David Flin

Gone Fishin'
The late Robert Fisk who covered both Beruit and Belfast as a reporter would be the one person who could comment on how similar Beruit and Belfast are.
I think Lebanon is more economicly viable than Northern Ireland was at the time.

As someone who did two tours of Northern Ireland (1973 and 1978), and who spent three months in Beirut in 1976, I rather think I qualify as well. Fisk was very knowledgeable about Beirut (albeit I was amused to see him lambasting Hotel Journalism in 2005, given where he was based in 1976; however, he did stay for much, if not all, of the Lebanese Civil War. About Northern Ireland, less so.

As of the mid-1970s, Beirut and Lebanon would appear to be economically viable given that just a couple of years before this, it actually was economically viable, and the problems related to it being torn apart by civil war, which isn't a good thing for economic viability. Northern Ireland, by contrast, was always propped up financially and was (and is) not viable as an economic entity (as of today, UK tax revenues, broken down by region, give an inflow to Northern Ireland of around £4000 per person per year).

Beirut and Belfast only had superficial similarities in the 1970s. Belfast had a bunch of Green maniacs (with games such as Prod-a-Prod) forming one bunch of splinter groups (working together? Never heard of the concept) and a bunch of Orange maniacs (with such tricks as working out that Catholics had more babies than Protestants, and that therefore Mothercare shops were valid bomb targets) forming another bunch of splinter groups (working together? Still never heard of the concept). In the middle were the poor bloody people just trying to live what could pass for a normal life, where a nurse could be murdered for the crime of treating someone from the Wrong Side (which didn't matter - both sides were guilty of targeting nurses), or where burning alive the families of those who worked in the fire services was considered acceptable; and the poor bloody squaddies trying to keep the Orange maniacs and the Green maniacs apart for long enough for the big brains running things to come up with a political solution.

(Incidentally, British Army RoE post-Bloody Sunday included the requirement that we were not allowed to fire until such time as we had come under effective fire ourselves. There were other elements - clear and identifiable target with no non-involved obstructions, and so on - but it was the effective fire element that was tough. Translated, that meant we couldn't return fire until we had taken casualties. If they shot and missed, we had to ignore it).

But essentially, while it was not normal, it was possible for a non-involved civilian to live something approximating a normal life. One could go down to the shops, go to the pub, sit about in wastelands and bitch about the other side, and so on. The Troubles were something that happened in certain specific locations: the Falls Road, the Shankhill Road, parts of Derry, and the Armagh/Republic border area between them covered about 90% of incidents.

By contrast Beirut (or the bits of it I saw in my three months there) were a slice of Hell. You had a multitude of factions with ever-changing alliances and casual murder on a scale unimaginable in Belfast. You had Israeli planes coming over to bomb random sites in Beirut every day at precisely 3.03 pm. You could set your watch by it. No-one could ever work out what they were trying to hit. It was always reported as "terrorist targets", but since this seemed to include pretty much any building, we remained baffled.

That we, incidentally, refers to the international community of various specialists staying in the Hotel Commodore: Intelligence agents, gun runners, drug smugglers, aid workers, surgeons and nurses, people smugglers, bodyguards, mercenaries; anyone who might have cause to be in a war zone while technically being uninvolved in the actual war. A fascinating place, the Hotel Commodore, and not a place for the weak of stomach. Remind me at some stage to tell the story of Coco.

In Beirut, it was not possible to live any sort of approximation of a normal life. It was a war zone in a way that Belfast never was. In Belfast, horrors came in retail packages. Special, individual service, if you like. In Beirut, the horrors were wholesale, mass-produced nightmares. To give some figures. During the course of the Troubles, around 4000 people were killed over nearly 30 years. In Beirut on 18 January, 1976, around 2000 people were killed in a single massacre. OK, that massacre was remarkable even by Beirut standards, but it gives some idea of the scale of the problem.
 
As someone who did two tours of Northern Ireland (1973 and 1978), and who spent three months in Beirut in 1976, I rather think I qualify as well. Fisk was very knowledgeable about Beirut (albeit I was amused to see him lambasting Hotel Journalism in 2005, given where he was based in 1976; however, he did stay for much, if not all, of the Lebanese Civil War. About Northern Ireland, less so.
Both Lebanon and Northern Ireland were formed in the events after WW1.
Both are partitioned from a larger area to create a smaller state to protect a religious minority from a larger religious one before partition. Both were deeply divided societies.
As you say the scale of the fighting in Northern Ireland was never on the scale of Lebanon.
 
Last edited:
As someone who did two tours of Northern Ireland (1973 and 1978), and who spent three months in Beirut in 1976, I rather think I qualify as well. Fisk was very knowledgeable about Beirut (albeit I was amused to see him lambasting Hotel Journalism in 2005, given where he was based in 1976; however, he did stay for much, if not all, of the Lebanese Civil War. About Northern Ireland, less so.

As of the mid-1970s, Beirut and Lebanon would appear to be economically viable given that just a couple of years before this, it actually was economically viable, and the problems related to it being torn apart by civil war, which isn't a good thing for economic viability. Northern Ireland, by contrast, was always propped up financially and was (and is) not viable as an economic entity (as of today, UK tax revenues, broken down by region, give an inflow to Northern Ireland of around £4000 per person per year).

Beirut and Belfast only had superficial similarities in the 1970s. Belfast had a bunch of Green maniacs (with games such as Prod-a-Prod) forming one bunch of splinter groups (working together? Never heard of the concept) and a bunch of Orange maniacs (with such tricks as working out that Catholics had more babies than Protestants, and that therefore Mothercare shops were valid bomb targets) forming another bunch of splinter groups (working together? Still never heard of the concept). In the middle were the poor bloody people just trying to live what could pass for a normal life, where a nurse could be murdered for the crime of treating someone from the Wrong Side (which didn't matter - both sides were guilty of targeting nurses), or where burning alive the families of those who worked in the fire services was considered acceptable; and the poor bloody squaddies trying to keep the Orange maniacs and the Green maniacs apart for long enough for the big brains running things to come up with a political solution.

(Incidentally, British Army RoE post-Bloody Sunday included the requirement that we were not allowed to fire until such time as we had come under effective fire ourselves. There were other elements - clear and identifiable target with no non-involved obstructions, and so on - but it was the effective fire element that was tough. Translated, that meant we couldn't return fire until we had taken casualties. If they shot and missed, we had to ignore it).

But essentially, while it was not normal, it was possible for a non-involved civilian to live something approximating a normal life. One could go down to the shops, go to the pub, sit about in wastelands and bitch about the other side, and so on. The Troubles were something that happened in certain specific locations: the Falls Road, the Shankhill Road, parts of Derry, and the Armagh/Republic border area between them covered about 90% of incidents.

By contrast Beirut (or the bits of it I saw in my three months there) were a slice of Hell. You had a multitude of factions with ever-changing alliances and casual murder on a scale unimaginable in Belfast. You had Israeli planes coming over to bomb random sites in Beirut every day at precisely 3.03 pm. You could set your watch by it. No-one could ever work out what they were trying to hit. It was always reported as "terrorist targets", but since this seemed to include pretty much any building, we remained baffled.

That we, incidentally, refers to the international community of various specialists staying in the Hotel Commodore: Intelligence agents, gun runners, drug smugglers, aid workers, surgeons and nurses, people smugglers, bodyguards, mercenaries; anyone who might have cause to be in a war zone while technically being uninvolved in the actual war. A fascinating place, the Hotel Commodore, and not a place for the weak of stomach. Remind me at some stage to tell the story of Coco.

In Beirut, it was not possible to live any sort of approximation of a normal life. It was a war zone in a way that Belfast never was. In Belfast, horrors came in retail packages. Special, individual service, if you like. In Beirut, the horrors were wholesale, mass-produced nightmares. To give some figures. During the course of the Troubles, around 4000 people were killed over nearly 30 years. In Beirut on 18 January, 1976, around 2000 people were killed in a single massacre. OK, that massacre was remarkable even by Beirut standards, but it gives some idea of the scale of the problem.

3:03 PM?

Coco?

Yeah I remember reading the wiki page for the "Troubles" and seeing that British forces were regarded as being responsible for killing like 300 people during the trouble. Not trying to offend anyone who lived through that hell but that seemed kind of remarkably low for me for a military force involved in a armed conflict for like over 30 years. Not trying to offend anyone who had to live through the thing or lost loved ones but by death toll it's kind of suprising how low the figures were compared to things like say the Lebanese civil war, Syrian Civil War, Colombian Civil War, Libyan Civil War, and the like. The troubles have this vast perception in the public concscious even today heavily outpacing a lot of conflicts that happened around the same time and had vastly higher casualties. I wonder why exactly it took on such a large world wide perception and other similar conflicts occurring around the same time got more or less ignored.
 
3:03 PM?

Coco?

Yeah I remember reading the wiki page for the "Troubles" and seeing that British forces were regarded as being responsible for killing like 300 people during the trouble. Not trying to offend anyone who lived through that hell but that seemed kind of remarkably low for me for a military force involved in a armed conflict for like over 30 years. Not trying to offend anyone who had to live through the thing or lost loved ones but by death toll it's kind of suprising how low the figures were compared to things like say the Lebanese civil war, Syrian Civil War, Colombian Civil War, Libyan Civil War, and the like. The troubles have this vast perception in the public concscious even today heavily outpacing a lot of conflicts that happened around the same time and had vastly higher casualties. I wonder why exactly it took on such a large world wide perception and other similar conflicts occurring around the same time got more or less ignored.
The British army almost never saw the IRA in combat. IEDs and snipers attacks do not give much chance for the British army to shoot members of the IRA. Hard to shoot much of the enemy if you almost never see them.
As far as I know, more people died in traffic accidents in the troubles than from the conflict.
https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html
OrganisationTotal KillingsProtestantCatholicNot from NI
IRA1696 (49%)790338568
UVF396 (11%)8926542
British Army299 (9%)322589
(unknown loyalist)212 (6%)502127
UFF149 (4%)171320
INLA110 (3%)553322
UDA102 (3%)41583
(unknown)7727428
RUC569443
Official IRA5172420
PAF (loyalist)370370
'Real' IRA2911135
(others)11727873
 
Last edited:

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
3:03 PM?

Coco?

Yeah I remember reading the wiki page for the "Troubles" and seeing that British forces were regarded as being responsible for killing like 300 people during the trouble. Not trying to offend anyone who lived through that hell but that seemed kind of remarkably low for me for a military force involved in a armed conflict for like over 30 years. Not trying to offend anyone who had to live through the thing or lost loved ones but by death toll it's kind of suprising how low the figures were compared to things like say the Lebanese civil war, Syrian Civil War, Colombian Civil War, Libyan Civil War, and the like. The troubles have this vast perception in the public concscious even today heavily outpacing a lot of conflicts that happened around the same time and had vastly higher casualties. I wonder why exactly it took on such a large world wide perception and other similar conflicts occurring around the same time got more or less ignored.
Probably because it was happening in a Western European city / state it horrified those in other WE C/S including those on the mainland, who sometimes played a role as victims too. Lebanon - Middle East - far away - always trouble out there... that sort of attitude. It still happens today, take the Beirut explosion a few months back.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
As someone who did two tours of Northern Ireland (1973 and 1978), and who spent three months in Beirut in 1976, I rather think I qualify as well. Fisk was very knowledgeable about Beirut (albeit I was amused to see him lambasting Hotel Journalism in 2005, given where he was based in 1976; however, he did stay for much, if not all, of the Lebanese Civil War. About Northern Ireland, less so.

As of the mid-1970s, Beirut and Lebanon would appear to be economically viable given that just a couple of years before this, it actually was economically viable, and the problems related to it being torn apart by civil war, which isn't a good thing for economic viability. Northern Ireland, by contrast, was always propped up financially and was (and is) not viable as an economic entity (as of today, UK tax revenues, broken down by region, give an inflow to Northern Ireland of around £4000 per person per year).

Beirut and Belfast only had superficial similarities in the 1970s. Belfast had a bunch of Green maniacs (with games such as Prod-a-Prod) forming one bunch of splinter groups (working together? Never heard of the concept) and a bunch of Orange maniacs (with such tricks as working out that Catholics had more babies than Protestants, and that therefore Mothercare shops were valid bomb targets) forming another bunch of splinter groups (working together? Still never heard of the concept). In the middle were the poor bloody people just trying to live what could pass for a normal life, where a nurse could be murdered for the crime of treating someone from the Wrong Side (which didn't matter - both sides were guilty of targeting nurses), or where burning alive the families of those who worked in the fire services was considered acceptable; and the poor bloody squaddies trying to keep the Orange maniacs and the Green maniacs apart for long enough for the big brains running things to come up with a political solution.

(Incidentally, British Army RoE post-Bloody Sunday included the requirement that we were not allowed to fire until such time as we had come under effective fire ourselves. There were other elements - clear and identifiable target with no non-involved obstructions, and so on - but it was the effective fire element that was tough. Translated, that meant we couldn't return fire until we had taken casualties. If they shot and missed, we had to ignore it).

But essentially, while it was not normal, it was possible for a non-involved civilian to live something approximating a normal life. One could go down to the shops, go to the pub, sit about in wastelands and bitch about the other side, and so on. The Troubles were something that happened in certain specific locations: the Falls Road, the Shankhill Road, parts of Derry, and the Armagh/Republic border area between them covered about 90% of incidents.

By contrast Beirut (or the bits of it I saw in my three months there) were a slice of Hell. You had a multitude of factions with ever-changing alliances and casual murder on a scale unimaginable in Belfast. You had Israeli planes coming over to bomb random sites in Beirut every day at precisely 3.03 pm. You could set your watch by it. No-one could ever work out what they were trying to hit. It was always reported as "terrorist targets", but since this seemed to include pretty much any building, we remained baffled.

That we, incidentally, refers to the international community of various specialists staying in the Hotel Commodore: Intelligence agents, gun runners, drug smugglers, aid workers, surgeons and nurses, people smugglers, bodyguards, mercenaries; anyone who might have cause to be in a war zone while technically being uninvolved in the actual war. A fascinating place, the Hotel Commodore, and not a place for the weak of stomach. Remind me at some stage to tell the story of Coco.

In Beirut, it was not possible to live any sort of approximation of a normal life. It was a war zone in a way that Belfast never was. In Belfast, horrors came in retail packages. Special, individual service, if you like. In Beirut, the horrors were wholesale, mass-produced nightmares. To give some figures. During the course of the Troubles, around 4000 people were killed over nearly 30 years. In Beirut on 18 January, 1976, around 2000 people were killed in a single massacre. OK, that massacre was remarkable even by Beirut standards, but it gives some idea of the scale of the problem.
A PARROT!! and poor me thinking of fabulous Demi Mondaines... Shit.
 
Errrr sorry, aparently the misterious "Coco" of the Commodore Hotel in Beirut was a parrot.
"Remind me at some stage to tell the story of Coco"
That makes sence
Coco%2B1.jpg

 
Last edited:

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
Yeah I remember reading the wiki page for the "Troubles" and seeing that British forces were regarded as being responsible for killing like 300 people during the trouble. Not trying to offend anyone who lived through that hell but that seemed kind of remarkably low for me for a military force involved in a armed conflict for like over 30 years.
Part of the issue was that the Troubles involved a great deal of non-fatal incidents. Indeed, that was often the preferred option. Kneecapping (with gun or hammer), six-packs, drillings, and other means of non-fatal injury were common-place.

Then you had property damage, which might include such things as setting fire to a house at night, and finding amusement in the attempts of those inside to get out through barred doors. Rarely fatal, but disconcerting and not helpful to those who wished to live a normal life.
 

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
That makes sence
Coco%2B1.jpg

Thanks for that clip.

Of course, the Commodore wasn't just for journalists, although it is only to be expected that journalists reporting on their experiences after the event would concentrate on the role played by journalists.

And yes, the owner of the Commodore was a very remarkable man.
 
Thanks for that clip.

Of course, the Commodore wasn't just for journalists, although it is only to be expected that journalists reporting on their experiences after the event would concentrate on the role played by journalists.

And yes, the owner of the Commodore was a very remarkable man.
Maybe they need to make a film about the
The Hotel Beruit?
 
So I think we've firmly established that any direct military clash with Britain would be a catastrophe for the Irish Defence Forces would come out of it badly with it just being a question of how much of a disaster the whole thing is for them.
Say such a thing occurs sometime in the 1970's what would the long term effects on the Irish Defence Forces have been and how would they look today?
Might they not even exist anymore or exist in some other form?

Given that Ireland today seems to base their national defence strategy on the concept of Britain supporting them/bailing them out (see articles below) might an Ireland that has recently fought and lost against Britain and thus having a much colder and possibly outright hostile relationship with their larger neighbour over following years feel the need to have a more capable (or at least better funded/paid) military that doesn't rely on British support/cooperation and what might such a force look like?

Ireland should 'end reliance on UK' for air defence (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Why do British jets 'protect' Irish airspace? (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Ireland considering purchase of jet fighters (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Royal Air Force reportedly asked to defend Ireland (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Irish patrol vessels 'needed to deal with tensions' over fishing (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Time to trust Defence Forces to command itself, suggests study (irishtimes.com)

Ireland has one Department of Defence civil servant for every 23 soldiers (irishexaminer.com)
 
I suppose it would, as any direct military action with a long term hostility between Ireland and the UK will without question mean long term economic damage as well, with the knock on effect on how much the state can actually support. We'd have to rethink how all the international relations play out from such a war as well, and thus who might be willing to be an arms supplier.

I mean just look at the fact that even now the U.K. still actively prevents arms sales to Argentina.
 
Last edited:
So I think we've firmly established that any direct military clash with Britain would be a catastrophe for the Irish Defence Forces would come out of it badly with it just being a question of how much of a disaster the whole thing is for them.
Say such a thing occurs sometime in the 1970's what would the long term effects on the Irish Defence Forces have been and how would they look today?
Might they not even exist anymore or exist in some other form?

Given that Ireland today seems to base their national defence strategy on the concept of Britain supporting them/bailing them out (see articles below) might an Ireland that has recently fought and lost against Britain and thus having a much colder and possibly outright hostile relationship with their larger neighbour over following years feel the need to have a more capable (or at least better funded/paid) military that doesn't rely on British support/cooperation and what might such a force look like?

Ireland should 'end reliance on UK' for air defence (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Why do British jets 'protect' Irish airspace? (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Ireland considering purchase of jet fighters (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Royal Air Force reportedly asked to defend Ireland (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Irish patrol vessels 'needed to deal with tensions' over fishing (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Time to trust Defence Forces to command itself, suggests study (irishtimes.com)

Ireland has one Department of Defence civil servant for every 23 soldiers (irishexaminer.com)
The bigger problem from a military conflict would be Ireland has leaders that lost the use of reason and are terminal crazy.
This kind of leadership could destroy the country.
Ireland's policy is in the event of a military invasion of Ireland is to refer the matter to the UN, not the UK.
There is no one anywhere near Ireland with any serious plans invade Ireland.
Ireland would not be able to afford to have a creditable defence against any of the countries close enough invade and even if it did it would not be able to defend the sea lanes and trade routes in and out of Ireland.
Small countries like Ireland exist only at the pleasure of the bigger countries near them.
 
Last edited:

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
Say such a thing occurs sometime in the 1970's what would the long term effects on the Irish Defence Forces have been and how would they look today?

Putting aside, for the time being, the insanity that would have to prevail for Ireland to invade Northern Ireland in this time frame, and just assuming that the rest of the world assume that there has been some massive April Fool's joke being played and ignoring it.

I got to see a fair amount of the IDF in 1978. That was when I was involved (in a very minor capacity as a Royal Marine sergeant) in activities along the border (without being terribly specific over which side of the border I was on at any given time).

We'll leave aside the details of the military encounters and so on, as being essentially irrelevant. The IDF, I think we can generally agree, would not fare well.

One possible line of reasoning for an outcome might be:
The IDF blame the politicians for foisting such a ridiculous enterprise on them.
The outcome is so humiliating, that recruitment to the IDF pretty much dries up. No-one wants to join a laughing stock, and the IDF would be a laughing stock.
The main use the IDF was put to, at that time, was peacekeeping operations with the UN. While the UN wasn't particularly choosy about what troops went on peacekeeping operations (some were pretty dreadful, and were clearly sent to "get them out of the way", and some were pretty damned good, being sent to learn from other national forces - Senegal in particular sent some top rate troops on UN peace-keeping missions), no-one would want to work with such a laughing stock. That work would dry up, which would be fine, because the IDF wouldn't have had the troops to send anyway.

Then you've got the costs involved. Britain would pointedly withdraw air and naval coverage. No-one else is in a position to provide it. That means it has to develop an air force and naval capability suitable for its needs (and it has just pissed off the Big Bear sleeping alongside it, so it's going to need to have some assets of significance). From scratch, good luck. That's an economic millstone right there. And recruits are absent.

The Irish economy in the 1970s was not in a healthy state: inflation, industrial relations disputes, bank strikes, an overvalued currency, tax rates in excess of 60% (and ministers were claiming this was insufficient).

It's all a bit of a nonsensical initial premise.
 
The Irish economy in the 1970s was not in a healthy state: inflation, industrial relations disputes, bank strikes, an overvalued currency, tax rates in excess of 60% (and ministers were claiming this was insufficient).

It's all a bit of a nonsensical initial premise.
OTL Ireland used sterling until 1979 when the Irish pound(Punt in Irish) was launched and linked to the Deutsche mark..
British banknotes and coins were accepted by all the banks and shops before this. And Irish coins were made in the size and weight before 1979.
 
Last edited:
Top