Worst Killers of the Troubles

IRLConor

How about we work it this way, S-Murph. Can you do the following:

• Define, by any means, a "constituency" (for want of a better word) in which the INLA have majority support.
• AND
  • Demonstrate that the people killed by the INLA were part of that constituency and had equal rights to the majority who demanded their death.
    
    OR
    
    
  • Attempt to defend the INLA for exerting physical force on people outside that group.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Im glad Lugha you have outlined that.

I can cite the results from IRSM Ard Fheis.

But, im not using the ard fheis to justify INLA violence. Meanwhile, you lot are using state elections to justify the state.

I want to move on from the circular arguments you use. Get used to it. Your "people" and "state" are not absolute.

Oh, I'm sorry, I've got you all wrong this is just charming.

You basically think the few hundred people who turned up at the IRSP Ard Fheis gives you some sort of "mandate" to use force to engage in a campaign to do something that the vast majority of people on this island don't want.

Murph. I'll give you a clue. If you turned up at the average NAMBLA meeting you'd get an overwhelming mandate for gay paedophilia. Does that make it acceptable? Morally Right?

And Yes I'm comparing the IRSP to a paedophilia rights group. If I was the paedophiles I'd be offended too.

But no Murph please continue your Quixotic charge at the windmills of reality.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

They are not facts, they are social constructs selected to suit your position.

For the nth time. We can all make up these ""facts"".

Yes "facts" are just social constructs for people living in reality.

Scofflaw

This thread is strikingly reminiscent of an Escher illustration, but going down rather than up. If it continues in the current vein, it hath but a few posts to live.

moderately,
Scofflaw

S-Murph

Thank you IRL for attempting to bring structure to this discussion.

IRLConor wrote: »

How about we work it this way, S-Murph. Can you do the following:

• Define, by any means, a "constituency" (for want of a better word) in which the INLA have majority support.

Firstly, I dont want to use this line of argument, because it is circular - as has been demonstrated, if you follow. I am not using the fact that the majority of the IRSM support the INLA, as an argument to justify the IRSM's/INLA's existence and actions. At the same time - this is exactly what people are doing here, except with the state. Its not an argument, and I wish people would get that into their bloody heads.

Now to answer your point. The "constituency" is the membership of the IRSM itself. Such a 'constituency' does not need to follow the limits of being confined to a geographical area (again - this would be relative/arbitrary/setting criteria to suit a particular position).

I have argued from the begining, that violence legitimates/mandates itself. Whether that violence is seen as legitimate, right, wrong or criminal is down to your subjective viewpoint, or those who undertake it. Those who undertake it may feel they constitute something seperate, or feel oppressed/exploited by a social system held together through a state.

Numbers/majorities dont count at this stage of the discussion.

So I dont entirely see the relevace of of your question.

AND

• • Demonstrate that the people killed by the INLA were part of that constituency and had equal rights to the majority who demanded their death.
    
    OR

There were many people who I totally disagree with killing. Namely innocent civilians.

But why must those who were killed be part of the IRSM (constituency), seeing, at the same time, the Irish state would equally kill me, and have killed many republicans, who viewed themselves part of a seperate entity? - ie, RSF/CIRA consider themselves the legitimate state of Ireland. Or, even, the Irish Civil War...

Its a double standard asking this question while at the same time supporting the Irish state.

• Attempt to defend the INLA for exerting physical force on people outside that group.

I think it is defendable because two foreign illigitimate entities are attempting to assert its ideological views on our constituency. The British and Irish capitalist states.

They are attempting to assert private ownership over that which is otherwise common - the earth.

It chains members of our constituency into capitalist social relationships and wage slavery.

I hope I have addressed your points.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

Murph. I'll give you a clue. If you turned up at the average NAMBLA meeting you'd get an overwhelming mandate for gay paedophilia. Does that make it acceptable? Morally Right?

In my subjective view paedophilia is wrong. Other people may disagree.

I favour using physical force to assert my views on those people as they seek to interfere with an individuals freedom, particularly those who are not old enough to make rational consent.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Indeed, why bring facts into the matter!

Jaysus no, sure its confusing enough as it is.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Thank you IRL for attempting to bring structure to this discussion.



[/LIST]Firstly, I dont want to use this line of argument, because it is circular - as has been demonstrated, if you follow. I am not using the fact that the majority of the IRSM support the INLA, as an argument to justify the IRSM's/INLA's existence and actions. At the same time - this is exactly what people are doing here, except with the state. Its not an argument, and I wish people would get that into their bloody heads.

The state consists of the majority of people living in Ireland. The majority of people accept the legitimacy of the Irish state.

Now to answer your point. The "constituency" is the membership of the IRSM itself. Such a 'constituency' does not need to follow the limits of being confined to a geographical area (again - this would be relative/arbitrary/setting criteria to suit a particular position).

So essentially you're saying that the handful of people that consists of the IRSP have the right to ignore the democratic rules the rest of the state accept.

I have argued from the begining, that violence legitimates/mandates itself. Whether that violence is seen as legitimate, right, wrong or criminal is down to your subjective viewpoint, or those who undertake it. Those who undertake it may feel they constitute something seperate, or feel oppressed/exploited by a social system held together through a state.

Which is a handy piece of a logical fallacy. What if the person who you're inflicting violence on doesn't accept your social construct.

Numbers/majorities dont count at this stage of the discussion.

I think when you're talking about a political party or social movment, numbers of supports are always relevant.

I think it is defendable because two foreign illigitimate entities are attempting to assert its ideological views on our constituency. The British and Irish capitalist states.

They are attempting to assert private ownership over that which is otherwise common - the earth.

But you're not trying to create a Marxist earth you're trying to create a Marxist Ireland, so trying to proclaim that you're a global movement is idiotic. In both cases your political and paramilitary arm define yourself as "Irish" so trying to claim that the opinion of the Irish people as irrelevant to your aims is a complete oxymoron.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

In my subjective view paedophilia is wrong. Other people may disagree.

I favour using physical force to assert my views on those people as they seek to interfere with an individuals freedom, particularly those who are not old enough to make rational consent.

And what about the people the INLA kneecapped and murdered, how about their individual freedoms? The six civilians killed at the Ballykelly disco for example?

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

The state consists of the majority of people living in Ireland.

Majority of people defined by what***? - the state?

So the state defines itself?

And so the state legitimates itself?

And so, dosnt violence legitimate itself?

:rolleyes:

***(and no, before you say it, the Majority dont define the state. If my family decide to constitute itself as a majority and make its own laws, the state will step in to redefine us as its "subjects").

Look, if you cant follow the discussion, sit back and observe because im not going around in circles with you.

So essentially you're saying that the handful of people that consists of the IRSP have the right to ignore the democratic rules the rest of the state accept.

This "handfull" of people see your state and "democratic" institutions as illigitimate and a foreign occupation. Your state continues to attempt to make them subjects of it.

Which is a handy piece of a logical fallacy. What if the person who you're inflicting violence on doesn't accept your social construct.

Equally, I ask you the same question seeing as you support the Irish free state.

It does the same.

I think when you're talking about a political party or social movment, numbers of supports are always relevant.

According to the criteria you set.

But you're not trying to create a Marxist earth you're trying to create a Marxist Ireland, so trying to proclaim that you're a global movement is idiotic. In both cases your political and paramilitary arm define yourself as "Irish" so trying to claim that the opinion of the Irish people as irrelevant to your aims is a complete oxymoron.

All communists are internationalists. State borders dont have much significance unless for strategic reasons, such as with Republican Socialists.

Educate yourself on the matter before making such comments because you dont know what you are talking about.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

And what about the people the INLA kneecapped and murdered, how about their individual freedoms? The six civilians killed at the Ballykelly disco for example?

I totally disagree with these acts. It does not remove my support for the institution.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

I totally disagree with these acts. It does not remove my support for the institution.

As far as I can tell from CAIN, the INLA killed 42 Civilians, 2 Gardai, and managed to kill 46 members of the British Security forces. The INLA have got involved in gang warfare in Dublin over drugs. They also enjoy kneecapping children.

Classy institution you've got there.

S-Murph

Diogenes wrote: »

As far as I can tell from CAIN, the INLA killed 42 Civilians, 2 Gardai, and managed to kill 46 members of the British Security forces. The INLA have got involved in gang warfare in Dublin over drugs. They also enjoy kneecapping children.

Classy institution you've got there.

Very childish comment. I wont bother lisiting off figures for poverty, starvation, greed, mass slaughter, ecological and environmental destruction, murder, war, homelessness and unhappiness caused by the institutions and system you support and see as absolute.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Majority of people defined by what***? - the state?

So the state defines itself?

Lil document called a constitution.

And so the state legitimates itself?

Yes with these little things called elections which the majority of people on this landmass participate in.

And so, dosnt violence legitimate itself?

Um no, thats a leap of logic that a cow would jump over a moon for.

***(and no, before you say it, the Majority dont define the state. If my family decide to constitute itself as a majority and make its own laws,

So if your father decided to abuse you, and your mother was okay with it, that'd make it ok in your eyes?

the state will step in to redefine us as its "subjects").

Look, if you cant follow the discussion, sit back and observe because im not going around in circles with you.

You're only going around in circles because you're not making a kind of sense that is acceptable to the majority of people.

This "handfull" of people see your state and "democratic" institutions as illigitimate and a foreign occupation. Your state continues to attempt to make them subjects of it.

And your use of violence to inflict your minority worldview on others isn't you trying to make the world subject to your worldview?

Equally, I ask you the same question seeing as you support the Irish free state.

It does the same.

The state I belong to has a set of laws that the majority of people agree to on this Island. The state itself and its representatives are subject to these laws. The INLA are beholden to no one.

According to the criteria you set.

It's a pretty basic criteria. You have a few hundred supporters , a few hundred people trying to inflict their worldview on a few million people who disagree with them.

All communists are internationalists.

Including the ones who define themselves by the nation they live in?

State borders dont have much significance unless for strategic reasons, such as with Republican Socialists.

Educate yourself on the matter before making such comments because you dont know what you are talking about.

So why define yourself as Irish Republican Socialists.

You're just a mass of contradictions mate.

Diogenes

S-Murph wrote: »

Very childish comment. I wont bother lisiting off figures for poverty, starvation, greed, mass slaughter, ecological and environmental destruction, murder, war, homelessness and unhappiness caused by the institutions and system you support and see as absolute.

I'm sure the INLA have solutions to all of the above.

Oh no wait I'm pretty sure we can't kneecap our way out of poverty.

IRLConor

S-Murph wrote: »

Now to answer your point. The "constituency" is the membership of the IRSM itself. Such a 'constituency' does not need to follow the limits of being confined to a geographical area (again - this would be relative/arbitrary/setting criteria to suit a particular position).

The geographic connotations are why I'm not quite comfortable with the word "constituency" but it was the best I had to work with.

If you define the constituency as the IRSM could you please then explain what gives them the right (legal, moral or otherwise) to act violently outside itself? If you reject the Irish state as some "other" which is imposing its will on you, how could you justify the IRSM imposing its will on those who freely choose to not be part of it?

S-Murph wrote: »

I have argued from the begining, that violence legitimates/mandates itself. Whether that violence is seen as legitimate, right, wrong or criminal is down to your subjective viewpoint, or those who undertake it. Those who undertake it may feel they constitute something seperate, or feel oppressed/exploited by a social system held together through a state.

So if I reject the rules I may freely break them even if I reject them for purely selfish reasons and without regard for others? That doesn't sound very socialist to me!

S-Murph wrote: »

Numbers/majorities dont count at this stage of the discussion.

I'm sorry, I tend to assume that democracy is objectively the least-worst method of organising people. While the size of the group may not matter, the definition of who is inside or outside is required for determining the majority.

Do you have a fairer way of organising people than democracy? Perhaps I don't understand the nuances of your chosen flavour of socialism but my impression was that socialism requires democracy.

S-Murph wrote: »

But why must those who were killed be part of the IRSM (constituency), seeing, at the same time, the Irish state would equally kill me, and have killed many republicans, who viewed themselves part of a seperate entity? - ie, RSF/CIRA consider themselves the legitimate state of Ireland. Or, even, the Irish Civil War...

The Irish state fulfils the criteria for statehood both according to the constitutive and declarative theories of statehood. It has both de jure and de facto sovereignty over the 26 counties. The RSF/CIRA pseudo-state fails to meet any commonly-held criteria for statehood and hence is not one.

If you do not wish to be subject to the rule of the government of Ireland then you merely have to leave its jurisdiction.

If you wish to stay on this island and reject either state's ability to impose its rule on you then I would suggest that you're not a socialist but an anarchist. Pretty much every type of socialism I know of requires a compulsive state (aside from the improbable situation of absolutely everyone deciding to be socialist a compulsive state is required to compel the capitalists to change/leave/die).

So, if you are a socialist then it's not logical for you to argue against state compulsion. If you are an anarchist then it's not logical for you to call yourself a socialist and you'd have a tenuous claim on the "republican" part too.

This leads to one of two conclusions:

• You're trying to pretend that the Irish state is fungible and open to interpretation simply because you do not agree with its politics. Your group would take on all the trappings of the Irish state if it had the chance, including enforcing its rule upon all those within its jurisdiction (and you would expand that jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible).
• You're trying to hide a particularly selfish and distasteful brand of individual anarchism under a veneer of socialist rhetoric.

S-Murph wrote: »

They are attempting to assert private ownership over that which is otherwise common - the earth.

If you want an end to private ownership of property then I suggest that you propose an amendment to our constitution along those lines.

If you personally wish to have no private property then there are many people who will be willing to oblige. :pac:

S-Murph wrote: »

It chains members of our constituency into capitalist social relationships and wage slavery.

Your constituency has the ability to change those conditions peacefully and within the framework of the state by persuading the populace of the "rightness" of its views.

DoireNod

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sure the INLA have solutions to all of the above.

Oh no wait I'm pretty sure we can't kneecap our way out of poverty.

You never know, Adolf and the boys brought Germany off its knees for a while!

S-Murph

Again, thank you conor for attempting to reason.

IRLConor wrote: »

The geographic connotations are why I'm not quite comfortable with the word "constituency" but it was the best I had to work with.

If you define the constituency as the IRSM could you please then explain what gives them the right (legal, moral or otherwise) to act violently outside itself? If you reject the Irish state as some "other" which is imposing its will on you, how could you justify the IRSM imposing its will on those who freely choose to not be part of it?

The IRSM is a communist organisation. It aims for statelessness. The IRSM, or indeed Marxist theory does not seek to impose its will on those who do not choose to be part of it - at least to within feasibility.

Marxism calls for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - ie, a state to protect the goals of abolishing property ownership. Private ownership, it is viewed, restricts the individual and makes them 'a slave' to the owners of production. Private ownership only exists through the implementation of violence to the exclusion of others, through the mechanisms of a state.

So, think of it as communism being the default. Without a state, ownership rights do not exist on this land. Now RSM members believe they, and the working class, are being excluded from sharing in the wealth produced and resources through the implementation of private ownership, by a state.

Communists seek that default. Individual freedom not artificially restricted by a state and private ownership - at least to within feasibility.

We seek the default. Statelessness. While the Irish state seeks to impose "rights" over the resources of this earth to the benefit of private individuals, and to the exclusion of others. We view the state as imposing something which we do not want to be appart of. Ie restriction from accesing resources.

We would not be imposing any will, because, as the default, property is created through violence. We are fighting against violence, a violence which oppresses, exploits and chains us. It is self defence.

So if I reject the rules I may freely break them even if I reject them for purely selfish reasons and without regard for others? That doesn't sound very socialist to me!

In what context are you referring? - in socialism? - capitalism? - the theoretical framework to which I have used to explain the nature of violence and states?

Your freedoms, how it affects others and the society in which you live would have to be looked at. If society, and the institutions it creates, decide to restrict your freedom, well, unless you can resist that then they will get their way.

People who believe its ok to molest children dont get their way because society has established ways of preventing their actions and punishing those acts they see as criminal. Thats not to say child abusers are in absolute terms wrong or evil. No such things in absolute exist as they are relative/subjective.

It comes down to the social institutions people create.

Some republican socialists have established the INLA.

They see themselves as legit, those who support the state dont.

Objectivley, neither is right or wrong. There is no absolute argument for either. Numbers dont count.

So what I propose, is to discuss the constructivity of these institutions. Are they a force for what we can agree to be positive social change, or not.

The discussion needs objectivity and some 'thinking outside the box'.

I'm sorry, I tend to assume that democracy is objectively the least-worst method of organising people. While the size of the group may not matter, the definition of who is inside or outside is required for determining the majority.

Exactly!

Now, with this, the discussion has moved on from simplistically attempting to prove legitimacy by numbers (taking the present social order for granted, or absolute - to rationally looking at what is the best way of organising society/making decisions objectivley. Progress!

Do you see the distinction? All previous posters have attempted to put down the INLA based upon simply quoting arbitrary numbers suited to their subjective ends.

Now the discussion has moved onto, "well what, statistically/rationally/scientifically is the best way of organising society/making decisions".

It is a rupture from the curcular arguments of other posters.

As to this particular question, look at my previous comment. Its down to society to create institutions which are functional, practical. In which to create, if necessary, a certain level of social control. If that means establishing an institution which as I have explained, legitimates itself, and therefore defines majority and minority then so be it.

I can propose, or fight for ideas. But if they are suppressed by the dominant ones then they wont be implemented.

The confusion in this thread is that people are arguing against the theory I am putting forth because i am a communist and suppoty the INLA - when infact, the theory can be used to objectivley look at the existing methods of social control and back them up, if the reasoning is rational.

Do you have a fairer way of organising people than democracy? Perhaps I don't understand the nuances of your chosen flavour of socialism but my impression was that socialism requires democracy.

Firstly, no coercive institution is represenative. These institutions legitimate themselves through violence. For a mandate, they require and create definitions of "the people".- through coercion.

Now communism aims to achieve maximum individual liberty - within feasability. A workers council, for example, might create a 'part time' police force to implement the will of its majority members - similar to the Irish state.

I wont claim that this institution is fully representative, not based and defined upon coercion - because it is.

So is the Irish state.

Which one we choose should be based upon analysing the social effects of the institutions and their role in society.

I hope you follow what it is I am saying because its not easy to outline.

The Irish state fulfils the criteria for statehood both according to the constitutive and declarative theories of statehood. It has both de jure and de facto sovereignty over the 26 counties. The RSF/CIRA pseudo-state fails to meet any commonly-held criteria for statehood and hence is not one.

I never said they were a state. At least I didnt mean to say that if I did. However they are asserting their views through violence.

If you do not wish to be subject to the rule of the government of Ireland then you merely have to leave its jurisdiction.

Anywhere on this earth I am subject to a state. As I have said, resisting is a type of self defence. No state has any absolute right to control a tract of land.

The reasons used to legitimate the existance of the Irish state and its violence I believe are irrational and not socially progressive, for the most part.

I believe the economic system it implements creates countless social problems and misery, both here and abroad. Along with the destruction of this earth.

Communists put forth, and fight for, the subversion of this institution and the establishment of another on the basis of these arguments.

If you wish to stay on this island and reject either state's ability to impose its rule on you then I would suggest that you're not a socialist but an anarchist.

Correct. I am an anarchist, or at least tending towards that direction. I believe I mentioned that somewhere else in this thread. Anarchism is a form of socialism. Marxism does not hold that title to itself.

The difference between Marxism and anarchism is how to achieve the same end - communism, statlessness.

Pretty much every type of socialism I know of requires a compulsive state (aside from the improbable situation of absolutely everyone deciding to be socialist a compulsive state is required to compel the capitalists to change/leave/die).

Quite possibly. But the state itself is difficut to define however. And at what point something becomes a state is unclear and blurred. As far as I understand it, a state is a dedicated institution with a standing force.

So, if you are a socialist then it's not logical for you to argue against state compulsion.

I tend towards anarchist/socialist/libertarian Marxist.council communist positions. Again, as i say, the state is a very contentious issue.

Either way, I dont agree with the capitalist institution we call the state and call for the establisment of new social structures and institutions.

If you are an anarchist then it's not logical for you to call yourself a socialist and you'd have a tenuous claim on the "republican" part too.

Again, anarchism is a form of socialism. http://www.wsm.ie/

"Freedom without socialism is privelege and injustice"...

I am also a republican. I fail to see how this is tenuous.

This leads to one of two conclusions:

• You're trying to pretend that the Irish state is fungible and open to interpretation simply because you do not agree with its politics. Your group would take on all the trappings of the Irish state if it had the chance, including enforcing its rule upon all those within its jurisdiction (and you would expand that jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible).

This is correct. However I dont favour 'my' group taking a position in government. It is not my group either, I support the organisation to further my own views while not being a member. New forms of institutions would be established yes.

You're trying to hide a particularly selfish and distasteful brand of individual anarchism under a veneer of socialist rhetoric.

Ha ha. I dont view socialism as being against what you call 'selfishness' or individualism.

I want to maximise both to within feasibility.

If you want an end to private ownership of property then I suggest that you propose an amendment to our constitution along those lines.

If you personally wish to have no private property then there are many people who will be willing to oblige. :pac:

- you have made a far greater input to this thread, and in attempting to understand my position than all others. Thank you for that.

Your constituency has the ability to change those conditions peacefully and within the framework of the state by persuading the populace of the "rightness" of its views.

Well I mean, I could argue against this in various ways. For example, that the means of communication are dominated by private ownership and profit incentive - the propaganda model.

I can argue that its not possible to change the social structure through the alrady existing state as those who participate within its confines become part of the social order. Similar to the Workers Party.

There are various reasons why working with the confines of the state is folly.

Nodin

Diogenes wrote: »

As far as I can tell from CAIN, the INLA killed 42 Civilians, 2 Gardai, and managed to kill 46 members of the British Security forces. The INLA have got involved in gang warfare in Dublin over drugs. They also enjoy kneecapping children.

Classy institution you've got there.

Essentially they had a few years where they appeared to be a "terrorist" movement, but rapidly began to take anyone in. The result was a shower of eejits that couldn't put together a shag in a brothel. They sent one young eejit out to take potshots at the Brit army. He got out of a car about a 100 yards away from the patrol and started letting off rounds with a handgun, in broad daylight. Dead before he hit the ground.

They also killed large numbers of each other, and one faction were involved in a notorious gang rape in the Divis flats in West Belfast. During one of their internal feuds a young lad was dragged out of a caravan in Donegal and was killed - not by a bullet - but by having a concrete block dropped repeatedly on his head. Dominic mc Glincheys wife (no saint herself) was killed while bathing her children. Essentially (and particularily the part that formed the IPLO) they became the first preview of the drugged up yahoos we have today......

And of course the violence and intimidation that those who claimed the name in the mid-90's used when attempting to control the doors on a number of Dublin clubs and pubs (which essentially means controling the sale of drugs on the premises). I seem to remember one family member threatened to rape anothers son (the man whose son it was, was killed -that threat came up in the trial).

Yes, thats "socialism" in action that is.

S-Murph

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, thats "socialism" in action that is.

Well its not really now is it. Its terrible.

But speaking from your moral high ground I presume you have an alternative, or are opposed to the barbarism derived from the logic of the present system?

Nodin

S-Murph wrote: »

Well its not really now is it. Its terrible.

But speaking from your moral high ground .....

Suffice to say that when dealing with the subterranean and lowly, you don't actually have to be on any "high ground" to look down on them.

I've no intention of getting involved in an debate with you because I think you're taking the piss, to be blunt. This will be my last comment on this thread. Others may be more generous to you with their time.

S-Murph

Nodin wrote: »

Suffice to say that when dealing with the subterranean and lowly, you don't actually have to be on any "high ground" to look down on them.

I've no intention of getting involved in an debate with you because I think you're taking the piss, to be blunt. This will be my last comment on this thread. Others may be more generous to you with their time.

If you support the barbarism logically resulting from capitalism you are in no position to look down on anyone. Horrific.

Scofflaw

And there we reach our illogical conclusion.


moderately,
Scofflaw