Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

purple'n'gold

murphaph wrote: »

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.

I also do not know any of my ancestors beyond my grand parents. And as far as I am aware and speaking to family, neighbours and friends over the years very few of us (Irish) can trace our ancestors back very far because of bad record keeping for one reason or another. A lot of us (especially in or around the former garrison towns) probably have an English, Welsh or Scottish ancestor. Also, people changed from catholic to protestant and changed surnames names for all sorts of reasons. What difference does it make anyway? We are who we are.

Liam Byrne

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

There certainly is, yes. A thug breaking into your home, someone attacking you or your sister, etc, etc.

In all of those cases, the violence and action that you take would be excusable ONLY IF AIMED DIRECTLY at the attacker/perpetrator. Most people would agree with that, at least to some extent, I think ?

BUT lashing out at some innocent passer-by, or a relation of the attacker, or whatever, and definitely never a case for indescriminately laying a bomb on the side of the street which will kill loads of people.

AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE: I would say that THERE IS NEVER A CASE, and has never been a case, that justifies the second scenario.

Would you agree, BF, that there is a relatively clear distinction between those two, and that it is perfectly acceptable [whatever the pacifist's view on the first scenario] that the majority of society view the second scenario as reprehensible and want no association with people who view it as acceptable ?

TOMASJ

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know?

murphaph wrote: »

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.

I have it on good authority from (lord mountjoy & oliver cromwell )

Riddle101

murphaph wrote: »

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.

What dose it matter what our ancestors are anyway, they are long gone and i think it's stupid that we have to be what we are told to be. We all have a choice in what we are and who we are so if I or you and anyone else has an ancestor who's British or French or Indian(Which I actually Do) it shouldn't be of concern because you are who you believe you are, obviously overreacting abit because you can't be anyone but you can certainly choose to believe that you are Irish, or British or Catholic or Prodestant it your right, it's your choice.

It wasn't me!

So... by that right, the majority of the people in the north have the right to decide that they're British? Grand so.

BostonFenian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There certainly is, yes. A thug breaking into your home, someone attacking you or your sister, etc, etc.

In all of those cases, the violence and action that you take would be excusable ONLY IF AIMED DIRECTLY at the attacker/perpetrator. Most people would agree with that, at least to some extent, I think ?

BUT lashing out at some innocent passer-by, or a relation of the attacker, or whatever, and definitely never a case for indescriminately laying a bomb on the side of the street which will kill loads of people.

AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE: I would say that THERE IS NEVER A CASE, and has never been a case, that justifies the second scenario.

Would you agree, BF, that there is a relatively clear distinction between those two, and that it is perfectly acceptable [whatever the pacifist's view on the first scenario] that the majority of society view the second scenario as reprehensible and want no association with people who view it as acceptable ?

There certainly is, in terms of intent, but there are difficult grey situations.

For instance, what if an occupier has come in, set up a dreadful regime of suppressing rights and liberties, and moves in so many civilians that it's impossible to fight back without risking killing civilians?

Also, what if the actual institutions that enforce that repressive regime, are staffed and occupied by 'innocents', fulfilling the day to day bureaucratic needs of that occupier, further enabling it to continue?

gandalf

Blah Blah Blah !!! :rolleyes:

Thank god you are not in Ireland, regressive backward thinkers like you are certainly not welcome.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

For instance, what if an occupier has come in, set up a dreadful regime of suppressing rights and liberties, and moves in so many civilians that it's impossible to fight back without risking killing civilians?

Then you don't fight back.

Haven't you ever heard of the concept of a human shield? Just because it was the enemy that put a whole load of children around its weapon depo doesn't mean its justified killing those children to get at the weapon depo.

Buts lets not kid ourselves here. The IRA weren't in a position where it was impossible to fight back without risking civilians.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

Then you don't fight back.

Haven't you ever heard of the concept of a human shield? Just because it was the enemy that put a whole load of children around its weapon depo doesn't mean its justified killing those children to get at the weapon depo.

Buts lets not kid ourselves here. The IRA weren't in a position where it was impossible to fight back without risking civilians.

Well, so I suppose you would have rejected the bombing of Germany in WWII on similar grounds? Many innocents died in that time, but the argument was made that it was for the greater good.

BostonFenian

gandalf wrote: »

Blah Blah Blah !!! :rolleyes:

Thank god you are not in Ireland, regressive backward thinkers like you are certainly not welcome.

Apparently you have to be a pacifist to not be regressive in your mind? I guess that's a principled position, but your name calling misses the mark.

Have there been no just wars in the history of the world? In every war innocents die. It's an unavoidable reality. I don't think you've thought your position all the way through, but don't worry, I won't call you names.

Liam Byrne

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well, so I suppose you would have rejected the bombing of Germany in WWII on similar grounds? Many innocents died in that time, but the argument was made that it was for the greater good.

While I don't agree with indiscriminate bombing such as this, or such as was done in Iraq, there's also a massive difference; people didn't drive up the street and lay the bombs in a crowded shopping centre.

I'm by no means excusing stuff like the bombing of Iraq with this angle, because that disgusts me too (as said above, why not actually go after the perpetrators, rather than affecting and killing innocent people) but if you can drive up a street and lay a bomb knowing that innocent people could and will be killed or injured, then you've lost my support (as did Bush & Co when they did the aerial bombing).

BostonFenian

Liam Byrne wrote: »

While I don't agree with indiscriminate bombing such as this, or such as was done in Iraq, there's also a massive difference; people didn't drive up the street and lay the bombs in a crowded shopping centre.

I'm by no means excusing stuff like the bombing of Iraq with this angle, because that disgusts me too (as said above, why not actually go after the perpetrators, rather than affecting and killing innocent people) but if you can drive up a street and lay a bomb knowing that innocent people could and will be killed or injured, then you've lost my support (as did Bush & Co when they did the aerial bombing).

I've never supported the Iraq war, which had no dire precursor as justification. WWII (in my opinion, at least) did, and inaction would be worse than the action, even though people would die, since people would die either way.

I'm just not sure about the opinions on this board. If I wanted to conquer a country run by Wicknight for instance, I'd merely have to strap some civilians to my tanks, and overrun that country with no resistance whatsoever (remember, he said you can't fight back if innocents could be harmed), no matter how many innocents I killed on the way.

That doesn't make sense.

Please note, I'm only discussing general terms, and not trying to say this situation correlates at all to the IRA or NI. This point is purely meant to illustrate why sometimes good people will make decisions that kill other good people.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

Please note, I'm only discussing general terms, and not trying to say this situation correlates at all to the IRA or NI.

Good, because it doesn't.

BostonFenian wrote: »

This point is purely meant to illustrate why sometimes good people will make decisions that kill other good people.

"Good people" do not make decisions to kill - full stop. They certainly do not "decide" to kill other "good people".

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Good, because it doesn't.
"Good people" do not make decisions to kill - full stop. They certainly do not "decide" to kill other "good people".

You honestly believe that, then? You can't search your mind and history for even one case where innocents had to die to prevent something worse from happening, or to defend something so important?

I didn't say good people make decisions to kill, but that they make decisions that result in people being killed. Happens all the time. One obvious example is that you have two groups of people in mortal danger, but can only save one. That's a decision a good person can make that will result in other good people dying.

I find this black/white thinking astounding. Other posts are starting to make more sense to me, now.

Riddle101

BostonFenian wrote: »

Apparently you have to be a pacifist to not be regressive in your mind? I guess that's a principled position, but your name calling misses the mark.

Have there been no just wars in the history of the world? In every war innocents die. It's an unavoidable reality. I don't think you've thought your position all the way through, but don't worry, I won't call you names.

I agree with you, espeically on the higlighted part. Not saying the IRA are in a war but unfortunately people die in Wars and we just hav eto accept that. Sometimes wars are nessary in order to get things done

BostonFenian

Riddle101 wrote: »

I agree with you, espeically on the higlighted part. Not saying the IRA are in a war but unfortunately people die in Wars and we just hav eto accept that. Sometimes wars are nessary in order to get things done

Yeah, at this point, I'm not trying to make any greater point, just find out if any of the people who are arguing the point here, are truly the pacifists they're seeming to be. As I said above, this line of questioning clearly doesn't correlate to the IRA or NI, but it does relate directly to perceptions surrounding issues of violence, which do form the backbone of the NI issues.

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well, so I suppose you would have rejected the bombing of Germany in WWII on similar grounds?

A lot of them, yes. Particularly the British campaign to bomb Berlin back to the stone age.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Many innocents died in that time, but the argument was made that it was for the greater good.

Everyone always claims what they do is for the greater good. The IRA claim that also. Just because you claim that it doesn't mean it is true, and often the people making the claim are the least capable of determining if it is actually true.

BTW you seem to be searching around for generalities, trying to trap people Oh you supported the WWII bombings, you must support the IRA or you are hypocrite, that kinda thing.

As has already been pointed out the IRA were not faced with resistance with civilian deaths or no resistance at all, so the point is rather moot anyway.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

A lot of them, yes. Particularly the British campaign to bomb Berlin back to the stone age.



Everyone always claims what they do is for the greater good. The IRA claim that also. Just because you claim that it doesn't mean it is true, and often the people making the claim are the least capable of determining if it is actually true.

BTW you seem to be searching around for generalities, trying to trap people Oh you supported the WWII bombings, you must support the IRA or you are hypocrite, that kinda thing.

As has already been pointed out the IRA were not faced with resistance with civilian deaths or no resistance at all, so the point is rather moot anyway.

I'm afraid you missed my point. I only brought up WWII, because it's probably the most socially accepted use of violence in recent memory, and you made a blanket statement about ALL violence. I was trying to find your boundaries.

Your last paragraph is completely off base, and not at all what I was thinking.

You'd have to be crazy to think that IRA and WWII correlate, and I challenge you to point where I made that connection.

djpbarry

BostonFenian wrote: »

You honestly believe that, then?

Yes. To quote Jeanette Rankin:

You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.

BostonFenian wrote: »

I didn't say good people make decisions to kill, but that they make decisions that result in people being killed.

That is exactly the same thing. If you accept that someone will die as a result of your actions, yet you decide to execute said action, then you are deciding to kill someone.

BostonFenian wrote: »

Happens all the time.

No it does not. "Good people" do not kill each other "all the time".

Riddle101 wrote: »

Sometimes wars are nessary in order to get things done

:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

unfortunately people die in Wars and we just hav eto accept that. Sometimes wars are nessary in order to get things done

That is utterly ridiculous logic. That basically says that all some has to do is to declare "war" and they can do what they like and we have to accept it.

First of all the IRA war wasn't necessary, so the point that sometimes wars are necessary doesn't apply here. The only thing the IRA war did was put back the civil rights movement for decades. Trying to link the IRA war to more worthy wars is nonsense. You might as well say some times armies need to occupy countries in response to the British Army presence in the North.

Secondly, the idea that sh*t happens in a war and we just need to get over it pretty much justifies ever war crime ever committed, so I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this one through.

Things don't just happen in war, people make things happen and at some point every single death in a war can be traced back to a decision someone took at a point in time. That decision can be judged, and should be judged.

The IRA decision to place a bomb in a crowded pub can be judged. Claiming there was a war on is irrelevant. Claiming 800 years of oppression, irrelevant.

At the end of the day it comes down to that decision and the morality of that decision. And it was immoral

Strangely enough I've never heard the excuse that people die in war and we need to accept that, being used to justify Bloody Sunday :rolleyes:

Those damn Catholics complaining that the British shot innocent and unarmed people in the back as they fled the seen. Don't they know people die in wars! They should stop complaining and just accept that fact.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes. To quote Jeanette Rankin:

That is exactly the same thing. If you accept that someone will die as a result of your actions, yet you decide to execute said action, then you are deciding to kill someone.
No it does not. "Good people" do not kill each other "all the time".
:rolleyes:

Again making decisions that result in deaths is not the same as killing.

If anyone's country was invaded, they'd be perfefectly justified in doing whatever was necessary to repel the invaders, even if the invaders happened to be using human shields. Sucks to be them, but our friends being invaded didn't ask for it, and have every RIGHT to defend themselves and their land.

Who else would say that defending themselves is an inexcusable act of violence, and that they could not then be good people?

Should I put you in that category djpbarry?

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

I was trying to find your boundaries.

Why?

Zombrex

BostonFenian wrote: »

If anyone's country was invaded, they'd be perfefectly justified in doing whatever was necessary to repel the invaders, even if the invaders happened to be using human shields. Sucks to be them, but our friends being invaded didn't ask for it, and have every RIGHT to defend themselves and their land.

No you don't.

If I am being robbed and I grab a gun and the robber grabs a hostage and starts backing away with my stuff I do not have the right to kill the hostage so I can get a clear shot at the robber and get my stuff back.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

That is utterly ridiculous logic. That basically says that all some has to do is to declare "war" and they can do what they like and we have to accept it.

First of all the IRA war wasn't necessary, so the point that sometimes wars are necessary doesn't apply here. The only thing the IRA war did was put back the civil rights movement for decades. Trying to link the IRA war to more worthy wars is nonsense. You might as well say some times armies need to occupy countries in response to the British Army presence in the North.

Secondly, the idea that sh*t happens in a war and we just need to get over it pretty much justifies ever war crime ever committed, so I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this one through.

Things don't just happen in war, people make things happen and at some point every single death in a war can be traced back to a decision someone took at a point in time. That decision can be judged, and should be judged.

The IRA decision to place a bomb in a crowded pub can be judged. Claiming there was a war on is irrelevant. Claiming 800 years of oppression, irrelevant.

At the end of the day it comes down to that decision and the morality of that decision. And it was immoral

Strangely enough I've never heard the excuse that people die in war and we need to accept that, being used to justify Bloody Sunday :rolleyes:

Those damn Catholics complaining that the British shot innocent and unarmed people in the back as they fled the seen. Don't they know people die in wars! They should stop complaining and just accept that fact.

This particular portion of the conversation is about whether violence is ever justified, because of your statement that if civilians might be killed that you should not fight back. Your statement seemed to be blanket in that it didn't take into account any other factors than that civilians might die.

Because of that, I took a step back and asked larger questions about violence, because if you really believe that you have no right to fight if civilians might die, then we've found our fundamental difference. There's nothing I can say if you're fundamentally a pacifist.

To repeat (for the third time) This particular line of questioning has nothing to do with the IRA. The Troubles were certainly not a traditional war, even to the people who view it as such, and I deliberately left it out, so I could get your opinion on acceptable use of violence without the politically controversial backdrop of the IRA and NI.

BostonFenian

Wicknight wrote: »

No you don't.

If I am being robbed and I grab a gun and the robber grabs a hostage and starts backing away with my stuff I do not have the right to kill the hostage so I can get a clear shot at the robber and get my stuff back.

What if he's a murderer, and he has a human shield, and is about to kill two people. yes, you risk killing one, but for the purpose of saving two.

gandalf

BostonFenian wrote: »

Apparently you have to be a pacifist to not be regressive in your mind? I guess that's a principled position, but your name calling misses the mark.

Have there been no just wars in the history of the world? In every war innocents die. It's an unavoidable reality. I don't think you've thought your position all the way through, but don't worry, I won't call you names.

The IRA in its most recent guises are nothing more than a bunch of thugs organised into a Mafioso and really have very little to do with the original purpose of the organisation.

The majority here realise that, its plastic paddies who adore from afar that give support to the few hard line psycho's that carry on the "struggle". Most realise the only way to move forward now is politically and not by being a "hero" and blasting a taxi driver in the back of the head or blowing the legs off a schoolboy in an English city.

Are you even Irish I wonder?

It wasn't me!

I'm not a pacificist at all. I'm a pragmatist. The north wouldn't be in this position at all were it not for militant nationalism. It would probably be united with the south as the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was really a soother and a barrier put in place to try curb the rising tide of violence. So yes, the IRA campaign was bollocks, because it only harmed a nationalistic cause in the first place, then it set back the civil rights movement, and then it seriously delayed a peaceful political process in the north. So while I don't disagree with war, or violence, at all, I disagree with the IRA because they retardedly set back their own causes over the past ninety years and in the process caused thousands of pointless deaths.

andrewh5

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I'm not a pacificist at all. I'm a pragmatist. The north wouldn't be in this position at all were it not for militant nationalism. It would probably be united with the south as the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was really a soother and a barrier put in place to try curb the rising tide of violence. So yes, the IRA campaign was bollocks, because it only harmed a nationalistic cause in the first place, then it set back the civil rights movement, and then it seriously delayed a peaceful political process in the north. So while I don't disagree with war, or violence, at all, I disagree with the IRA because they retardedly set back their own causes over the past ninety years and in the process caused thousands of pointless deaths.

Very well said!

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I'm not a pacificist at all. I'm a pragmatist. The north wouldn't be in this position at all were it not for militant nationalism. It would probably be united with the south as the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was really a soother and a barrier put in place to try curb the rising tide of violence. So yes, the IRA campaign was bollocks, because it only harmed a nationalistic cause in the first place, then it set back the civil rights movement, and then it seriously delayed a peaceful political process in the north. So while I don't disagree with war, or violence, at all, I disagree with the IRA because they retardedly set back their own causes over the past ninety years and in the process caused thousands of pointless deaths.

Again, 4th time, that line of questioning was specifically to find out from two users when if ever it was acceptable to use violence. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IRA. It's purpose was to establish a baseline to continue from.

It's hard to talk about IRA violence if it turns out the person accepts that there is no such thing as appropriate violence. That's why I asked the question, and why I separated it from the IRA issue.

PaintingMedium

Wicknight wrote: »

That is utterly ridiculous logic. That basically says that all some has to do is to declare "war" and they can do what they like and we have to accept it.

First of all the IRA war wasn't necessary, so the point that sometimes wars are necessary doesn't apply here. The only thing the IRA war did was put back the civil rights movement for decades. Trying to link the IRA war to more worthy wars is nonsense. You might as well say some times armies need to occupy countries in response to the British Army presence in the North.

Secondly, the idea that sh*t happens in a war and we just need to get over it pretty much justifies ever war crime ever committed, so I'm pretty sure you haven't thought this one through.

Things don't just happen in war, people make things happen and at some point every single death in a war can be traced back to a decision someone took at a point in time. That decision can be judged, and should be judged.

The IRA decision to place a bomb in a crowded pub can be judged. Claiming there was a war on is irrelevant. Claiming 800 years of oppression, irrelevant.

At the end of the day it comes down to that decision and the morality of that decision. And it was immoral

Strangely enough I've never heard the excuse that people die in war and we need to accept that, being used to justify Bloody Sunday :rolleyes:

Those damn Catholics complaining that the British shot innocent and unarmed people in the back as they fled the seen. Don't they know people die in wars! They should stop complaining and just accept that fact.

This is quite an interesting view so I will debate point for point. You say the IRAs war was not necessary, I disagree. The Provisional movement came into existance due to attacks on Nationalist communities and the police force allowing these attacks, sometimes helping these attacks to take place. It is simple logic that if the official police is the attacker or aiding the attacker, a community will defend itself. The split between Official and Provisional IRA came about due to the lack of action in defending nationalist communities.

The IRA did not put the civil rights movement back decades, that is just plain wrong. If you study or read any history book, you will see that the media and unionist power considered the civil rights and the IRA, the same thing and treated them all like criminals. The IRA went about it one way, whilst the civil rights went about it another way. What put the civil rights movement back decades was Britains disgraceful behaviour, the medias lies about the civil rights movements and the behaviour of the unionist leaders such as Paisley.

You are very naive to argue that because something is wrong, it should not be done. It is obvious that some of the actions of the PIRA were wrong, and they have admitted that and apologised. Yes, this does not mean much to innocent victims, but at least they admit mistakes and apologised! The British Army holds itself to a higher standard yet committed worse deeds, and has never apologised.

At the end of the day, none of us who did not live in those times in those conditions can really judge. Could you honestly say that you would not have done the same as the IRA if you were shot at, or interned, if you could not vote, if you could not get a job?

These are different times to the times of the 1960's and 70's so we cannot judge it by todays standards. I would not attack victims of Nazi oppression for standing up, I would not attack anti-apartheid for standing up, I would not attack Aborigines for standing up and I will not attack the PIRA for standing up.

I really think people do not like defending the IRA actions because it is too close to home. If it was far away, it is so easy to defend and support but when it is close to home, people get a little bit more blind.