Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Seloth

When I read the article in the paper I coudlnt believe they take people as young as 17.

They actually want to get British soldiers back into the streets of NI towns and citys to show that the country is occupied,yet IRA fought not too long ago to keep them out of the streets.

As if Britain didnt have enough Terrorism worries.

djpbarry

duggie-89 wrote: »

...i dont agree with the rira cause...
...i still feel the war is justfied!!

You've just totally contradicted yourself there. You don't agree with the RIRA's cause but you do think the "war" is justified?

duggie-89 wrote: »

...we need to show the people of the north that their future is in a 32 county republic...

Is it? Can they not be allowed to decide their own future themselves?

duggie-89

djpbarry wrote: »

You've just totally contradicted yourself there. You don't agree with the RIRA's cause but you do think the "war" is justified?
Is it? Can they not be allowed to decide their own future themselves?

no i haven't at all. because i believe that they have a right to fight the british ARMY not civilians but just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should!!

i believe in the peace process.

well their own future is my future and yes decide it for ourselves but i dont think britain should be able to decide it for us (us being both catholic and protestant / nationalist or unionist)

Dinter

Seloth wrote: »

As if Britain didnt have enough Terrorism worries.

I believe that Britain is overstretched militarily at the moment with its diverse commitments around the globe.

Because of this I would imagine that any sort of terrorist efforts up the North will be met with swift and deadly force. They do not have the men to maintain the garrisons they used to have and as such I would say the kid gloves of the past few years will be well and truly off. They do have a re-energised and overfunded intelligence service there and will also be less concerned with American public opinion than they were due to standing by them on Iraq etc.

I don't see how this can have any sort of positive effect on the Nationalist community. Although perhaps that's what the RIRA are counting on.

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

...i feel the problem is that it became extremly difficult to hit military targets all the time so the easier option was taken which cant be excused but i still feel the war is justfied!!

You're entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. If something's worth achieving, it's worth working hard to achieve. You point out that killing civilians is the lazy approach for a "freedom fighter" who couldn't be bothered putting in the extra work involved in selectively targetting soldiers; I'd counter that killing anybody is the lazy approach for someone who couldn't be bothered putting in the work involved in achieving their goals by peaceful means.

Note that I don't believe - not for one second - that the IRA never intended to kill civilians. Terrorism depends on civilian deaths for its effectiveness.

It wasn't me!

duggie-89 wrote: »

i dont think britain should be able to decide it for us (us being both catholic and protestant / nationalist or unionist)

They can't. Decisions on union have to be conducted by referendum of the north.

duggie-89

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. If something's worth achieving, it's worth working hard to achieve. You point out that killing civilians is the lazy approach for a "freedom fighter" who couldn't be bothered putting in the extra work involved in selectively targetting soldiers; I'd counter that killing anybody is the lazy approach for someone who couldn't be bothered putting in the work involved in achieving their goals by peaceful means.

Note that I don't believe - not for one second - that the IRA never intended to kill civilians. Terrorism depends on civilian deaths for its effectiveness.

but then again that comes down to the fact that you view the IRA as terrorists which i couldn't disagree with you enough lol

now here is a question for you do you see the british government as terrorist????

you also mention that the lazy way is to kill someone rather than achieve your means by ways of peaceful means but what would happen if you couldn't do that??? what should you do then???

i also think that in some cases they accepted that deaths were going to occur but i cant say any more on that because i was never in the IRA so i cant say for sure just like you cant say for sure. we have our views and we are all entailed to them but we cant be 100% sure.

but its not only putting in the extra work its also thinking things though were if you were to go after heavily defended military targets and recieve say 40% casualities then how long before your a spent force?? and how much closer would your aims come from?? its a form of gurrelia warfare.

duggie-89

It wasn't me! wrote: »

They can't. Decisions on union have to be conducted by referendum of the north.

in the case with britain i was talking about their powers still over us, they control the police force and its powers and if we dont have power to control our police then we have little power at all.

It wasn't me!

Sure you do. You want to unite the country in a 32 county republic? Conduct a referendum, the results of which demand a nationalistic union, and you'll come under the rule of Brown Envelope Bertie and his Merry Band of Minions. Violence is not the answer here. The IRA are terrorists, as they're using the fear and suffering of their own people, as they call them, to push their agenda. See? Terror. Thus, terrorist.

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

but then again that comes down to the fact that you view the IRA as terrorists which i couldn't disagree with you enough lol

Trust me - on that one you'll never budge me.

duggie-89 wrote: »

now here is a question for you do you see the british government as terrorist????

No, but to discuss it further would be off-topic.

duggie-89 wrote: »

you also mention that the lazy way is to kill someone rather than achieve your means by ways of peaceful means but what would happen if you couldn't do that??? what should you do then???

Keep trying. That's not a glib answer. If you think the only answer to your situation is to kill someone, you're probably not looking hard enough for your answers.

duggie-89 wrote: »

i also think that in some cases they accepted that deaths were going to occur but i cant say any more on that because i was never in the IRA so i cant say for sure just like you cant say for sure. we have our views and we are all entailed to them but we cant be 100% sure.

Accepting that innocent deaths will result from your actions is entirely morally equivalent to deciding to kill someone.

duggie-89 wrote: »

but its not only putting in the extra work its also thinking things though were if you were to go after heavily defended military targets and recieve say 40% casualities then how long before your a spent force?? and how much closer would your aims come from?? its a form of gurrelia warfare.

Sounds like a convincing argument for peaceful methods to me.

Look at the tattered history of this country of ours: how much was achieved by peaceful means? How many people did O'Connell murder? How many deaths did Parnell accept were going to occur as a result of his actions? Rebellion was always met with retribution, and almost every concession was won through political means.

No-one can ever know what would have been, but I remain firmly convinced that the "armed struggle" has held back the cause of northern nationalists by decades.

duggie-89

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Sure you do. You want to unite the country in a 32 county republic? Conduct a referendum, the results of which demand a nationalistic union, and you'll come under the rule of Brown Envelope Bertie and his Merry Band of Minions. Violence is not the answer here. The IRA are terrorists, as they're using the fear and suffering of their own people, as they call them, to push their agenda. See? Terror. Thus, terrorist.

lol who do you think you are to try and think that you know what i want and believe!!!!

when we do come into a united ireland the changes in the demographs of ireland will mean that not only will we have the chance to kick bertie out but also to have more widespread repesentation, the increase in population should be enough to form a new gov so your wrong in that feild.

so do you consider all armies as terrorists???

It wasn't me!

No, but the IRA is not an army either.

I made no presumptions on your beliefs. I merely stated how your inclusion in the republic will be secured, if and when it comes to pass. Supporting the smuggling, child-bombing, drug-dealing scum that is the IRA is to hamstring reasonable nationalism.

Do you consider all terrorist groups armies?

duggie-89

oscarBravo wrote: »

Trust me - on that one you'll never budge me. No, but to discuss it further would be off-topic. Keep trying. That's not a glib answer. If you think the only answer to your situation is to kill someone, you're probably not looking hard enough for your answers. Accepting that innocent deaths will result from your actions is entirely morally equivalent to deciding to kill someone. Sounds like a convincing argument for peaceful methods to me.

Look at the tattered history of this country of ours: how much was achieved by peaceful means? How many people did O'Connell murder? How many deaths did Parnell accept were going to occur as a result of his actions? Rebellion was always met with retribution, and almost every concession was won through political means.

No-one can ever know what would have been, but I remain firmly convinced that the "armed struggle" has held back the cause of northern nationalists by decades.

now for the funny part i dont support the armed campaign i believe in the power of the ballot box and the power we have to change things. but all i am saying is that if someones feels they cant achieve their aims by peaceful means because they are being haressed and forced out then it only makes sense for them to turn to violence.

Von otto Bismark once said "war is a continuation of politcs but in a different guise"

yes i agree politics has won the vast majority of our gains as a nation but what ensured that politic's worked???? the armed campaign which ensured that britain would remember that if politics didn't work we would cause a stir and it also ensured that if britain didn't take the peaceful means seriously and tried to crush us then we would fight back.

and retrubtion was meet with rebellion and so the cycle went on until it was fairly clear they couldn't keep hammering the irish people down.

but i do agree with you i think and that is peace has to work!!!

It wasn't me!

But hammering worked. Our rebellions were crushed, by and large, with very limited success, and we suffered. Penal laws much?

duggie-89

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, but the IRA is not an army either.

I made no presumptions on your beliefs. I merely stated how your inclusion in the republic will be secured, if and when it comes to pass. Supporting the smuggling, child-bombing, drug-dealing scum that is the IRA is to hamstring reasonable nationalism.

Do you consider all terrorist groups armies?

an how do you come to that conclusion??? where the ira aren't an army??? they may not be a conventioal army but and army none the less.

i do support the IRA but the provisionals who decided to move on from that. i do not agree with the rira or the cira or the inla for that matter.

and no i dont consider all "terrorist" groups armies?? but define me what is a terrorist??? what do you believe a terrorist is???

duggie-89

It wasn't me! wrote: »

But hammering worked. Our rebellions were crushed, by and large, with very limited success, and we suffered. Penal laws much?

did it really work????? 1798 got hammered but the rising showed why britain out of ireland needed to happen.

yes the majority of rebellions were crushed but it only takes one to succed for there to be no more.

1916 - a terrible beauty was born and it inspired a generation to rebel aka the black and tan war

yea but again we wouldn't have had to rebel if the penal laws weren't in place lol

Jimbo

duggie-89 wrote: »

i think u shud get the F*** of the fourm then u snide sh.it

so are you saying that 800 years of foreign oppression doesn't justfy a war???

does the ends justfy the means in your opinion???

and passive before you start any dismissal maybe you should think you created the 26 counties??? the ira did so dont throw rocks in a green house!!!

Very mature post :rolleyes:
Get over it FFS

Firetrap

Regardless of what people think of the situation in the north, I can't for the life of me see why stirring things up will help anyone or their causes. Who the hell wants to go out shopping and have British soldiers on the streets? Be worried about loved ones when they go into town in case they get caught up in a car bomb? Feel nervous when someone calls to the door? Is it not better that people have better chances of getting good jobs, can travel around unimpeded, can live relatively normal lives? These morons should get a life instead of trying to bring Northern Ireland back to the bad old days.

Mr.Micro

With the way things have been going in the North, all for the good, it is possible then that Ireland could be unified in about 10 years or so with no border to speak off. IMO I think it is a real possibility, it is certainly not going to achieved by murderers who claim to represent Ireland doing it their way, by terrorism. It never worked and never will. Have the RIRA heard of democracy? Then again democracy is not on their agenda and never was. People will not stand for the terrorists to dictate again, especially as the younger people see what peace and tolerance can achieve.

LordSutch

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With the way things have been going in the North, all for the good, it is possible then that Ireland could be unified in about 10 years or so with no border to speak off.

I cant see the demographics changing that quickly if at all in the coming decades, do you really think that the Unionist/British majority will become the minority within ten years? I certainly cant see it, and neither can the experts who from time to time discuss such things in the media, but maybe in fifty years time the situation might change (or might not)? and with the influx of people from all over the World (will the New Ulstermen vote to stay in the Union? or leave it) I say its too imponderable to say either way ..............

Will we re-join the Commonwealth?

Fratton Fred

duggie-89 wrote: »

1916 - a terrible beauty was born and it inspired a generation to rebel aka the black and tan war

yea but again we wouldn't have had to rebel if the penal laws weren't in place lol

I think you are missing the point. If the Irish had united behind Parnell the Black and tans may never have entered Ireland in the first place.

The demise of Charles Stewart Parnell was a low point for Ireland and an event that may well have cost thousands of people their lives.

Dinter

duggie-89 wrote: »

did it really work????? 1798 got hammered but the rising showed why britain out of ireland needed to happen.

yes the majority of rebellions were crushed but it only takes one to succed for there to be no more.

1916 - a terrible beauty was born and it inspired a generation to rebel aka the black and tan war

yea but again we wouldn't have had to rebel if the penal laws weren't in place lol

No, all of the rebellions were crushed not the majority. If you were referring to the War of Independence then you will know that the IRA was tottering on the verge of defeat at the time of the treaty.

Also what most people, who harp on about the tan war seem to forget is that Arthur Griffiths was leading a simultaneous campaign to subvert the rule of English law. This was done by introducing Irish Courts, an Irish parliament etc. This more than an armed campaign forced the English to consider their position untenable as illustrated by the massive Sinn Fein election success but especially as their tax income dwindled.

Do you honestly think that a country that could throw away nearly 60,000 soldiers in one day at the Somme would be threatened by the piddling casualties the IRA caused?

We never managed to throw off the yoke of English dominion by force of arms from the time it started. Think of the thousands of Irishmen who's lives were squandered in pursuit of that "beauty" you refer to.

Violence has never worked. The Bullet or the Ballot box? It's a pretty clear answer.

Riddle101

What is the point of all the arguing? It's obvious the Brits and the Irish won't have them same opinions since we're all taught a different perspective of History. British People i'm sure were proberly taught about the greatness of Britian and how it was a leading figure in the world until The United States of America. And Irish people are taught about the oppression we've suffered. It's no surprise why theirs arguing but as a person who trying to see the fight from both people's perspective i'm just going to say Shut Up with the mindless arguing. It's obvious British people don't understand the Irish just like the Irish don't understand the Brits so why bother arguing

passive

Riddle101 wrote: »

What is the point of all the arguing? It's obvious the Brits and the Irish won't have them same opinions since we're all taught a different perspective of History. British People i'm sure were proberly taught about the greatness of Britian and how it was a leading figure in the world until The United States of America. And Irish people are taught about the oppression we've suffered. It's no surprise why theirs arguing but as a person who trying to see the fight from both people's perspective i'm just going to say Shut Up with the mindless arguing. It's obvious British people don't understand the Irish just like the Irish don't understand the Brits so why bother arguing

Nice "agree to disagree" policy, but this isn't an argument between British educated Brits and Irish educated Paddys... Most of the people on this forum are Irish and we're opposing the IRA type view of history and lack of regard for human life; regardless (or in spite of) how we were taught the history of the struggle for Irish independance and the Troubles when we were in school.

Dinter

^^^


Although I often lurk here I haven't posted up until now. As far as I can see the point is to have a debate not an argument.

Meant for Riddle101

It wasn't me!

The IRA are terrorists. Bombing civilian targets in order to inspire fear, planning a bombing campaign to drag British soldiers onto Northern Irish streets again, thus provoking fear and aggression, all make them terrorists. They are no army. They do not have a nation backing them. An army needs the backing of a government and they do not have it.

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

and wicknight i do understand where you are coming from but i feel the problem is that it became extremly difficult to hit military targets all the time so the easier option was taken which cant be excused but i still feel the war is justfied!!

Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the war"

Do you mean that a war that could have theoretically been fought to a much higher standard of morality (ie not taking the easy option of terrorism and the selecting of targets with high probability of civilian death)

Or do you mean the war that was actually carried out?

duggie-89

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the war"

Do you mean that a war that could have theoretically been fought to a much higher standard of morality (ie not taking the easy option of terrorism and the selecting of targets with high probability of civilian death)

Or do you mean the war that was actually carried out?

well true its all about defining your words lol

yes i feel if the war was fought to a more british army targerts and targerts that were seen to be british army would have obviously been better but the problem was british troops used alot of local unionist troops and the sorts ie the RUC and the UDR to go on the dangerous patorls and man the hardest checkpoints so that it could be seen as a civil conflict.

so althought i feel ashamed at the level of "easy targerts" i also accept that once they were put in harms way the british had condem the IRA to alot f sectarian killings.

and Dinter you are corect that it wasn't just armed revolt that force them out but it was the the powers of politics which i support, i dont want brit soldiers on the streets but i do accept that they have a right to resist.

and your also correct we haven't been able to throw of the yoke of britain by entirly peaceful means alone!!!

also the thing about the somme was that britain was in a world war and as such it had a great enemy if thoses losses were occuring in ireland then the british public would have been in uproar that "criminals and terrorist" were getting the better of their forces, it would have meant the end of british control in ireland because at the end of the day they could withdraw from ireland the irish people couldn't.

but i feel people are getting the wrong point of me, i dont support the real ira but i do accept their right to resist british rule, i think its entirly the wrong move but hey so do the vast majority of people.

It wasn't me!

Which is why they're terrorists. An army has a mandate from the people. They do not. They proclaim themselves representatives of people who want nothing to do with them or their scummy tactics. They have no right to do any such thing.

They may resist British occupation if they wish, but they can do it through political means. The use of violence, supported by and supporting fuel smuggling and drug dealing, undermines their so-called cause and renders void their credibility.

rigormortis

Has anyone got a definition of "the real IRA"?