Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bugging device found
Options
Comments
-
What right would this be?Suffice to say that the unearthing of yet another intelligence gathering device clearly illustrates that the war against those who articulate the right of the Irish people to National Sovereignty continues in government(s) circles.
(apologies if this has been asked already but I got bored reading the usual twaddle after page 3)0 -
i will never stomach an irish system that criminalises and abandons its fellow irishmen
I presume you don't mean in general, as this would mean that there would be no such thing as a criminal. I presume you mean "I will never stomach an Irish system that criminalises and abandons its fellow Irishmen on political grounds".
A state criminalising people for their political views is always tricky ground but I think it is justified when any of the following are true statements about a political viewpoint:- It advocates or condones illegal acts.
- It advocates insurrection, rebellion or any other change of government other than that which is legally allowed.
- It disputes the authority of the state to define that which is and is not illegal.
A state abandoning those it represents is unacceptable, but I don't see how the Irish state has abandoned republicans. It certainly treats them with contempt, but that's understandable given that they advocate/condone acts which the state has deemed to be illegal.
As for (some flavours of) republicans not recognising the Irish state as it currently is, well they may as well not recognise the sky. It's an objective fact, not a matter for opinion. The sooner those republicans wake up and try and make changes they want within the framework of the Irish state the better for both them and the rest of us.0 -
I presume you don't mean in general, as this would mean that there would be no such thing as a criminal. I presume you mean "I will never stomach an Irish system that criminalises and abandons its fellow Irishmen on political grounds".
A state criminalising people for their political views is always tricky ground but I think it is justified when any of the following are true statements about a political viewpoint:- It advocates or condones illegal acts.
- It advocates insurrection, rebellion or any other change of government other than that which is legally allowed.
- It disputes the authority of the state to define that which is and is not illegal.
As for (some flavours of) republicans not recognising the Irish state as it currently is, well they may as well not recognise the sky. It's an objective fact, not a matter for opinion. The sooner those republicans wake up and try and make changes they want within the framework of the Irish state the better for both them and the rest of us.
i have read what you have wrote thoughly, and although there is some i agree whit there is still alot i wont.
firstly Nelson Mandela was deemed a dangerous criminal, was he??? no but it didn't stop the state demonising him as one.
where the people of barsa who rebeled against saddam in the first gulf war criminals???
were the free french who carried out acts which the nazi's deemed as being crimes???
where the african americans during the 60's who demanded civil rights criminals??? no but they were all deemed to be because the state said they were because they opposed the status quo.
as for your third bullet point i am not quite sure what it means but i think it means those who set up another gov and refuses to recoginse the right of smaller nations to be free. can i just ask where do you stand on the whole kosovo issuse???
also i would maybe encourage you to think openly why many republicans have took so long to walk away from violence, but to help you maybe you should look up section 31 of RTE and how they banned republicans from appearing on tv or being interview (censorship, is that not abandoning a people?) also many republicans were under special surveilance during the H-Block protests because they were "showing sympthay to a terrorist group" even thought many were protesting for basic civil rights.
the heavy squad who were brought in for interogating republicans during the troubles and haressing them. the south gov for many years have done little to allow republicans to express their views and opinions. also internment wasn't only something that happened in the north.0 -
But they are the epitome of it to a generation. When many/most people think republican, they think SF/IRA. They don't even think of other modern day republican groups like the INLA/RSF etc.people should remember that republicanism did not begin with the provos.
Some republicans are terrorists.republicans are not terrorists,if you thin so that is your opinion and it should be respected...
Ok, the FACT is that ALL INLA members are criminals, merely by being a member as being a member of that organisation is in itself a criminal offence in this country. Do you dispute this FACT?what i dont like is when the republican side such as the inla are called drug dealing criminals...no member was EVER convicted of a drug offense..this is FACT...people here use personal opinion and sensationalism instead of fact0 -
LAME! Section 31 was brought in BECAUSE the IRA were blowing people to pieces long after the civil rights movement's aims had been achieved! You republican types who try to justify the IRA's 30 year campaign on civil rights grounds which were sorted by the mid 70's sicken me. You try to limpet yourselves onto an organisation that commanded respect, like Ghandi and the black civil rights movement in he states.also i would maybe encourage you to think openly why many republicans have took so long to walk away from violence, but to help you maybe you should look up section 31 of RTE and how they banned republicans from appearing on tv or being interview (censorship, is that not abandoning a people?)0 -
Advertisement
-
firstly Nelson Mandela was deemed a dangerous criminal, was he??? no but it didn't stop the state demonising him as one.
I don't know the full story, but if he was convicted of a crime by the courts in South Africa then he was, by definition, a criminal.where the people of barsa who rebeled against saddam in the first gulf war criminals???
If they were convicted by the courts in Iraq then, by definition, they were criminals. (I suspect they were just slaughtered out of hand, but that's a whole other debate.)were the free french who carried out acts which the nazi's deemed as being crimes???
Same as above.where the african americans during the 60's who demanded civil rights criminals??? no but they were all deemed to be because the state said they were because they opposed the status quo.
Same as above.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't bitch about being defined a criminal when you break the laws of a jurisdiction even if those laws are unjust. If you believe the laws are unjust, then you should campaign to change them but only within the framework of those laws.as for your third bullet point i am not quite sure what it means
What I was trying to say was that I think it's OK for a state to make non-recognition of the authority of that state a crime. It's like the way it's considered contempt of court to not recognise the court here.but i think it means those who set up another gov and refuses to recoginse the right of smaller nations to be free. can i just ask where do you stand on the whole kosovo issuse???
I don't know enough about Kosovo/Kosova to comment properly.
If they achieved their independence by peaceful means then that's OK. If they did it by violence or intimidation then it's not. From what I gather it's yet another case of "let's set up a state for our ethnic group" which IMO is utter silliness. Creating states on ethnic grounds is terribly divisive.also i would maybe encourage you to think openly why many republicans have took so long to walk away from violence,
I suspect it was because they thought violence was both useful and justifiable. They were wrong on both counts. It's a pity it took them so long to realise that (and it's ridiculous that some still think that way, really they are slow to catch on).but to help you maybe you should look up section 31 of RTE and how they banned republicans from appearing on tv or being interview (censorship, is that not abandoning a people?)
I wouldn't categorise it as abandonment. That said, I disagree with censoring them as I don't like censorship.also many republicans were under special surveilance during the H-Block protests because they were "showing sympthay to a terrorist group" even thought many were protesting for basic civil rights.
Two points on this:- IMO, surveillance of anybody thought to be connected to a criminal organisation is OK provided that there is judicial oversight and it is stopped if it becomes clear that the person is not in fact connected with any criminal organisation.
- The UK did that, not Ireland, and I was responding to Rossibaby's: "i will never stomach an irish system that criminalises and abandons its fellow irishmen".
the heavy squad who were brought in for interogating republicans during the troubles and haressing them.
I don't agree with violence by state security services against criminals (apart from the necessary to subdue riots, imminent attacks and the like).
That said, if republicans wanted my sympathy they wouldn't use violence against them as an excuse for advocating, condoning or committing acts of violence. "But teacher, he hit me first" doesn't cut it.the south gov for many years have done little to allow republicans to express their views and opinions.
Other than the RTE censorship, what else have they done?also internment wasn't only something that happened in the north.
I know, I don't agree with that either.0 -
i will never stomach an irish system that criminalises and abandons its fellow irishmen
- What if those "fellow irishmen" are drug-dealers or paedophiles ?
- What if they are murderers ?
- What if the accepted view of the majority is that they are murderers, but only their followers view them as patriots ?
I've said it a million times, I won't agree with but I will respect the rights of someone who's oppressed or discriminated against to "fight back".....
BUT (to use your own phrase) I will never stomach a fellow irishman that views it acceptable to kill innocent people.
Of course, all hardened criminals should be "abandoned" in jail, but unfortunately they're not - today's politically-correct society has them living better than most hardworking poor people.
The end DOES NOT justify the means, and in fact it tarnishes the whole movement.0 -
I don't know the full story, but if he was convicted of a crime by the courts in South Africa then he was, by definition, a criminal.
Put simply lad, that's a load of b*llocks.The point I'm trying to make is that you can't bitch about being defined a criminal when you break the laws of a jurisdiction even if those laws are unjust. If you believe the laws are unjust, then you should campaign to change them but only within the framework of those laws.
Basically what you are saying here is that the state is always in the right no matter what, that the authority and moral superiority of a given state is always paramount and any opposition to that state is inherently criminal, or unjust. Even in South Africa, where the state represented the wishes of a minority and violently oppressed a majority; you feel that the majority were somehow obligated to pursue their grievance through a state which treated them like sh*t.
Such thinking belongs in the 19th century to be honest. Those who bypass a state or revolt against a state are not necessarily wrong, and in the case of Ireland or South Africa, they certainly weren't criminal.0 -
In the case of South Africa, several members of the ANC were indeed criminals, as they were only too willing to resort to violence.Those who bypass a state or revolt against a state are not necessarily wrong, and in the case of Ireland or South Africa, they certainly weren't criminal.
In the case of Ireland, the vast majority of those who "revolted" against the sate (and I am assuming you are referring to violent revolt), were MOST DEFINITELY criminals.0 -
Put simply lad, that's a load of b*llocks.
Basically what you are saying here is that the state is always in the right no matter what, that the authority and moral superiority of a given state is always paramount and any opposition to that state is inherently criminal, or unjust. Even in South Africa, where the state represented the wishes of a minority and violently oppressed a majority; you feel that the majority were somehow obligated to pursue their grievance through a state which treated them like sh*t.
Such thinking belongs in the 19th century to be honest. Those who bypass a state or revolt against a state are not necessarily wrong, and in the case of Ireland or South Africa, they certainly weren't criminal.
:rolleyes:
I was trying to separate the notion of "criminal" and "justified".
Criminal = Someone who has committed a crime.
Whether or not they were justified in committing the crime does not make them any more or less of a criminal. Since being a member of an illegal organisation is a crime here, anyone who is a member of one is a criminal. There is no argument to be had there.
Now if you want to argue that the IRA/INLA/MK/PFJ were justified in their violent actions then (in my opinion) they would have to satisfy all of the following conditions:- There would have to be absolutely 0% chance of a peaceful, political settlement.
- They would have to have the overwhelming (I'd say 90%+) support of the population they claim to be fighting for (in the case of the IRA/INLA this would be all people in the 32 counties).
- They would limit their attacks to the government/military of the oppressor and would design their attacks to minimise collateral casualties.
- They would cease hostilities immediately if the other side agreed to negotiate.
None of the terrorist groups in the north satisfy those conditions, so IMO their actions were/are unjustified. (Oh, just so we're clear, even if they did satisfy all of the conditions they'd still be criminals.)0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »- What if those "fellow irishmen" are drug-dealers or paedophiles ?
- What if they are murderers ?
- What if the accepted view of the majority is that they are murderers, but only their followers view them as patriots ?
I've said it a million times, I won't agree with but I will respect the rights of someone who's oppressed or discriminated against to "fight back".....
BUT (to use your own phrase) I will never stomach a fellow irishman that views it acceptable to kill innocent people.
any true republican would totally agree.i dont condone innocent people being killed nor would any decent republican.infact im sure if you look back over the years there will be qutie a few innocent people killed by the british,alot more than republicans thats for sure and thats not including the loyalist paras:(in short,people have misconceptions of republicans,we do not agree with civilians being hurt or killed...and that is never the intention but sometimes in armed conflict accidents happen and mistakes occur.if you want to look at innocent people being killed,what about the same country which occupies us killing civilians in iraq
Of course, all hardened criminals should be "abandoned" in jail, but unfortunately they're not - today's politically-correct society has them living better than most hardworking poor people.
The end DOES NOT justify the means, and in fact it tarnishes the whole movement.
1.please dont compare republicans to paedophiles and drug dealers,this is an outrageous statement
2.what do you mean by murderers,killing of innocent people or is killing a member of the crown forces who occupy your country and have forced themselves into are daily lives through violence?
3.would you change your opinion if you believed it right and stop fighting for what you believe in because people tell you to?a person calling you wrong doesnt make you wrong or belittle your beliefs in any way.people have short memories in ireland,in many peoples lifetimes on this board the brits denied the nationalists in the north basic human rights...and what about bloody sunday,and the hundreds of years before this.because people have apathy towards republicanism does not belittle my beliefs nor sway my opinion.the martyrs of 1916 didnt have public support,nowhere near it,yet even bertie celebrates them every easter.ironic that if they were alive they would spit on him for abandoning the struggle <mod snip>
any true republican would totally agree.i dont condone innocent people being killed nor would any decent republican.infact im sure if you look back over the years there will be qutie a few innocent people killed by the british,alot more than republicans thats for sure and thats not including the loyalist paras:(in short,people have misconceptions of republicans,we do not agree with civilians being hurt or killed...and that is never the intention but sometimes in armed conflict accidents happen and mistakes occur.if you want to look at innocent people being killed,what about the same country which occupies us killing civilians in iraq
criminals should have the right to proper health care 24/7,have the right to educate themselves there and attempts should be made to rehabilitate them.dont blame republicans because our health care system is a joke and prisoners get better treatment than many tax paying civilians...blame FF,PD's and there disasterous and on some levels right wingpolicies with regard to health...republicans belief in a socialist ireland and that means a socialist health care system where everyone no matter what income is treated fairly and not subjected to a year on a waiting list or kept in a trolley over night:cool:0 -
1.please dont compare republicans to paedophiles and drug dealers,this is an outrageous statement
the smell of denial in here is getting fairly bad ....
In very recent times there have been a couple of cases where people wanted/suspected of the above crimes have hidden behind membership of republican paramilitary organisations, namely SF/IRA
There was one in particular concerning paedophilia within the last year and a half. I'd need to find the story but I am eyeball deep in work, so someone else will have to dredge it up.
So it is quite perfectly reasonable to compare since "their" rank and file include paedophiles and drug dealers.0 -
Seems to me you just condoned the killing of civilians by the IRA.i dont condone innocent people being killed
...
people have misconceptions of republicans,we do not agree with civilians being hurt or killed...and that is never the intention but sometimes in armed conflict accidents happen and mistakes occur.
Condone: to disregard or overlook; to pardon, forgive or excuse.
So presumably, you would prefer the health care system in the UK (including Northern Ireland) to that in Ireland?republicans belief in a socialist ireland and that means a socialist health care system where everyone no matter what income is treated fairly and not subjected to a year on a waiting list or kept in a trolley over night0 -
but sometimes in armed conflict accidents happen and mistakes occur.
was killing old men in a church in Darkley an accident (we only meant to scare them, honest) or a mistake (it looked like an army observation post, honest)?
Ditto detonating a bomb in a packed bar in Ballykelly.
This accidents (or were they mistakes
?) were carried by murderers (in your words, 'armed wing') attached to your organisation 0 -
Where do you reckon I did that ? I did not compare "republicans" per se - only those who have killed innocent people via the actions that they decided to take. In addition, much of the "funding" for the IRA and similar organisations came from criminal activities, so it is not an "outrageous statement"; you said that the system shouldn't abandon fellow irishmen.......I provided examples of crimina activities where as a direct consequence of their choices people deserve to be abandoned......respect and rights shouldn't be tied to "who you are", they should be tied to (and removed) based on your actions and choices.1.please dont compare republicans to paedophiles and drug dealers,this is an outrageous statement2.what do you mean by murderers,killing of innocent people or is killing a member of the crown forces who occupy your country and have forced themselves into are daily lives through violence?
Killing of innocent people is wrong. Period. That is definitely murder.
Directly targetting a perceived enemy is a grey area, but could possibly be justified; and that's all the leeway I'm giving; I don't condone violence, but I didn't go through some of the crap that people affected did, so I can't make that call (e.g. if someone raped my sister or niece I'd probably feel like killing them - but I wouldn't kill their mother or cousin or an innocent bystander and I wouldn't go robbing banks under the guise of raising funds to hire the hit-man to kill them).3.would you change your opinion if you believed it right and stop fighting for what you believe in because people tell you to?a person calling you wrong doesnt make you wrong or belittle your beliefs in any way.
Y'see, there's the usual republican argument again; hiding an invalid point within a valid one. No-one's objecting to "fighting for what you believe in"; no-one's belittling any beliefs......it's the methods that were chosen to "fight for" those beliefs that most people despise. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Someone mentioned South Africa......it was illegal for black people to get on buses or whatever. I have no problem with someone breaking a dodgy law and standing up for their rights and getting on the bus. But if the black person killed an innocent white person and threw them off the bus in order to get their seat, or blew up the bus (and its innocent passengers) because they weren't allowed on it, then THAT'S wrong.
"the brits".....is that the general public or the powers-that-be ? Be specific about who you're talking about (and, if you still feel the urge, target them and I'll at least understand your position) but don't generalise when deciding who to blow up.the brits denied the nationalists in the north basic human rights
P.S. The basic human right is the right to life. How many innocent people were denied that ? Two wrongs don't make a right....and what about bloody sunday,and the hundreds of years before this.
The apathy is caused by the fact that it is now practically impossible to even nod support towards the ideas without being perceived to condone the violence, criminality and murders.because people have apathy towards republicanism does not belittle my beliefs nor sway my opinion.
Ah yes, martyrs......people who gave their lives in the earlier struggle, as opposed to people who abandon a bomb-loaded car in a busy street and leg it in case they get caught......bit of a difference there, isn't there ?the martyrs of 1916 didnt have public support,nowhere near it,yet even bertie celebrates them every easter
Great. At least we agree on something. And as a result I'm not sure who you mean by "decent republican", since most of them make excuses or try to justify it or blame the security forces for not responding.i dont condone innocent people being killed nor would any decent republican.
Let's ask another related question - do you condone actions that have a high probability of leading to innocent people being killed, and would you accept responsibility for those actions if the "security forces" didn't clear the area in time ? Therein might lie the difference between us.infact im sure if you look back over the years there will be qutie a few innocent people killed by the british,alot more than republicans thats for sure and thats not including the loyalist paras:
Irrelevant. We will take that argument up with them. Lives should not be a case of tit-for-tat.(in short,people have misconceptions of republicans,we do not agree with civilians being hurt or killed...and that is never the intention but sometimes in armed conflict accidents happen and mistakes occur.
Again, double-speak.....you dismissively say "mistakes occur", while getting all hot-and-bothered about "quite a few innocent people killed by the british"......would you accept it if they said that those were "mistakes" ???
Holy **** - something else we agree on! But in fact it proves my point precisely.......was Saddam a scumbag / thug oppressing people ? Yup. Did he deserve to be taken out ? Yup. Is the method used to try and achieve that the right one ? No. Are the U.S. and the U.K. directly responsible for the deaths you speak of.....you seem to think so, as do I, even though even I would admit that the "aim" was a good thing.if you want to look at innocent people being killed,what about the same country which occupies us killing civilians in iraq
So basically, you're agreeing that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deaths are wrong, and the U.K. is responsible ? Even though what they were trying to achieve would have been a good thing ? Can you see the irony in that ?republicans belief in a socialist ireland and that means a socialist health care system where everyone no matter what income is treated fairly and not subjected to a year on a waiting list or kept in a trolley over night:cool:
Yup, if we had a proper health system all those poor kneecapped and bomb-injured people would have been treated more quickly and wouldn't have had to be on a trolley overnight.....
Of course, if no-one had bombed or kneecapped them, they mightn't have needed to use the healthcare system at all! :rolleyes:0 -
Colonial rulers? this 'New Fashion' to look upon Ireland as an ex-colony irks me, Ireland never was a 'Colony' in the true sence of the meaning.
It was actually Ireland (North & South) who created the 'Colonies' in far flung places across the globe (along with the English, Scots, & Welsh)..
Sorry to go off topic, but this 'New' Colonial thing needs to be addressed as it seems to be invading & pervading every historical topic that involves Ireland, and I just hate non factual 'Retro-History'.
Well Adam F, in university i did both History and sociology and most the academic works i read and many of the academics in the univeristy were of this view and backed it up .
briefly if you look up the definitions of a colony you will find they match.
1. settlers from dominating country, settled on convinscated land of indigenous inhabitents. Yes
2. Foregin legal system imposed. yes
3.foregin religion imposed. Yes
4.indigenous population did not enjoy full citizen ship, yes
5. trade restriction were imposed which benefit the dominant country. again yes.
Please dont accuse me of non factual rhetro history, its simply not true. maybe you should do a lot more detailed and indepth search of the subject, looking at various different points of view before you come to a conclusion.0 -
Really? Insofar as "citizenship" existed for anyone in 19th century UK, how did it differ for the Irish?daithicarr wrote: »4.indigenous population did not enjoy full citizen ship, yes0 -
by that it means it didnt enjoy they same rights as the settler population, they were unable to vote, hold many and most public offices, carry arms etc. they were denied the rights the people of england and the british settlers in Ireland were denied.
This is way off topic and past wrongs to us dont justify present or future wrongs by small groups of militants claiming to act in the name of the irish people with no democratic mandate.
Why does the INLA still exist, whats its purpose??0 -
Quote from IRLConor : "The point I'm trying to make is that you can't bitch about being defined a criminal when you break the laws of a jurisdiction even if those laws are unjust. If you believe the laws are unjust, then you should campaign to change them but only within the framework of those laws."
I feel I have to disagree with you on this one Conor. I do believe in some cases - no I don't want to go into detail discussing a couple of millenia of civilisation as we know it - that there's such a thing as justified violence or use of force in a political context be it by states, governments or civilians.0 -
meathstevie wrote: »I do believe......that there's such a thing as justified violence or use of force in a political context be it by states, governments or civilians.
But it surely depends on whether you target those you are rebelling against or innocent civilians, no ?
I mean, would so many people be against Iraq war if the only people that had been killed were Saddam and his henchmen ? If innocent people hadn't been bombed and viewed as "collateral damage" ?0 -
Advertisement
-
meathstevie wrote: »Quote from IRLConor : "The point I'm trying to make is that you can't bitch about being defined a criminal when you break the laws of a jurisdiction even if those laws are unjust. If you believe the laws are unjust, then you should campaign to change them but only within the framework of those laws."
I feel I have to disagree with you on this one Conor. I do believe in some cases - no I don't want to go into detail discussing a couple of millenia of civilisation as we know it - that there's such a thing as justified violence or use of force in a political context be it by states, governments or civilians.
Sorry, yeah, I did try to clarify that in post #71.0
Advertisement