firstlie, nice paragraph po i missed you thinking and writting with clarity and some passion good to see it back.

However i didn't say the troubles were 30 yrs old! in ulster, i know their older and why.

"the old ira dispearsing in the 70's before arms were taking up"... po that makes it sound as if the ira didn't ever take up armes! and with bullet holes still in buildings in connolie street serves to remind us all they did take up arms.

everything evolves... and the ira from the 70's onwards are just part of that evolusion.

"did the brits arrive to give ireland democracy you asked" ....did they ever ask any colonised countrie they wer plundering, opps colinising if they wanted democracy AND if it was ever hinted at then that democracy must include and be centered around the brits in residenses. As it is today and any of the celtic, bits (to the uk) may have sudo independense becouse its based around devolved but central british government in residense. So is this still democracy or occupasion guised up as democracy?

the troops being brough back is't dowen to you or I as the desion makers would't pay any heed to us wee small folks, not now nor for last 600 yrs would they or did they pay attension, so weather it makes sense to you or I dose't matter, as it never did matter sense or not they just did as they might do now.

at center of argument is same old reasons! yep cival rights have improved, life is better for most but perhapps not ideal or trulie equale in attitude or in action.

the same old reason is 100's of years old and it is then and now to do with occupancy...(cival rights aside)as cival rights improve then it can onlie be to do with occumancy.

however did that justifie actions that eventulie lead to ireland being physicalie devided and ulster being lost?
Dose that include actions from the last 30 years to free ulster? whats unike about irland/ulster thats diffrent from scotland or the wealsch, that irish action then or now be sancitified?

Those two celtic ocupied countries never did turn to terrorist actions or violense in reacent past but all share the same current day fate regardless.

so calling thse splinter groups criminals and gangsters is nuthing new! As the brits have used it agenst any repulican who violentlie protested over the last 200 yrs at lest!gangsters scum and pettie criminals. We both descused the validity of political prisoners verses common criminal when jailed only a few days ago. Its the same actions now as then, theris no diffrense! apart from attitude and perseption, one persons freedom fighter being anothers terroist.

thers nuthing diffrent from 100 yrs ago to now. All acts of vilense like this is terrorist activity THEN and ALSO now, their ise't anything saint like about the original ira and theas lesser splinter groups being the scum. the actions are the same and all of it was and is wrong, so called couse or not, its still wrong.

public oppinion within ireland never wanted the violense in the first place, it happend anyway. Today the violense is not wanted, but it still happening today, still today it happens.

lets just look at our near past, to save confusion.
so in terms of democricy and what the people want from the 70's untill now is just the same, cival rights have been affored, equalities being strived for...so if the "couse" was for equale standing then the methods won, if the "couse"at its hart was for separation then they failed.

Te same actions are being resirected NOW for the same original couse today (the hart of the couse)

is anyone gonna win from that? Should it ever of been deployed then let,alone now? Their not playing faire now and terrorising the countrie as well as indivduekl families but they always did. The onlie thing thats changed is who's familie got terrorised.

so do you rallie think it be ballets to change occupancy? As occupancie looks like its staying as their was never a move for it to be diffrent afterall why would they make it diffrent?