[Going Forward]

Has anything official ever been published outlining the reasons for the UN's refusal to intervene in "The Troubles" in the late 60s/early 70s?

[Dirk Gently]

I would have thought the British having a veto on the UN security council meant it was a mute point.

[Cork24]

The UN saw it maybe as an Internal Problem and that England where action as peace Keepers.. That was True until the late 70's

[The Peoples Own MP]

The Brits had a veto.

Cork24, are you saying that the Brits acted as peace keepers in the north until the late seventies?

[Cork24]

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

[deccurley]

Originally Posted by Cork24

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

[The Peoples Own MP]

Originally Posted by Cork24

Yes im stating that Brits acted as Peace Keepers till when every the IRA up the game..

the Catholics welcomed the British soldiers in the north, and the British Soldiers loved it,, till they were a target..


in the 70s the IRA didnt go after Loyalist they went after the British soldiers

I suggest you go back to your history books, the "honeymoon" period did not last until the late 70s, it lasted only a very short time.

It's true that the Brits were initially welcomed by nationalists but that rapidly changed. Actions such as the Falls road curfew, beatings, blatant murdering, by the Brits soon soured relations.

Control of the British army remained with the Unionist govt of the day. The hope was that they would be peace-keepers, but their blatant failure to act in that manner (standing by and letting loyalists sack Bombay street etc) meant that they never acted as peace-keepers, but simply another, better equipped, more violent, arm of that sectarian statelet.

[The Waltzing Consumer]

Originally Posted by Cork24

The UN saw it maybe as an Internal Problem and that England where action as peace Keepers.. That was True until the late 70's

True?

No it is not at all. This is history, we have the sources and information from all sides involved, so there is no need to make stuff up anymore. All sides have documented the "honeymoon" period initially after the battle of the bogside but this did not last very long at all and saying it lasted till the late 70s is 100% false.

[secondopinion]

Originally Posted by deccurley

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

There's video evidence of rioting Catholics in Londonderry demanding The British Army be brought in.

[The Waltzing Consumer]

Originally Posted by deccurley

Ask people in Derry in the late 60's and early 70's whether they welcomed the British Army on their streets.

That'd be a no.

No, it would be a yes.

Seriously, this is documented and in our history. The Irish, Northern Irish and British have all this documented, there is no need for making stuff up.

[secondopinion]

Originally Posted by The Peoples Own MP

I suggest you go back to your history books, the "honeymoon" period did not last until the late 70s, it lasted only a very short time.

It's true that the Brits were initially welcomed by nationalists but that rapidly changed. Actions such as the Falls road curfew, beatings, blatant murdering, by the Brits soon soured relations.

Control of the British army remained with the Unionist govt of the day. The hope was that they would be peace-keepers, but their blatant failure to act in that manner (standing by and letting loyalists sack Bombay street etc) meant that they never acted as peace-keepers, but simply another, better equipped, more violent, arm of that sectarian statelet.

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

[Duffy the Vampire Slayer]

Originally Posted by secondopinion

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

Are you denying they engaged in the murder of civilians? Because many people in Derry and Ballymurphy may disagree with you on that.

[The Waltzing Consumer]

Originally Posted by secondopinion

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

Your first paragraph is more of an aim rather then a reality in Northern Ireland during The Troubles.

The best way to look at stats on victims is to look at the stats. CAIN is an excellent resource for this.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/tables.htm

Whilst Irish Republicans were responsible for the most deaths overall, the group most responsible for "blatant murdering" (I am guessing you are referring to Civilians) is Loyalist paramilitaries. Either way, this is all documented, and it is not a competition. It is history, the only thing to do is try to find the most accurate history and learn from it.

So if you are giving a few stats:
Irish Republican paramilitaries killed 1896 people between 1969-1994, with 37% of these being civilians
Loyalist paramiliaties killed 935 people in this time period, with 87.5% of these being civilians
British army killed 316 people in this time period, with 52.5% of these being civilians.

Each side believed they had legitimate aims and the support of their relevant communities at the time so the statistics on civilian killings tells us a lot about blatant murdering.

[dahamsta]

Originally Posted by Dirk Gently

I would have thought the British having a veto on the UN security council meant it was a mute point.

Moot. And that's not what it means. Sorry, one of those words that grates on me, like "rediculous".

http://www.google.ie/search?q=moot+mute

[Jesus Shaves]

Originally Posted by secondopinion

The UK Armed Forces acted at all times in support of the civil power and under civil law. Their role was to keep casualties to a minimum whilst politicians agreed a political solution and implemented it.

The vast majority of the 'blatant murdering' was implemented by Irish Republicans.

What a highly uneducated post, well done to you sir.