<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The IRA is a legitimate fighting organization
Review: I've taken a look at this book at a local library in West Jerusalem, and I must say that it's one of the best books I've ever read of the troubles in Northern Ireland and the Irish Question. I also must say that as a researcher in the field of Irish History, the IRA and Sinn Fein are a legitimate fighting body that want a unified homeland, for they've been oppressed by the British ruling class and the Loyalists who I can't imagine them to be Irish at all!! They're like Paracites, just like the Zionists who eat up Palestine day by day. If they consider themselves British, why the hell don't they go back to the British mainland???!!!
Rating: 
Summary: A Book that "Fills the Gaps"
Review: This is by far one of the best books that I have read on The Troubles. English, an Irish Protestant raised in England, doesn't just write a 'history' of the events of those years, but he also writes the book in a political and philosophical way as well. English says at the beginning of his book that he "wants to fill in the holes that other books fail to do." And English does this well. When talking about the birth of the Provos, he doesn't just say that the split between the Provos and Stickies was because of political differences or the need to increase violence. He talks about how different events, from the Battle of the Bogside, Bloody Sunday, and the need for someone to protect the Catholic community, merges together to not only form the Provos, but destroy any faith that Catholics had in the Unionist government. He doesn't just do, as I said previously, give a list of the history of the Troubles, but he has really done research on the subject. He is also one of the only writers on the subject that give logical reasoning into why things happen (due to his extensive research). He doesn't give a black and white answer to everything like other writers do, but always blends a combination of events that makes the reader think that there is more than just the average answer. He also talks about the start of the IRA and the early history of the conflict (from 1916 to the 1960s). He does this in great detail (almost too much detail). There were only two things about the book that I didn't like. First was that he really didn't talk about the Original, Continuity or the Real IRA that much. I feel most book fail to talk about these organizations more in depth. I know there isn't too much anyone can say about these organizations (esp. CIRA and RIRA). Most books on the IRA talk about the Provos, and thus their title should state that. I was wanting to know more about the Real and Original IRA, but was disappointed. The best book I have read about the Original IRA is, oddly enough, "The Provisional IRA", but Patrick Bishop. Second, English uses a lot of what I would call 'text soundbites'. He uses a lot of one line quotes from prominate people involved in The Troubles. Though some of the quotes make his argument stronger, sometimes I wonder why he even put in a quote at all (meaning that his argument was already strong). I think the book could have been 50 pages lighter if he took out the quotes that I think shouldn't have been in there. Overall, it was a really good book (even with these minor flaws). This is the book you want to read if you want a "deeper understanding" of The Troubles. I think English wrote this book for people who already know about The Troubles. If you are wanting to learn about The Troubles and have never studied it before, this might not be the best book to start with, it might overwhelm you. If you are a beginner, the first part of the book (from 1916 to 1969) would not overwhelm you and would be benefitial to read, as it gives an extremely good, non-complicated look into early Irish Republicanism. But the rest of the book (from the birth of the Provos on) deals with alot of thought and theories, which might be too much. But for those who have been studying and reading about The Troubles for a while, this is a perfect book to tie loose ends.
Rating: 
Summary: A Biased but fact packed account
Review: This very good and very sweeping account of the IRA and its offshoots helped bring the reader inside the IRA's war against the English. It illuminates the conflict and brings to life the many pivotal portions of the struggle, from Bloody Sunday to the hunger strikes and the final peace deals that have finally taken the gun out of Irish politics, something Michael Collins dreamed of long ago. The largest problem and greatest fallacy of this book is that it is terribly biased and one sided which one could probably gather from its name. An example of this can be seen in the chapter on Bloody Sunday, a seminal event which mirrored Americas own Kent State protests that resulted in the deaths of students. The problem is the author, after having written that the marchers threw `rocks' and `bottles' at the Police, then goes on to call the marchers `non-violent'. Wait a sec! Nonviolent means not being violent it doesn't mean throwing rocks and bottles. This is just one of the many examples where the IRA is portrayed as fighting for civil rights while at the same time they are blowing up civilians. What happened to the civil rights of those civilians. If you want a less biased account I would recommend Tim Pat Coogan's `The IRA'. This book has its merits in that it works hard to distinguish between the Provisional IRA and the other branches within the framework. An interesting account, but not the most fair in telling the truth of the conflict. Seth Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: A Biased but fact packed account
Review: This very good and very sweeping account of the IRA and its offshoots helped bring the reader inside the IRA's war against the English. It illuminates the conflict and brings to life the many pivotal portions of the struggle, from Bloody Sunday to the hunger strikes and the final peace deals that have finally taken the gun out of Irish politics, something Michael Collins dreamed of long ago. The largest problem and greatest fallacy of this book is that it is terribly biased and one sided which one could probably gather from its name. An example of this can be seen in the chapter on Bloody Sunday, a seminal event which mirrored Americas own Kent State protests that resulted in the deaths of students. The problem is the author, after having written that the marchers threw 'rocks' and 'bottles' at the Police, then goes on to call the marchers 'non-violent'. Wait a sec! Nonviolent means not being violent it doesn't mean throwing rocks and bottles. This is just one of the many examples where the IRA is portrayed as fighting for civil rights while at the same time they are blowing up civilians. What happened to the civil rights of those civilians. If you want a less biased account I would recommend Tim Pat Coogan's 'The IRA'. This book has its merits in that it works hard to distinguish between the Provisional IRA and the other branches within the framework. An interesting account, but not the most fair in telling the truth of the conflict. Seth Frantzman
<< 1 >>
| 
