During the 30 years of the conflict, 1 in 400 of the population of Northern Ireland were murdered. The equivalent in England would be 140,000 killed.

Is it just me, or was anybody else as unaware of the full scale of this? And why hasn't such a long, bloody war even got a name?

What do you think of the IRA's declaration today that they will give up their arms to concentrate on persuing their aims through politics? Do you think they should issue an apology?

Couldn't find a thread on this when searching so if there is already one please merge them :) Just thought I'd see what people thought?

Well, blow me.

For my teens, twenties and thirties I though that the bombs inBelfast, Londonderry, Omah, London, Birmingham, Aldershot, Brighton and Oldham were were something to do with the Troubles. For many years the issues surrounding NI filled the news - it hardly was ignored, for crying out loud!

It wasn't a war - it was terrorism by a series of illegal organisations against the legitimate government.

And I've always thought the name was 'The Troubles'.

Joe

Forgive me.

I was born towards the end of the conflict (1986) and I by no means meant that it was ignored - I just meant that something of that scale with such a high percentage of the population affected, is given relatively little thought these days - my little sister (16) doesn't even know what the conflict was about which I think is terrible!

I didn't know it was called "the troubles" - ITV news called it the war with no name on their lunchtime bulletin and I thought this was strange.

I'm sorry!

I was overly crabby there! :)

The recent Troubles kicked off in 1969 and were particularly bad in the 1970s and early 1980s, but even in to the late 1990s there were bombings, shootings and punishment shootings.

Joe

It was definitely terrorism and Adams and McGuinness were terrorists with lots of blood on their hands.

It was also though a war - not of course of the conventional kind where two or more armies face each other off. Few wars these days are. Most armed conflicts these days fall into the category of assymetrical wars, i.e. between state forces and civilian groups using terrorism and guerrilla tactics of one kind or another. This is the reality of warfare today. It is of course by no means a new phenomenon (there have been many such conflicts in the post-war era).

Before we give too many accolades to Adams and McGuiness for finally eschewing violence, let us remember that it has taken them 37 years to get to this point. Moreover, I don't think they have done so for moral reasons. Rather, its because they realise that the military struggle would not work - not least because with the rise of violent loyalist groups, they probably came to realise they could not defend their communities from people who were just as ruthless as themselves (if not more so).

You're probably right LordChaverley about it being a type of war - I believe the name given to such things nowadays is 'Assymetric Warfare' which is what we're seeing waged against us in London, Iraq and Afghanitsan today.

Used to be called Guerilla Warfare, I guess - don't really know what the difference is, though.

Joe

Originally posted by sheff_minx
During the 30 years of the conflict, 1 in 400 of the population of Northern Ireland were murdered. The equivalent in England would be 140,000 killed.

What do you think of the IRA's declaration today that they will give up their arms to concentrate on persuing their aims through politics? Do you think they should issue an apology?

I don't know what the figures are now but back in the late 80s the Unionist/Protestant/terrorists with a mission to keep Northern Ireland attached to Britain killed 3 times as many people on mainland Ireland than IRA terrorists did.

So I guess there'd need to be apologies all round.

Originally posted by sheff_minx
I didn't know it was called "the troubles" - ITV news called it the war with no name on their lunchtime bulletin and I thought this was strange.

It was also know as "The Struggle", and to many it was a war against an occupying force (let's not forget, we "British" annexed Northern Ireland, for political/strategical initiatives).

Hi Sheff_minx, I was surprised to read your post, but then on reflection I realised that of course, younger people will not be aware of everything that has gone on in Northern Ireland. It's too recent to be in the school history books, but no longer the focus of news headlines on a daily basis, so it's unsurprising that young people are not aware of what happened.

I grew up in a climate of regular 'bomb scares'. Much like the climate of fear we have had over the past few weeks. Even as a child the daily news reports and conversations were frequently about the war in Northern Ireland.

As a child I lived quite close to the M62 coach bomb blast and there was the subsequent trial in my home city which meant high security, road closures, frequent 'scares' etc.

We were convinced for a long time that we lived next door to an IRA sleeper - but never had any evidence so never said anything.

Also close by was HMP Wakefield where many members of the IRA were held. So I grew up with a strange 'closeness' to the troubles. For al that, I never fully understood (and still don't really) what the fighting was all about. I know that both sides were so entrenched in their positions that it seems a small miracle that everyone has moved on to the current position.

Isn't it grimly ironic though that the IRA is now seeking a united Ireland by peaceful means? It could have done this forty years ago, with the saving of over 3,000 lives. Its main task will be to persuade one million protestants that a united Ireland is something to be desired, a task made all the harder by the bitterness created by decades of violence.

The politics of ethnic identity in Northern Ireland are extremely complicated, to say the least. The conflict is deeply communal, with both 'sides' intimately involved, and up to their ears in bloodshed. Pay no heed to the familiar phrases which flow from the mouths of Catholic community workers on the Falls Road, or Protestant, Church of Ireland clergymen in rural Armagh, to the ends that 'It is outsiders that cause the problems. People here normally get along fine- we are a great wee community, so we are' etc, etc, etc.

Both sides believe in ludicrous myths. The Republicans believe that they are the 'true' Irish, the inheritors of Gaelic civilisation, despite the fact that the Gaels were relative latecomers to the Emerald Isle, the interbreeding in Ulster evidenced by the prevalence of English and Lowland Scots surnames on the Catholic side [such as Adams, for example], and the results of investigations into the population genetics of the area. The Protestants seem to be loyal to a 1950's 'idea' of Britishness, and their loyalty is seldom if ever reciprocated. 'I'm loyal to Britain' said an Ulsterman of my acquaintance, 'and I want to know who the British are loyal to...' No useful purpose would be served by telling the Orange Orders that the Pope actually backed 'King Billy' at the Battle of The Boyne. The very opposite idea is part of Protestant identity, held together by shared myths and rituals, such as Orange Day. The fact that the myths are socially-constructed is irrelevant. As with the Republicans, a distinct culture of values and norms has emerged. Both sides have enduring cultures which are maintained by extremely powerful emotional and political forces. Victory for one surely means utter misery for the 'loser'.

One suspects that the policy of successive British governments has actually been containment. The problem is insoluble. Maybe British administrations prefer to keep most of the conflict on the other side of the water, so to speak. What would the likely result of British troops pulling out of Northern Ireland, and sovereignty handed over to some 'United Ireland' government [the Republic has dropped all constitutional claims to the territory of Ulster, and British sovereign territory in any case cannot be 'given away' in real life] be? The likelihood is that the conflict would spread to the streets of mainland Britain. There are plenty of people in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester who have deep ethnic ties with either side to ensure that a form of civil war would rage in the north western parts of this island.

The Republicans have a saying; 'Our day will come'. It does not look very likely from where I am sitting. The Protestant culture, to reiterate, is as deeply embedded as anything to be found in the Catholic areas. Meanwhile, the English taxpayer continues to pay the benefits of those who would murder him in his bed. The Republic no longer wants Ulster, knowing it could never afford to 'run' the province. British politicians, in exasperation, occasionally 'let the cat out of the bag' by admitting that we have, as Mayhew said, 'no strategic interest in Northern Ireland whatsoever'. Both sides have fought each other to a standstill. Perhaps the 'rompering', and sadistic torture employed by the Loyalist 'Shankhill Butchers' has given rise to the popular belief that the 'Prods' are the more vicious of the two. I personally doubt that. What is there to choose between them? Ultimately, we have a ludicrous, insoluble situation. Neither side will give up, despite any gestures re decommissioning, 'complete cessations' etc. There is far too much invested in the conflict on both sides, for it to end in our lifetimes. We must, therefore, continue to eye warily the dormant volcano that is Ulster.