600lb bomb defused in Forkhill

FlutterinBantam

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So back to the topic at hand.

Anyone any details on what foiled the bomb or made the group abandon it? Is it possible this was a show of strength, seems a strange place to put it. This alongside the para checkpoint a few weeks ago, are they trying to make the border region in South Armagh unpolicable again?

I would say that's the general idea, then if some poor squaddie looses off his weapon while under the stress that every bridge ,culvert, car, van, can contain a bomb fashioned to blow them off the face of the earth, the apologists for these thugs can parse and analyse the event as if it happened in normal conditions.;)


Meantime they can run in the laundered diesel and whatever goods or products reap the greatest reward back and forth with impunity.

Need to be stamped down hard on these thugs.

Four-Too

WinstonSmith wrote: »

It seems that the answer to all these questions can be that the recent marginal increase in the amount of criminal activity by this particular organisation suggests the dying squawks of a wounded animal desperate to recapture the hopes of dreams long dead, and are ready and willing to lash out at all and sundry to claim that those dreams are still alive.

Many of their hopes and dreams have ALREADY been fulfilled - Catholics have equal rights, we have Catholics in the PSNI....who are a fairer force than the RUC were. Their dreams are always alive if they get the support of the ppl.

lostexpectation

ah yes catholics have equal rights and women are paid the same as men la la la

FTA69

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This alongside the para checkpoint a few weeks ago, are they trying to make the border region in South Armagh unpolicable again?

Yep, or at least make it so that it is impossible to police without overt militarism e.g. helicopters and armoured vehicles. They believe this will disrupt the normalisation policy which Britain has pursued in the north of Ireland.

Bottle_of_Smoke

lostexpectation wrote: »

ah yes catholics have equal rights and women are paid the same as men la la la

What are you trying to say here? Are you suggesting Catholics don't have equal rights?

As someone from a Catholic background living in the north I've already had two jobs since moving there since last September and have never encountered any sectarianism from staff or customers. In fact I've heard of growing resentment amongst loyalist circles that Catholics are generally doing better in education and employment.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Yep, or at least make it so that it is impossible to police without overt militarism e.g. helicopters and armoured vehicles. They believe this will disrupt the normalisation policy which Britain has pursued in the north of Ireland.

What is wrong with things being normal? Isn't that what people want?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is wrong with things being normal? Isn't that what people want?

Of course people want things to be normal in a social context. He is referring to the normalisation of British Rule, which a huge portion of the population do not want. There is a difference.

JonathanAnon

Are we all 100% sure that this bomb wasnt destined for Tubridy in the RTE studios?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Of course people want things to be normal in a social context. He is referring to the normalisation of British Rule, which a huge portion of the population do not want. There is a difference.

yes, but an even huger portion of the population do want it. until that changes, British rule is normality. What else is the British government supposed to do other than create an atmosphere of "Normality"?

DoireNod

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, but an even huger portion of the population do want it. until that changes, British rule is normality. What else is the British government supposed to do other than create an atmosphere of "Normality"?

There's a slight majority of unionists. It's close to 50/50. A 'normalisation' policy won't be accepted by a discontented minority. Why would it be?

LordSutch

The fact still remains that 100% of Unionists wish to retain the Union, plus a sizeable portion of the Nationalist community (that is where we are today in 2009) and until that changes there is more chance of Scotland leaving the Union than Northern Ireland ever leaving.

And the Scots se no need in reverting to violence (planting Bombs).

Fratton Fred

DoireNod wrote: »

There's a slight majority of unionists. It's close to 50/50. A 'normalisation' policy won't be accepted by a discontented minority. Why would it be?

so if/when there is a nationalist majority, the minority are perfectly entitled to disrupt any normalisation process that occurs with unification?

It wasn't me!

DoireNod wrote: »

There's a slight majority of unionists. It's close to 50/50. A 'normalisation' policy won't be accepted by a discontented minority. Why would it be?

Because that's democracy? What you're saying is akin to Fine Gael supporters turning to armed insurrection because they're discontented with Fianna Fail being in government. It's quite simply madness.

ardmacha

Originally Posted by DoireNod View Post
There's a slight majority of unionists. It's close to 50/50. A 'normalisation' policy won't be accepted by a discontented minority. Why would it be?

so if/when there is a nationalist majority, the minority are perfectly entitled to disrupt any normalisation process that occurs with unification?

There is no moral symmetry in these situations. British rule in Ireland was imposed by force, which greatly limits people's obligation to the State. A nationalist majority in would be a fully democratic majority in a constituency tailored to advantage unionists.

It wasn't me!

ardmacha wrote: »

There is no moral symmetry in these situations. British rule in Ireland was imposed by force, which greatly limits people's obligation to the State. A nationalist majority in would be a fully democratic majority in a constituency tailored to advantage unionists.

Balls to that. You've got to determine a degree of nationality for each individual citizen there, based on a sliding scale, as you're attaching a certain weight to people's beliefs based on that sliding scale of nationality. You're attempting to suggest that those of a unionist belief should be taken less seriously within northern Ireland if they become a discontented minority and the majority votes for unification than the nationalists deserve to be taken now. They're all citizens within the one place, whose votes count equally, and whose voices should be heard equally. You can't suggest, logically or without gross moral inconsistency, that the unionists, if discontented post unification vote, should be ignored, while claiming that the nationalist minority currently in existence has the right to its violent objection. It's not about any obligation to any state; it's about equality of the inhabitants of northern Ireland, something your post seeks to deny them.

DoireNod

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because that's democracy? What you're saying is akin to Fine Gael supporters turning to armed insurrection because they're discontented with Fianna Fail being in government. It's quite simply madness.

Maybe, but only if the historical context is completely forgotten. I don't think it would be good to just disregard historical fact -FF and FG is not a fair comparison to Irish Nationalists and Unionists. The fact is that Northern Ireland as a state was created to favour unionists. Gerrymandering was practised and nationalists were unfairly denied rights. The only reason there is a unionist majority is because of the blatant lack of democracy which is characterised by partition. There is a justifiably discontented minority in the North.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if/when there is a nationalist majority, the minority are perfectly entitled to disrupt any normalisation process that occurs with unification?

I suppose if unification came as a result of force and undemocratic means.The same way N.I. came into existence.

Originally Posted by Camelot
The fact still remains that 100% of Unionists wish to retain the Union, plus a sizeable portion of the Nationalist community (that is where we are today in 2009) and until that changes there is more chance of Scotland leaving the Union than Northern Ireland ever leaving.

And the Scots se no need in reverting to violence (planting Bombs).

Wrong. The nationalist community does not want to retain the union. They might be in favour of devolved government though. There's a difference between wanting maintenance of the union and being open to an alternative, peaceful and democratic bridge to unification. If nationalists wanted maintenance of the union, they couldn't be nationalists. They're opposing ideologies.

Militant republicanism wishes to see the end to British rule in Ireland - not to plant bombs and scare people for a laugh. They plant bombs and such as a way of disrupting the normalisation of British rule in Ireland. The threat they pose is evident. To some they might not be helping the ideal of Irish independence, but they themselves obviously feel that militant action is necessary. It's as simple as that.

LordSutch

So a sizeable portion of the Nationalist community do not wish to retain the Union? in which case the split amongst the entire NI population really is 51/49 to stay in the Union

Bloody hell, I never realised it was that close.

Fratton Fred

DoireNod wrote: »

Militant republicanism wishes to see the end to British rule in Ireland - not to plant bombs and scare people for a laugh

It sometimes doesn't appear that way.

NI needs normalisation, at least for now. it needs time to recover form 30 years of bloodshed.

To me, it sounds as though people are willing to piss about with other people's lives rather than let them recover. If the republican cause was so convinced there was an appetite for unification then there would be a referendum.

Is a divided Ireland, where everyone is happy and living in peace such a bad thing? Both governments could (and I believe are) work together so that there isn't much difference between living in the north and living in the south. Other than petty nationalism, why is that such a bad thing?

It wasn't me!

DoireNod wrote: »

Maybe, but only if the historical context is completely forgotten. I don't think it would be good to just disregard historical fact -FF and FG is not a fair comparison to Irish Nationalists and Unionists. The fact is that Northern Ireland as a state was created to favour unionists. Gerrymandering was practised and nationalists were unfairly denied rights. The only reason there is a unionist majority is because of the blatant lack of democracy which is characterised by partition. There is a justifiably discontented minority in the North.

Um, in favour of peace, and in the aftermath of Good Friday, we're all being asked to set aside the historical context and move forward together, so yeah, sod that, forget it alotgether. As to the justifiability of discontent among the minority, by all means, be discontented, and vote as such, but if you're still in the minority, you're not going to get your way, and that is appropriate. The alternative is not to start a militant campaign, but to follow the political process. The armed representatives of that discontented minority were released from prison in the expectation that the nation could move on and forget about violence as a political tool, so as I said, yep, screw remembering historical context when that's what it means for the country.

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

The fact still remains that 100% of Unionists wish to retain the Union, plus a sizeable portion of the Nationalist community (that is where we are today in 2009) and until that changes there is more chance of Scotland leaving the Union than Northern Ireland ever leaving.

Wrong. You obviously do not understand the meaning of a Unionist and a Nationalist. Please research and come again. Thank you.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if/when there is a nationalist majority, the minority are perfectly entitled to disrupt any normalisation process that occurs with unification?

There is a nationalist majority, and the said Unionist majority have already disrupted it.

dlofnep

It wasn't me! wrote: »

and in the aftermath of Good Friday, we're all being asked to set aside the historical context and move forward together

No we're not - the aspiration for Irish unification is still a part of the GFA. Yes we are to move along together. But the majority of the people on this Island aspire for that to be in a unified fashion. I'll be more than happy to debate numbers with you.

Kalashnikov_Kid

Fratton Fred wrote: »

NI needs normalisation, at least for now. it needs time to recover form 30 years of bloodshed.

I agree on this 100%.

To me, it sounds as though people are willing to piss about with other people's lives rather than let them recover. If the republican cause was so convinced there was an appetite for unification then there would be a referendum.

I'll ignore your unfortunate reference to republicans and piss...

Is a divided Ireland, where everyone is happy and living in peace such a bad thing? Both governments could (and I believe are) work together so that there isn't much difference between living in the north and living in the south. Other than petty nationalism, why is that such a bad thing?

Peace in the context of partitionism is a relative context. There is undoubtedly less violence in NI, which is not a bad thing of course. But there are more 'peace lines' in Belfast than 15 years ago. Is that a bad thing?

Can 'petty nationalism' be labelled in the same way in reference to the campaign for an English Parliament (which I support actually)? Or is that a relative concept too?

It wasn't me!

dlofnep wrote: »

No we're not - the aspiration for Irish unification is still a part of the GFA. Yes we are to move along together. But the majority of the people on this Island aspire for that to be in a unified fashion. I'll be more than happy to debate numbers with you.

An all-island majority is absolutely irrelevant. It's a majority within Northern Ireland that is relevant, and only that. If you're confident that such exists, call for a referendum. If, in the aftermath of a successful result for you, you find discontented unionists, the concept of historical context and relativism will be worth examining.

ardmacha

You're attempting to suggest that those of a unionist belief should be taken less seriously within northern Ireland if they become a discontented minority and the majority votes for unification than the nationalists deserve to be taken now.

I am not suggesting that individuals of one sort or another should be counted differently, all Irish people should have the same voice. However there is a moral context to how you view people's demands. For instance, a minority may wish to expel all immigrants, on moral grounds this demand should not be given the same weight as reasonable proposals for civil government.

They're all citizens within the one place, whose votes count equally, and whose voices should be heard equally.

If unionist's votes were not taken more seriously than other Irish citizens then NI would not have been set up in its present form in the first place. Debates in this forum continue to envisage that unionists are more important than other Irish people.

dlofnep

It wasn't me! wrote: »

An all-island majority is absolutely irrelevant.

Wrong.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's a majority within Northern Ireland that is relevant, and only that.

Let's be honest here..

The majority of the people on this Island support unification, and also the majority of the people in Britain support Irish unification - this is a fact. Britain created a state with intent to give Unionists a majority, which left Nationalist majority cities such as Newry, Omagh and Derry under British control. The increasing trend in support for nationalist parties in the north - with Sinn Féin having tripled their vote in a matter of 2 decades, winning the largest count of votes in the last European elections is certainly on the minds of Unionists.

It's not a black/white issue. The north was a state created with intent to enshrine Unionist dominance, without a hint of democracy. We have every right to pursue unification, and when the time is right and the nationalist community out-votes the concept of Unionism within it's own system (and it will judging by all trends), Irish unification will be a reality. That is why you have Unionist parties like the TUV who viciously oppose the GFA (http://www.tuv.org.uk/files/thenandnow.pdf), because they fear the possibilities that exist with it

It might not happen within the next 10 years, but it will happen. All they need is +1. Remember that.

OldJay

dlofnep wrote: »

The majority of the people on this Island support unification

The majority of people on this island voted in a referendum for compromise both ways.
"Remember that"

dlofnep

Justind wrote: »

The majority of people on this island voted in a referendum for compromise both ways.

And they are compromising, it doesn't negate the fact of the people supporting unification, does it?

OldJay

dlofnep wrote: »

And they are compromising, it doesn't negate the fact of the people supporting unification, does it?

In a thread about a bomb that weighed in at nearly 300kg, I thought a timely reminder to some would be the order of the day.

It wasn't me!

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong.



Let's be honest here..

The majority of the people on this Island support unification, and also the majority of the people in Britain support Irish unification - this is a fact. Britain created a state with intent to give Unionists a majority, which left Nationalist majority cities such as Newry, Omagh and Derry under British control. The increasing trend in support for nationalist parties in the north - with Sinn Féin having tripled their vote in a matter of 2 decades, winning the largest count of votes in the last European elections is certainly on the minds of Unionists.

It's not a black/white issue. The north was a state created with intent to enshrine Unionist dominance, without a hint of democracy. We have every right to pursue unification, and when the time is right and the nationalist community out-votes the concept of Unionism within it's own system (and it will judging by all trends), Irish unification will be a reality. That is why you have Unionist parties like the TUV who viciously oppose the GFA (http://www.tuv.org.uk/files/thenandnow.pdf), because they fear the possibilities that exist with it

It might not happen within the next 10 years, but it will happen. All they need is +1. Remember that.

Wrong? Not even close. The partition in the Government of Ireland Act occurred against a backdrop of an arms race between two factions, at a time when the British government was ill-equipped to deal with this in a normal way. It was a reasonable solution in its historical context. The boundary commission's evaluations following the signing of the treaty are obviously the issue, but they're an issue attributable to the incompetence of those sent to agree the boundaries from the new free state as well. Whatever about that, partition was a done deal from 1920. The GFA is the only thing since which has allowed the political reversal of the government of Ireland act, and when that comes, you're going to have your own disaffected unionist minority to deal with. How do you propose to entertain their views? The argument that northern Ireland was created by force is useless as well, as all nations except in geographical circumstances are defined by a history of military force. If geography were even the predominant defining mechanism for national boundaries, the Holy Roman Empire would have continued to the present day. The simple fact is that your grievance is with the defining characteristics of modern geopolitical history, with respect only to your own small circumstances. I mean, it was the French who invaded us in the first place. Even to use the term "us" is ridiculous, as I doubt there's a single individual in the country who doesn't have Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman heritage in their history. These same sentiments were expressed since the thirteenth century among the Hiberno-Norman middle nation.