Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you think you should have to pay for all the crimes your ancestors committed over the last 800 years?

I don't care if they pay or not, so long as Ulster is returned to Ireland.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

I don't care if they pay or not, so long as Ulster is returned to Ireland.

I'm going to take that as a no, rendering your whole argument meaningless. What happened in the past (in this case the distant past), stays in the past. Re-examining history to determine where current international borders should lie is simply not feasible, nor is it moral.

I can’t help but feeling that this thread is going around in very small circles.

TOMASJ

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And as long as they stay in Stormont, I'm happy, and they can call all the shots they want elsewhere, but I won't be seeing them in power in the republic anytime soon, and that's a fact.

Dont be so sure of you facts,when they become the largest party in the North 'which is not to far away' and the of people in the 26 county's see how well the the occupied six county's are been administered, by a very able party they will flock to the polling stations in the 26 county's to cast there vote for the party of the future. I have no doubt that all but the bitterest and twisted with entrenched views will be more than happy.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

...when they become the largest party in the North 'which is not to far away' and the of people in the 26 county's see how well the the occupied six county's are been administered...

...and pigs fly, and hell freezes over, etc.

murphaph

BostonFenian wrote: »

Because to the best of my knowledge, they're Albanian, and that already is a country. While, I think minority groups have the same rights as anyone else, I don't think they have the right to just declare a state wherever they happen to be.

I presume then that you don't recognise Pakistan or Israel either? If you recognise Israel then I presume you can't recognise Palestine or the occupied territories as being Palestinian?

murphaph

TOMASJ wrote: »

Dont be so sure of you facts,when they become the largest party in the North 'which is not to far away' and the of people in the 26 county's see how well the the occupied six county's are been administered, by a very able party they will flock to the polling stations in the 26 county's to cast there vote for the party of the future. I have no doubt that all but the bitterest and twisted with entrenched views will be more than happy.

We in the south aren't so stupid to believe SF and the DUP are doing anything more than playing politics. Stormont lacks the fundamental ability of every real parliament in the world-to raise taxes from its citizenry. Stormont is just a talking shop. It's not even called a Parliament, just an Assembly. They just move the pieces around the board but they can't make the pieces in the first place.

Running a real country and not a province of the UK is totally different! If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote for FF or SF to run my country, I'd pick FF every time.....and that's saying something!

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you think you should have to pay for all the crimes your ancestors committed over the last 800 years?

Probably not,but they should acknowledge the wrong their ancestors were responsible for,the problem in Ireland is that some of the old guard in england, with the blind rantings of some imperialist types in the 26 county's ( just listen to the plummy accents) give the credence,to the belief that england still owns the whole of Ireland ,sure ain't some royal wasters not still getting land rent in the 26 county's for 'THEIR ESTATES'

TOMASJ

murphaph wrote: »

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote for FF or SF to run my country, I'd pick FF every time.....and that's saying something!

And if someone didn't put a gun to your head who would you vote for,or let me guess the PD,s

duggie-89

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You want a devolved northern government within a united Ireland? If this is the case, then forget it. There would be less than no point.

why??? explain your point and your reasoning or dont say anything.

firstly i dont want devolved gov but i see it as the ony practical way of ensuring that a certain amount of peace exists. and i believe that it should have control on a few areas like culture etc.

i see it as a way of easing in the "difficulties" of a UI to the unionist community and the southern "hell no, UI" group

BostonFenian

murphaph wrote: »

I presume then that you don't recognise Pakistan or Israel either? If you recognise Israel then I presume you can't recognise Palestine or the occupied territories as being Palestinian?

There's people who are nominally Pakistani who don't recognize Pakistan, the Pashtuns for instance.

Re: Israel and Palestine, that's obviously a difficult question since both cultures have long term roots in the region, although, I feel that the Palestinian claim is firmer, as it was a more consistent presence, as opposed to one from long ago.

I do recognize both cultures' right to a state, though the Palestinians need to be freed of occupation before they can really come to the negotating table in good faith.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm going to take that as a no, rendering your whole argument meaningless. What happened in the past (in this case the distant past), stays in the past. Re-examining history to determine where current international borders should lie is simply not feasible, nor is it moral.

I can’t help but feeling that this thread is going around in very small circles.

You can take it as a no, if you like, but my belief is that Ulster belongs to Ireland. That's my position, and when I move to Ireland and have the vote, that will continue to be my focus.

There is a consistent thread of resistance going from Kinsale (farther back, if we're not just talking about Ulster) up until at least the 90s if not now. When was the right lost? At what point can an invader say, ok, you didn't get it back in x time, so you've got to stop trying. They took it by force. What right do they have to dictate terms of resistance?

oscarBravo

What right do a tiny minority have to dictate those terms either?

We, the people, have decided our terms.

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

What right do a tiny minority have to dictate those terms either?

We, the people, have decided our terms.

This is the problem with this thread. When did I ever advocate dictating terms. I'm advocating a campaign of persuasion.

Let's put it another way. Does the majority have the right to stamp out independent thought, because that appears to be the sentiment here.

Liam Byrne

BostonFenian wrote: »

This is the problem with this thread. When did I ever advocate dictating terms. I'm advocating a campaign of persuasion.

Let's put it another way. Does the majority have the right to stamp out independent thought, because that appears to be the sentiment here.

Under normal circumstances, that would be a valid statement, and I'd probably be right behind you; HOWEVER, if the "independent thought" of the minority in question advocates violence and murder of innocent people (as per the thread title) THEN it SHOULD be stamped out.

Is it "independent thought" when a drug-dealer "decides" to act on supply and demand and sell drugs in an area ? NO.....because it's ILLEGAL (and rightly so).

BostonFenian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Under normal circumstances, that would be a valid statement, and I'd probably be right behind you; HOWEVER, if the "independent thought" of the minority in question advocates violence and murder of innocent people (as per the thread title) THEN it SHOULD be stamped out.

Is it "independent thought" when a drug-dealer "decides" to act on supply and demand and sell drugs in an area ? NO.....because it's ILLEGAL (and rightly so).

Please re-read the thread above, as I said I'm talking a campaign of persuasion, a political campaign. I think there's a lot that could be done politically, that's not even been tried yet.

guinnessdrinker

I would just like to go back to the OP's original post for a second if I may (I know it was posted a month ago but anyway). The Real IRA stating "the war is back on".

Firstly, there is a group of republicans that abhor SF's support of the GFA, they don't support them taking their seats in the assembly and they don't support their decision of talking their seats in the dail and they definetly don't support their decision to back the PSNI.

Of these anti-SF republicans, imo only a small number of them even support the RIRA. AFAIK even RSF, whom regard themselfs as the legitimate holders of the title "republican" don't even support the RIRA.

Too much progress has been made, for us to be dragged back to ten years ago.

BostonFenian

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I would just like to go back to the OP's original post for a second if I may (I know it was posted a month ago but anyway). The Real IRA stating "the war is back on".

Firstly, there is a group of republicans that abhor SF's support of the GFA, they don't support them taking their seats in the assembly and they don't support their decision of talking their seats in the dail and they definetly don't support their decision to back the PSNI.

Of these anti-SF republicans, imo only a small number of them even support the RIRA. AFAIK even RSF, whom regard themselfs as the legitimate holders of the title "republican" don't even support the RIRA.

Too much progress has been made, for us to be dragged back to ten years ago.

Agreed. I don't even understand where they're coming from. I don't even see how they think their position is helpful to the cause. It just gives certain people ammunition to paint Republicanism with a broad brush as a bunch of baby-killers.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

When did I ever advocate dictating terms.

I didn't accuse you of dictating terms, so please leave the straw man out of it.

The title of this thread refers to the fact that a tiny minority who don't accept the democratic will of the people, and who are prepared to kill innocent civilians in order to get their way.

You spoke of the British dictating terms to us; they have not done so. We have agreed terms with them. All but a tiny minority are happy with those terms.

BostonFenian wrote: »

I'm advocating a campaign of persuasion.

If I thought you were unequivocally and irrevocably committed to achieving that persuasion by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, I would be content to sit back and let you pursue it to your heart's content. Unfortunately you (like many another here) have given to understand that, if you thought murder and mayhem were an effective means of achieving your ends, you'd be prepared to countenance them.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Let's put it another way. Does the majority have the right to stamp out independent thought, because that appears to be the sentiment here.

You can think what you want, and you can express those thoughts freely here (within the boundaries as set out). What you can't do is expect your views to go unchallenged.

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of dictating terms, so please leave the straw man out of it.

A straw man argument is setting up a fake antagonist, and saying there are some who say this, and some who say that, and gaining points by knocking it down.

You said that the minority didn't have the right to dictate terms, and I took that to mean that, given the fact I'm espousing a minority position, that I was attempting to dictate terms to you.

The title of this thread refers to the fact that a tiny minority who don't accept the democratic will of the people, and who are prepared to kill innocent civilians in order to get their way.

Well the thread has certainly drifted from talking about the RIRA to the greater political issues in general, so I suppose it's easy to see how the confusion could happen, but I'm not aware of anyone (in this thread) advocating violence.

You spoke of the British dictating terms to us; they have not done so. We have agreed terms with them. All but a tiny minority are happy with those terms.

That's as may be, but it doesn't change the fact that they've had their invasions, their violence, etc, and only now are they against that sort of thing. It's a bit like stealing, and then having an awakening, realizing stealing is wrong, and when the victim tries to take what they want back, accusing them of stealing, which you would *never* do. It's awful hypocrisy, really.

If I thought you were unequivocally and irrevocably committed to achieving that persuasion by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, I would be content to sit back and let you pursue it to your heart's content. Unfortunately you (like many another here) have given to understand that, if you thought murder and mayhem were an effective means of achieving your ends, you'd be prepared to countenance them.

Well what I've said is that any culture can do whatever it likes, if its prepared to deal with the consequences. The consequences of beginning a violent insurrection in NI would be disastrous, and I'm not advocating that.

Simply put, I believe violence is justified if life and liberty are threatened, or to defend yourself in a given situation. For instance, I have a hard time calling your average Iraqi targeting American soldiers a terrorist, because there are foreign troops in his homeland, and they have killed many of his brothers and sisters, intentionally or not.

You can think what you want, and you can express those thoughts freely here (within the boundaries as set out). What you can't do is expect your views to go unchallenged.

I don't expect them to go unchallenged, and that's part of the reason I signed up here, to test my views in this crucible, as it were. All I'm saying, is that there seems to be a visceral reaction here that if A, then B must follow, where A = believing Ulster is part of Ireland, and B = awful acts of violence and terrorism.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well the thread has certainly drifted from talking about the RIRA to the greater political issues in general, so I suppose it's easy to see how the confusion could happen, but I'm not aware of anyone (in this thread) advocating violence.

There's a subtle sort of sophistry involved, though. Nobody's explicitly advocated violence, but several have said that violence isn't a good idea only because it would be counter-productive, not because it's wrong.

BostonFenian wrote: »

That's as may be, but it doesn't change the fact that they've had their invasions, their violence, etc, and only now are they against that sort of thing. It's a bit like stealing, and then having an awakening, realizing stealing is wrong, and when the victim tries to take what they want back, accusing them of stealing, which you would *never* do. It's awful hypocrisy, really.

All the talk of "stealing" continues to miss the point that the "theft" in question took place hundreds of years ago, and that we, the people, have chosen to shake hands and let bygones be bygones.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well what I've said is that any culture can do whatever it likes, if its prepared to deal with the consequences. The consequences of beginning a violent insurrection in NI would be disastrous, and I'm not advocating that.

Let's go from the general to the specific, here. You're saying (in effect, and correct me if I'm wrong) that the RIRA can massacre innocent children in the streets, as long as they're prepared to deal with the consequences.

Are you serious?

BostonFenian wrote: »

Simply put, I believe violence is justified if life and liberty are threatened, or to defend yourself in a given situation.

Is the murder of a policeman who is trying to arrest you justified?

BostonFenian wrote: »

I don't expect them to go unchallenged, and that's part of the reason I signed up here, to test my views in this crucible, as it were. All I'm saying, is that there seems to be a visceral reaction here that if A, then B must follow, where A = believing Ulster is part of Ireland, and B = awful acts of violence and terrorism.

As long as there are people for whom the end of a united Ireland justifies the means of violence and terrorism, that's to be expected.

You yourself have failed to unequivocally reject violence as a means to that end, and you're far from alone.

For me, it's quite simple. If the price of a united Ireland was the possibility of a single innocent human life being lost, then NI could stay in the UK for the rest of eternity. If we can't achieve unity without contemplating the possibility of murder, then it's not worth achieving.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

At what point can an invader say, ok, you didn't get it back in x time, so you've got to stop trying. They took it by force. What right do they have to dictate terms of resistance?

When the "invaders" are dead, those they stole the land from are dead, and it is only each's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren left trying to get along with each other.

At what point do people stop harking back to centuries old differences and start trying to live with each other in the present.

TOMASJ

Wicknight wrote: »

When the "invaders" are dead, those they stole the land from are dead, and it is only each's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren left trying to get along with each other.

At what point do people stop harking back to centuries old differences and start trying to live with each other in the present.

The "invaders" in the case of Ireland left it in no doubt that if the people of Ireland didn't like what was going to be enforced on them at the time our country was carved, that there would be hell to pay, and anything that went before would have seemed like a picnic (I presume the was a threat to use violence on a large majority that had just voted overwhelming to be rid of these pompous morons)
as usual the bully dictates the terms,yes the first theft took place hundreds of years ago followed by the second theft a mere ninety years ago, and was not accepted as you would like to believe by the Irish people.hence 28 more years of war against the brits.

djpbarry

TOMASJ wrote: »

Probably not,but they should acknowledge the wrong their ancestors were responsible for...

Have you acknowledged all the wrongs that YOUR ancestors were responsible for? Do you even know who your ancestors were 400 years ago? How do you know that one of YOUR ancestors was not "planted" in Ulster?

BostonFenian wrote: »

I feel that the Palestinian claim is firmer, as it was a more consistent presence, as opposed to one from long ago.

Not exactly a solid argument. So Israel should be absorbed into Palestine?

BostonFenian wrote: »

...as I said I'm talking a campaign of persuasion, a political campaign.

But you still have not outlined what this "campaign" will involve. So far, the only "campaign message" you have had is "Ulster belongs to Ireland". Not sure too many people are going to agree with you.

BostonFenian wrote: »

...I'm not aware of anyone (in this thread) advocating violence.
...
Simply put, I believe violence is justified if life and liberty are threatened, or to defend yourself in a given situation.

Maybe not advocating, but certainly plenty of condoning.

Zombrex

TOMASJ wrote: »

The "invaders" in the case of Ireland left it in no doubt that if the people of Ireland didn't like what was going to be enforced on them at the time our country was carved, that there would be hell to pay, and anything that went before would have seemed like a picnic (I presume the was a threat to use violence on a large majority that had just voted overwhelming to be rid of these pompous morons)
as usual the bully dictates the terms,yes the first theft took place hundreds of years ago followed by the second theft a mere ninety years ago, and was not accepted as you would like to believe by the Irish people.hence 28 more years of war against the brits.

it wasn't accepted by a tiny minority of the "irish people" who decided to start blowing up women and children in response.

unfortunately in any society there are always those who like to force their will through violence on everyone else, be they the original British settlers or the modern IRA.

po0k

"Back in the pile"

Liam Byrne

BostonFenian wrote: »

Please re-read the thread above, as I said I'm talking a campaign of persuasion, a political campaign. I think there's a lot that could be done politically, that's not even been tried yet.

In that case I agree with you. But therein lies the problem; the thread refers to a minority who want to bully the majority into submission, and the term "republican" (which ironically means supporting a republic which most of these people refuse to recognise, using phrases like "26 counties") has been dirtied as a result.

There are, however, posts in this thread which either advocate or excuse violence, and IMHO it's in SF's interest to disown those and similar people so that people can start believing that they, like you, are 100% behind political means.

Unfortunately, by not disassociating themselves from people like this, or by making excuses, or by being photographed with or campaigning for their release, means that reasonable people don't believe them.

BostonFenian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In that case I agree with you. But therein lies the problem; the thread refers to a minority who want to bully the majority into submission, and the term "republican" (which ironically means supporting a republic which most of these people refuse to recognise, using phrases like "26 counties") has been dirtied as a result.

There are, however, posts in this thread which either advocate or excuse violence, and IMHO it's in SF's interest to disown those and similar people so that people can start believing that they, like you, are 100% behind political means.

Unfortunately, by not disassociating themselves from people like this, or by making excuses, or by being photographed with or campaigning for their release, means that reasonable people don't believe them.

The problem with disavowing violence is that there are cases where violence is certainly appropriate. I wouldn't want to say that there is never a case when occupied/oppressed people would be forced to resort to violence.

I don't see anyone, for instance, rushing to condemn American founders as terrorists, but I'm pretty sure that's how George felt.

But to reiterate, that's certainly not the case in NI.

TOMASJ

djpbarry wrote: »

Have you acknowledged all the wrongs that YOUR ancestors were responsible for? Do you even know who your ancestors were 400 years ago? How do you know that one of YOUR ancestors was not "planted" in Ulster?

The only thing my ancestors were responsible for, in the last four centuries, when they weren't being starved into submission, was resistance's against the brits and I am very proud to have associated with people with that courage,

oscarBravo

How do you know?

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know?

Indeed. Tomas, your ancestors could be british. Have you traced your family tree back to the middle ages? I don't know any of my family beyond my grandparents tbh and I'm sure I'm not alone, the point is, it doesn't matter. We ae where we are.