Would it have been better if there was violence, but only one side was violent?
Peace happens when both sides have a motive to achieve peace. You cannot have a peace treaty when only one side is willing to use force.
Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident?
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 hour agoIncredibly fucked up to think there’s any upside to the troubles. Typical clueless yank energy.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 hour ago
Three sides were using force. The republicans and unionists were mainly occupied with using violence against their own people suspected of “disloyalty”.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk 44 minutes ago
As someone who lived through the Troubles, there were clearly upsides vs the country we had before.
The civil rights movement grew at a pace, the police service was completely revamped, and cross community relations improved dramatically. Most importantly, we largely stopped killing each other.
There was nothing good in the Troubles, but what came out of it was undoubtedly better than what had been there before.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 32 minutes ago
We then ask was this due to the troubles, or was it a progression held back by the troubles.