Question for Republicans (of the Irish variety)

marco murphy

ejmaztec wrote: »

Given that Sinn Fein is trying to re-establish itself in mainstream Irish politics, as a party to be respected, do any hardline republicans think that they are doing SF any favours by constantly dragging up the past? The association of SF and the IRA during the troubles is probably the reason for there not being more SF TDs. The less voters are reminded of the past, the more chance SF stands of making future progress.

Are you refering to those who are violently anti-GFA? If so they would want nothing less than to discredit SF in any way.

I am not asking for Republicans to come out in favor of the Iraq war, I am just disappointed that they seem to be taking sides with our enemies. As the saying goes-"when the chips are down you find out who your friends are".

Taking sides with enemies? What enemies?

Sand

They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it. They have chips on their shoulder that can be seen from space.

And you're bothered that they dont support you? Who the hell needs their support exactly? The question you need to ask is why you bothered supporting them?

ejmaztec

Sand wrote: »

They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it. They have chips on their shoulder that can be seen from space.

And you're bothered that they dont support you? Who the hell needs their support exactly? The question you need to ask is why you bothered supporting them?

Sorry, but who is this addressed to?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the OP, Sand is too awesome to deal with 2 pages of ****e.

Erin Go Brath

ejmaztec wrote: »

Given that Sinn Fein is trying to re-establish itself in mainstream Irish politics, as a party to be respected, do any hardline republicans think that they are doing SF any favours by constantly dragging up the past? The association of SF and the IRA during the troubles is probably the reason for there not being more SF TDs. The less voters are reminded of the past, the more chance SF stands of making future progress.

Its in hardline or 'dissident republicans' interest to undermine SF and their strategy as much as possible. The resason being leaders of rsf, 32csm etc seek to gain members, and logically a lot of these people will be disillusioned SFers not happy with the direction the party is taking who may want to defect. Dissidents from my experience seem to have a pathalogical hatred of Adams/McGuinness and would only be too happy to see the fall of SF.

Erin Go Brath

Sand wrote: »

They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it. They have chips on their shoulder that can be seen from space.

And you're bothered that they dont support you? Who the hell needs their support exactly? The question you need to ask is why you bothered supporting them?

No they didn't deliberately set out to murder kids, but don't let that get in the way of a good sensationalist rant. :rolleyes: Cause and effect. If there was no British occupation, gerrymandering, collusion etc etc there would be no provos nor a need for such an organisation to grow. You also have to ask yourself why SF are doing so well in the north. The people trust and support them to do the right thing, and have mandated SF to represent them in large numbers.

dlofnep

To the OP - There is a stark difference between America's struggle and the Irish Republican struggle. Irish Republicans were only ever trying to gain free will for their own Island - America was aggressive in a international medium. With 100,000's dead in Iraq - There is no way I could ever support that war, which was no doubt - a resource war.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's incorrect. The greater Republican movement supports a peaceful route to a balanced and united Ireland. It is disingenuous to label Republicans as terrorists. I am not a terrorist and I do not support an armed campaign in Ireland.

Your view on Republicanism is the cliché, ignorant and often splurted view on Republicans by mainstream media. It is false and not even close to the truth.

As for Republicanism in the past, It's really hard to try and put yourself in the frame of mind of someone who took part in the war. Many had family members murdered, and as a result - launch attacks on British military. They tried to march and protest peacefully, and where did it get them? Lifeless on the streets of Derry. This is the cold and harsh reality of the situation. People are awfully judgmental to these people, without ever giving it a chance to try and understand the cause and the circumstances provided. It's very easy to judge from the comfort of your cushty life - But it wasn't a cushty day to day scenario for those involved.

I think the biggest mistake anyone ever made in that war was to let the life of any civilians to be taken. As the innocent lives were taken on both sides, it just increased the divide between the people, and that turned into tit for tat killing.

I think we as Republicans need to accept responsibility for the innocent unionist lives lost in our blind rage against the British system. While I make no apologies for attacks on an aggressive and disgusting British military - I can never attempt to justify the deaths of innocent, everyday unionists.

Some of the public have already made up their mind on Republicans, as evident above. That is a stigma that will always surround us - But we push on because our belief and convictions are strong.

marco murphy

Sand wrote: »

They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it. They have chips on their shoulder that can be seen from space.

And you're bothered that they dont support you? Who the hell needs their support exactly? The question you need to ask is why you bothered supporting them?

I think its very clear who has the chip on the shoulder and it's not the IRA. You seem to be confusing provos with those against the GFA. Celebrated for setting out to murder children, catch on. And in reality, you must not know what you're talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31wa5BTFO-E&feature=related

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Sands: They're provos. They deliberately set out to murder kids and celebrate themselves as heros for doing it. They have chips on their shoulder that can be seen from space.

Capable too of "surgical strikes" against an "enemy force" (British Army's Parachute Regiment) with no "collateral damage" inflicted on the surrounding population. Location: Narrow Water, Co. Down, 27 August 1979. . Oops! Sorry! Did I use a load of "Americanisms" there so beloved on Fox News?

stovelid

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Capable too of "surgical strikes" against an "enemy force" (British Army's Parachute Regiment) with no "collateral damage" inflicted on the surrounding population. Location: Narrow Water, Co. Down, 27 August 1979. . Oops! Sorry! Did I use a load of "Americanisms" there so beloved on Fox News?

Just say 'Warrenpoint' instead of Narrow Water otherwise your chucky chest-beating sh*te will go over everyone's head, mate.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

Your view on Republicanism is the cliché, ignorant and often splurted view on Republicans by mainstream media. It is false and not even close to the truth.......Many had family members murdered, and as a result - launch attacks on British military.

Self delusion there, dlofnep ? Was the bomb in Omagh an "attack on British military" ? Or numerous other ones ?

I think the biggest mistake anyone ever made in that war was to let the life of any civilians to be taken.

AMAZINGLY and ASTONISHINGLY passive voice....."let the life of..." :rolleyes: Now if you'd said that the biggest mistake was to "TAKE the life of...." then I'd probably respect your view.

LETTING something happen is equivalent to watching person A mug person B on the street without intervening.

What BOTH SIDES did on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS (i.e. it wasn't a one-off "mistake" or "misjudgement") was mug person B themselves....

No room for passive voice there, and you're either for that or against it.

I've said it before, I could partially - uncomfortably, but in the context of "the troubles" I could kindof see the logic of attacking invaders directly, similar to Iraqis attacking U.S. Troops being understandable - and I so could probably turn a blind eye if it WAS the British military that were solely and specifically targetted.

But they weren't. So quit with the passive voice.

If anyone is to respect and support a republican view that the British troops should to be held responsible for any atrocities they committed, then the republicans need to lay off the "it happened" and face up to the atrocities that THEY committed.....

Then, when we can judge like-by-like actions without being labelled provos or west-Brits, we'll have made progess.

Murder is murder; killing innocents is killing innocents. REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES / DID IT.

marco murphy

stovelid wrote: »

Just say 'Warrenpoint' instead of Narrow Water otherwise your chucky chest-beating sh*te will go over everyone's head, mate.

People like you with posts like this that turn this forum into mush. Can you not just stop yourself posting agressive and reactionary crap and concentrate on the topic itself?

Sand

the OP, Sand is too awesome to deal with 2 pages of ****e.

Two pages of ****e I might wade through, five? Sorry, nope.

No they didn't deliberately set out to murder kids, but don't let that get in the way of a good sensationalist rant.

Provos throwing nail bombs into resteraunts full of families out for a meal? Balcombe Street Gang, greeted like rock stars by the Provos. Provos putting bombs together in houses with children in them [ premature explosion - two 9 year old girls killed there in just one such case]? Provo sniper shooting a 1 year old child in her pram? Provos killing a 2 year old child and a newborn child in a bombing of a furnishing company? A ****ing furnishing company?!?! Another Provo sniper shoots an 8 year old child. A 15 year old shot by a Provo sniper walking along a street. Another new born killed by a car bomb with little warning given, also a 15 year old and a 14 year old.

The list goes on and on and on - thats only up to 1972. You might say some were accidents, but whats accidental about throwing nail bombs into family resteraunts? Whats accidental about putting childrens lives at risk putting unstable bombs together in their homes? Bombing shops where familes will be, or streets along which they walk, or shooting kids? And none of the men who carried out such acts were ever investigated or punished by the Provos - implicit approval.

Hell, we havent even mentioned the Provos taking mens families hostage to force them to act as suicide car bombers.

But Ive had this conversation before to be honest. You believe the bold boys of the IRA are some band of brave guerillas skipping from misty glen to misty glen, robbing from the protestant rich and giving to the catholic poor. And reality will never enter threaten that image, because you can always fall back on the "Shure, whattabout...."

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Self delusion there, dlofnep ? Was the bomb in Omagh an "attack on British military" ? Or numerous other ones ?

Firstly - How does the Omagh bombing backup the initial claim that all Republicans are terrorists?

The Omagh bomb attack was a disgusting act against the people of Ireland. I'm not sure what it has to do with my statement however or the Republican movement which I follow? I don't support the Real IRA. I never have. I support, like the majority of Republicans - a peaceful route to Irish Unity.

You see, it's comments like that above that show how ignorant your are about republicanism Liam. I corrected the assumption that republicans are all a bunch of terrorists, but you try to lump me in with anti-gfa dissidents which are a completely different kettle of fish. I think you should learn to distinguish between the different ideologies within Republicanism before you go posting a comment like that.

The MAJORITY, and overwhelming majority of Republicans do NOT support an armed campaign in Ireland. How that makes us terrorists, is beyond me. But you look past all that, and try to link all elements of Republicanism as the same thing. You forget that outlooks on those who did and did not support the GFA are VASTLY different, but yet - you throw "Omagh" at me, as if I'm supposed to answer for it? I, nor the party I support are in no way, shape or form linked to the Omagh bombing. Those responsible for it are scumbags.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If anyone is to respect and support a republican view that the British troops should to be held responsible for any atrocities they committed, then the republicans need to lay off the "it happened" and face up to the atrocities that THEY committed.....

I have already stated that innocent life has been lost as a result of Republicans in the troubles. Life was lost on both sides, and I agree that people need to put their hands in the air and say "Well, this was a mistake and shouldn't have happened".

If you expect me to disagree with you on this point, you're greatly mistaken. I don't claim that everyone involved within Republicanism was noble, or just. No doubt, some elements within Republicanism were bad apples. But I'm not ignorant enough to try and paint everyone with the same brush. Many people involved in the war were put in an extreme set of circumstances and lost family members - which resulted in pure and utter disdain for the opposing side. Let's see how well your logic fairs for you should you ever be put in such a situation.

turgon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Murder is murder; killing innocents is killing innocents. REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES / DID IT.

Its is amazing how this most elementary of ideas has escaped the minds of so many people on this island. If people could only realize this, what a place it could be. But alas, "Ignorance is Strength".

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

Firstly - How does the Omagh bombing backup the initial claim that all Republicans are terrorists?[/QUTOE]

Please don't quote me out of context. I was referring to your comment that your view of republicans were people who targetted British military targets.

Maybe Omagh wasn't the best example for me to use, but Sand quoted plenty for you above. Care to reply based on those ? Are those "targetting British military" ? Or does your distaste for those who committed the murders in Omagh extend to all of those too ?

[QUOTE=dlofnep;57318672Let's see how well your logic fairs for you should you ever be put in such a situation.

It's fair to say that I hope I never will be; and as I've already said, I can envisage a scenario where specifically targetting an oppressor can be justified.

But - to answer your question - my core logic is 100% clear and will not change; if you target civilian life, or excuse those who do, you are a terrorist.

Don't thump an innocent bystander because a bully attacked you. Thump the bully and you'll be able to argue your case from valid moral ground, and be supported by the vast majority of people.

But saying that the republicans targetted "the Brits" is delusional. If they had, I could "agree" with it to some extent.

Add in the "fundraising" where they terrorised, injured and in some cases IRISH staff in banks and post offices and OUR security forces, and robbed OUR money to pay for the bombs and guns that killed people, and you can
surely see that people are justified in their distaste ? Do you agree with them disrupting life for "innocent" people in those scenarios, too ?

But again, my argument stands; if - for example - Bush or Bin Laden was to invade Ireland I would help defend it and attack them back - they'd have asked for it. And while those in the military might not agree with their orders, they are the direct aggressors and have signed up for such scenarios; innocent members of the public have not.

So I'd be fairly OK with defending against them, but I WOULD NOT kill an innocent bystander or put them at risk.

It's a simple stance, really.

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Please don't quote me out of context. I was referring to your comment that your view of republicans were people who targetted British military targets.

Hold the horse now. I responded to an accusation that all Republicans are terrorists. When I defended my stance demonstrating that the vast majority of Republicans support peace, you attacked me with the Omagh bombing and expected me to excuse it - as if there is not seperate groups and ideologies within Republicanism?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Maybe Omagh wasn't the best example for me to use, but Sand quoted plenty for you above. Care to reply based on those ? Are those "targetting British military" ?

No, it wasn't a good example whatsoever. I nor anyone I support is not responsible for it.

As far civilian life lost because of the provisional movement, I have always stated that I did not support the loss of innocent life. So what exactly is it you want me to comment on? I have made my stance on this perfectly clear. But if you like, I will again. Those belonging to the British military or defense forces in the North will not get one shred of sympathy from me. I am all too aware of the hurt they caused to families, and the lives that they took without remorse.

But for the average Joe soap who died, I have an immense amount of sympathy for. And I don't pretend to hide it either.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or does your distaste for those who committed the murders in Omagh extend to all of those too ?

It extends to any innocent life lost. I think you have to take each on a case by case basis to examine cause & result.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But saying that the republicans targetted "the Brits" is delusional. If they had, I could "agree" with it to some extent.

But they did my good sir and there are 100's of graves to show for it. The British forces were the prime target of the IRA. There were civilians who lost their lives for many reasons.. Some were common drug-dealing scum, some were average Joe soaps who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time and the IRA will have to hold that on their conscience, no doubt about it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Add in the "fundraising" where they terrorised, injured and in some cases IRISH staff in banks and post offices and OUR security forces, and robbed OUR money to pay for the bombs and guns that killed people, and you can
surely see that people are justified in their distaste ? Do you agree with them disrupting life for "innocent" people in those scenarios, too ?

I believe that they were put in a set of extreme circumstances and required funds in order to fight British military forces. War is not a peachy clean operation, and sometimes you are required to do somethings that you would not normally do. I'm not say it was ethically ok to do what they did, but I understand why they did. And I'm pretty sure you do also.. I can see why people would not support such a tactic.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So I'd be fairly OK with defending against them, but I WOULD NOT kill an innocent bystander or put them at risk.

It's a simple stance, really.

I can respect that. I am of the same opinion.

marco murphy

Provos throwing nail bombs into resteraunts full of families out for a meal? Balcombe Street Gang, greeted like rock stars by the Provos. Provos putting bombs together in houses with children in them [ premature explosion - two 9 year old girls killed there in just one such case]? Provo sniper shooting a 1 year old child in her pram? Provos killing a 2 year old child and a newborn child in a bombing of a furnishing company? A ****ing furnishing company?!?! Another Provo sniper shoots an 8 year old child. A 15 year old shot by a Provo sniper walking along a street. Another new born killed by a car bomb with little warning given, also a 15 year old and a 14 year old.

Yeh, I can imagine the Provisional Army Council discussing ways to murder as many children as possible. You've got a chip on your shoulder, for whatever reason.

The list goes on and on and on - thats only up to 1972. You might say some were accidents, but whats accidental about throwing nail bombs into family resteraunts? Whats accidental about putting childrens lives at risk putting unstable bombs together in their homes? Bombing shops where familes will be, or streets along which they walk, or shooting kids? And none of the men who carried out such acts were ever investigated or punished by the Provos - implicit approval.

Putting aside the amount of falseness in your posts, you seem to forget that there was a full blown war, especially around 1972. You will refuse to come to terms with that.

But Ive had this conversation before to be honest. You believe the bold boys of the IRA are some band of brave guerillas skipping from misty glen to misty glen, robbing from the protestant rich and giving to the catholic poor. And reality will never enter threaten that image, because you can always fall back on the "Shure, whattabout...."

I have thought and though, and I cannot find an alternative word for ''bull****''.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by stovelid: Just say 'Warrenpoint' instead of Narrow Water

No I will not. Take time out to look at a map and see.

Originally posted by stovelid: your chucky chest-beating sh*te will go over everyone's head, mate.

I never said it was mine. You miss the point in your rush to judge a posters political viewpoint from what he/she posts.

What you couldn't seem to figure out was that, ALL who engage in war (be it a low intensity insurgency or a full blown conflict) use these type of euphemisms to defend their actions in wartime. Surely you have watched Fox News?

And the Parachute Regiment never "beat it's chest" after certain events in the North? :rolleyes:. Read AFN Clarke's (ex-para) book called "Contact" and his reaction to Bloody Sunday. Paras 13 IRA 0??

Responding to the OP's (whitey1) original point: many Irish Republicans wouldn't be silly enough to be automatically anti-american when it comes to all of the USA's actions in the world.

Vietnam was a bloody disaster, especially since Ho Chi Minh worked for the OSS (existed before the CIA) against the Japanese occupiers and wanted to engage in talks with the Americans in 1945.

Chile in 1973 was appalling. One democracy overthrowing another.

Gulf War 1991. Rank hypocrisy here. Should have admitted it was the security of oil supplies to the west was the reason for the war. The "freedom of small nations" was a moot point.

I thought you were right to intervene in Bosnia in 1995, right again to enter Kosovo in 1999, but I think you were wrong to go into Iraq in 2003.

The Taliban deserved to be kicked out in Afghanistan, but now its turning into a disaster with a seeming over-emphasis on the military campaign, and a corresponding lack of action on the promises to re-build the country's infrastructure.

Sand

Yeh, I can imagine the Provisional Army Council discussing ways to murder as many children as possible. You've got a chip on your shoulder, for whatever reason.

Im just being honest, sticking to the facts. When the Provos decide to bomb resteraunts, shops, and high streets where families frequent then its hard to escape the logic that they were deliberately targeting civillians - families, children and so on. How many Provos were "court martialled" by the army council for attacks on civillians? Really - was it more than a handful? Was there any at all? What conclusion can you draw from that on the Provo policy on attacking civillians?

No chip, just facts. Can you dispute them? Nope? Oh well.

Putting aside the amount of falseness in your posts, you seem to forget that there was a full blown war, especially around 1972. You will refuse to come to terms with that.

Call it a war if you want. That just means the Provo attacks on civillians were war crimes as opposed to plain terrorism. Terrorists or war criminals - I dont really care what you call the Provos.

I have thought and though, and I cannot find an alternative word for ''bull****''.

Did I hit close a nerve there? Its inescapable that the Provos waged a terrorist campaign, deliberately attacking civillians and murdered many, many children in pre-meditated attacks and gambled with the lives of many other children [ putting unstable bombs together in a childs house....WTF? Really, WTF?] with tragic results.

They were and are scum. No one should feel bad about not having their support. The OP should wonder why Irish-Americans ever even considered supporting them.

Dlofnep

The MAJORITY, and overwhelming majority of Republicans do NOT support an armed campaign in Ireland. How that makes us terrorists, is beyond me. But you look past all that, and try to link all elements of Republicanism as the same thing. You forget that outlooks on those who did and did not support the GFA are VASTLY different, but yet - you throw "Omagh" at me, as if I'm supposed to answer for it? I, nor the party I support are in no way, shape or form linked to the Omagh bombing. Those responsible for it are scumbags.

Can I assume, given your rejection of violent republicanism, that you condemn the violent, murderous terrorist campaign of the Provos during the Troubles? That they, like the Omagh bombers are "scumbags"?

A Dub in Glasgo

Question for Irish Republicans? descends into chaos with some of the so called 'pacifists' condemning the (selective) killing of innocents including children

Lack of consistancy? Hyprocrisy? - You bet, it is the same old story

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

Dlofnep


Can I assume, given your rejection of violent republicanism, that you condemn the violent, murderous terrorist campaign of the Provos during the Troubles? That they, like the Omagh bombers are "scumbags"?

I've answered this question already. Please take the time to read my posts before asking me to repeat the same answer to the same question.

Thank you.

Sand

Sorry Dlofnep, hard to find an answer in many paragraphs of evasion and whataboutery...

That's incorrect. The greater Republican movement supports a peaceful route to a balanced and united Ireland. It is disingenuous to label Republicans as terrorists. I am not a terrorist and I do not support an armed campaign in Ireland.

Your view on Republicanism is the cliché, ignorant and often splurted view on Republicans by mainstream media. It is false and not even close to the truth.

Seeing as you posted the above, Ill take it the answer to my question above was "No, I dont condemn the violent, murderous terrorist campaign of the Provos during the Troubles. They, unlike the Omagh bombers are not "scumbags." Thank you for clearing that up.

Seeing as its no, and given your condemnation of the Omagh attack and its perpetrators...

The Omagh bomb attack was a disgusting act against the people of Ireland. I'm not sure what it has to do with my statement however or the Republican movement which I follow? I don't support the Real IRA. I never have. I support, like the majority of Republicans - a peaceful route to Irish Unity.

Can you point out the objective difference between Omagh and say, I dont know - theres so many Provo atrocities to choose from...lets say the Enniskillen Rememberance Day bombing? Wouldnt be true to say that the RIRA were not some vastly different idealogy from the Provos, theyre simply Provos with a difference of opinion on strategy?

So why the condemnation of one groups campaign and the support of another groups? What makes the RIRA "scumbags" for attacks on civillians in Omagh, but the Provos are not "scumbags" for attacks like Enniskillen? Because I can really not see a difference in the attacks. If anything, Enniskillen was a larger operation with more involvement by the supposed Provo command. They didnt see anything wrong with bombing a street full of civillians. Business as usual for the Provos. Many of those who approved that attack... well, lets say they have alternative career paths now.

Sure, if we allow the Provos were an army, and Northern Ireland was a conflict zone then perhaps mistakes can happen. But lets face it, Provo attacks on genuine military targets were uncommon at best, bombing shops, pubs, resteraunts and town streets packed with civillians was more their style. So, how many "Wooops" moments are they allowed, especially when there is no evidence of them seriously investigating or punishing deliberate targeting of civillians by their "soldiers"? Or maintaining any system of military discipline and planning, other than torturing "thieves" and people assisting the police in stopping murders and bombings?

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

Sorry Dlofnep, hard to find an answer in many paragraphs of evasion and whataboutery...

Evasion? Whataboutery? I clearly and concisely answered the questions asked of me.

Sand wrote: »

Seeing as you posted the above, Ill take it the answer to my question above was "No, I dont condemn the violent, murderous terrorist campaign of the Provos during the Troubles. They, unlike the Omagh bombers are not "scumbags." Thank you for clearing that up.

Seeing as its no, and given your condemnation of the Omagh attack and its perpetrators...

*yawn*

I stated.

dlofnep wrote:

But for the average Joe soap who died, I have an immense amount of sympathy for.

Furthermore, Liam then asked me..

Liam Byrne wrote:

Or does your distaste for those who committed the murders in Omagh extend to all of those too ?

To which I replied..

dlofnep wrote:

It extends to any innocent life lost.

Now, if you have problems with reading basic English - Then I can understand your inability to spot my answers to these questions before. But you seem to have a grasp on the English language with spectacular vocab like "whataboutery" - so I will assume that your purposely skipped past my answers in relation to civilian life lost at the hands of the IRA and my confirmation of distaste for any civilian life that was lost.

The greater Republican movement is involved in a political process, without the use of any violence. The PIRA has no longer any structure and is out of commission. It did so with pressure from the Republican movement in order to achieve political objectives through peace. To label all Republicans as terrorists is ignorant, and an attempt to instigate a reactionary flame-war on here. People wanted everyone to move on from the troubles and use a political framework to go about our business - We have done that, but you still cling onto the past when we are discussing current policy.

I have no problems with anyone who wishes to discuss the wrong-doings of anyone in the past. I'm not here to defend anyone who took the life of an innocent person. I am here to correct the ignorant statements spat out against the Republican movement - which is no doubt, the same nonsense that is circulated through the media every week. At this point it has become cliché and boring. So instead of throwing out an anger-filled post without thinking - read what has already been posted, take it onboard - instead of having me to repeat the same old nonsense again and again.

sink

dlofnep I remember discussing the Lisbon treaty with you and your support for Sinn Fein came up then and I remember you were very touchy about it. It looks like nothings changed. When will you accept the fact that in most peoples perception SF/PIRA have blood on their hands and have not properly distanced themselves from the atrocities committed by their organisation. You are going to continually run into people with this view as they constitute the majority on this island. The basic facts are on record and unless SF/PIRA properly atone for their actions they and anyone associated with them will be treated as pariahs. That is not to say that the RUC/Paras have properly atoned for their actions either and as a result there remains a lot of anti-British sentiment on this island as well.

dlofnep

Sink, when someone labels you as a terrorist, how do you expect to respond? If you think I'm going to be passive about it, you're mistaken. I couldn't care less about what people's views of SF as a party are, people will have their views - but to have some categorically label all Republicans as terrorists and scumbags, purely for an ideology is ridiculous and I won't stand for it. It is utter ignorance.

Mayo Exile

Ah, go on Sand! You don't really dislike the IRA all that much do you? Just that I found this posted by you in the "Israel has 150 nuclear weapons thread", (post #86):

I do admit my liking of taking an opposing view point, switching names, places and having the fanatical supporters of that view point denounce it because it doesnt have their special interest group involved anymore can sometimes backfire as the fanatical supporters usually miss the point.

Link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055302152&page=6

You might be the "bearded one" from West Belfast looking for new ideas on how to evolve SF policy plus further isolate dissident republicans as well!

Sand

Evasion? Whataboutery? I clearly and concisely answered the questions asked of me.

No, you see you havent. You've told me how badly you feel about innocents killed by the Provos. But you havent answered the question I asked: Read up and youll see it.

Now seeing as you wont give an answer and you limit yourself to expressing regret for life lost, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you support the Provos terrorist campaign in the Troubles, and only regret the odd mistake here and there.

This would seem to contradict your position that Republicanism does not mean an inherent support for terrorism.

Ah, go on Sand! You don't really dislike the IRA all that much do you?

Its their bull**** I dislike. Attempting to rewrite history so they can be the most heavily armed, misunderstood pacifist civil rights activists in history. :rolleyes: Their apologists dont rate too highly either.

You might be the "bearded one" from West Belfast looking for new ideas on how to evolve SF policy plus further isolate dissident republicans as well!

Nah, I havent brought that particular play out yet. Seeing as Dlop has already demonstrated the doublethink on Omagh [ "Scumbags"] and the Provo campaign [ "...mistakes were made..." ] there hasnt been any need. I still dont understand Dlofs reasons for viewing the two differently. I fully allow there might be good reasons, but I cant see them...

turgon

dlofnep is right in saying that you cant really brand all republicans with the same level of disgust. For example in the 1970's, and IRA attack might have occurred on a military target as retribution for say Bloody Sunday. People might agree with the motive, and the action.

On the other hand the Omagh Bomb was planted by knacker scumbags who werent happy that peace was finally being brokered and that they would actually have to go back to the day job, so they decided to kill a few people. That'll show 'em :rolleyes:. So I think we could all agree that that event was and is categorically wrong.

But I think a lot of peoples concern is the large number of civilians killed. Whereas they can justify an attack on a UK Soldier, they no longer justify it if an innocent was also killed. And because of the large numbers of bystanders that did die for no reason, people feel that the IRA's actions came at to high a cost and were thus wrong. Especially when IRA attacks sometimes made little or no effort to reduce the danger to civilians.

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

dlofnep is right in saying that you cant really brand all republicans with the same level of disgust. For example in the 1970's, and IRA attack might have occurred on a military target as retribution for say Bloody Sunday. People might agree with the motive, and the action.

What many Republicans seem to have trouble grasping is that many people don't agree with either the motive, or the action.

What makes it any more morally right to kill a random soldier in retribution for Bloody Sunday, than for the British Army to kill a random Republican in retribution for that killing?