Londonderry mortars: Bombs 'within minutes' of launch

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Four live mortar bombs were intercepted by police in Northern Ireland minutes before being launched, a senior detective has said.

A van had its roof cut back to allow the mortars to be fired.

Police believe the target was a Londonderry police station. Three men have been arrested in the operation linked to dissident republicans.

Chief Supt Stephen Cargin said the bombs could have caused mass murder.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21651900

[truthisfreedom]

1. Wild.

[geek tragedy]

2. OFFS, those terrorist assholes still haven't moved on? nt

[CanonRay]

3. Let's hope that crap doesn't start up again

that's all the world need, another religious war.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It never truly was a religious war.

That was a side show and at times fig leaf

[Katashi_itto]

5. Side product of the Austerity measures....oops...Civil unrest, when you've nothing to look forward

too

[MNBrewer]

6. In that case, there have never been any religious wars.

[happyslug]

10. That argument had been made, but no other then Karl Marx

Karl Marx went through history and showed how certain reform movements (including Religious movements) were driven more by economics then any religious dogma. Christianity arouse out of the late Roman Empire need for a Central doctrine to unite its Peasants with its Nobility. Under the late Roman Republic (defeat of Hannibal onward) and the Early Empire (From the end of the Republic to the troubles of the 3rd century) Rome had no real foreign threats, thus it could suppress its peasants without fear. With the near collapse of the Empire in the 3rd Century, the Roman Elite realized it needed something to tie the Peasants of the Empire to the Empire. Since the 1st century the Christian Church had tried to be both united and world wide, to do so, the early Christan church duplicated the Roman Imperial Structure, but added one crucial element, the peasants themselves. Given that 90% of the Roman Empire was Peasants, this was a serious difference, one that Constantine and his successors realized what was needed to unite the Empire against the Strain of the Growing Power of the re-born Persian Empire AND the Growing Strength of the Germanic Tribes.

This was made worse by the onset of the Dark Ages Cold Period, which saw a reduction in food productivity throughout the World, including the Empire.

Thus the later Roman Empire had a greater need to support from its citizens, including the peasants, while they economic situation went down hill due to the decrease production due to the decrease in global temperatures AND the increase demand for resources for the Roman Army.

The above caused strain within the Empire, and Constantine decided the best solution was to unite the peasants of the Empire with the Empire. In this he succeeded, for after his rule only one attempt was made to return to the old gods, but as the Emperor Julian decided to restore the old gods, he fully participated in Christian Rites with his troops till after he was Emperor (Celebrating Christian Holidays with the Troops, including not only Easter but Pentecost). Julian's plant to Conquer Persian was to loot the Persian Empire so he could have money to restore the old gods. When he died that plan died with him.

The various sacking of Pagan temples in the century after Constantine, was more Constantine and his successor arranging for Christians to take over Pagan Temples, in exchange for any gold or silver in such temple being turned over to the Emperor. Diocletian had tried to fix the problem with the Roman Currency, but failed for he could NOT produce the good coin to drive out the bad coin. Diocletian did NOT have access to enough Silver or Gold to produce the needed good coins to drive out the bad coins (For over 300 years, Roman Emperors had slowly debased the currency, starting with Nero, his increased tremendously with the crisis of the third century, for not only did you have the increased costs mentioned above, you also had the Spanish Silver Mines watering out, i.e. the Silver deposits were below the level the Romans could remove the Water to get at the silver). What had been a minor problem, inflation, became a huge problem as the crisis of the 3rd century continued. Diocletian tried to stables the coinage, but did not have the Gold to do so. Constantine found the gold, in the Pagan Temples he had the Christian convert to Churches, turning the Gold over to him to use in coins he made. Constantine's gold coins drove out the 99% non-silver coins that had become the norm at the end of the Crisis of the 3rd century, and would remain the coin of choice till after the Defeat at Mazikurt in 1085.

The next Religious Crisis was the Moslem advance. Christianity was an urban based religion, its Churches was were families went to attend mass. Christianity was also a religion where formality was second to idea of everyone meeting together. This was fine in Urban areas and Agricultural areas, but poor in areas where herding was the norm. Thus Islam arouse out of the needs of such herders. It expanded into what is know Palestine and Persia after Persian and Rome had fought a long and hard war over who would rule the middle east. Both so weakened themselves that the Arabs, united under Islam, were for the first time in about 1500 years able to invade and take over the Middle East.

This was facilitated by the division within the Eastern Roman Empire. The Greek Speaking part ruled the Empire, but it was roughly equal to the Arab/Egyptian speaking part. Both had always used the Western Latin Speaking part of the Empire as potential ally, and all three worked together to resolve disputes. With the Fall of the Western Empire (due to the Western Empire failing to find a way to raise money after the looting of its pagan temples), the Greek Speaking and Egyptian Speaking parts of the Empire divided up. Technically it was a "Religious split" but in reality, it was who was to rule the Empire. Into this dispute the Arabs rode, taking over the Egyptian/Arab speaking part of the Empire, and that part, staying Christian, but embracing the Arab Conquest. Egypt would actually stay majority Christian till the Crusades, then convert due to pressure by the Arab Rulers who wanted Egyptians to be Moslems not Christians, on thew grounds the Crusaders would get less support from Egyptians who were Moslems.

This seems to also to have occurred in Spain, a thin ruling population turned Moslem, but most people stayed Christian. In Spain, the Reconquest made Spain Catholic, just as Egypt during the same time period turned majority Moslem. Less to do with war, then who one traded with. Christians tended to trade with Christians, thus those areas with the greatest access to trade stayed Christian. Those whose greatest contact were with herders tend to Embrace Islam as did the Herders, for the simple reason it was a religion that did NOT have to be performed as a group.

The Crusades are a unique case, but even there it is more economics then religious. The Greeks had suffered a massive defeat at Mazikurt and wanted western assistance to undo the damage. Thus the Greeks brought up the concept of Christianity unity to ask for assistance. The West responded, but more due to the fact the Greeks offered to make them fiefs of the Greek Empire on any land they should conquer. Thus the Greeks were not only singing "Christianity Unity", they were also singing "Fight for us, and we give you what ever you conquer to rule". The tread routes were still from the West to Constantinople and thus this offer offer was accepted. The Greeks managed to "take" some cities the Crusaders were besieging before the City fell to the Crusaders (thus making sure the Crusaders got nothing), but this had the effect that the Crusaders came to view the Greeks with distrust. Thus once the Crusaders actually moved into Palestine, they took it for themselves and ruled it for their own benefit, not the benefit of the Greeks and not even other Christians.

The Moslems were almost as bad, the Assassins, a Shiite radical group of the time period, came under the protection of the Hospitalers. Why? Both saw each other as allies against the other people of the area (Hospitalers used the Assassins as a threat against their fellow Christians, the Assassins used the Hospitalers if they were attacked by any Moslem). Both wanted a base to expand their economic base, to do so both used and needed each other. Please note, the Hospitalers also had access to the Sea for purposes of trade, the Assassins had access to Mesopotamia for purposes of trade, thus both traded with each other extensively.

The Crusaders and the Moslems fought among themselves, less to take over each other's land and more to secure their own land and continue trade. The Greek Empire actually was weakened by the Crusaders, for it opened up the trade lines via Palestine and Lebanon instead of Constantinople. This lead to a massive loss of Revenue to Constantinople and its eventually fall to the Fourth Crusade (the only Crusade ever condemned by the Vatican, and its only result was the fall of Christian Constantinople to the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusaders, almost no Moslem died during that Crusade, and it was clearly only for loot.

The Crusades actually stopped due to the Mongol Conquest. Till the Mongols took Baghdad in 1258, the Crusaders and the Moslems viewed each other as both people to trade with and people to fight. Complete defeat of the other, may be talked about but no one actually tried it. In one Crusade the Holy Roman Emperor went to Palestine to recover Jerusalem, he faced the massive Mamluk Army out of Egypt. Facing each other, both wanting to be elsewhere, the Emperor in Italy so he could continue his dispute with the Pope, the Mamluks wanting to be in Egypt to make sure they stayed in Charge of Egypt, the two came to an agreement. Jerusalem was turned over to the Emperor, who agreed to leave the Moslem retain the Temple mount. Both then went home.

Thus even the Crusade had more to do with economics then Religion.

The Wars of the Reformation follows a similar pattern, Hutties started early, but again more over peasant's rights then the stated reason to drink wine along with taking bread during mass. Luther main source of support was German Knights who saw the Reformation as a way to steal lands held by the Catholic Church. John Calvin's movement was tied in with those areas most tied in with trade, they wanted simple rules that they had to follow, including NOT have to worry about fair dealings with other people (Catholic Doctrine demanded that any Christan due "Good Deeds" to get to heaven, Calvin followed Luther and the Writings of St Paul that stated one can get to heaven on faith alone, thus "Good deeds" were not needed. In many ways modern Corporate thought came out of the thinking of the Protestant Reformation.

Now, some people were executed during the 1500s, but these were relatively small in numbers, compared to the late 1500s and into the 1600s, This is the time period of the Counter reformation, and the advance of Catholicism into areas which had turned Protestant prior to 1560. Not only the followers of the John Calvin, but the followers of Luther objected to this advance for many of them lived on lands that had been taken from the Catholic Church 1530-1560. These people disliked the idea of Catholics coming back, for it could mean they would lose they land for it had been stolen from the Catholic Church in the First Place. Queen Mary of England ran across this, even through she made no such attempt and stated she would NOT undo what her father had done to the Monasteries. Her word was NOT good enough, thus her reputation as "Bloody Mary" even through she was less bloody then her father, the Puritans had seen the biggest enlargement of their land holdings and did NOT want them to be undone.

The English Civil War of the 1640s, can be viewed the same way, Puritans opposing any possibility of Catholic Rule, due to fear of loss of land then anything to do with Religion (This can be seen in the Battle of the Dunes, Cromwell's last battle, he allied himself with the Cardinal Mazarin of France against French allied with Spain holding Calais, he ended up fighting the forces of the future King Charles II of England, defeating them, thus you had the most Radical Puritan in England, using his radical Puritan Army allied with a CATHOLIC CARDINAL to drive out Spanish forces. Cromwell was Given Calais as the prize for his co-operation in that operation.

My point is simple, it is rare to have solely a religious reason for an action, more often then not they is some economic reason for the action. Sometime it is class, one class of people embraced one Religion. While other classes of people embrace another.

For example, the Persians were noted to be Middle Class People and people to were tied in with trade. Thus big in the low lands of Scotland, London area of England, the area of France next of the bay of biscay and the Atlantic ocean, the trade routes through Switzerland and the low lands of Netherlands which were tied in with trade. Other people would thus embrace another religion for it addresses their economic concerns, thus those areas of the British Isles, France and that part of the Netherlands noted for it agriculture independent of actual trade, i.e. Belgium remained Catholic instead of Puritan or Reform Church.

Given the above, it was not uncommon for people of different "Faiths" fight each other over who gets what part of the economic pie, which is a better way to understand the religious wars of the 1500s and 1600s.

Even today, the Moslem anti-western movement has more to do with what is happening to th average Moslem on the Streets of the Middle East, then anything to do with Religion. Like a lot of people, they are falling back on their religion, but also on their support group, which tends to be of the same religion. The "Arab Spring" had more to do with the massive increase in the price of food in the Middle East, then anything religious, even the Moslem Brotherhood realized this and prefers to try to placate the US so the US can continue to send grain to Egypt, then see the people of Egypt starve to death.

The present fight between Shiite and Sunni in the Peri san Gulf and Syria, is more a fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran over who will be the leader of the Middle East then anything over religion. Yes, the Shiites support Iran, for most had been allied with Iran for Centuries. Sunnis support Saudi Arabia for they have preferred rule by a strong family, like the House of Saud, then by any form of republic. Iran shows an Islamic Republic is possible without the need for a dictatorship, this the House of Saud hates it. The House of Saud hates Iran, less for it being Shiite, by more for it having democratic elements (even if not a true western style democracy) something, no other middle east country can claim (Israel does make the claim, then deny any democratic rights in regards to Israel as to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank). Thus the fighting today in Syria is Shiite vs Sunni, but it is more the House of Saud (Sunni in Religion) vis Iran (Shiite in religion) the it is Shiite vs Sunni,

[MNBrewer]

11. The wars may not have been because of religious differences to the ruling classes

but they sure were to the peasants fighting them.

[happyslug]

13. Nope, prior to the 19th century, most armies were paid mercenary armies

You must understand they are three ways to raise an army, first and the oldest is by paying for the army in loot. This is how the Crusaders decided to pay for the Crusades (and the main reason the Fourth Crusade took Constantinople). You get a lot of recruits if loot is a good option. This option fails if there is no loot to be had. For example when the Vikings hit Christian Europe, the ruling class just left. After the Viking left the ruling class came back and demanded their rent money. This cause problems, mostly with Christian peasants willing to serve with the Vikings, or at least be neutral to their raids. It is only with Feudalism that Europe undid the Viking threat, the Kings of Europe told their vassals if they did not protect their peasants, he would replace them with people who would. This lead to massive replacement of the old Roman Elite starting about 800 and was finished about 1000 AD. This replacement was so complete, no noble family in Europe can trace their family name, in the male line, back before 800 AD (And that is most English Families who can trace themselves back only to Alfred the Great, who in many ways started the movement to feudalism and away from late Roman Empire land ownership concepts).

The second is to pay the army, which in effect what Alfred the Great imposed on England, if you were a land owner you had to fight for the king, if you did not fight, you lost your land. No questions. If you were female, your husband had to perform the military duty. Now after about 1300 these feudal duties were transferred to taxes, but remain for years (if no taxes were paid, you lost your land). Later on when cash was reinvented, soldiers were paid with CASH. This was true even if you raised your troops locally, for even the local needed money to pay for things like clothing and food, not only for themselves but their wives, children and other relatives.

The third method is protection of the homeland, but even here some way to pay for food and clothing has to be found. This is often tied in with the second method, as can be seen in Feudalism, mutual protection was tied in with the nobility right to his noble status. The Noble had to at least TRY to stop the vikings and protect the peasants or he lost his lands (Given the nature of the Vikings raid, any such defense was enough for them to go elsewhere, thus it was an effective defense). Ancient Roman Armies were raised this way, till it became clear the purpose of the wars was to enrich the elites of Rome, then Rome switched to a mercenary army (Due to soldiers refusing to serve, unless paid to do so). Religion can be used, but most often it is welfare of one's family that causes men to serve in such armies, religion is at best secondary.

For example in the 30 year war, the Armies were all hired mercenaries, not fanatical religious patriots. What religious fanatics were involved were tied in this the Government and the Government's effort to raise money to pay the army. Thus the Catholic King of France had no problems joining with the Protestants forces of Northern Europe to defeat the Catholic Hapsburg's. France's Catholic mercenaries had no problem fighting along side Protestant mercenaries against Catholic Spanish and Austrians Mercenaries, as long as they were paid.

The sole exception to this list of armies raised before 1800s were the Hussites of the 1400s, but the Hussites were more a wide spread peasant revolt against oppression rents then fanatics on the March. There were lead by someone who knew what he had to do AND what he had to do it with:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hussite_Tactics_and_Organisation.htm

The reason for this is simple, Fanatics rarely think in terms of food, clothing or equipment. Once you think in terms of Food, Clothing and Equipment, money becomes involved and thus you end up with either a call up for mutual defense (Ancient Rome and most defensive armies) or you are either being PAID to march or march in hopes of loot. Faith or Nationalism does NOT pay for your food, clothing or equipment, cash does. When the Prime Minister of England in the early 1700s was asked by General John Churchill about why he always worried about money when fighting a war, responded "If you can tell me how to fight a war without it, I will never mention money again".

Oliver Cromwell found this to be the case during his campaign in the English Civil War, his inability to pay off his troops, lead to them becoming a permanent standing army and England, when they brought back the Stuarts, were less interested in bringing back the King, but that the King had access to Dutch Money to help pay off Cromwell's mercenary army (Most ended up moving to New England). The Dutch provided most of the money (But Charles II also had to sell back to France Calais, which Cromwell had won for England just before his death).

Now, after 1800 and the raise of Nationalism you started to see a return to the universal soldier army of the early Roman Republic (through some mercenary aspect survived to this day), men were drafted into the service to protect the people. of which they were one. The problem with this type of army is the Enemy must be clear AND that it will lead to massive economic harm to the Country AND the family of the draftee. If the Draftee no longer sees that as a possibility, his effectiveness as a soldier falls, as can be seen in the US Army in the last years of Vietnam and in some ways the Soviet Union's army in the last years of its occupation of Afghanistan.

While such types of armies would make your statement true, but such armies tend to be nationalistic rather then religious, as those terms are used in the west. Thus religion is what is generally believe by a participate in a war, not a belief in god, or any religious dogma. In vietnam it was anti-communists, in Afghan, it was advancement of communism vs anticommunism. In Afghan of today, it is independence of foreign control (The Taliban position) vs war against terrorism (The US position). If you accept those as Religious positions, then I will agree with you, religion has been a factor, but appears to be a bigger factor since 1800 then it was before 1800.

[Igel]

16. One tool, many uses.

It was once said that any Bible verse could be interpreted in the light of any other--with differing exegesis. In other words, with a bit of hyperbole, you could make a fetish out of any single thing and make everything else revolve around it. This is too narrow a view of things.

To the monomaniacally religious, all things involve religion.

To those anxious for political power, everything is political.

For those obsessed with melanin content or insistent on usually trivial cultural differences, all things involve race and ethnicity.

And to those for whom the only real "value" is money, all things involve money.

There's hyperbole in that. Just a bit.

My mother was doltishly money-focused. If it got her or her "group" $, it was a good (D) policy. If it didn't, it was an (R) policy. She worked hard in various NGOs as long as they were compatible with that idea. Then she ran into a group of people for whom political power and control was the most important thing; they were more numerous, and she soured on all the NGOs she'd been involved with, even one she helped set up.

"Politically immature", they called her. Her attitude didn't follow the "right policies"--immediately translatable in Russian as "politicheski nepravil'no" or, retranslated back in the most common English translation, "politically incorrect". They knew to avoid the wrong words. Same attitude and substance, though.

[happyslug]

7. Reminds me of the old Joke about the Troubles in Northern Ireland

A Jewish coupled opened store and one day a terrorist walked in, pointed a gun at them and asked them if they were Catholic or Protestant, they answered they were Jewish, the Terrorist responded, "A Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?"

Northern Ireland was (and is many ways remains) more a class conflict then a religious conflict. The poor and working Class being overwhelming Catholic, while the Upper Middle Class and what Marx called the "Petty Bourgeoisie " (Foremen, shop keepers etc) being overwhelming Presbyterian (and the 1% being Church of Ireland, a branch of the Church of England).

Notice these were tendencies NOT absolutes, for example one overwhelming Catholic area kept voting back into office their Presbyterian member of Parliament, for they viewed him as the best representative of their district (And the IRA did not threaten him, for while a Protestant, he took care of his constituents).

[WilliamPitt]

8. On this day in 1867 - Fenian national uprising begins in Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_Rising

So. That's what this was, I'd wager.

[apocalypsehow]

9. I thought all the violence had ended over there - guess I haven't been keeping up.

[Hekate]

12. I'm glad I got to see Northern Ireland during an interlude...

It was beautiful. We got to see Newgrange. Wonderful music -- I was introduced to the music of Tommy Sands, and to Tommy himself, a tireless worker for peace in that insanely torn country. http://www.tommysands.com/

It's beyond sad, what they do to themselves. I don't romanticize Ireland -- I'm glad my ancestors got out -- I feel sad for them.

Hekate

[smirkymonkey]

18. Newgrange was amazing. The site is older than the pyramids of Giza.

I felt really privileged to have been able to have visited the site and to have gone into the passage tomb.

[Scairp]

14. Excuse me

It's just DERRY, NOT "London" Derry. The Irish do not recognize this name, at least the Republicans do not. FYI.

[Nihil]

15. No surprise to hear from the Republicans on this site who assume they speak for everyone ...

It's "Londonderry" to the Loyalists & the British.

More importantly, that's how it was reported in the source so that's how the title has to be in LBN.

[smirkymonkey]

17. When I was there, they told me it was called "slash city" since the Loyalists call it

Londonderry and the Irish Republicans call it Derry.