Provisional Sinn Fein don't wheel out that tired old rubbish anymore.

• ancavker | Dec 22, 2010, 04:19 PM EST

  Dan That was not the IRA of the war of independence/civil war. They were either all dead, left the country in disillusionment etc. As far as partition yes it should have only been temporary, but the six counties should have been much smaller than it ended up being. Tyrone, Fermanagh,and west Derry should not have been included in that entity.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 22, 2010, 02:33 PM EST

  What about IRA bombing Coventry 25 August 1939; the explosion killed five people, injured 100 more. Two IRA members and three others were put on trial for murder. Three were acquitted and two convicted and hanged in February 1940. What was their motivation?

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 22, 2010, 02:26 PM EST

  ancavker – re secession etc. I was responding to your comment at 0136, 21 Dec, where you posited that U.S. states disagreeing with an election result be allowed to secede. My point was that when the confederacy tried to secede it caused a civil war…and that is a strong possibility that forcing the unionists into a united Ireland may have led down the same road…that is not saying that Ireland should not have ‘seceded’, but given the very pronounced differences between the south and north it was probably sensible to have partition, seen at the time as temporary. Not what most nationalist wanted, but post partition neither side tried too hard to engage with each other, with the South emphasising their difference from UK, and the North emphasising the opposite. The guys up north preferred ‘riveting at the shipyard’ to ‘dancing at the crossroads’.

• ancavker | Dec 22, 2010, 01:17 PM EST

  Putting bombs in subways and department stores and other place where civilians gather is wrong;period.

• plasticpaddy | Dec 22, 2010, 01:06 PM EST

  ancavker. That is very naive, the only reason there was a peace process is because the fight was brought to Britain's own doorstep!

• ancavker | Dec 22, 2010, 10:59 AM EST

  kurt: Be that as it may, they never should have started a bombing campaign In England. It created huge hardship for Irish people living there at the time, and destroyed alot of sympathy that had existed. Also 2 wrongs do not make a right. It simply should not have been done. Cathal Brugha during the war of independence wanted to start a bombing campaign in England during the war, to respond in kind to the English burning of Cork city, and British army forces deliberatley targeting innocent civilians. Collins rightly refused, and said he would not put innocent civilians in harms way on purpose even though the English gov't policy in Ireland did. Brugha responded that he would not need Collins or his men to agree to this, and he would get his own men. He was unable to get any IRA brigade to engage in deliberatley killing English civilians, and his plan thankfully never materialized.

• hancock | Dec 22, 2010, 10:11 AM EST

  If Bloombergs a Republican I'm an Obama voter.

• ancavker | Dec 22, 2010, 09:35 AM EST

  Don: had to rethink your comment on southern secession in the U.S. I am assuming now from your original post that you are of the belief that Ireland (26) should have stayed in the U.K., and all would have been well? I guess you too have drank the revisionism kool aid that passes for Irish history over the last 30 years.

• DennisQ | Dec 22, 2010, 05:15 AM EST

  We'll never know if Peter King would have defeated the unknown Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, because he didn't run. It's not true that New York voters won't elect a Republican. How soon people forget about George Pataki, who's not only a Republican but a conservative as well. Nor is New York City the Democratic stronghold it's thought to be. Mike Bloomberg ran twice for Mayor as a Republican, and was elected by a comfortable margin. He replaced the previous Mayor, arch-conservative Republican Rudy Giuliani.
  
  There are lots of Republican voters in New York State, where Republicans control the State Senate. Had King chosen to run, he might have tapped into a vein of support among Republicans but also might have gained Democratic support as well. It was that kind of year.
  
  Even Christine O'Donnell who had no chance of winning, had a war chest of millions of dollars of Republican money. Peter King, with a greater chance of winning, would have had even more millions at his disposal. History, however, is full of examples of overly cautious decisions. As they say in the Bronx, No guts no glory.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 09:17 PM EST

  @Andanddec The Guilford bombings resulted in the deaths of 4 british soldiers and one civilian. The IRA has denied responsibility for the Birmingham bombings and there have been no proven IRA members convicted of the bombings. In any event, nothing the IRA has ever done or even been accused of can compare to the senseless atrocities committed by the british terror state in bombing Dresden in a manner which maximized civilian deaths.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 21, 2010, 09:00 PM EST

  Perhaps London and other UK areas should be gerrymandered on an ethnic basis and allowed to vote to leave the UK and join another state.

• sirpeter | Dec 21, 2010, 05:02 PM EST

  No DanOLoingsigh..I wasn't referring to you :)

• ancavker | Dec 21, 2010, 04:12 PM EST

  Dan O Yep, and we may revisit that yet again the way this country is going.

• hancock | Dec 21, 2010, 03:07 PM EST

  Northern Ireland was a gerrymandered atocity that guaranteed trouble.

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 21, 2010, 02:08 PM EST

  ancavker – Don’t you recall that exactly 150 years ago this week the first of eleven U.S. states seceded from the union…and you know what followed. Not a very promising blueprint I think.

• ancavker | Dec 21, 2010, 01:43 PM EST

  realist: If you are using Brian Walker's election rsults from the 1918 election, I suggest you look a little deeper into the numbers, and the break down of the vote in the constituencies in Ireland at the time. Which by the way Mr Walker acknowledges, and by the way he also acknowledges the primacy of Sinn Fein in that vote as well.

• ancavker | Dec 21, 2010, 01:36 PM EST

  Realist: Sinn Fein won 75 of the 106 seats that were available. That gave them the mandate from the Irish people, to seek independence from Britain. The fact that Ulster unionists voted no, means nothing. They were and still are a minority on the island of Ireland. Should states in the U.S. that do not vote for the winning presidential candiate be allowed to secede? Should the whites in South Africa have been allowed to set up a seperate white homeland? After all many of them had been there since the 1600's. Did the east Germans get to vote yes or no on reunificaiton with west Germany?

• Realist | Dec 21, 2010, 12:14 PM EST

  maireadinmelb: Lol....not the tired old 1918 thing again? Your history is a bit muddled my friend, firstly 1918 was not a referendum on independence or a republic, it was a general election, and as is oft stated on sites like this voting for a nationalist doesn’t always mean you want an Independent/United Ireland, secondly, Sinn Fein got 46.7% of the vote, Unionist 29.3%, and the Irish Parliamentary Party (who whilst being nationalist were certainly not advocating a republic) got 21% despite not standing in a quarter of the seats, considering this was during a World War with a very strong threat of conscription being enforced, its not the cut and dried verdict for independence you try to paint. Also Ulster did not vote in favour of a republic. Unionists actually won a majority share of the vote, in both the province of Ulster and in the six counties that would later become Northern Ireland (4 out of 9 Ulster counties were majority Unionist with the other 5 having significant Unionist minorities).

• ancavker | Dec 21, 2010, 09:05 AM EST

  Dan: Not surprising that you are irish,and yet know so little of Irish history. The rebirth of the IRA in the northwas a reaction to the discrimination and inequality was the foundation of the northern state. Oh and where was the southern government during all of this; they turned a blind eye just like the people in the south.

• maireadinmelb | Dec 21, 2010, 06:56 AM EST

  @Dan they assisted the loyalist to commit crimes, what sort of police force is that???? Further, the only reason they were not seen as legitimate target is because they were the brothers, uncles fathers and sons of the same people!! People react to how they are treated, ie teh formation of groups such as the IRA dont blame those who feel their only course of action is violence, show them they can legitimately use the tools of democracy! ie 1918 election which went 75% of the vote to SF, was ignored, people took to violence because they were denied democracy from their legal actions!

• Andanddec | Dec 21, 2010, 06:27 AM EST

  Finucanes family were heavily involved in the IRA !

• Andanddec | Dec 21, 2010, 06:26 AM EST

  No mention of the bombs in Birmingham and Guildford pubs and the bomb placed in a litter bin on Warrington High street in 1993.Between them, those atrocities killed 30 people, all civilian.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 20, 2010, 08:25 PM EST

  @DanOLoingsigh You're seriously denying that the planter community engaged in pogroms against the indigenous Irish? Obviously, the official terror state records didn't document these atrocities. Is it your position that the northern statelet was not constructed as a supremacist South Africa style regime? Gerrymandering? Political policing? Employment discrimination? Disparate public works funding? The IRA did not have a policy of purposely targeting civilians as opposed to the torture and murder squads organized by loyalists and their british handlers (or the official terror state forces - see Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday). @Towntroll - what is this pablum you're spewing?

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 07:09 PM EST

  Maireadinmelb - Maybe the cops figured they might be safer assisting the terrorists that didn't see them as ‘legitimate targets’….not much of a policing policy for sure, but has a certain logic…

• Towngate | Dec 20, 2010, 08:40 AM EST

  NOW LOOK (cont.) Curpathetic@04.34: Do you not know when you are beaten? Well, its when you have to call your Daddy to tell the other boys to stop telling you to stop!

• maireadinmelb | Dec 20, 2010, 06:58 AM EST

  Don't just look at employment data, look at the sentences granted to those accused of the same crime but of a different political persuasion speaks volumes of the inherent discrimination. Not to mention state sanctioned terrorism! Britain this beacon of alleged democracy and freedom letting their police and troops assist one lot of so called terrorist and persecuting another group! this went on into the 80's and probably the 90's!

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 06:24 AM EST

  @sirpeter…if you’re referring to me, my passport reads ‘saoránach d’Éirinn’

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 20, 2010, 06:09 AM EST

  @kurtjohnson – Are you being serious? Detail the alleged Pogroms please…I take it by your reference to ‘indigenous population’ you’re ‘cool’ with the PIRA/INLA murder squads activities with the non-indigenous population? Employment inequality…yes, lets keep up the bombing campaign, that’ll encourage new industry here!!

• sirpeter | Dec 20, 2010, 04:34 AM EST

  Niall..Tell a certain person these discussions and comments are for true Irish people.

• kurtjohnson | Dec 19, 2010, 11:55 PM EST

  @DanOLoingsigh " the abuses and discrimination in N.I. had been largely swept away by the mid 70’s" You're being serious? Ever look at the employment data? How about police abuse, random murder of the indigenous population, and pogroms? Is your IRL name Kevin Myers?

• kurtjohnson | Dec 19, 2010, 11:50 PM EST

  King's real crime was exposing the british terror state's murder and torture rackets. "Journalists" such as those referred to in the article typically supported the apartheid regime and viewed Mandela as a terrorist. Re the southern "protestant" population, it's a wonder that oppressors of the Irish people were left undisturbed in their property considering they pushed through laws depriving the indigenous of any property or civil rights and stole the land they own in the first place. Compare how moderately these traitors were treated to the loyalist following the American revolution (many of whom had to flee to Canada). In any event, the indigenous population treated the protestants much better than they treated the indigenous Irish when they were in power.

• Towngate | Dec 19, 2010, 03:20 PM EST

  NOW LOOK what you've done with your stupid blog,Niall - you've upset the children ...!

• sirpeter | Dec 19, 2010, 12:58 PM EST

  Kilsally..I'm from the Cork/Bandon area.There has been alot of revisionist history going on in the last 15 years about how the Protestant population were treated in the South in the 1920`s.I'm quite interested in this because i want Irish history to be accurate and true.My studies into this issue is on going.The proof of these revisionist's are rather flimsy like that of Peter Hart ect.From reading so many accounts of that era and reading between the lines..I have no doubt what so ever that there was a certain amount of discrimination against certain local Protestants,especially in the Bandon area.Bandon was the strong hold of the British army for all of West Cork.It was well known that certain Protestants did more then keep their head down,they informed as well.Putting that aside I have no doubt some Protestants suffered not because they were informers,but because they were that little bit to close to the British army.The question to ask is how widespread was it.My conclusion to-date is that it was not widespread.Very few isolated cases.The reason for this revisionism of late is that most of the people of that era are dead and can't refute the so called new evidence that these revisionist's are bringing out.The thing is the revisionist's argument is based on dead men's testimony and some even refuse to name sources.Logic and study tells me there was discrimination,but so little,it's just not enough to change history.I'd be careful about RTE programmes and who is behind producing this revisionism,because for the untrained eye they can be rather convincing,but for the trained eye are full of holes and downright unconvincing.Merry Christmas :-)

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 11:59 AM EST

  @sirpeter , several recent RTE programmes in the Republich have highlighted violent campaigned against the local Protestant population in the South in the 1920`s. Cork / Bandon be of particular note. And yes since you mention is the NE Temere decree of the RC church resulted in much discrimination the case of the Fetard On Sea incident comes to mind where the Catholic population boycotted Protestants and their businesses because the decree was not observed is a point of note. Alot of what you say is quite true and indeed part of the story but there is also much evidence that discrimination did occur as well and recent documentaries and opinion pieces in newspapers have shown that Protestants tended to keep quite and keep their heads down for good reason. Indeed the Protestant population has started to grow again in the last few years after 90 years of decline.

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 11:49 AM EST

  @Seamus Hmm resorting to childish homophobia? Probably best not too. I know the RC Church refers to it a a tendency to disorder and intrinsically immoral and the AOH bans gay groups from St Paddy`s day but recent horrendous events in the Church ..... re smuggling, I have no idea but there are plenty of borders around where such things are probably quite common. Basque separatists commonly flee between basque regions of france and spain, do the taliban not use the afghan / pakistan border to their advantage ..same thing surely!!! People used to run away to Scotland to get married at the age of 15 in the blacksmiths at Gretna Green just across the border. Irish women as highlighted recently by the European Human Rights Court, routinely go to the UK mainland to seek abortion. Same no?

• sirpeter | Dec 19, 2010, 11:45 AM EST

  @Kilsally..For one I'm native born.While it is true that the Protestant population has fallen in the Republic.The reason for it is far from ethnic cleansing.After the war of Independence,ALL Protestant property was left in the hands of the Protestant owners...FACT! and rightly so,as they had a very large input into Irish commerce.The only difference is they now had to compete on an equal level with the Catholic majority.A lot of Protestant's left for England of their own accord..FACT!Those who stayed which was most,because Ireland was their home,and were well respected and still are by the Catholic majority.After all most of their business was done with Catholics and these were their neighbours for generations.The reason the Protestant population fell so much was a religious one.If a Protestant man wanted to marry a Catholic women,the children had to be brought up Catholic..Fact!!Protestant women tended to marry Protestant men,as would be in keeping with the family's wishes.The fact that men have a tendency to disregard religion and will marry who they bloody like, has been A MAIN reason for the Protestant decline..FACT!!Along with alot of Prods leaving for better work opportunity in England.Sectarianism was never an issue in the south,because the Protestant community were no longer able to use their privileged standing in a sea of Catholics.I for one am a product of this religious change over.My great grandfather was a Protestant who married a Catholic,so all that line are Catholic.Story goes..he didn't care what denomination his kids grew up in.Now does that sound a more logical reason for the Protestant decline in the South,rather then ethnic cleansing?You have read there was a decline and jumped to conclusions way to fast.Go deeper my good man..Go deeper.I type these posts slowly so alot of people on this forum can understand easier :-

• seamusmoore | Dec 19, 2010, 11:21 AM EST

  Kilsally How many of these "smugglers" have a border running through the middle of their property so they can install underground fuel storage tanks on both sides of the "border", pumping it into one and directly out into the other. Is this is a common occurrence in the smuggling world? I doubt it. BTW, Ireland was 4 provinces for centuries, yet the UK chose to gerrymander Ulster: 6 into NI and 3 (Cavan, Monagan and Donegal)into the Free State. Any chance that was because those 3 were 85, 88 and 92% Catholic and would have made NI a majority Catholic, not Protestant entity if all of Ulster was included. BTW, since William of Orange was bi-sexual (what Royals aren't, like say Mountbatten), is marching season really a series of gay pride parades?

• seamusmoore | Dec 19, 2010, 10:16 AM EST

  DennisQ You clearly know little about US politics if you think NY is a state where Republicans (King or otherwise)have a good chance of getting elected. It much like Maryland in that the overwhelming less populous areas of the state vote Repubican, but the large numbers in the city (Baltimore, NY) make it a Democratic stronghold. King would have had strong upstate support. As for your contention that the IRA's opposition to "Arab wars" soured King on them, it is ludicrous. The IRA's Columbia 3 expedition/fiasco, training FARC guilleras, who kidnapped and killed US businessman, left King with no choice politically but to demand that the IRA decommission, which they did. BTW, so Long Island is minor league? You wouldn't be a bitter NY Rangers' hockey fan (one since 41), would you? Actually, I hope King will address issues like the Saudi-funded Madrassa school in McLean, VA which teaches children to hate Jews and Americans, that's where the war on terror needs to focus.

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 10:07 AM EST

  To blame Ian Paisley for the troubles is also stretching things too far ... it was the UDA that organised the workers strike of 1974, Paisley was a latecomer - in retrospect Sunningdale was actually a more fair and democratic settlement than the lame 5 party coalition government we currently have which basically remains in government perpetually as you cannot remove any party from government as such ... a form of qualified majority voluntary coalition would be much better option

• hancock | Dec 19, 2010, 10:05 AM EST

  Dennis you're precious. He has no power outside Long Island, but he will be a powerful chairman. Priceless, when did you get out of Creedmore.

• hancock | Dec 19, 2010, 10:02 AM EST

  If it wasn't for Peter King there wouldn't have been a peace process. Love him or hate him.

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 10:01 AM EST

  Seamus re smuggling , that is a nonsense argument, smuggling occurs everywhere including from Ireland to the UK often via Northern Ireland..borders can facilitate it but removing borders will not stop it - bank robbery and other criminality have no regard for any border - it is for the people to decide what makes and country and what does not, historically Ireland was several kingdoms not one country, only under `english rule` and once under a high king was ireland actually united.

• seamusmoore | Dec 19, 2010, 09:53 AM EST

  Kilsally The blame for the Troubles lies solely with Ian Paisley who beat the drums of sectarianism from 1965 after Captain Terrence O Neill (NI PM) began to to address the inequalities in employment, housing and voting that existed. Remember that the IRA decommissioned after the end of the Border Campaign in 1962. They sought to unite Ireland thru a Marxist/Socialist class warfare agenda, uniting working class Protestant and Catholics against the ruling class. It was Paisley who fired up the working class Protestants against any O'Neill reforms, torpedoing the non-violent, political path to civil rights in the North. When the riots broke in Belfast in 1969, the Official IRA was unable to defend the Catholic community against sectarian violence because they had disarmed. Hence, the emergence of the Provos the following spring and the Stickie/Provo split in the IRA. Bloody Sunday was the catalyst for the emergence of the provos as a force in NI. It was also Paisley that helped organize the Ulster Workers strike of 1974, which sunk the Sunningdale Agreement (NOTE: Seamus Mallon of the SLDP refers to GFA as "Sunningdale for very slow learners"). One last point, though, where did Slab Murphy get the money to buy $80MM in real estate that the UK seized in 2005. Smuggling is the result of what happens when you create an artificial border, making 2 countries out of one with different taxes, tarriffs, etc.

• DennisQ | Dec 19, 2010, 08:41 AM EST

  It's likely that Peter King will use his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to beat the drum for more war against Arabs and all that it entails . . . destroying countries and killing people by the hundreds of thousands. This is not a good man. Even the IRA themselves opposed America's bogus wars all over the globe - and that's what soured Peter King on the IRA.
  
  There's nothing especially noteworthy about a Republican getting elected over and over again in a Republican district. It's significant that Peter King has no appeal outside Nassau County. If there were, the Republicans would have run him for Senate against the unknown Kirsten Gillibrand. As it was, the Republicans were forced to run completely obscure candidates that nobody ever heard of. If King were any kind of vote-getter, he'd be returning to Washington as a Senator instead of a Congressman.
  
  So the cronies from his own townland like him. Big deal. This guy is as minor league as Long Island itself.

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 08:20 AM EST

  "No one in the nationalist community wants to ethnically cleanse the area of Protestants"BUT Seamus the Protestants DID want to ethnically cleanse the area of Catholics. England's occupation of Northern Ireland has always been about oppressing the minority Catholic population, using any means possible, including murder, to bring this about.England needs to get its soldiers and tanks out of Northern Ireland before another Bloody Sunday takes place." oh dear oh dear, please without meaning to be offensive but this is plastic paddyism at it`s worst. Northern Ireland exists not because of England but because of Northern Irish Unionists (Ulster-Scots / Scotch Irish if you will) who raised an army for a civil war in Ireland in 1912 against the Irish Home Rule bill going through the UK parliament (that`ll be the `english` parliament to you). As to the reference to ethnic cleansing - a little bit of reading will show the huge decrease in the Protestant population in the Irish Free State / Republican 1916 - 1930, some due to higher enlistment numbers in British Army World War 1 amongst the protestant population (many many nationalists enlisted too though) and some down to downright discrimination and violence forcing emigration, Eamon Delevera was the person to state that Ireland was a Catholic Nation so what exactly do you expect the reaction to be in the North despite Edward Carsons appeal to treat fellow Catholics equitably? Suspicion was sown!

• Kilsally | Dec 19, 2010, 08:10 AM EST

  Horrendously biased use of the term British to refer to any and all non Republicans, same tactic previously used against the `occupying British police force` to envisage hordes of Englishmen in jackboots when in fact the Northern Irish police refered to were staffed by Northern Irish people - same tactic here against a Scottish journalist. Fact is Peter King naively or not supported Sinn Fein IRA in their failed attempt to coerce the majority of the population of Northern Ireland into a United Ireland against their will via a violent bombing campaign which as with all underground restistance/ terrorist / freedom fighter type organisations inevitable involves criminality as a source of funding ie Northern Bank Robbery, bank robbery that saw IRA kill Police Garda Mccabe, saw people `disappeared`. Sean O Callaghan former prominent IRA member in his book stated Pat Finucane like many of his relatives was in the IRA - nobody should have been gunned down, the `war` was pointless but evidence suggests he was much more than neutral human rights lawyer

• Towngate | Dec 19, 2010, 04:23 AM EST

  typo: ...that's: 'fantastically accurate...

• Towngate | Dec 19, 2010, 04:14 AM EST

  Hancock: your 'muslim morons' might be what you say - but maybe it was the four centuries of whizzing around on magic carpets that made them such fantalsically accurate pilots!

• hancock | Dec 19, 2010, 12:03 AM EST

  Muslims are 6th century morons. Getting 21st century drones dropped on their heads.

• sirpeter | Dec 18, 2010, 09:45 PM EST

  @DanOLoingsigh..Strange you should say that the US Government allowed the 9/11 "terrorists" to fly into the twin towers, by oppressing brother Muslims.Because that is exactly the reason.Your Government made YOU a target because of what the stinking rich are doing in THEIR COUNTRIES.WHY did they do that?Why are the Muslims out to get the USA?Because they are jealous of your freedom is it? ha ha..No Dano..they are out to kill Americans because Americans are killing them.What you posted needs a bit of rethinking...A little deeper study..A little more logic.I'm not even going to correct you on Northern Ireland.It's shallow and it's incorrect...Fail 30%..Must try harder.

• hancock | Dec 18, 2010, 08:50 PM EST

  The English did collude with Irish terrorists well into the 90s.

• seamusmoore | Dec 18, 2010, 05:33 PM EST

  The original Alex Massie story was in the Daily Beast on Jan 10th, 2010. Salon.com chose to dredge it up now because King intends to launch an investigation of radical Islamic mosques come January. For the record, Peter King's Massapequa, NY district is primarily EYE-talian, so I doubt NORAID had much to do with his election as Massie contends. Also, gunrunning out of the NYC area effectively ended with George Harrison's arrest and 1981 trial. Boston's last gunrunning operation was the 1984 Valhalla/Marita Ann escapade which made Martin Ferris a 10 year guest of the Irish government. From the mid-80's on, the South Armagh lads not only handled weapons procurement (from Libya), but were pretty much of a self-funding operation thanks to arbitrage (i.e. cross-border smuggling).

• DanOLoingsigh | Dec 18, 2010, 05:17 PM EST

  I can’t say I know anything about Peter King, so I will refrain from comment on him or his policies. I do know about Northern Ireland, having been a regular visitor from the 1970’s. PIRA and the other terrorist, on both sides, were always a small minority, and the abuses and discrimination in N.I. had been largely swept away by the mid 70’s. The remaining goal of the Republican terrorists was simply to force N.I. into their version of a united Ireland, while the Loyalist terrorists agenda was simply to resist that move. It was only when PIRA finally realised that they had failed, that they allowed their political wing, Sinn Fein to negotiate an internal settlement. To say that the British Government allowed the hunger strikers to die, is like saying the US Government allowed the 9/11 terrorists to fly into the twin towers, by oppressing brother Muslims.

• sirpeter | Dec 18, 2010, 04:35 PM EST

  @HEAR-HEAR!DrTrelawney..I can use the word Brit,but i don't think Neil should have used it.But i have a problem with you're use of the word terrorism.It's a loaded word that governments use,when they get resistance to their polices.Even when those polices are blatantly unjust as they were in Northern Ireland.You see Sinn Fein were the main party who brought peace to Northern Ireland with the help of some powerful Irish Americans to force the British government to act.When the British and the Unionist's decided to talk and be reasonable and power share..there was peace.The world applauded and the PIRA put their guns beyond use.They are not terrorist's to me,they were people who were willing to fight for justice and when they got a fairer deal they stopped.Since there was injustice in Northern Ireland and the whole world knew it.The only logical conclusion is that the British Government and the Unionist's been the only ones who could correct this injustice..In fact prolonged the misery for all the moderate people in Northern Ireland for 90 years.

• hancock | Dec 18, 2010, 04:08 PM EST

  Scotland is an English welfare colony just like the reat of them.

• maireadinmelb | Dec 18, 2010, 03:53 PM EST

  As long as Israel uses the methods the Brits used, you cannot separate Palestine and Ireland, secondly they are both situations that resulted in turning a political conflict (irish nationalism v unionism and Israeli v Palestinian nationalism) into religious conflicts through the media!

• sirpeter | Dec 18, 2010, 03:26 PM EST

  Mr Niall O'Dowd..Well Done!!It's about time I read some hard hitting truth.I can't see anything that i disagree with in this article,other then the use of the word Brits,the use of the term British would be more professional.The British Government and it's media ..YES!! were one of the main obstacles,upon obstacle, upon obstacles to the peace process.Northern Ireland and the Gaza Strip very similar in that they were both created against the will of the people and by an oppressor.@seamusmoore "No one in the nationalist community wants to ethnically cleanse the area of Protestants"BUT Seamus the Protestants DID want to ethnically cleanse the area of Catholics.@Creakinggate you sound very rattled and your post is more of a spluttering then anything else.Nice to see for once you on the defensive,defending you're sycophantic love for the British.I say alot more of it on this site.The trick of the oppressor has always been to use the media to turn the tables and make themselves into the victim.To know British history is to know that the last line in this article..Is the truth...The whole Truth..And nothing but the truth.

• Ray1Gordon | Dec 18, 2010, 03:02 PM EST

  England's occupation of Northern Ireland has always been about oppressing the minority Catholic population, using any means possible, including murder, to bring this about.England needs to get its soldiers and tanks out of Northern Ireland before another Bloody Sunday takes place.

• Towngate | Dec 18, 2010, 02:59 PM EST

  HEAR-HEAR! DrTrelawney. Further: It is astonishing to think that this Blog was 'written' by a man who was a member the Irish Peace Talks team! It is hard to imagine what possible contribution he could have made with such an unintelligent and evil mindset. @ Hancock :There is a serious gap in your education if you think Scotland is not a Country. The UNITED KINGDOM is the UNION of four separate countries. Are you saying England, Ireland and Wales are not 'real' countries too? .....@Rebelforce: The correct term when referring to a man from Scotland is a "Scotsman" - or a "Scot". The term "Scotch" is used in relation to Whisky - so your Scotchman is a man made of Whisky!! ......I will risk totally confusing you now by telling you that in the past, the name of the people inhabiting the Island now known as 'Ireland' was ..."Scots". ... Go Figure!

• pacifist | Dec 18, 2010, 02:52 PM EST

  George Dillon, Israel has been attacked by her neighbouring Arab states four times since 1948 - beginning with the first in 1948 and followed by the others attacks in 1956, 1967 and 1974. Feel free to check this out if you want, but they are th efacts.

• DrTrelawney | Dec 18, 2010, 01:14 PM EST

  Hang on a moment. The headline reads "British seek once again to blacken..." ONE British journalist has written ONE piece pointing out -- accurately, as it happens -- that Pete King has been an apologist for terrorism. In what sense is this "Britain" speaking? In reporting this piece, no sane journalist would write "Irish seek once again to defend Pete King". Then O'Dowd goes on to slip the word "Brit" throughout his piece. Just imagine the fulminations if a similar British organ routinely referred to the Irish as "Micks". The pathetic, chip-on-the-shoulder Anglophobia round here is quite suffocating.

• Rebelforce | Dec 18, 2010, 01:12 PM EST

  Does anybody really care what this nobody Scotchman writes? Yes, we all know that Congressman Peter King is a strong supporter of the Irish Nationalist Freedom movement in northern Ireland. That probably explains why King keeps getting re-elected to Congress year after year.

• seamusmoore | Dec 18, 2010, 01:00 PM EST

  georgedillon Closing the Straits of Tiran (both 1956 and 1967) constitutes an act of aggression. In 1967, Egypt expelled UN forces and moved 100,000 troops into the Sinai Peninsula, massing on the Israeli border. I don't know about you, but if someone is getting ready to take a swing at me, I don't for the punch to land.

• GeorgeDillon | Dec 18, 2010, 10:09 AM EST

  seamusmoore: Are you sane? "these Arab states, who 3 times attacked Israel since its creation"... Are you seriously suggesting that the Arab nations attacked Israel in 1956? In 1967? You're an utter nutter.

• hancock | Dec 18, 2010, 09:58 AM EST

  Scotland isn't even a real country.

• seamusmoore | Dec 18, 2010, 08:25 AM EST

  If there is one thing that drives me nuts when I go to Ireland, it is their irrational obsession with the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian situation. Take Niall's "Gaza Strip" reference, for example. The reason Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank after the 1967 Six Day War was to create a buffer against repeated terrorist attacks from Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all of whom denied Israel's right to exist. Now, had the Irish govt not outlawed the IRA and prosecuted those involved in the Border campaign, the UK might have been tempted to do the same thing with Dundalk and Ballinamore. My point is these Arab states, who 3 times attacked Israel since its creation, turned a blind eye to terrorist activity emanating from within its' borders. The Northern Ireland is completely different from the Middle East. No one in the nationalist community wants to ethnically cleanse the area of Protestants. Ironically, it was pressure from the Zionist movement that led to the liberation of Palestin from British rule after WWII. Clearly, the meaning of the words "Sinn Fein" (ourselves alone) no longer applies: witness the IRA's Columbia 3 fiasco.

• Towngate | Dec 18, 2010, 06:37 AM EST

  STOP PRESS! ........This piece from the Founder and Editor -in -Chief is an utter disgrace and does us ‘Irish Abroad’ no credit. .... Perhaps he was jet-lagged from his recent trip to Europe and the medication had not kicked in. ...... To support and defend King is fine. No problem. with that! - but to use an attack on another - ( widely read ) writer such as Massie to mask his vitriol against the British nation is just cowardly and unprofessional. ...........E.g: His headline implies that Massie speaks for the "British" .... NOT TRUE. ... N.I. described as (Britain’s) “very own Gaza Strip” - is simply crazy and NOT TRUE. There is no comparison! ........"Mouthpiece Massie" is just pathetic school-yard name-calling ( like you'd expect from a snivelling kid cowering in a corner having wet his pants!) - and finally, "Brits" -as he well knows,is inflammatory and Racist,and if he used such a term against any 'Race,Colour or Creed' in Britain he would commit a criminal offence. As for "Britspeak" - Now Wikileaks has told the rest of the World how the Americans really regard them, he should keep very quiet about that! ..........Yes, Sir-ee! The ‘Redskins’ were right! - "Paleface speak with forked tongue!" .......Shame on your Duty, Niell!