Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

BostonFenian

gandalf wrote: »

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?

What are you responding to? I didn't make a point about the IRA in this portion of the conversation, and in fact have stated MANY times that I was trying to find out the feelings of two specific people about violence, when it doesn't involve the IRA. But by your last two posts, I can tell you're just picking a fight.

Of course, all I've ever advocated was people who philosophically support a United Ireland organizing a persausive campaign in a political arena. Would you like to tell me how that justifies any of the negative crap you've spewed at me?

Yes, I'm American, but waiting for my citizenship through descent to go through. And then, guess what? I'm moving to Ireland, so you'd better get ready. As far as not being welcome, or regressive, or whatever you want to say - I just say back it up, or debate like a grown up.

PaintingMedium

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.

:rolleyes: You cannot back up any of these points with fact though. It is very easy for someone just to say these things, but they do not make them correct. Hindsight is so easy, like you have shown with this nonsense here. We do not know what would have happened if the IRA did not defend its communities.

djpbarry

PaintingMedium wrote: »

I would not attack Aborigines for standing up...

Remind me, what terrorist tactics have been used by the Aborigine people?

PaintingMedium wrote: »

I really think people do not like defending the IRA actions because it is too close to home.

No, I do not defend the IRA because they are murdering scum.

BostonFenian wrote: »

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.

Are you involved in the drafting of US Foreign Policy by any chance?

BostonFenian wrote: »

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

Of course it is. There is no difference between:

1. deciding to kill someone by shooting them in the head.
2. accepting that someone will die if I leave a bomb beside them.

The end result is the same - someone dies because a conscious decision has been made that they will die.

BostonFenian wrote: »

If anyone's country was invaded, they'd be perfefectly justified in doing whatever was necessary to repel the invaders...

So if France invades Ireland, it would be perfectly ok for me to travel to Paris and torch every orphanage I encounter, if I deem it to be necessary?

BostonFenian wrote: »

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

That depends entirely on what defending oneself entails.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Remind me, what terrorist tactics have been used by the Aborigine people?
No, I do not defend the IRA because they are murdering scum.
Are you involved in the drafting of US Foreign Policy by any chance?
Of course it is. There is no difference between:

1. deciding to kill someone by shooting them in the head.
2. accepting that someone will die if I leave a bomb beside them.

The end result is the same - someone dies because a conscious decision has been made that they will die.
So if France invades Ireland, it would be perfectly ok for me to travel to Paris and torch every orphanage I encounter, if I deem it to be necessary?
That depends entirely on what defending oneself entails.

How did you get going to France and torching orphanages? That's just crazy.

Repeling invaders is a very specific concept, and you can't repel an invader in THEIR country.. seriously. It's hard to even debate if people don't even read and accept the meaning of commonly used terms like repel.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Remind me, what terrorist tactics have been used by the Aborigine people?
No, I do not defend the IRA because they are murdering scum.
Are you involved in the drafting of US Foreign Policy by any chance?
Of course it is. There is no difference between:

1. deciding to kill someone by shooting them in the head.
2. accepting that someone will die if I leave a bomb beside them.

The end result is the same - someone dies because a conscious decision has been made that they will die.

Fortunately for you, people in positions that require them to make decisions of life and death have a more nuanced worldview.

BostonFenian

Ok, open question:

You're the leader of the Devensive Forces of some hypothetical country. You've received intelligence that another country is launching a surprise missile attack.

You have the capability of destroying the missile on the pad, and averting all out war, but if you do, a family nearby might be killed.

Of course, if the missile is allowed to land thousands will be killed of your own citizens, and an inevitable war could kill millions on both sides.

What's the moral decision to make?

It wasn't me!

PaintingMedium wrote: »

:rolleyes: You cannot back up any of these points with fact though. It is very easy for someone just to say these things, but they do not make them correct. Hindsight is so easy, like you have shown with this nonsense here. We do not know what would have happened if the IRA did not defend its communities.

Fact: The Third Home Rule Bill was on the books, delayed by the first world war. While the British were fighting in France, Pearse lost the plot and went nuts in Dublin, resulting in hundreds of deaths, the annihilation of the city centre and the loss of Home Rule as a prospect.

Fact: As a result of the arms race between the Unionist enclaves and the UVF in the north and the Volunteers in the south, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 was drafted and enacted to appease the Unionists and stem the rising threat of violence.

Fact: The Government of Ireland Act is what prevented those debating the Treaty in London coming home with a 32 county republic, and the Volunteers were as responsible as the other side for its existence. (No, don't even try to make the excuse that the UVF also were involved, because firstly, it's irrelevant, and secondly, the volunteers brought in guns first)

Fact: The British Army were deployed in northern Ireland to protect Catholic communities and clashed with the police on numerous occasions. Despite this, militant nationalists still decided to bomb, shoot and otherwise harry them, because they could not resort to the same despicable tactics and the nationalists decided they were the symbol of British empire in the north. As a result, the Army started to take a hard line, as well they should have and anyone would in the situation.

So there, there are a few irrefutable truths for you to swallow. Bitter, perhaps, but if you have them with a slice of humble pie it may help. Crow isn't too bad either.

PaintingMedium

I did not say that they aborigines used violence, I am saying that indiginous groups have the right to defend themselves if they are being attacked or if they have been taken over by another nation.

Yes the IRA has killed people, but every army has, I do not think this is a good thing, but we cannot change the history books to suit ourselves. I would defend the PIRA because it had no choice in the matter. Again, what the hell do you if you cannot get a job, have a vote, get a house, be protected by the state? What do you do if your male relatives are attacked or interned or killed for being nationalists or not even nationalists, just some one asking for equal treatment. That was the reality of life in certain parts of Northern Ireland back then. We should not have to argue about this, this is the past, and we should not have to defend righteous actions.

BostonFenian

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you involved in the drafting of US Foreign Policy by any chance?

Are you involved in dodging the question by any chance?

It wasn't me!

BostonFenian wrote: »

Ok, open question:

You're the leader of the Devensive Forces of some hypothetical country. You've received intelligence that another country is launching a surprise missile attack.

You have the capability of destroying the missile on the pad, and averting all out war, but if you do, a family nearby might be killed.

Of course, if the missile is allowed to land thousands will be killed of your own citizens, and an inevitable war could kill millions on both sides.

What's the moral decision to make?

Note: Attacking a military target would as much as declare of war anyway, so how do you resolve that one?

Riddle101

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.

I'm not calling the troubles in the North a war, i saying War in general. I mean think about it, are you actually saying that World War 2 wasn't a justifiable cause or the War in Afganistan. I don't like war either but sometimes war is nessary when you have no choice, that's all i'm saying. And in no way am i saying that the IRA or Vietnam or Korea are justifiable, but only wars that deal with cases that need to be dealth with. As said before Hitler and his invasion of Poland and other European countries, Afganisatan because the World Trade Centre were hit with planes.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Note: Attacking a military target would as much as declare of war anyway, so how do you resolve that one?

In certain cases that kind of action would take away the surprise and the ability to attack effectively, leading to improved possibility of diplomatic resolution.

Riddle101

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Note: Attacking a military target would as much as declare of war anyway, so how do you resolve that one?

Attack them before they attack you i guess

PaintingMedium

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Fact: The Third Home Rule Bill was on the books, delayed by the first world war. While the British were fighting in France, Pearse lost the plot and went nuts in Dublin, resulting in hundreds of deaths, the annihilation of the city centre and the loss of Home Rule as a prospect.

Fact: As a result of the arms race between the Unionist enclaves and the UVF in the north and the Volunteers in the south, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 was drafted and enacted to appease the Unionists and stem the rising threat of violence.

Fact: The Government of Ireland Act is what prevented those debating the Treaty in London coming home with a 32 county republic, and the Volunteers were as responsible as the other side for its existence. (No, don't even try to make the excuse that the UVF also were involved, because firstly, it's irrelevant, and secondly, the volunteers brought in guns first)

Fact: The British Army were deployed in northern Ireland to protect Catholic communities and clashed with the police on numerous occasions. Despite this, militant nationalists still decided to bomb, shoot and otherwise harry them, because they could not resort to the same despicable tactics and the nationalists decided they were the symbol of British empire in the north. As a result, the Army started to take a hard line, as well they should have and anyone would in the situation.

So there, there are a few irrefutable truths for you to swallow. Bitter, perhaps, but if you have them with a slice of humble pie it may help. Crow isn't too bad either.

Okay, I do not know why you mentioned most of this stuff. It is irrelevant. The main thing is that history turned out the way it is, and we cannot say that if someone did this, that this would have happened etc etc etc its pointless!

You left out a few important details about the British army there. Yes they were welcomed at first, but why do you think that at first communites welcomed them, and then a while later, were hating them. What happened in between? If they were so welcome, and the PIRA so nasty, why did the communites support the PIRA and not the army. This is not normal, what happened inbetween these times to make the nationalist communites go from friends of the army to bitter enemies of the army? I wonder if you can tell me why?

It wasn't me!

If someone has ICBM's or the like, destroying one just makes you the provocateur. Also, to the guy mentioning Afghanistan being justified because of the Twin Towers, I didn't know the bombers wore Afghan military DPM, but thanks for informing me that that's the case. Whatever about Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan was fundamentally immoral.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If someone has ICBM's or the like, destroying one just makes you the provocateur. Also, to the guy mentioning Afghanistan being justified because of the Twin Towers, I didn't know the bombers wore Afghan military DPM, but thanks for informing me that that's the case. Whatever about Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan was fundamentally immoral.

There is a missile about to fly towards you, and the act of destroying it makes you a provacateur? Remember in this scenario, you KNOW it's coming at you. You would seriously take the missile, and let your people die to avoid that label?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around that.

It wasn't me!

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Okay, I do not know why you mentioned most of this stuff. It is irrelevant. The main thing is that history turned out the way it is, and we cannot say that if someone did this, that this would have happened etc etc etc its pointless!

You left out a few important details about the British army there. Yes they were welcomed at first, but why do you think that at first communites welcomed them, and then a while later, were hating them. What happened in between? If they were so welcome, and the PIRA so nasty, why did the communites support the PIRA and not the army. This is not normal, what happened inbetween these times to make the nationalist communites go from friends of the army to bitter enemies of the army? I wonder if you can tell me why?

Irrelevant? What are you, twelve?! We're discussing history, why the IRA campaign was or was not justified, and I made the point that it was useless from its inception because it destroyed the political processes that would leave us a lot further ahead than we currently are. Then I backed it up, so you wrote me off. Thanks for that, learn to debate effectively.

The fallout for the British army came afterthe bloody sunday incident, where, while supervising a demonstration, they were fired upon by an IRA sniper, so the IRA caused that too. Nice to know, eh?

It wasn't me!

BostonFenian wrote: »

There is a missile about to fly towards you, and the act of destroying it makes you a provacateur? Remember in this scenario, you KNOW it's coming at you. You would seriously take the missile, and let your people die to avoid that label?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around that.

I didn't say I would. But from an international point of view, you still instigated the conflict there. You'd have an enormous amount of difficulty proving that the missile you destroyed on the ground, killing civilians in the process, was intended for use against you, so yes, while it would be the pragmatic thing to do, you would be the provocateur in diplomatic terms, and would suffer great political fallout. So, why not destroy it mid-air and not kill people? See, always a better solution.

guinnessdrinker

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Irrelevant? What are you, twelve?! We're discussing history, why the IRA campaign was or was not justified, and I made the point that it was useless from its inception because it destroyed the political processes that would leave us a lot further ahead than we currently are. Then I backed it up, so you wrote me off. Thanks for that, learn to debate effectively.

The fallout for the British army came afterthe bloody sunday incident, where, while supervising a demonstration, they were fired upon by an IRA sniper, so the IRA caused that too. Nice to know, eh?

Take it to the history forum then.

It wasn't me!

Nice input. Ask a mod to move it so.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I didn't say I would. But from an international point of view, you still instigated the conflict there. You'd have an enormous amount of difficulty proving that the missile you destroyed on the ground, killing civilians in the process, was intended for use against you, so yes, while it would be the pragmatic thing to do, you would be the provocateur in diplomatic terms, and would suffer great political fallout. So, why not destroy it mid-air and not kill people? See, always a better solution.

Because you don't have that capability. Do you know how many countries can actually do that? Not very many..

It wasn't me!

Then you bring it to the attention of an international security body, such as the UN or NATO. If your intelligence is good enough to justify launching an attack and declaring war, surely it will persuade an organisation to take multilateral action against the other nation? And they would be able to destroy the missile then in that case. There's still a better solution than unilateral military action. That's pretty much the same as shooting a guy in the street because he looked threatening and had a hand in his pocket. If, on inspection, the corpse is holding a switchblade in his pocket, you're no less the plonker for shooting him without good intelligence. Now, had he produced it and made clear an intention to use it on you, you'd be justified, but as was, you're a plonker.

PaintingMedium

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Irrelevant? What are you, twelve?! We're discussing history, why the IRA campaign was or was not justified, and I made the point that it was useless from its inception because it destroyed the political processes that would leave us a lot further ahead than we currently are. Then I backed it up, so you wrote me off. Thanks for that, learn to debate effectively.

The fallout for the British army came afterthe bloody sunday incident, where, while supervising a demonstration, they were fired upon by an IRA sniper, so the IRA caused that too. Nice to know, eh?

How can you discuss history when you creating a different history, You have just assumed that an alternative reality would have brought us more forward then the actual reality. That is nonsense, we do not know that because it did not happen!! Look at your words, "because it destroyed the political processes that would leave us a lot further ahead than we currently are." That is opinion not history. Admit that firstly!

Your second point does not derseve any response because it has proved blantently false by everyone. Why can you not just admit, a major mess up occured, a few army boys made a huge blunder and went on a shooting spree!
Then we can accept the past and move on. I am not going to defend every PIRA action, that would be stupid. I will easily accept that mistakes have happened and try to learn. Will you not do the same?

It wasn't me!

Opinion? Maybe. Backed up by a lot of evidence and well supported? Certainly. How's that crow?

Yeah, an accident happen. Why'd it happen? Because some dickhead opened fire on a bunch of terrified teenage soldiers. That make it better? no. Explain it somewhat, yeah.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Then you bring it to the attention of an international security body, such as the UN or NATO. If your intelligence is good enough to justify launching an attack and declaring war, surely it will persuade an organisation to take multilateral action against the other nation? And they would be able to destroy the missile then in that case. There's still a better solution than unilateral military action. That's pretty much the same as shooting a guy in the street because he looked threatening and had a hand in his pocket. If, on inspection, the corpse is holding a switchblade in his pocket, you're no less the plonker for shooting him without good intelligence. Now, had he produced it and made clear an intention to use it on you, you'd be justified, but as was, you're a plonker.

You have about twenty minutes, silly. In this scenario, it's a given that you know it's being used on you. This is a thought exercise, and one of the givens is that you are *about* to be attacked. For the purposes of explanation, we'll say you have an asset in country at the missile site, and there is absolutely no doubt that you are about to get hit really hard.

If you let it happen, your people would crucify you. There's just no time for a committee.

It wasn't me!

Then you should do it, but prepare for major backlash, and a campaign that may well kill more of your people than the missile strike. You have to make that call, whether to accept the strike and appeal for international help, or make your own strike and accept that you're going to get rode dry for it.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Then you should do it, but prepare for major backlash, and a campaign that may well kill more of your people than the missile strike. You have to make that call, whether to accept the strike and appeal for international help, or make your own strike and accept that you're going to get rode dry for it.

Hmm well, I'd stop the missile and take my chances. It's pretty easy to tell on inspection what's going on, and if anyone bothered to investigate, it could be determined why that was missile was destroyed on the pad.

In fact, there's no good reason to have a missile on the pad, and most would want to know what was about to happen. Especially if they submitted their intelligence for review.

The real point was to get you to admit there are times when a person makes a decision that may very well kill people to save even more people, and that doesn't make him a bad person.

PaintingMedium

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Opinion? Maybe. Backed up by a lot of evidence and well supported? Certainly. How's that crow?

Yeah, an accident happen. Why'd it happen? Because some dickhead opened fire on a bunch of terrified teenage soldiers. That make it better? no. Explain it somewhat, yeah.

Why are calling me Crow? No need to be aggressive, you seem rather annoyed. Thank you for saying it is opinion, that is that. Opinion is not very useful when we discuss history because it makes us learn nothing new. We should let the facts and the ACTUAL history be written. We do not want to end up like Eoghan Harris now, a big fat joke of a man.

Well, you say someone shot at the soldiers, the witnesses, the journalists, the inquiries and the history says otherwise. But I think you do not really care about that, you seem to be just really willing to defend the army blindly and not admit that can be in the wrong sometimes. A mature person is able to admit that its soldiers can sometimes act like murderous bigots, punish those bigots and move on. We do not have the power to justify everything. So you should not try to justify this murder.

gandalf

BostonFenian wrote: »

What are you responding to? I didn't make a point about the IRA in this portion of the conversation, and in fact have stated MANY times that I was trying to find out the feelings of two specific people about violence, when it doesn't involve the IRA. But by your last two posts, I can tell you're just picking a fight.

Well then this thread is about the IRA and in particular the thugs known as the Real IRA. I take it you are capable of reading the title.

If you want to discuss the above start a new thread :rolleyes:

Of course, all I've ever advocated was people who philosophically support a United Ireland organizing a persausive campaign in a political arena. Would you like to tell me how that justifies any of the negative crap you've spewed at me?

Because you use the double speak that the apologists for terrorist atrocities use all the time. From all sides may I add before you get on your high horse.

Yes, I'm American, but waiting for my citizenship through descent to go through. And then, guess what? I'm moving to Ireland, so you'd better get ready. As far as not being welcome, or regressive, or whatever you want to say - I just say back it up, or debate like a grown up.

So you have admired from afar, I live here and I have lived here for the whole of my life. I have seen what all sides are capable of and from this have seen what the so called struggle has achieved. It delayed getting a solution through barbarism towards ordinary working people.

BostonFenian

gandalf wrote: »

Well then this thread is about the IRA and in particular the thugs known as the Real IRA. I take it you are capable of reading the title.

If you want to discuss the above start a new thread :rolleyes:



Because you use the double speak that the apologists for terrorist atrocities use all the time. From all sides may I add before you get on your high horse.



So you have admired from afar, I live here and I have lived here for the whole of my life. I have seen what all sides are capable of and from this have seen what the so called struggle has achieved. It delayed getting a solution through barbarism towards ordinary working people.

As I said, it was in preparation for a larger point, so this thread is appropriate. Besides, if this thread was to be moderated, I believe some of your attacking, negative statements could be called into question. Name calling is never acceptable.

Yeah, I guess it's fair to say I've admired from afar. I have no problem with that statement. However, you call me an apologist, but you clearly know nothing about me.

I simply believe Ulster is part of Ireland and would like to work towards that once I have the vote. I have no stomach for violence, but I answered honestly when someone asked me what my views were about different groups of people using violence to further their ends. I answered honestly, knowing it was a trap, and sure enough all people wanted to talk about were the tangential points.

Let's be clear and talk facts.

1) I most certainly do advocate a united Ireland.
2) I do not, nor have I ever advocated violence in NI since I've been closely following the issue.

You can call me any names you like but it doesn't change the fact that I'm a decent, moral person who happens to believe Ulster belongs to Ireland, and the vitriol just damages your own claim to a moral position, when you can't even be respectful to people trying to have a civilized debate.