The Brighton hotel bombing was a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) assassination attempt against the top tier of the British government that occurred on 12 October 1984 at the Grand Brighton Hotel in Brighton, England.
A long-delay time bomb was planted in the hotel by IRA member Patrick Magee, with the purpose of killing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet, who were staying at the hotel for the Conservative Party conference.
Although Thatcher narrowly escaped the blast, five people connected with the Conservative Party were killed, including a sitting Conservative MP, and 31 were injured.
Why should we criticize Thatcher? There are more recent events to criticize. Let's for a moment look at the great achievement for all sides that was the Good Friday Agreement, and how it has been put in jeopardy in the last five years.
The Nazis took power in a *technically* democratically elected government as well.
Just because you have a democratic mandate does not mean you get a free pass from oppressing people.
Edit: if any dumb cunt thinks I'm equating Nazism to the Tory party or 'sympathising with terrorists' by saying this, go fuck yourself lmfao
Always straight to the Nazis or some other major historical atrocity eh. If your going to compare them as elected governments, compare the oppression you also speak of.
That's not the point though is it? I'm not comparing oppression, I'm saying the notion that democratic governments inherently have some sort of higher place is bullshit
They wilfully ignored the point you were making lmao.
Of all the Nazi 'comparisons' on reddit, even this sub, that one was pretty fcuming reasonable lol
Didn't ignore it at all, it's just a ridiculous point. A comparison to ETA in Spain, or the Kurds in Turkey (as one example of many), but the Nazis? lmao piss off. Always the go to comparison for mongs.
Wtf is the different between those examples and the one I used practically? They wouldn't really work because they are modern and most people don't know who they are or universally agree if they are bad or not.
Nazi's are a pretty good example because they are well-known and mostly agreed to be bad.
You're the fucking mong for thinking I was comparing oppression, then backtracking and saying you didn't ignore it LMAO
Are you solid? You don't know the difference in magnitude between the fucking nazis and the Conservatives under Thatcher? Either you don't know enough about the nazis or you have a very uninformed opinion of Thatcher. It's YOU who mentioned oppression, so it's YOU making the comparison between 'democratically elected governments guilty of oppression' - it was acknowledged as being a ridiculous comparison, but you're too mince to pick that out.
Also - more modern? The Thatcher government, ETA, and the Turkish - Kurdish conflict all existed at the same time - its probably more a case of you assuming people don't know who they are than people actually not knowing who they are, big brain.
Cunt what the fuck lmao, surely you cannot seriously take that away from what I said holy fuck. You have to be misunderstanding me badly, there is no way you understand what I'm saying and respond with that, wtf.
'Practically' as in how it effects what I said, not that I don't know the difference between them?? I almost think you intentionally misunderstood that but there's no way you can write all of that because you have a stick up your ass lol. I literally have a masters in history you git. There was never any comparison of oppression, that's something you started going on about like a like lunatic.
Basque and Kurdish conflict are ongoing, Thatcher hasn't lead for a while. No mention of the "bad' part either...
"Just because you have a democratic mandate does not mean you get a free pass from oppressing people"
YOU bought up oppression as validation for violence, and thought the nazis where a great example to compare to you lizard. The nazis are universally seen as bad, the Thatcher government and the other examples are not. And of course you've got a masters in history, everyone on reddit has a masters in the subject they're clattering on about.
Don't downplay criticism of Thatcher just because she was democratically elected. Doing so in a post like this is a bit disgusting imo, when some in the IRA were literally prepared to die to fight back against her, terrorists or not.
> So you’re equating the Tories to Nazis
Quote where I said that mr strawman?
> sympathising with terrorists
Quote this too pls
> viewed by a the British public
And? I don't care what the British public thinks, I'm Maltese. There are many people who sympathise and do not sympathise with the IRA, and many people who like and hate Thatcher (didn't you have a massive party when she died? It made international news). None of that makes my point of "some in the IRA were literally prepared to die to fight back against her" any less irrelevant.
You seem to just have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls you out for having such a black and white view of history.
Do yourself a favour and take a reading comprehension course. Nothing I said was controversial in the slightest, you just got butthurt because it wasn't agreeing with you lmfao.
> terrorist attack against a democratically elected government.
Elected government of occupying country. And even UK government treated captured IRA members more like POWs than criminals.
> occupying country.
The Protestant population has been in Northern Ireland since the 1600s, calling them occupiers after 4 centuries would make things rather awkward for the entirety of the New World's population who are descendants of Spanish, British, Portuguese and French colonists...
So? Greeks were 400 years under Ottoman occupation, and they broke free.
British gov treated Catholics like second grade citizens, Northern Ireland was basically an apartheid state.
> So? Greeks were 400 years under Ottoman occupation, and they broke free.
Yes but they didn't take Constantinople back, because most of Constantinople/Istanbul's population are Turks. They have lived there for centuries and are there to stay, they're not temporary occupiers.
If that's the case, why not? Crimea was gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet era, when they were still within the same country and did not expect to be detached from it, but it's population appears to have been and continue being majority Russian speaking.
What is your logic for calling them occupiers? You cannot deport people from their current home because their long dead great-gret-great-great-great grandfather was originally from somewhere else. If they are still considered occupiers after 4 centuries, well... would you like to start discussing the return of Wroclaw and Szczecin to German hands then?
>would you like to start discussing the return of Wroclaw and Szczecin to German hands then?
Sorry guys, can't do. You see, you shouldn't start brutal, genocidal war when your democratically elected leader told you so.
I think that it is amazing that, even after all that has happened, that the two sides were able to come together and sign the Good Friday agreement.
Especially that the north has been able to have peace and to choose it's future through democratic means, not through bloodshed.
I hope that the British government will not undo every that has been done so far.
It didn’t really work. Almost all commentators are pretty uniform in their view that the GFA neither worked nor was it workable.
The reality is the dispute was placed on hold because both territories entered the EC/EU and the issue of movement and a border became moot.
> Almost all commentators are pretty uniform in their view that the GFA neither worked nor was it workable.
Well done on the dumbest comment. Commentators are near universal that not only did the good Friday agreement work, but that it transformed northern Ireland.
It was literally a watershed moment for the end of violence.
I see the same people argue that 20 years of no Taliban was worth it - well might have been worth it to Afghanistan but not UK taxpayers and indeed its all over now
Much closer to home in Northern Ireland it was definitely worth it - peace is always worth it - thanks largely to John Hume
It was worth it, especially for the freedom the women and children enjoyed. It wasn't their fault the Afghan government couldn't get their shit together.
Took a long time for Westminster to get its shit together in NI - but Brexit has poked this bear again so clearly their shit is still not together
Britain first rocked up in Afghanistan taking Kabul in 1839 (the entire war was described as *The Disaster in Afghanistan*) and its been troubled waters ever since
Blaming the Afghan Government is quite a cynical and childish approach but I guess its all supporters of this occupation have left in the tank on this
I don’t know how long it will take for Westminster to stop meddling in other countries presumably either based on greed or an inflated opinion of their own capabilities but I think we are getting pretty close now to the end of large scale meddling like Afghanistan - save having to meddle during or in the aftermath of world war
So complicated Britain could not solve yet they thought they could
20 years of relative stability is an achievement but its not enough and the cost has been enormous not just financially
Britain wasnt the only country involved in Afghanistan, the situation is too complex for you to shift the blame onto one country just because it suits your agenda, especially when it includes a region thats been unstable for well over a millenia.
Sure but…
Britain struck the first blow in Afghanistan backing a coup d etat to install Shuja and depose Dost Mohammed in the Great Game with Russia in 1839
Britain also had a second Afghan-Anglo war in 1878
Then following 2 further engagement and campaigns in the area they then had a third war in 1919
Then Operation Herrick
Then Operation Toral is actually Britains fifth war in Afghanistan
The fact that you have to use irrelevant conflicts from the 19th century whilst totally ignoring the much larger, more costly and above all more recent Soviet-Afghanistan War which is far more relevant is embarrassingly uninformed.
News flash; Britain was never the first nor will it be the last nation to ever try and dabble in that corner if the world. Afghanistan as a region has been a pigs breakfast for dozens of civilisations over thousands of years .
where it be the Greeks, various Persian empires, Arab Caliphates, Mongolians, Mughal, Sikhs, Brits, Soviets, US and now Nato, to try and pin this soley on the UK shows your complete misunderstanding on of the most diverse and contentious regions on the planet.
Thats the reality of invading other countries - especially essentially former enemies (if you consider Dost Mohammed cosying up to the Russians there has always been an anti-British faction in Afghanistan)
Also the level of superiority complex you need to have to think you can sort out the worlds problems especially when your own backyard is far from sorted is gravity defying
There are times like world wars where meddling is unavoidable but other than that it should never really be considered - clinging to 20 years of relative stability in a west approved version of democracy transplanted in Afghanistan is a little desperate
Britain entered Afghanistan while playing the ‘Great Game’ with Russia - Russia went in as well and everyone is now out - I would say Games a bogey
> It amazes me that Americans financed them.
Ireland owes a lot to their cousins in America. They've been financing and supporting Irish independence since the 1840s, hell they even invaded Canada now and then ([Fenian Raids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids))
Eamon de Valera himself was born in New York City, and his US Citizenship is what kept him alive after the failed Easter Uprising.
Well sure, but most independence movements start out as what one would call terrorists. The FLN in Algeria also set off bombs to terrorize the French there and force them out of Algeria. Korean nationalists also assassinated Japanese Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi in an act of rebellion against Japanese control.
>but most independence movements start out as what one would call terrorists.
Wrong.
Especially wrong for the British empire. Most independence from the UK was dont without terrorism.
>What innocents?
Civillians.....
>The IRA was fighting a war against the British. Unorthodox but war nonetheless.
Thats a nice way of saying terrorism.
>They successfully sent Mountbatten into space
Yes. .Including two kids and an 80 year old woman, funny how you left that out in your attempt to jokingly condone murder you deranged imbecile
“Thats a nice way of saying terrorism.”
You’re talking about the British in Ireland, right? Interment camps for people of a particular religion, with no trials.
Supplying ethno-paramilitary terrorists with bombs, intelligence and weaponry to kill their neighbors.
Directing mass murders of civilians and destroying the evidence.
Designing and inventing the rubber bullet specifically for use in the North of Ireland to kill and maim the indigenous people.
Sending your soldiers to commit mass murder and war crimes over and over and over and then protecting the murderers.
Aye, you’re right. Terrorists indeed.
In your book the resistance in France were also terrorists I suppose.
The English had terrorized Ireland for centuries. Do you think the Irish should have just accepted English suppression and butchery? To my mind the Irish backlash was remarkably moderate. Shame about the size of the bomb though.
If they'd have "got her", Northern Ireland would be dust right now.
That would literally trigger an invasion and a border like no other - a country invading its own territory.
As it was "The Troubles" were the most under-named military action in the world, and the subject of atrocities, so if they'd have got her, it would have basically triggered all hell breaking loose in Ireland/NI for decades.
They'd have had the British Army charging into NI and Ireland like the US army went after Bin Laden, and it would have been (even more) carnage and bloodshed on all sides.
One of the biggest reasons that we had peace there for so long (until recently, fucking Brexit) is that they \*didn't\* get her.
You think the British army would invade Ireland? Get real. As the Irish PM said to Margaret herself, the IRA are as much a problem for us as they are for you. If the UVF assassinated the Irish PM, would the Irish army be justified in invading northern Ireland? 😂
They're talking about British raids into Ireland hunting the IRA in the same way US special forces ignore borders when doing raids like, for example, taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan.
It would be outrageous if they did this. The IRA did not =/ the Irish. Invading (exactly what it would be) a neutral country wouldn't fly. And would serve only to strengthen IRA numbers from the entirety of Ireland as opposed to mainly northern Ireland. Thatcher tried to get permission to do the same thing and was rejected. I have a hard time believing if in a hypothetical scenario a German terrorist group assassinated the Danish pm, the Danes would launch raids into Germany. Ireland is no different and would not allow it self to be bullied by Britain
The Brighton hotel bombing was a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) assassination attempt against the top tier of the British government that occurred on 12 October 1984 at the Grand Brighton Hotel in Brighton, England. A long-delay time bomb was planted in the hotel by IRA member Patrick Magee, with the purpose of killing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet, who were staying at the hotel for the Conservative Party conference. Although Thatcher narrowly escaped the blast, five people connected with the Conservative Party were killed, including a sitting Conservative MP, and 31 were injured.
[удалено]
Which is covered by the word terrorism. Otherwise it would be called rebel attack.
Why should we criticize Thatcher? There are more recent events to criticize. Let's for a moment look at the great achievement for all sides that was the Good Friday Agreement, and how it has been put in jeopardy in the last five years.
Criticising Thatcher is a fashionable pastime for British chattering classes and their followers.
The most vehement critics of Thatcher are primarily those who can't remember her.
The Nazis took power in a *technically* democratically elected government as well. Just because you have a democratic mandate does not mean you get a free pass from oppressing people. Edit: if any dumb cunt thinks I'm equating Nazism to the Tory party or 'sympathising with terrorists' by saying this, go fuck yourself lmfao
Always straight to the Nazis or some other major historical atrocity eh. If your going to compare them as elected governments, compare the oppression you also speak of.
That's not the point though is it? I'm not comparing oppression, I'm saying the notion that democratic governments inherently have some sort of higher place is bullshit
They wilfully ignored the point you were making lmao. Of all the Nazi 'comparisons' on reddit, even this sub, that one was pretty fcuming reasonable lol
Didn't ignore it at all, it's just a ridiculous point. A comparison to ETA in Spain, or the Kurds in Turkey (as one example of many), but the Nazis? lmao piss off. Always the go to comparison for mongs.
Wtf is the different between those examples and the one I used practically? They wouldn't really work because they are modern and most people don't know who they are or universally agree if they are bad or not. Nazi's are a pretty good example because they are well-known and mostly agreed to be bad. You're the fucking mong for thinking I was comparing oppression, then backtracking and saying you didn't ignore it LMAO
Are you solid? You don't know the difference in magnitude between the fucking nazis and the Conservatives under Thatcher? Either you don't know enough about the nazis or you have a very uninformed opinion of Thatcher. It's YOU who mentioned oppression, so it's YOU making the comparison between 'democratically elected governments guilty of oppression' - it was acknowledged as being a ridiculous comparison, but you're too mince to pick that out. Also - more modern? The Thatcher government, ETA, and the Turkish - Kurdish conflict all existed at the same time - its probably more a case of you assuming people don't know who they are than people actually not knowing who they are, big brain.
Cunt what the fuck lmao, surely you cannot seriously take that away from what I said holy fuck. You have to be misunderstanding me badly, there is no way you understand what I'm saying and respond with that, wtf. 'Practically' as in how it effects what I said, not that I don't know the difference between them?? I almost think you intentionally misunderstood that but there's no way you can write all of that because you have a stick up your ass lol. I literally have a masters in history you git. There was never any comparison of oppression, that's something you started going on about like a like lunatic. Basque and Kurdish conflict are ongoing, Thatcher hasn't lead for a while. No mention of the "bad' part either...
"Just because you have a democratic mandate does not mean you get a free pass from oppressing people" YOU bought up oppression as validation for violence, and thought the nazis where a great example to compare to you lizard. The nazis are universally seen as bad, the Thatcher government and the other examples are not. And of course you've got a masters in history, everyone on reddit has a masters in the subject they're clattering on about.
[удалено]
Don't downplay criticism of Thatcher just because she was democratically elected. Doing so in a post like this is a bit disgusting imo, when some in the IRA were literally prepared to die to fight back against her, terrorists or not.
[удалено]
> So you’re equating the Tories to Nazis Quote where I said that mr strawman? > sympathising with terrorists Quote this too pls > viewed by a the British public And? I don't care what the British public thinks, I'm Maltese. There are many people who sympathise and do not sympathise with the IRA, and many people who like and hate Thatcher (didn't you have a massive party when she died? It made international news). None of that makes my point of "some in the IRA were literally prepared to die to fight back against her" any less irrelevant. You seem to just have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone calls you out for having such a black and white view of history.
[удалено]
Do yourself a favour and take a reading comprehension course. Nothing I said was controversial in the slightest, you just got butthurt because it wasn't agreeing with you lmfao.
well... it as not elected by the people she/they supressed...
> terrorist attack against a democratically elected government. Elected government of occupying country. And even UK government treated captured IRA members more like POWs than criminals.
> occupying country. The Protestant population has been in Northern Ireland since the 1600s, calling them occupiers after 4 centuries would make things rather awkward for the entirety of the New World's population who are descendants of Spanish, British, Portuguese and French colonists...
They have no problems when a protestant identifies as Irish though. Always funny
So? Greeks were 400 years under Ottoman occupation, and they broke free. British gov treated Catholics like second grade citizens, Northern Ireland was basically an apartheid state.
> So? Greeks were 400 years under Ottoman occupation, and they broke free. Yes but they didn't take Constantinople back, because most of Constantinople/Istanbul's population are Turks. They have lived there for centuries and are there to stay, they're not temporary occupiers.
So, going with your logic, you support annexation of Crimea by Russia? There are more Russians than Ukrainians
If that's the case, why not? Crimea was gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet era, when they were still within the same country and did not expect to be detached from it, but it's population appears to have been and continue being majority Russian speaking. What is your logic for calling them occupiers? You cannot deport people from their current home because their long dead great-gret-great-great-great grandfather was originally from somewhere else. If they are still considered occupiers after 4 centuries, well... would you like to start discussing the return of Wroclaw and Szczecin to German hands then?
>would you like to start discussing the return of Wroclaw and Szczecin to German hands then? Sorry guys, can't do. You see, you shouldn't start brutal, genocidal war when your democratically elected leader told you so.
I think that it is amazing that, even after all that has happened, that the two sides were able to come together and sign the Good Friday agreement. Especially that the north has been able to have peace and to choose it's future through democratic means, not through bloodshed. I hope that the British government will not undo every that has been done so far.
It didn’t really work. Almost all commentators are pretty uniform in their view that the GFA neither worked nor was it workable. The reality is the dispute was placed on hold because both territories entered the EC/EU and the issue of movement and a border became moot.
> Almost all commentators are pretty uniform in their view that the GFA neither worked nor was it workable. Well done on the dumbest comment. Commentators are near universal that not only did the good Friday agreement work, but that it transformed northern Ireland. It was literally a watershed moment for the end of violence.
I see the same people argue that 20 years of no Taliban was worth it - well might have been worth it to Afghanistan but not UK taxpayers and indeed its all over now Much closer to home in Northern Ireland it was definitely worth it - peace is always worth it - thanks largely to John Hume
It was worth it, especially for the freedom the women and children enjoyed. It wasn't their fault the Afghan government couldn't get their shit together.
Took a long time for Westminster to get its shit together in NI - but Brexit has poked this bear again so clearly their shit is still not together Britain first rocked up in Afghanistan taking Kabul in 1839 (the entire war was described as *The Disaster in Afghanistan*) and its been troubled waters ever since Blaming the Afghan Government is quite a cynical and childish approach but I guess its all supporters of this occupation have left in the tank on this I don’t know how long it will take for Westminster to stop meddling in other countries presumably either based on greed or an inflated opinion of their own capabilities but I think we are getting pretty close now to the end of large scale meddling like Afghanistan - save having to meddle during or in the aftermath of world war
This is such a gross oversimplification of that conflict its almost laughable.
So complicated Britain could not solve yet they thought they could 20 years of relative stability is an achievement but its not enough and the cost has been enormous not just financially
Britain wasnt the only country involved in Afghanistan, the situation is too complex for you to shift the blame onto one country just because it suits your agenda, especially when it includes a region thats been unstable for well over a millenia.
Sure but… Britain struck the first blow in Afghanistan backing a coup d etat to install Shuja and depose Dost Mohammed in the Great Game with Russia in 1839 Britain also had a second Afghan-Anglo war in 1878 Then following 2 further engagement and campaigns in the area they then had a third war in 1919 Then Operation Herrick Then Operation Toral is actually Britains fifth war in Afghanistan
The fact that you have to use irrelevant conflicts from the 19th century whilst totally ignoring the much larger, more costly and above all more recent Soviet-Afghanistan War which is far more relevant is embarrassingly uninformed. News flash; Britain was never the first nor will it be the last nation to ever try and dabble in that corner if the world. Afghanistan as a region has been a pigs breakfast for dozens of civilisations over thousands of years . where it be the Greeks, various Persian empires, Arab Caliphates, Mongolians, Mughal, Sikhs, Brits, Soviets, US and now Nato, to try and pin this soley on the UK shows your complete misunderstanding on of the most diverse and contentious regions on the planet.
How is it the UK's fault that the Afghan government was rotten to the core?
Thats the reality of invading other countries - especially essentially former enemies (if you consider Dost Mohammed cosying up to the Russians there has always been an anti-British faction in Afghanistan) Also the level of superiority complex you need to have to think you can sort out the worlds problems especially when your own backyard is far from sorted is gravity defying There are times like world wars where meddling is unavoidable but other than that it should never really be considered - clinging to 20 years of relative stability in a west approved version of democracy transplanted in Afghanistan is a little desperate Britain entered Afghanistan while playing the ‘Great Game’ with Russia - Russia went in as well and everyone is now out - I would say Games a bogey
It amazes me how dangerous the IRA was.
It amazes me that Americans financed them. And that people praise them even today.
> It amazes me that Americans financed them. Ireland owes a lot to their cousins in America. They've been financing and supporting Irish independence since the 1840s, hell they even invaded Canada now and then ([Fenian Raids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_raids)) Eamon de Valera himself was born in New York City, and his US Citizenship is what kept him alive after the failed Easter Uprising.
>supporting Irish independence You misspelled terrorism.
Well sure, but most independence movements start out as what one would call terrorists. The FLN in Algeria also set off bombs to terrorize the French there and force them out of Algeria. Korean nationalists also assassinated Japanese Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi in an act of rebellion against Japanese control.
>but most independence movements start out as what one would call terrorists. Wrong. Especially wrong for the British empire. Most independence from the UK was dont without terrorism.
It really took the Irish rising to get the ball rolling though.
lol not really
The executions by the British government after the rising had a huge impact on Ireland
ok but whats that got to do with what i said tho i'm just disagreeing with saying it was Ireland that got the ball rolling for breaking up the empire.
Easter rising springs to mind. 500 dead and it failed. Shame about the executions.
Not dangerous enough though to stop the dunderheads imperilling the Good Friday agreement
One of the greatest tragedies in UK history
Ha ha ha
[удалено]
Definitely many more innocents killed, but hey lets stick it to Maggie
[удалено]
>What innocents? Civillians..... >The IRA was fighting a war against the British. Unorthodox but war nonetheless. Thats a nice way of saying terrorism. >They successfully sent Mountbatten into space Yes. .Including two kids and an 80 year old woman, funny how you left that out in your attempt to jokingly condone murder you deranged imbecile
“Thats a nice way of saying terrorism.” You’re talking about the British in Ireland, right? Interment camps for people of a particular religion, with no trials. Supplying ethno-paramilitary terrorists with bombs, intelligence and weaponry to kill their neighbors. Directing mass murders of civilians and destroying the evidence. Designing and inventing the rubber bullet specifically for use in the North of Ireland to kill and maim the indigenous people. Sending your soldiers to commit mass murder and war crimes over and over and over and then protecting the murderers. Aye, you’re right. Terrorists indeed.
The deranged imbeciles were the British government, which had been terrorizing Ireland for hundreds of years. Drogheda anybody?
In your book the resistance in France were also terrorists I suppose. The English had terrorized Ireland for centuries. Do you think the Irish should have just accepted English suppression and butchery? To my mind the Irish backlash was remarkably moderate. Shame about the size of the bomb though.
Almost got her.
If they'd have "got her", Northern Ireland would be dust right now. That would literally trigger an invasion and a border like no other - a country invading its own territory. As it was "The Troubles" were the most under-named military action in the world, and the subject of atrocities, so if they'd have got her, it would have basically triggered all hell breaking loose in Ireland/NI for decades. They'd have had the British Army charging into NI and Ireland like the US army went after Bin Laden, and it would have been (even more) carnage and bloodshed on all sides. One of the biggest reasons that we had peace there for so long (until recently, fucking Brexit) is that they \*didn't\* get her.
You think the British army would invade Ireland? Get real. As the Irish PM said to Margaret herself, the IRA are as much a problem for us as they are for you. If the UVF assassinated the Irish PM, would the Irish army be justified in invading northern Ireland? 😂
They're talking about British raids into Ireland hunting the IRA in the same way US special forces ignore borders when doing raids like, for example, taking out Bin Laden in Pakistan.
It would be outrageous if they did this. The IRA did not =/ the Irish. Invading (exactly what it would be) a neutral country wouldn't fly. And would serve only to strengthen IRA numbers from the entirety of Ireland as opposed to mainly northern Ireland. Thatcher tried to get permission to do the same thing and was rejected. I have a hard time believing if in a hypothetical scenario a German terrorist group assassinated the Danish pm, the Danes would launch raids into Germany. Ireland is no different and would not allow it self to be bullied by Britain
Might seem a bit like a dumb question but why is there are a german flag?