What's with the anti-Republican attitudes?

djpbarry

S-Murph wrote: »

"No it is not".

Is that all you have to say?

Pretty much. The Gardaí do not employ terrorism in maintaining law and order. Any member of the force found guilty of anything that could be construed as terrorism is not fit to wear the uniform and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If you suspect a Garda is guilty of inappropriate behaviour, then I suggest you report them to the Ombudsman.

S-Murph wrote: »

You might have missed my last line

"Instead, those who use violence should be judged on the merits of that violence, their aims, their ideology, whether it is progressive"

No, I didn’t miss it. In the context of defending terrorism, it’s still horse****. I don’t care what aims or ideas are possessed by murdering scum who seem to think they are justified in killing innocent people. Even if their ultimate aim was world peace, they’re still murdering scum.

S-Murph wrote: »

It would depend on a combination of factors, not just the aim.

Potentially it could be "ok". At least those who undertake it beleive so.

Once again, I don’t care what the perpetrators believe. An Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber might believe he’s off to heaven after he blows away a few infidels, but that doesn’t make his actions any less appalling.

S-Murph wrote: »

It appears the use of violence and detention by the Irish state is "ok" too.

No it isn’t – see above.

S-Murph wrote: »

Or the thousands (over 5,000) who die each year in this state due to forms of preventable inequality and deprivation. A consequence of ideological resource allocation enforced through violence and terror.

Methinks you’ve been watching one-too-many dystopian science fiction movies.

My name is URL

Perestroika wrote: »

Do you know anyone that thinks "via" killing innocents a united Ireland will be delivered?

Historically, hard-line republicans have defended the actions of terrorists and tried to pass off those actions as acts of war, a fight for a united Ireland, so yes.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

When other avenues have been blocked. They tried peaceful protest up the North and got batoned off the street for their trouble.

so they defended themselves with force, fair enough. I wouldn't call that terrorism personally.

S-Murph

djpbarry wrote: »

Pretty much. The Gardaí do not employ terrorism in maintaining law and order. Any member of the force found guilty of anything that could be construed as terrorism is not fit to wear the uniform and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If you suspect a Garda is guilty of inappropriate behaviour, then I suggest you report them to the Ombudsman.

The Gardai do employ terrorism in maintaining 'law and order'. They invoke fear as a deterrent to committing acts against the states ideological line and laws. They do this through committing acts of violence and confinement.

The state, in and of itself, is a terrorist institution. Im hardly going to report state terrorism to a terrorist state. Its inherent.

No, I didn’t miss it. In the context of defending terrorism, it’s still horse****.

And yet you yourself defend terrorism by defending the Gardai.

I don’t care what aims or ideas are possessed by murdering scum who seem to think they are justified in killing innocent people.

It is a consequence of what the state implements through terrorism that thousands die, and many more live in poverty in this country.

Yet the Gardai are not scum

Surely there is more criteria than "murdering" and "killing innocents" as to why republican paramilitaries are scum - seing as the Irish state undertakes what amounts to such punishments on a far greater scale.

Even if their ultimate aim was world peace, they’re still murdering scum.

As is the irish state.

An Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber might believe he’s off to heaven after he blows away a few infidels, but that doesn’t make his actions any less appalling.

Your right and I agree with you.

Although he might have a different view on the matter.

No it isn’t – see above.

Clearly, to you, it is. Or are you against prisons?

Methinks you’ve been watching one-too-many dystopian science fiction movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw

WillieCocker

Ah, so the State and it's laws and those who enforce them are the REAL terrorists.
Spoken like a true shinner.

S-Murph

WillieCocker wrote: »

Ah, so the State and it's laws and those who enforce them are the REAL terrorists.
Spoken like a true shinner.

No not necessarily.

Im simply pointing out that the state is a terrorist institution. As are paramilitary groups.

Mouthing off about acts of terrorism is a little rich when those doing the mouthing generally favour terrorism themselves.

DoireNod

S-Murph wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw

Nice song! Thanks.

WillieCocker wrote: »

Ah, so the State and it's laws and those who enforce them are the REAL terrorists.
Spoken like a true shinner.

Ah now. You're just disregarding his point and labelling the man - you have no idea what this guy's political beliefs are, so instead of attacking the poster, address his post. It's a valid enough point to make that governments rule through coercion. Maybe not through 'terror' but it's fair to say that many people toe the line through fear that their freedom will be removed. I understand his point.

WillieCocker

DoireNod wrote: »

I understand his point.

I am absolutley shocked at your response.

DoireNod

WillieCocker wrote: »

I am absolutley shocked at your response.

Why? I don't have to agree with it, but I understand the point.

WillieCocker

DoireNod wrote: »

Why? I don't have to agree with it, but I understand the point.

So you comprehend the english language.
What is your point?

Support your brothers in a struggle to clean up the name of glorified thugs on a forum?
And whilst your at it throw 2 fingers up to the law and the state.

S-Murph

WillieCocker wrote: »

I am absolutley shocked at your response.

Sounds like your in denial. :pac:

If you take those ideological glasses off you might see that what the state does is infact terrorism. The difference is that you have been socialized into accepting the institution, and normalized to its violence.

The difference is that you agree with the states use of violence and terrorism - its aims, its ideology.

Hence, the discussion on the use of violence should be judged on these aspects - not the stick man of "terrorism". Terrorism means nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(sociology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_ideology

walrusgumble

K-9 wrote: »

The first paragraph is classic whataboutery.

The second is a bit 800 years.

the point what IIMI is making is that

(a) there are more than one side to the story

(b) intitial militant attacks was a response to unionists actions

(c) before anyone such as the british take moral high ground they need to look at their actions and to see why republicans acted the way he did.

Instead of spouting CCOB's "whataboutery" tag, why not respond effectively to instances where some posts give examples of other sides doing. not every scenerio in life can mean turn the other cheek waving a white flag. Some nationalists tried that prior to 1969 and look where that got them. of course, as the years went by, it got more and more difficult to support the IRA.

WillieCocker

S-Murph wrote: »

Sounds like your in denial. :pac:

.

Sounds like you don't get sarcasm.

S-Murph

WillieCocker wrote: »

Sounds like you don't get sarcasm.

You have a great sense of sarcasm

DoireNod

WillieCocker wrote: »

So you comprehend the english language.
What is your point?

No, I understand the point [concept, whatever] expressed, through the use of the English language. I understand the English language too.

Support your brothers in a struggle to clean up the name of glorified thugs on a forum?
And whilst your at it throw 2 fingers up to the law and the state.

Here you're just putting words in my mouth.

markesmith

I'm going to get the sister of all flamings here, but I'd agree with the OP and was actually thinking of starting a thread with the same observation.

But my angle on it is this: users of boards.ie are of a certain demographic. No this probably doesn't apply to you, but I have a feeling that it does apply collectively to boards.ie.

The following characteristics:
- heavy Internet users
- located in urban areas
- pretty apathetic about government, politics, etc.
- slightly left-wing and internationalist in their views
- prone to disagreements for the sake of it

There is also the idea, as a previous poster put it, that to be anti-Republicanism is somehow "cool" and non-conformist.

Republicanism does not need to involve terrorism. In the UK, "Republicanism" is seen as a desire to overthrow the monarchy. But I haven't seen Liz's head on a spike

I am for the idea of an united Ireland. And I'm not ashamed to say it. Doesn't mean I've got semtex in my arse pocket.

djpbarry

S-Murph wrote: »

The Gardai do employ terrorism in maintaining 'law and order'.

No, they don’t. Repeating that they do doesn’t make it so.

Remind me, when was the last time the Gardaí planted a bomb in a pub or a shopping centre?

S-Murph wrote: »

They invoke fear as a deterrent to committing acts against the states ideological line and laws.

Laws arrived at by the democratic consensus of the population. The population of the country do not live in fear of the potential terror that may be inflicted upon them by the Gardaí.

S-Murph wrote: »

The state, in and of itself, is a terrorist institution. Im hardly going to report state terrorism to a terrorist state. Its inherent.

Dare I say you’ve been reading a little Michael Stohl lately?

S-Murph wrote: »

It is a consequence of what the state implements through terrorism that thousands die…

Care to elaborate? I feel that at this point, a definition of ‘terrorism’ is in order:

Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians

State terrorism obviously refers to acts of terrorism conducted by the state, i.e. the government. So now all you have to do is demonstrate that the Irish government employs the calculated use of violence against civilians.

S-Murph wrote: »

Surely there is more criteria than "murdering" and "killing innocents" as to why republican paramilitaries are scum…

I think the killing and maiming probably tops the list.

S-Murph wrote: »

…seing as the Irish state undertakes what amounts to such punishments on a far greater scale.

Care to elaborate on these vague allegations?

S-Murph wrote: »

Clearly, to you, it is. Or are you against prisons?

What is the likelihood that an innocent person will find themselves in prison at the behest of the Irish state?

LordSutch

Reillyman wrote: »

...I mean, come on lads. Another popular thing is that "we'd be better off if we had stayed with Britain."

Well things did go down hill quite rapidly after 1922 and the "We ourselves alone" attitude kicked in, > right up until the mid 1990s when the Celtic Tiger arrived! So Yes, there is a logical train of thought that if we had "stayed with Britain" then we would not have become the backwater that we became for 70 odd years. Obviously there are two distinct camps on this issue, but it is a credible argument that if we had eased ourselves out of the Union over several decades (without the blood lust) then we could have maintained our standards for those lost economic decades (1920s-1990s).

Reillyman wrote: »

What I think is that alot of people posting these comments don't actually believe these things themselves, but rather are trying to show how "free-thinking" and "intelligent" they are...

As has been said in countless previous posts, SF account for less than 10% of the vote, their ideology is steeped in blood, their economic policies are old hat, and they seem to have 'maxed out' re support in the Republic, which is probably due to peoples free thinking!

Reillyman wrote: »

Anyway, there's my query, tear me to shreads!:P

I don't want to tear you to shreads, but SF are a mionority party in the Republic with a Capital 'M' > and they really seem to be stalling, so why the big surprise that people dont vote for them (considering their violent & bloody past)!

K-9

IIMII wrote: »

Just because it's whataboutery and a bit 800 years doesn't mean it isn't true

Just found it a bit OTT, but it's a good point.

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh right, I see. So if I blow up a pub or a shopping centre, it’s ok as long as I have a legitimate political aim?

I think this is where the distinction comes in. People try and defend that crap as acts of war. You see it still with McCabe and the McCartney case.

S-Murph wrote: »

No not necessarily.

Im simply pointing out that the state is a terrorist institution. As are paramilitary groups.

Mouthing off about acts of terrorism is a little rich when those doing the mouthing generally favour terrorism themselves.

The problem I have with that opinion is it would seem to regard the McCabe murder as somehow legitimate.

José Alaninho

djpbarry wrote: »

State terrorism obviously refers to acts of terrorism conducted by the state, i.e. the government. So now all you have to do is demonstrate that the Irish government employs the calculated use of violence against civilians.

Peaceful protest / resistance by Irish civilians, baton-charged by the Irish State's forces, at the behest of a multinational corporation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h12RZtxqbo

RiverWilde

Nodin wrote: »

In certain circumstances, yes.



I wouldn't go quite that far.



Thats an overly simplistic analysis of the problem.

The point is that it was driven primarily by social inequality and discrimination, not some misty eyed desire to ease the pain in teddys head.

It's not an overly simplistic analysis of the situation ... the majority of the people in the north of Ireland want to remain citizens of the UK. A minority do not. That does not give the minority the right to murder innocent citizens in support of some 'ideal.'

Riv

RiverWilde

José Alaninho wrote: »

Peaceful protest / resistance by Irish civilians, baton-charged by the Irish State's forces, at the behest of a multinational corporation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h12RZtxqbo

These protesters were baton charged for breaking the law of the land. The multinational corporation is there legally ... doing a job they are legally entitled to do. A job sanctioned by the legally elected govt. of the country.

Riv

José Alaninho

RiverWilde wrote: »

It's not an overly simplistic analysis of the situation ... the majority of the people in the north of Ireland want to remain citizens of the UK. A minority do not. That does not give the minority the right to murder innocent citizens in support of some 'ideal.'

Riv

But it does give the minority the right to defend themselves with force, having been abandoned by the 26 county government, and oppressed and repressed by their own sham political institutions.

RiverWilde

José Alaninho wrote: »

But it does give the minority the right to defend themselves with force, having been abandoned by the 26 county government, and oppressed and repressed by their own sham political institutions.

How does murdering innocent civilians equate with 'personal defence?' Gun running - drug trafficking - other illegal activities - car bombs etc etc. These are not legitimate activities. These are criminal activities.

The citizens of NI were not abandoned by the Republic. The North is a different country.

Riv

S-Murph

djpbarry wrote: »

No, they don’t. Repeating that they do doesn’t make it so.

I havnt been repeating it, iv been outlining it. Fear is used as a deterrent to crime. Does this obvious truth need further explaining?

Remind me, when was the last time the Gardaí planted a bomb in a pub or a shopping centre?

Never. You dont need a bomb to instill fear.

Laws arrived at by the democratic consensus of the population.

And what defines whether one is a member of the arbitrary "population" you speak? - who enforces this?

What defines a majority?

What stops my household being "a majority"? - can my household decide its "a population" - thus making its own laws?

NO, they cannot. "Populations", "majorities", "democratic mandates" are all formed, in relation to 'states', by violence and capitulation to that violence.

Violence defines "the majority" and the "population". Violence preceeds these.

Talk of "democracy" is, as with "terrorism", an empty argument for this reason.

If I wanted to make my own laws, "do my own thing", assert my own authority - I get a gun and an army. Violence creates my democratic mandate.

The population of the country do not live in fear of the potential terror that may be inflicted upon them by the Gardaí.

No?

So fear is not used as a deterrent for crime then?

Keep digging that hole.

Dare I say you’ve been reading a little Michael Stohl lately?
Care to elaborate? I feel that at this point, a definition of ‘terrorism’ is in order:

Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians

Fits my purposes nicely. Indeed state terror is almost always used against civilians, seeing as non civilians are part of the state itself.

State terrorism obviously refers to acts of terrorism conducted by the state, i.e. the government. So now all you have to do is demonstrate that the Irish government employs the calculated use of violence against civilians.

Through the instilling of fear. They do this by holding a monopoly on the use of force and violence.

I think the killing and maiming probably tops the list.

Or killing you slowly while you sleep in your non-private hospital bed. Susie Long for example. Or killing you slowly while you sleep on the street homeless while the Gardai protect new cars in their air conditioned showrooms. After all, the car is worth more than a mere homeless person.

Care to elaborate on these vague allegations?

vague? :eek:

Is it vague when people slow their speed down for a cop car? - for fear of the economic ramifications. For fear of the potential confinement issued.

Or is it just a moral thing with them rather than a FEAR of the law.

Is that why the tens of thousands living in poverty in this country 'live in poverty'? - their morals wont allow them to take cash from a till in Tesco?

Is that why the some 5000 people die prematurely from deprivation and inequality. Because they find it immoral to raid a cash van?

Explain please, I really would like to know your views as to why people live and die in poverty despite living in a society with an abundance of wealth all around, other than a fear in the law.

What is the likelihood that an innocent person will find themselves in prison at the behest of the Irish state?

Well when innocent is defined by the state, unlikely.

If a person believes it just and fair to expropriate a till in Tesco, to them, they are not a criminal. To the state, they are.

Thus, it is the use of violence which 'sets the law'. For if that person could use enough violence themselves, they could assert their own "property rights".

The state (violence) creates property rights.

José Alaninho

How does murdering innocent civilians equate with 'personal defence?' Gun running - drug trafficking - other illegal activities - car bombs etc etc. These are not legitimate activities. These are criminal activities.

First of all, the drug-trafficking accusation has NEVER been substantiated or proven; it's a lie, plain and simple. Secondly, the others mentioned are all effective and essential tactics of guerrilla warfare. So what's the problem?

The citizens of NI were not abandoned by the Republic. The North is a different country.

*sigh*

WillieCocker

José Alaninho wrote: »

Peaceful protest / resistance by Irish civilians, baton-charged by the Irish State's forces, at the behest of a multinational corporation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h12RZtxqbo

Oh videos to back up your claims that the state are terrorists.....here's a few videos for you, i know you won't watch them.:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/v/EjvvKq5NqD0&hl=en&fs=1&

http://www.youtube.com/v/EjvvKq5NqD0&hl=en&fs=1&

S-Murph

The problem I have with that opinion is it would seem to regard the McCabe murder as somehow legitimate.

You should not imply that. But nor should it be automaitically assumed that their authority as gardai protecting cash was merititious.

Each case must be looked at and questions asked.

RiverWilde

José Alaninho wrote: »

First of all, the drug-trafficking accusation has NEVER been substantiated or proven; it's a lie, plain and simple. Secondly, the others mentioned are all effective and essential tactics of guerrilla warfare. So what's the problem?



*sigh*

What's the problem? There is a huge difference between targeting 'agents of the state' and innocent civilians going about their daily lives.

Riv

José Alaninho

RiverWilde wrote: »

What's the problem? There is a huge difference between targeting 'agents of the state' and innocent civilians going about their daily lives.

Riv

Regrettable as civilian casualties are, they have to be expected in a war situation. Jesus, how many civilians have died in all the countless wars since man first evolved from throwing rocks at his fellow man? It's a fact of war, and conflict is a fact of human nature, deal with it.