Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

TOMASJ · 07-03-2008 4:17pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Try to keep up. I'm not rising to such crude baits.

Would that because they would have had to kill almost everyone in Derry as you would have had a problem finding anyone not supporting the IRA after that particular 'ACCIDENT'

BostonFenian · 07-03-2008 4:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

There aren't grey areas, there are different circumstances. A child without a bomb is not the same as a child with a bomb.

You seem determined to attempt to generalise things out and then attempt to hold general rules over specific events.

I can say with certainty that there was never any circumstance with any of the known IRA attacks that justified the bombing of civilians.

You can invent all the hypothetical of where you think killing a civilian might be justifiable (what if he had a black hole making machine!!), but you are only do this to deflect from having to look at the specific circumstances of the specific attacks that the IRA carried out.

But that is the whole point you are missing. I can state an absolute (for my morality) for the circumstances. You try to get around this by removing the circumstances and trying to generalise. You then try and show that one cannot apply general rules to multiple situations. I agree entirely, but that isn't what I'm doing. I am appling morality to specific circumstances and say This was immoral

This is why I tire so much of these "Oh, what about Mandela" or "Oh what about Israel" questions, not because I don't wish to judge these or apply the same standards, but simply because they are different circumstances.

People seem to think it is a weakness to assess each and every circumstance on its own. I see it as the only fair way of doing it.

I've never claimed violence was never acceptable.

That is simply what you wish people were saying because it is an easy stick to beat someone with because it is not hard to find examples where violence is acceptable

The issue you are voiding is that simply because violence is acceptable in some circumstances doesn't mean it is acceptable in others.

I looked back through the threads, and you're right: you never explicitly said that violence is never acceptable. I also think I confused your opinion with another user who said that good people NEVER make decisions that might kill people, so I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

Now the whole point of the violence discussion was to draw a baseline. If you don't believe that violence is ever acceptable, it's going to be pretty heard to talk about the issue at hand at all, because you can't debate whether it's legitimate resistance or not, if you've already disavowed all violence, in all circumstances.

Now, when I asked you about different cases such as WWII, and an invader coming in with tanks and human shields, you said that in both cases violence was not justified. To be fair, I think you said that about only certain portions of WWII, but still, the world believed the bombing of Germany was the only way to not be conquered themselves, and those bombing campaigns were they only tool they had to stop it.

My opinion is this: if you can't condone WWII attacking Germany as just violence, or a resitance fighter accidentally killing a human shield while trying to get at a deadly invading target, what violence can you justify, because those seem pretty cut and dry decision to me.

Liam Byrne · 07-03-2008 7:14pm

BostonFenian wrote: »

if you can't condone WWII attacking Germany as just violence, or a resitance fighter accidentally killing a human shield while trying to get at a deadly invading target, what violence can you justify, because those seem pretty cut and dry decision to me.

Here we go again......firstly, there's a huge debate whether you can "accidentally" kill people if you've placed a bomb on a busy street; to me that's far from "accidental" - just like a thug who brings a knife into a town on a night out shouldn't be able to claim that he "accidentally" stabbed someone in a scrap later that night - the intent was there.

PLUS, even if we DO somehow manage to give the IRA the benefit of the doubt in this regard, the apologists will scream blue murder if we then give the British the EXACT SAME benefit of the doubt in relation to numerous events like Bloody Sunday.

And therein lies the problem with most IRA apologists; they want us to believe them but they pick holes and attempt to undermine every possible scenario to which we would apply the same logic, ethics and benefit-of-the-doubt to the British.

They can't have it both ways.

Jail the British soldiers who killed people, but don't DARE complain when Gerry goes to visit murderers in Portlaoise :rolleyes:

Add to that many cold-blooded killings (including Detective Gerry McCabe) for which there is NO POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION - just outright criminality and thuggery - and surely you can see why people despise them and their two-faced ideas so much ?

BostonFenian · 07-03-2008 7:27pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here we go again......firstly, there's a huge debate whether you can "accidentally" kill people if you've placed a bomb on a busy street; to me that's far from "accidental" - just like a thug who brings a knife into a town on a night out shouldn't be able to claim that he "accidentally" stabbed someone in a scrap later that night - the intent was there.

PLUS, even if we DO somehow manage to give the IRA the benefit of the doubt in this regard, the apologists will scream blue murder if we then give the British the EXACT SAME benefit of the doubt in relation to numerous events like Bloody Sunday.

And therein lies the problem with most IRA apologists; they want us to believe them but they pick holes and attempt to undermine every possible scenario to which we would apply the same logic, ethics and benefit-of-the-doubt to the British.

They can't have it both ways.

Jail the British soldiers who killed people, but don't DARE complain when Gerry goes to visit murderers in Portlaoise :rolleyes:

Add to that many cold-blooded killings (including Detective Gerry McCabe) for which there is NO POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION - just outright criminality and thuggery - and surely you can see why people despise them and their two-faced ideas so much ?

Well, the IRA in principle were acting as a legitimate resistance to a foreign occupier. I'm saying in principle, as I've already admitted to many of their tactics going too far. To me, there's a huge difference between somebody getting in the crossfire of a legitimate resistance operation, and someone getting caught in the crossfire of an army of occupation operation. That's the fundamental difference.

A resistance organization is by definition patriotically obligated to defend its country. They were given no choice. If someone is hurt during an operation, then the blame lays at the door of the foreign occupying invader who made resistance necessary in the first place by its choice to commit a naked acts of aggression over and over and over again.

Liam Byrne · 07-03-2008 7:47pm

BostonFenian wrote: »

Well, the IRA in principle were acting as a legitimate resistance to a foreign occupier.

Who, precisely, made them "legitimate" ??

A resistance organization is by definition patriotically obligated to defend its country. They were given no choice.

Even assuming that they were "patriotically obligated" to do SOMETHING, they had PLENTY of choice as to WHAT they chose to do.

If someone is hurt during an operation, then the blame lays at the door of the foreign occupying invader who made resistance necessary in the first place by its choice to commit a naked acts of aggression over and over and over again.

Pure bull****. I've stuck with a few of your grey areas so far, but I can't let that one go. If they want to shoot at or bomb the invading force, that's their call and their choice, but the blame for innocent deaths lies is A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that choice, not of the general "NEED TO DO SOMETHING"; the blame lies with those who pulled the triggers/set the timers/parked the car in Omagh, etc.

And, anyway, given the obvious bias in your statement, who decides what's "resistance" and what's "aggression" ? Is bombing London or Omagh "resistance" or "aggression" ? And what about the UK "resistance" and reaction to those acts [of aggression].....is that then justified [by logical extension of your argument, apparently it is] ?

Like I said, there was - originally - a human rights "cause" there that needed SOMETHING to be done, but the choice of method and the "we're always right and they're always wrong" mentality is sickening.

oscarBravo · 07-03-2008 7:48pm

BostonFenian wrote: »

To me, there's a huge difference between somebody getting in the crossfire of a legitimate resistance operation, and someone getting caught in the crossfire of an army of occupation operation. That's the fundamental difference.

What about someone caught in the crossfire between an illegal insurgency and the legitimate defence forces of a sovereign nation?

BostonFenian wrote: »

A resistance organization is by definition patriotically obligated to defend its country.

...whether that country wants it or not. As always, the murderers know best what's good for the rest of us.

BostonFenian wrote: »

They were given no choice. If someone is hurt during an operation, then the blame lays at the door of the foreign occupying invader who made resistance necessary in the first place by its choice to commit a naked acts of aggression over and over and over again.

It's absolute moral cowardice to lay the blame for the deaths of children in Warrington at the feet of people who've been dead for hundreds of years.

Liam Byrne · 07-03-2008 7:53pm

BostonFenian wrote: »

If someone is hurt during an operation, then the blame lays at the door of the foreign occupying invader who made resistance necessary in the first place by its choice to commit a naked acts of aggression over and over and over again.

BTW [and sorry for the double-post]......who or where was the "foreign occupying invader" in Adare when Gerry McCabe was murdered, in a [supposed] attempt to steal OUR money which was being transported between the banks ?

Of course, it's another grey area, isn't it......it was an IRA operation / no it wasn't / yes it was / no it wasn't ["are we in the **** if we broke the ceasefire, or can we manage to get common criminals out of jail even if it wasn't an IRA operation ? Ah, feck it, we'll just wing it and let Gerry get his photos taken with them and campaign for their release anyway" :mad: ]

BostonFenian · 07-03-2008 8:02pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who, precisely, made them "legitimate" ??

Even assuming that they were "patriotically obligated" to do SOMETHING, they had PLENTY of choice as to WHAT they chose to do.

Pure bull****. I've stuck with a few of your grey areas so far, but I can't let that one go. If they want to shoot at or bomb the invading force, that's their call and their choice, but the blame for innocent deaths lies is A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that choice, not of the general "NEED TO DO SOMETHING"; the blame lies with those who pulled the triggers/set the timers/parked the car in Omagh, etc.

And, anyway, given the obvious bias in your statement, who decides what's "resistance" and what's "aggression" ? Is bombing London or Omagh "resistance" or "aggression" ? And what about the UK "resistance" and reaction to those acts [of aggression].....is that then justified [by logical extension of your argument, apparently it is] ?

Like I said, there was - originally - a human rights "cause" there that needed SOMETHING to be done, but the choice of method and the "we're always right and they're always wrong" mentality is sickening.

By originally, I guess you mean the beginning of the Troubles, because when I think of originally, I think of Henry II, or at least Kinsale. I wonder if you think Sarsfield was wrong? From what I read, he felt *obligated* to fight. So now you have a country without an army because it's been under occupation of a foreign power centuries. What options do patriots have? They have to strike from the shadows; it's the only way to take on a vastly superior force and hope to live for the next battle. There's no shame in that, and I for one salute their bravery.

Sure, they had plenty of choices of what to do if getting England out of Ireland wasn't their goal. Otherwise, they weren't leaving without a fight, and it was either that or surrender. While some of the tactics were abominable, it is not a sin to fight for your country under attack.

There wouldn't even be a Republic if it weren't for the IRA. I wonder how you would like your lot if the Brits still had the whole island, unless you think they would have given it all up anyway, if there were no fighting?

BostonFenian · 07-03-2008 8:14pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about someone caught in the crossfire between an illegal insurgency and the legitimate defence forces of a sovereign nation? ...whether that country wants it or not. As always, the murderers know best what's good for the rest of us. It's absolute moral cowardice to lay the blame for the deaths of children in Warrington at the feet of people who've been dead for hundreds of years.

How could a state established by an invading power over the objections of half the people in the country invaded be considered legitimate?

If the formation of a state within a country causes a civil war, it doesn't say much for its political mandate.

A Dub in Glasgo · 07-03-2008 8:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about someone caught in the crossfire between an illegal insurgency

Is there such a thing as a legal insurgency?

TOMASJ · 07-03-2008 10:04pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always, the murderers know best what's good for the rest of us.

I agree with that, the brits have butchered Irish men woman & children at will for centuries.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's absolute moral cowardice to lay the blame for the deaths of children in Warrington at the feet of people who've been dead for hundreds of
years.

The Irish people 'that died' hundreds of years ago, were murdered deliberately, by one of the most greedy corrupt land grabbing regime that ever existed.

Pathfinder · 08-03-2008 12:43am

BostonFenian wrote: »

By originally, I guess you mean the beginning of the Troubles, because when I think of originally, I think of Henry II, or at least Kinsale. I wonder if you think Sarsfield was wrong? From what I read, he felt *obligated* to fight. So now you have a country without an army because it's been under occupation of a foreign power centuries. What options do patriots have? They have to strike from the shadows; it's the only way to take on a vastly superior force and hope to live for the next battle. There's no shame in that, and I for one salute their bravery.

Sure, they had plenty of choices of what to do if getting England out of Ireland wasn't their goal. Otherwise, they weren't leaving without a fight, and it was either that or surrender. While some of the tactics were abominable, it is not a sin to fight for your country under attack.

There wouldn't even be a Republic if it weren't for the IRA. I wonder how you would like your lot if the Brits still had the whole island, unless you think they would have given it all up anyway, if there were no fighting?

Are you aware Sarsfield was an Anglo Royalist ? Fighting for his King not independence, the same as the other Earls.

Pathfinder · 08-03-2008 12:53am

TOMASJ wrote: »

I agree with that, the brits have butchered Irish men woman & children at will for centuries.

The Irish people 'that died' hundreds of years ago, were murdered deliberately, by one of the most greedy corrupt land grabbing regime that ever existed.

How do you know some of your ancestors were not "Brits", and what would you do if they were ?

I saw a tv programme about a black guy who hated whites because of slavery, he went to Africa to trace his roots, he had some genetic tests done and it came back he was 40% white.

Usually such a attitude such as yours is due to a deeper inner problem, which its easier to project into an external anger or hatred.

Reading our Bostonian friends comments what strikes me is the fact he appears culturally rootless, seeking a new mythical identity with a country he has never seen. Once again its a form of escapism.

Erin Go Brath · 08-03-2008 1:00am

PaintingMedium wrote: »

Um I do not really see the point in talking about fictional histories but if thats what you think is correct, then I will humour you.

Might as well mention the alternative history where planters and english all decided that they had caused enough bloodshed and misery on our island, packed up their bags and set sail home to britain. The king and future heads of monarchy in england apologise every six months for the hundreds of years of ethnic cleansing and the stealing of a nation. Then they apologise to every other colony past or present with a specific mention to Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Ah its dreamy! Britain finally apologies for the misery it spread over the world, and asks forgiveness, the world accepts this apology, and a new stronger relationship is born where britain becomes a beacon of forgiveness and good will amongst men!

You are right, talking bo**ocks is much more fun then talking reality!

Good yarn alright PM!

Erin Go Brath · 08-03-2008 1:09am

Pathfinder wrote: »

How do you know some of your ancestors were not "Brits", and what would you do if they were ?

I saw a tv programme about a black guy who hated whites because of slavery, he went to Africa to trace his roots, he had some genetic tests done and it came back he was 40% white.

Usually such a attitude such as yours is due to a deeper inner problem, which its easier to project into an external anger or hatred.

Reading our Bostonian friends comments what strikes me is the fact he appears culturally rootless, seeking a new mythical identity with a country he has never seen. Once again its a form of escapism.

In a recent post in the history section you uttered the following:

""I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc."

You're a fine one to talk about racism indeed! :rolleyes:

TOMASJ · 08-03-2008 1:48am

Pathfinder wrote: »

How do you know some of your ancestors were not "Brits", and what would you do if they were ?

I would move to england

Pathfinder wrote: »

I saw a tv programme about a black guy who hated whites because of slavery, he went to Africa to trace his roots, he had some genetic tests done and it came back he was 40% white.

'And'

Pathfinder wrote: »

Usually such a attitude such as yours is due to a deeper inner problem, which its easier to project into an external anger or hatred.

Are you moderating this oscarBrava

It wasn't me! · 08-03-2008 1:54am

TOMASJ wrote: »

Are you moderating this oscarBrava

Why would he? That was completely innocuous.

TOMASJ · 08-03-2008 2:02am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Why would he? That was completely innocuous.

Awe was it, just that I got 3 infraction for less.

estebancambias · 08-03-2008 2:06am

People, lets just say the IRA attacked England with a major attack, what would you expect the reaction to be?

It wasn't me! · 08-03-2008 2:07am

TOMASJ wrote: »

Awe was it, just that I got 3 infraction for less.

I doubt it. His post was innocuous. Yours here have been reactionary and vitriolic.

TOMASJ · 08-03-2008 2:23am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yours here have been reactionary and vitriolic.

I most likely would have got another for saying that,must by a blind eye being turned to your postings.

It wasn't me! · 08-03-2008 2:27am

No, because telling someone how they're coming across, politely, without using offensive language, is perfectly fine for most people.

TOMASJ · 08-03-2008 2:59am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, because telling someone how they're coming across, politely, without using offensive language, is perfectly fine for most people.

It obviously didn't work in my case,

It wasn't me! · 08-03-2008 3:08am

It didn't happen in your case.

TOMASJ · 08-03-2008 3:26am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It didn't happen in your case.

Are you his (the paras) minder,

can he not speak for himself, they were very good at the talking 'and beating' when they found out what religion you were, at the road checks in the occupied six up to a few years ago.

It wasn't me! · 08-03-2008 3:33am

Just a casual observation. Now, back to your bigotry.

djpbarry · 08-03-2008 12:09pm

TOMASJ wrote: »

I would move to england

:rolleyes: What if you discovered you were 35% Irish, 35% French and 30% English?

Not that that is actually possible, but anyway.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You're a fine one to talk about racism indeed!

How exactly was any of that racist?

Erin Go Brath · 08-03-2008 5:56pm

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: What if you discovered you were 35% Irish, 35% French and 30% English?

Not that that is actually possible, but anyway.
How exactly was any of that racist?

Pathfinders utterings:
"I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds"

Calling women from an area in another country deranged doesn't qualify as rasict

djpbarry · 08-03-2008 6:17pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Calling women from an area in another country deranged doesn't qualify as rasict

It might if that's what he had said; the key word in his statement (as you have quoted it) is some. It's no different to me saying "some people in Dublin are scumbags"; nothing racist about that.

Erin Go Brath · 08-03-2008 6:42pm

djpbarry wrote: »

It might if that's what he had said; the key word in his statement (as you have quoted it) is some. It's no different to me saying "some people in Dublin are scumbags"; nothing racist about that.

Its very different. "used tampons, faeces" etc. Come on, its nothing more than a hate post. Doesnt reflect well on you defending it either.

Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Comments